User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

IEP clean up

Hi. If you are working on IEP clean up, for easy checking and follow up of students and their articles, please see:

IEP student and article lists and how to use them

if you are patrolling new pages, please be on the lookout for new pages createde by the students of this programme.
If you are not working on this clean up, please pass this message along to anyone you know who is. Thanks, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm ..... I am trying to avoid IEP other than the new page patrol bit! I have done some cleanup here and there, but I don't want to focus on IEP cleanup at the moment. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Liberty Accounts tags for with parameters COI, citation style, copy edit and peacock tag

HI Pesky,

I originally created the Liberty Accounts page with a user ID of Libertyaccounts....which was an error on my part as I am NOT an employee of that company. I wrongly thought that my username was the same thing as the article name. I've rectified that now by creating this new username, and additionally declaring my potential conflicts of interest. I've also edited the article for language that might have attracted the 'peacock' tag. However, I'm not sure how to address the other concerns about citation style....or whether COI has been sufficiently addressed. Can you advise me? (LoFat (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC))

Hi there! Sure, yes, I'll drop some notes and links onto your talk page. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

hi again...I think I've corrected all the issues that you tagged on the Liberty Accounts page. Can you check it for me? If yes, what is the next step to removing the multiple issue tag at the start of the article? Thanks!! (LoFat (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

Yes, it is looking a bit better; well done for what you've done so far. I'd love to see a bit more from any negative reviews (if there are any!) just to make sure that we're covering all aspects. At the moment, it still reads just a tad too much on the 'promotional' side - though I accept that it's quite possible that nobody's found anything bad to say about it! Do you know if, in previous versions, there were (for example) and bugs which caused problems, needed to be fixed, and upgrades produced? Any security loopholes which hackers managed to find a way through? Anything like that would be excellent to have - something on the development and issue history of Liberty Accounts. Have a hunt around and see if you can turn anything up (this could be a fascinating bit of research work for you, as well as excellent practice!) I'll remove some of those tags for you now. Keep up the good work! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The Meermin slave mutiny

Many kudos and a barnstar for your great work on the Meermin article.--Gautier lebon (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC) >

		The Editor's Barnstar
		A textbook example of editing: The Meermin slave mutiny

Awww, thank you! I knew that article was worth the effort - a fascinating piece of history! My thanks to you for bringing it to my attention, and for re-inspiring me :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Amusing but worth watchlisting

Stallion. Just reverted some rather Freudian-inspired stuff from an anon IP claiming that castration of stallions was a bad thing. See the history for the diffs. I think if this person returns, some swift double or triple teaming is in order. Montanabw^(talk) 23:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting... I've watchlisted the article (don't know why I hadn't before) and will keep an eye out as well. Geldings are generally my favorite to ride, although I had a little grade mare I absolutely adored as a young teen and a few summers ago spent a few months riding a 7 y/o (I think?) Paso Fino stallion who was an absolute doll. Gorgeous conformation, and the gait made it so that I could spend upwards of four hours in the saddle over rough terrain and not feel like someone was stabbing me in the back with a knife at the end of it... Dana boomer (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk of "swift double or triple teaming" is quite inappropriate. Montanabw's edit summary indicates that the edits had at least some benefit, so can't we at least try to make contact on User talk:83.78.79.167 and see if we can get a new editor to help out?  Chzz  ►  01:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Normally you'd be right Chzz, (i've edited WP since 2006, I know this world) but under the circumstances, and upon reviewing the source, this is a clear cut case of WP:FRINGE. Feel free to check the source in the diffs and then go to the home page of the site, you will see what I mean. And please, as I know Pesky respects you much, understand that I am seeking help from people I know to be responsible. I did AGF initially and was trying to see if there was something worth keeping. However, after I did do some edits with friendly edit summaries, I went and did a review of the web site source, and upon hitting the home page of the site and reviewing some of the articles there (and suppressing an urge to vomit), I think my concerns are warranted. I left one chunk in the article to express an alternative view of a topic, but I'm beginning to wonder if even that should be left in given that the source is a single individual's web site. I'm asking friends to stay aware because I'm tired of taking point with these editors when they get angry at being thwarted. I find this particular guy a little weird and scary. (So did my significant other when I pointed out the site and said, "you are not going to believe this...") Montanabw^(talk) 06:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a potential problem there - but on the other hand, with the right encouragement, this could well turn into a good new editor (they can write, for starters!) Remember how I came back? (lol!) It was That Roan Question ...... Let's see if we can focus them into a good, in-line-with-policy, mode. Of course, this may not be possible - but it's worth a try. As far as stallions go, I 've actually always got on well with them! Here in the New Forest, when the stallions aren;t out on the Forest, they run together in bachelor herds (well, many of them), and the others "go home" for the rest of the year. Our working stallions here on the Forest take part in round-ups, competitions, riding out in company with mares etc., with very few problems indeed - but then, here on the Forest, our youngsters run out in the semi-feral herd whenever possible, and colts at least until the beginning of their two-year-old year - so they get taught appropriate behaviour by the older horses! My first "own pony" was a stallion, which I bought as a foal, and if you didn't hunker down for a look, you'd never have known. I'll watchlist the article, and try to make some constructive contact with the editor. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Seriously Pesky, check out the source cited -- especially the other articles on the site before you debate this issue or contact the editor! This ain't another you! (Of course, they broke the mold with you, but in a good way) I like stallions too, but this guy's site, well you probably would be best off not to read the stuff on animal sexuality. The stallion one was odd though he advocates some of the right things but for the wrong reasons. However, the mare one was flat out weird, and the article on horsewomen rests my case. Seriously. I probably should have emailed you on this, but not sure the WP email is the one that gets to you any time soon. Montanabw^(talk) 06:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a read! With something suitable upon which to grind my teeth, if necessary ... There are some weird folks around, for sure, but for the time being I'll have a try at some level of communication, and see where it leads us. I may drop a bit into that article on how we handle stallions in the new Forest, see if that placates them at all. It may, it may not! By the way, have you seen my masterpiece? I took the "real" article to GA just now (dead chuffed!) which was the first bit of creative inspiration I've had for months! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hehe! Yup, "glerck!" Anyhoo, worth a go. By the way, I added a little bit about the Foresters' bachelor herds and usefulness as stallions for other purposes, and while I was in there I tweaked all the refs so we have some consistency of style there now :o) OCD is also useful. Yes, when they made me, they threw away the mould - but it's amazing how the damned stuff keeps growing back! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yay Pesky for excellent work and a fun poem to boot! You may or may not have known of an analogous incident in American history, the Amistad incident and Supreme Court case. (I teach it to the college history class I have) You SHOULD be chuffed! But I wouldn't contact the user until you see the web site involved. I'm all for some serious additions to the stallion article, though, note that's there already on bachelor herds, room for proper expansion, always. I'm actually waiting for the POV pushers who claim stallions must be confined alone behind a 6-foot fence, not long ago I helped a friend who had a neighbor who was offended and terrified that my friend owned a stallion! In a subdivision! On 10 acres! Running loose with the geldings! Civilization was going to end! Montanabw^(talk) 07:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad you like the poem! I have no idea if that user will ever look at the IP talk page, but I did that Wolfcubby thing and just leap in there ... Here in the Forest we have a very down-to-earth view on our stallions and colts; they're expected to do anything that the geldings can do, and breed as well! Farriers Fingerprint, for example, has won M&M National Championships, worked on the round-ups, was one of the winning team at the RC Quadrille, and regularly sires super offspring. Because so many people have stallions around here, and local riders hack out on the Forest even when the stallions are running out there with the mares, people tend to have a more realistic view. It helps, of course, that our stallions are handled sensibly, too! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Just read Amistad - what a close parallel! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

And, talking of geldings ... Storm, Rocket and Inky sailed through without any side-effects whatsoever :o) With all of them, it was a choice between leaving them entire but unusable as stallions (breed society rules), and also unable to run free on the Forest (where all of them were born, and which they love), or gelding them and letting them have their semi-wild freedom whenever they're not in work. Inky and Rocket will both be going back out to the Forest very soon, followed by Storm when the spring grass comes through, and then coming back home next year for the next stage in their education. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Why speedy?

Hello, don't know if I'm doing this right. Very new here. Would you please tell me why you flagged my article for speedy deletion? I'd like to revise it and repost accordingly. Someone else had edited it previously (I think) and didn't have the same reaction so I'm a bit confused. It was title 'Kent Holtorf". I structured it after another successful Wiki page and I did read many of the helpful articles about creating your first article, etc. So I'd like to know where I got it wrong and how I can fix it. Thank you so much! Zoeyeve (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Zoeyeve; The problem with it was basically that it comes across altogether too much like an advertisement. This was particularly noticeable as so many of the references were actually to his own publications, articles, papers, etc. If it's to come back, ideally it needs a really major re-write so that it doesn't sound so promotional, and changing the sources (references) for independent, reliable sources, so that the article ends up as really neutral in tone. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh okay, thank you. (Sorry, I didn't have this under it's own title) The page I was using to model it after did list several sources by that doctor as well ('Joseph Mercola'). I thought it was okay to use those sources to indicate his treatments and opinions and stances. So, you're saying I can't use his own publications as a reference for his own words, etc? I need another source altogether that references what he said, or what treatment regimen he follows, and so on? When I count them out, 16 of my sources were not from his own work, while 10 were. If that isn't a neutral enough proportion, could you give me a figure that would be? Sorry, just trying to understand so I can get it right. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoeyeve (talk • contribs) 13:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I did check the 'Mercola' page, which sites a proportion of 14 Mercola sources to 32 non-Mercola sources. By comparison, my own numbers of 10 to 16 are not far from that. Maybe a difference of about 3. Would you say bringing down the direct Holtorf references by 3 would help? Zoeyeve (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi again! It sounds as though the Mercola page probably ought to be looked at and tweaked around, as well! Sadly, it's not just a question of number-crunching, and it's quite impossible to lay down any hard-and-fast ratio-rules which could possibly be applied. If only it were that easy! Have you had a really good read-through of our neutral point of view page? That might help you along a bit (I hope!) We have a ton of pages on policies and guidelines, and sometimes there's just way too much to read. A few words of encouragement, though - your writing was excellent (way above the average for new pages coming in); you did include references (way too many new pages are completely unreferenced!); you got them in in the right places; your layout and format were really good - I could go on like this for a long time! In terms of over-all quality, your article was in the top 5% of new pages - so very, very well done! I'll see if I can think of someone who might be able to help you along with getting it a little bit less "adverty" (I have a couple of people in mind who just possibly could work with you - I'll have to ask, though, and they may not be awake the same hours as I am!). Then get it available in a sandbox in your user space - User:Zoeyeve/Kent Holtorf, maybe - so you can work on it together. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 03:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

OK - I've arranged for the article to be put into your user-space for working on, and I have a couple of other editors who'll be happy to give you some help with it; still waiting for my next recruit (well, prospective recruit!) to wake up before I can ask her! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 03:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Pesky- Just want to say that I cannot express enough how invaluable your help has been! Thank you so much! I have cleaned the page up further. If you or Sonia or Chzz could take a peek and let me know if it's ready to go live again: User:Zoeyeve/Kent Holtorf. Chzz said I needed you to move it back to live once it's ready since you flagged it initially and have been helping me through this process. If not, just keep pointing me in the right direction and I'll keep cleaning it up. And I did read the neutral point of view page- more than once! But sometimes I get too close to something and can't really see it clearly. Sonia's suggestions were way helpful! You guys are excellent! Zoeyeve (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Zoeyeve; many apologies for the delay in replying here (real life has been getting in the way of WikiWork, lol!) Wow! That page is looking a whole heap better now! I'm impressed :o) I think that probably the only thing needed now, before it goes back 'live', is to get the appropriate person-info / doctor-info template for the infobox, to replace the little table you have there. Hunt around and see if you can find it! (Nice little research task for you!) Of course, when it goes back live, you'll have to be prepared for a lot of flak on the page. The secret there is not to get emotionally involved with it. People are going to attack (trust me on this!) and you will get a few Point-of-View (POV) pushers in there. Any problems, take it to dispute resolution, and don't let yourself get dragged into an edit war. Let me (or Chzz, or Sonia) know when you've found the relevant "proper" infobox, and then we can send it back "live". If I'm not around, for any reason, then you can point either of them here to let them know that, as far as I'm concerned, either of them is welcome to do the move. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Pesky! I will hunt infoboxes today! I copied that one from the Mercola page. Let me see if I can find something better. I'll let you know when it's been revised. Zoeyeve (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay Pesky, I think I've got it! I can learn! Thanks again for all your help. If all looks good to you, send it live again! I will also alert Chzz and Sonia. :) Zoeyeve (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent-well done, indeed! I have moved it back into mainspace for you. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"Pending Changes Revisted"

What exactly do you mean by that? Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it was something to do with the idea of "a two-month trial" .... There's not going to be a great deal of trust about. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I can understand that, but Maryana, myself, and our researchers from the summer already have proven that when we say we're shutting a test down, we shut it down. We're not the people who thought up Pending Changes. Twice already we've closed up tests with Huggle (1, 2) and we're about to close down another on the 18th like we said on the taskforce talk page. This isn't really a trial like PC, because we're not proposing to change the defaults permanently. We just want to gather data about whether the archiving might make a difference at all, because we have a hunch but we honestly have no idea yet. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a very fair response, and I appreciate that you weren't responsible for the PC thing. It's just that that one caused so much loss-of-faith in the community; many people are just not going to be prepared to trust the idea of a time-limited trial, until the memories of PC have faded. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC

FYI, just in case you missed it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have responded as best I can there, I think this is a rather atypical case, though, and probably ... well, see my response! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

{{lies}}  Chzz  ►  09:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

{{breakfast}}  Chzz  ►  09:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

{{hungry nao}}  Chzz  ►  10:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Defender of the Wiki

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For thoroughly investigating a possible unauthorized bot. Pinetalk 10:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hehe! I didn't smash it not even sure it's been smashed, as yet ...I just sniffed out its stinky trail :o) Like I said "The idea of a user who combines an unauthorised bot with producing machine-translation copyvios makes me shudder!" Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Something to make your life easier!

Sorry for not replying sooner, I was on a school trip to New York. Thanks for the info, this tool could be very handy. I have two questions though, could you expand on how to install the script as I'm useless at that kind of thing, and also is there an infobox tool in the toolbox when you are editing a page? In all of my articles so far, I've had to copy and paste the infobox from existing articles and then change the details. Thanks, Drawley (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm very far from being an expert in installing scripts (I usually get someone to talk me through it!)

As far as I can make out, you need to create a user area for scripts (such as common.jsmonobook.js, or vector.js which I think will show here for you as red links - though I;m not sure - in which case you can click on a link to create that page), and then just copy-paste this in!

// Add [[WP:Reflinks]] launcher in the toolbox on left
addOnloadHook(function () {
 addPortletLink(
  "p-tb",     // toolbox portlet
  "http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/" + wgPageName 
   + "?client=script&citeweb=on&overwrite=&limit=20&lang=" + wgContentLanguage,
  "Reflinks"  // link label
)});

As far as I recall, you then need to hard-refresh that page to make the thing work. If that doesn;t work for you, put a {{helpme}} onto your talk page, just with the information that you want help installing the Reflinks script. An expert will come along and help you out (and you can both giggle at me!) I'm also no expert on infoboxes; but if you type "Template:Infobox" into your search box, you'll get a pull-down menu of various infobox templates; just pick the best one for your needs.

Cheers, Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Article advice

Thank you very much for the helpful hints on building articles, sandboxes & references that you supplied, but had I done something wrong that prompted such help? Manxwoman (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Not that I can immediately recall! I do a lot of new page patrolling and would have come across one of your pages there, noticed that your talk page didn't have much on it in the way of hints and tips which might come in helpful, so put them there for you! So many people feel a bit daunted by everything when they;re new (I know I did!) and it's useful to have a few things on your talk page, as you can get to it from any other page just by clicking the link at the top of the page. Welcome, anyway! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Most helpful and informative! Manxwoman (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

고마워요 Pesky!! :D

Citation and reference work is the thing that I've been wondering most. Thank you for your friendly help!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahcthebest (talk • contribs) 02:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome! It's the one aspect that new editors seem to find the hardest, but once you've got it, it becomes very easy (A bit like riding a bike!) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your citation advices!

Dear Pesky,

thank you for your kind advices! Please feel free to call at my articles so that I get good guidance, as I hope to become an administrator sometime. --Orekhova (talk) 07:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

For the advice, you're welcome! Becoming an administrator, however, requires a whole lot more skills than just being a good article writer. Keep going, do your best, learn your way around, and watch what our best administrators do. Follow good examples, not bad ones. It's best not even to think about adminship until you've been active here for at least a year, on the whole - and active in all sorts of areas. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages

I admire your tenacity and enthusiasm, but I feel you are wasting your breath at WT:RfA. The regulars there are well aware of WP:RFA2011, and for the most of them, they are not the ones who are going to be particularly interested in participating in that project. If they had wanted to, they would have done so already. Their preference however appears to be to heckle from the sidelines - they simply see RFA2011 as 'Kudpung's pet peeve'. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I thhought that almost certainly at least 95% might fall into that category, but I took a gamble on the 5% possible floaters being sufficiently annoyed at recent events that they might reconsider :o) Many apologies if I was unhelpful there. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Nooo! I'm not saying you're being unhelpful at all - those people are beyond help. Just wasting your breath like I sometimes (but nowadays rarely) still do there. :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hehe! To be honest, I hadn't looked there for a while; I absolutely loved the idea of the ArbCom secret ballet, though .... oh, those visual images! Still has me chuckling! :P Worth a visit just for that. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

And here I thought **I** was the only one beyond help! Montanabw^(talk) 22:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have just creased up yet again, thinking about it ..... the orchestra, the oboe, the dimmed lights, the spotlight .... four little cygnets (pick Arbs of your choice) tiptoeing sideways across the stage in frilly tutus, arms delicately raised above their heads ....... Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Doormat

Hi Pesky - the doormat comment made me laugh, so thanks for it. I'm happy to see you involved in that thread because as you can see crossing the civility line doesn't involve swearing. There was an admin on the template talk page - that's one reason I didn't report because I thought the situation was bloody obvious; the second reason is that I never report anyone. I carve time out of a fairly busy life to try to spend time here writing and I go out of my way to avoid time-sucking drama at all cost. Yesterday it didn't work - but I would dearly have loved to walk away. Yet, you're right - being a doormat isn't an answer at all because that makes me feel awful about myself. Anyway thanks again. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome :o) I've been so stupidly busy and uninspired for several months that I ended up doing new page patrol (which I'd previously sworn I wouldn't do), for lack of anything more constructive. Originally I thought I'd better do a bit just to see how it worked. It's like heroin. Before you know where you are, you're hooked! Eventually it took another editor to re-inspire me - because they didn't really want to do more on a page which I could see was a finger's breadth from being a nice easy GA ... so I dived in, and got hooked again. (I suppose, when one has OCD, that's only to be expected!) But, having once got inspired, I then got stupidly inspired and produced that page for a bit of light entertainment after having a laugh about what did and didn't constitute "encyclopaedic writing style". Remember that you belong to you, you should never feel obliged to perform for someone else (other than to fit in with policy). Those other people are ordinary humans, just like you, and they used to wear nappies, just like you ... they're not gods! So, don't let the bastards grind you down, do what you're happy doing, and if they really want to stew in shite, they can - they don't have to drag you down into it as well. And always look out for (and keep a record of) anything you ever find in here which reduces you to unrestrainable chortling. Like (for me) the Notorious Prehistoric Zombie Elk, and the ArbCom secretballet ... Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Vivek Agrawal

Hello ThatPeskyCommoner. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Vivek Agrawal, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article has been edited since it was tagged and is no longer a copyvio. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

follow up on discussion on handling copyvio

I responded belatedly at User Talk:Moonriddengirl [1] to a discussion in which you participated a little while ago at [2]. Just to let you know. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Separated by a common language again

Hi Pesky, we have a friendly chat going on at Talk:Equestrian facility over what to call stuff and if any articles could be merged. Some of it is sorting out UK vs US English, some stuff is probably not-sort-outable, but it's a friendly, good faith discussion that could use the help of someone who is both anal-retentive and OCD. Interested?? Montanabw^(talk) 19:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, you soooo know how to tempt me! Yes, I'll wander over and take a look, probably kinda intermittently. My stupid neuro problems are getting to be a bummer now - compression of nerve root at C6 is affecting motor function in latissimus dorsi - and the muscle's now begun to atrophy, so I end up lopsided if I sit for too long at a time, plus, delightfully, compression at C5 is affecting the rhomboids on that side, which means my left arm ends up hanging like a lead weight when I get tired, which the LD muscle can't straighten up ... the joys of life, eh?! At least my sense-of-humour nerve hasn't gone yet! But yes, I'll remember to stroll over and poke around there. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Generic "you are wonderful"

		The Original Barnstar
		You are, without exception, the nicest person I have met on this wiki.  Chzz  ►  22:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• [blushes] ... wow! From someone with as many edits and as many editor-contacts as you have, that is quite overwhelming. Thank you :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for feedback on User:Timeport101/Verax NMS

Hello Pesky, thanks for a great feedback you gave me on User:Timeport101/Verax NMS. I've implmented your suggestions and found additional references. I'd like to ask you about your opinion on this. I'm not sure if I cited refrences 100% correct (research papers and workshop materials).--Timeport101 (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Whoooo-heeyyyy! That's looking great - well done :o) I've slapped one {{cn}} tag (citation needed) for the version number, get that one in, and I reckon it's good to go. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 0c2b2b5745fc32950bafe2e327e3edeb

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Enviousness

Typos... ? :-) [Enviously: ] Ah, what it is to have tact! Bishonen | talk 22:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC).

[muted chuckles] sssshhhhh! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Block protocol

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Block protocol. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)  Done

kent holtorf for deletion again

Pesky, could use your help! Another editor (duffbeerforme) has nominated the kent holtorf page for deletion. Your input would be much appreciated since you helped me get it back live!!! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent Holtorf 76.164.84.41 (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

References all fixed now; I also found and added the ref to his being an examiner with ABAAM. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Ely, Cambridgeshire

Thank you for your additions to Ely, Cambridgeshire. Just to briefly explain my sensitivity to sourcing. During my one and only FA, my sources, admittedly largely blogs and local web sites, were torn to shreds. Ever since then I have been more aware of the quality of sources and have probably leant too much towards the other direction. So yes, I should chill. Stearne (1648) is a primary source but I believe your use of this source is uncontroversial. In addition, I removed some nonsense about Hereward the Wake from the Ely article a month or so ago. He is a folk-hero and legend that should be described as such and yet it was stated as fact. He will go back in at some point, correctly described and sourced. If you wish to do it cool. In any case, despite what may seem like a complaint above, I am very grateful for your input and welcome your support. Thank you so much. Sincerely, --Senra (Talk) 16:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No probs, really! One thing about being a granny is that one's learned that nothing on t'wiki can hold a candle to Real Life in terms of angstifyingness. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 17:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The source for the material you recently inserted into Ely, Cambridgeshire has been rejected by a GA reviewer. I have saved the material to the article talk page. I intended to re-insert the material sourced as per reviewer Lampman (talk · contribs)'s suggestions, although this may take quite a while. If you can help, great. If not, no worries. Thank you for your help so far. It really is very much appreciated --Senra (Talk) 13:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Bleghh! I;ve dropped a note on its talk page - I'll see what / how much I can hunt out for you all. Some time. Would have been helpful if CambridgeshireHistory had listed their sources, of course!:P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Contingent Self Esteem Page

Hi, Thank You for your suggestions. I added more citations, but I keep getting an error message. I asked for help on my talk page so I am waiting for responses. What exactly is the main issue with my page? I have been filling in the citation box at the top of the edit box, so I don't quite understand what this issue is. Ka01851 (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't visualise what you mean by the citation box at the top of the edit box, I'm afraid! Maybe your layout is different from mine. Your citations (references) need to go within the text, between ref tags.

So it would look something like this:

The earliest horse remains found, in the area that today is Britain and Ireland, date to the [[Middle Pleistocene]]. Two species of horse were identified from remains at [[Pakefield#History|Pakefield, East Anglia]], dating back to 700,000 BC.<ref>{{citation |title=Exotic world before Suffolk |author=Tony Stuart |date=January 2006 |publisher=British Archaeology | accessdate = 2011-03-22 | url =http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba86/feat1.shtml }}</ref> Spear damage on a horse shoulder bone discovered at [[Eartham Pit, Boxgrove]], dated 500,000 BC, showed that early humans were hunting horses in the area at that time.<ref>{{citation |title='Man the Hunter' returns at Boxgrove |author=Mark Roberts |date=October 1996 |publisher=British Archaeology | accessdate = 2011-03-22 | url =http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba18/BA18FEAT.HTML }}</ref>

and then you need to have the references section like this:

==References==
{{reflist}}

Have another look at the info I gave you before, and work in your sandbox until you've got the hang of it. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 23:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding: having taken a look at the page, it seems that the references are all appearing correctly. Is the error message you're referring to the box which says:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page

It may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. Tagged since November 2011.

Very few or no other articles link to it. Please help introduce links to this page from other articles related to it. Tagged since November 2011.

? If so, that's what we call a 'tag', just indicating to you and other editors that the article needs some clean-up work. I thin you could expand the lede / lead section (the introductory part) a little; it's supposed to be an overview (ideally) of the article as a whole. Other than that, I think it's looking pretty good. I'll remove the current tag and replace it with one a little more descriptive for you. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Learning

Hi!

Please read the documentation of templates before you use them. In particular, you misused the hidden archive template in several ways.

Of course, learning from mistakes is a great method of improving our game. :)

Finally, you seem to be writing a lot on many pages, lately. I suggest that you consider your comments to be like the cavalry in an important battle---they should be saved, fully rested, for the decisive moment. :)

Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey there! I've never attempted to hat anything before, so I just looked for a hat, and copy->edit->saved it! (Being a wrinkly, I learned "the old way" .... see something useful, hack it, re-use it ... old habits die very hard, I'm afraid. And, having been dragged up on a manual tripe-writer, yes, I can't quit the habit of two spaces after a sentence. Ho hum. I wrote all my earliest web pages in a text-editor, and did pseudo-classy things by copying text from a "view source" and then hacking it about. :P) Comes of being an obstinate granny. Would you care to re-hat that one for m e, so I can then go look in the edit window and see how to do it properly? Ta! And, by the way, I drop words all over the bloody place - always have done. (You should see some of my earlier "conversations" ranting about lab-rat geneticists who have no idea about the influences of basic animal behaviour on what turns up in the next generation!) If I had some current motivation and energy, I would be doing NPP, but at the moment my health-life is total shite, can;t sit at a computer for very long, so I'm just blue-link surfing and dropping the odd comment here and there. Take good care of yourself, and have a beer on me. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer, be nice to Pesky and don't be such a snark, (smile) Some of us use things like complete sentences and paragraphs, not Twitter-speak! As for the templates, I've been here five years and syntax is a particular minefield to us non-programmer sorts. I can read the documentation and it is still complete gibberish to me! So how about just fixing our errors with a friendly, SPECIFIC "next time do it this way" instead of the "you screwed up in too many ways to count and I'm not going to tell you what they are" schoolmarm tone? We older sorts can copy and paste with the best of them, but when it comes to syntax of wiki-markup, original creation is not something we were born doing! Montanabw^(talk) 20:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think KW was actually complaining that I was "involved". Ney probs - uninvolved people have dealt with the situation. Thanks anyway Montana! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

First, the hidden-archive templates (hat/hab) are reserved for administrators. Second they are reserved for uninvolved administrators.

There should be no confusion that you are an administrator. If you were to attempt an RfA, your candidacy would be summarily defeated, of course.

There are other templates, e.g. "collapse" which you should consider if you are less involved in the future.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Even having read the template information, I hadn't realised it was admin-use-only! D'oh! I don't ever want to be an admin (made that clear in oh-so-many places for ages now), as I have far too many commitments in Real Life anyway. The only tool which would actually be useful to me is delete / undelete, mainly for copyvio's I encounter in npp. I wish CorenSearchBot was alive and kicking! I'd much rather just gnome around in npp, and do the odd bit of creative stuff here and there. And help newbies out from time to time. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

vindictive

well, i was trying to be general, in order to avoid personal attack, but if you look at User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), and User talk:Rich Farmbrough, you will see who i had in mind. disagreeing without being disagreeable is an uncommon virtue around here. very troubling, hence my suggestion of a process of civility enforcement. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 01:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I must be being unbelievably thick this morning! (Not enough sleep, I guess!) Those talk pages (especially the second one) were a bit sad-making for me, but I didn't spot any particular "offender" there who's particularly noticeable on the RfC/U page. If I could wave a magic wand over the 'pedia and just make people feel more kindly towards others, I would. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

i try to stay away from "vindictive" which implies motive (although i might think it) rather use "badgering" which is conduct. there's a lot of history there with ANI; blocks; etc. those individuals are symptomatic; we have a much larger problem of defining civility down. people think i'm joking when i talk of training. we need a culture change, if you have some ideas i will support you. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 00:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

How to deal with a situation where gross incivility is considered to be "civil", and trying to remain civil and follow policy is considered to be "uncivil" - even blockably uncivil - is beyond me. Somebody, somewhere, needs to do something. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 00:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

sue gardner in her blog: "I loved how multiple random people in the assembly took personal responsibility for its success. Consensus decision-making can be frustrating, and a couple of times I saw angry people try to circumvent or ignore the process by interrupting or starting up side conversations. Every time that happened, someone in the crowd near the disruptive person would patiently, but firmly, explain the process and ask the person to respect it." [3]. kindness campaign is a start. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 13:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

I wouldn't normally do this (it seems a little sleazy), but I was expecting either little response or negative, and am simply shocked. Thanks!  fredgandt 09:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I positively leaped on that one! The lack of sufficient edit points has been something that's wound me up forever! In a long (multiple screenfuls) thread or article-section, attempting to find the one part I want to insert something is an absolute bleedin' nightmare, frequently leading to edit conflicts owing to the time it takes to get sorted! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. I share your enthusiasm. I'm likely going to alter/update the proposal since thinking about it a little more. I believe it would be far simpler to create the function if each EDITPOINT were simply a copy of the editlink applied to the section heading of the section that EDITPOINT is in. Then when clicked, the raw text in the edit window is scrolled to that point. This was my alternative suggestion but I think it's better as the primary suggestion. It's technically easier to create and provides that we can access the whole section (and subsections), not just from that point onward, so in the event we want to edit just above an EDITPOINT, we could. I just have to work out the best way to word it. The technical difficulty with my prime proposal is that the EDITPOINT would need to be an entirely new invention (not just an adaptation). The idea to cut down on edit conflicts by having this create more sections and subsections (not visible but practical) is great as an idea, but would require huge changes to the software. I think that makes that functionality an almost guaranteed "NO!" (unless the devs were open to the idea). The one way it will cut down on edit conflicts is by making each edit quicker to make (since we can actually find the damn thing we're trying to edit!). Thanks again for your support so quick off the line. As I said, I only responded through shock. I'm so used to ideas being squashed or ignored, it's bordering on depressing. fredgandt 01:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the real point - making editing faster to avoid ec's. Scrolling through huge walls of text to find the bit you want to edit just takes too long in some cases. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Monty₈₄₅ 18:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You have mail. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Read and (hopefully!) absorbed! Thank you. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar of decapitation

	Driving a writer off Wikipedia
	For driving the productive writer Badger Drink off Wikipedia, Scott MacDonald and ThatPeskyCommoner earned this Barnstar of Decapitation.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC) William M. Connolley (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

:o). 14:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

At least your reply was elegant.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I really don;t want to get into an argument with you, KW. Due to neuro problems, I can hardly sit up, and my back is killing me. Can't wait for the neurosurgeon to fix my neck, before any more damage is done there. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you have pain, especially spinal pain, which is notoriously hard to treat and whose surgery is notoriously variable in outcome. I wish that your prognosis and surgery is better than can be expected.

You must be quite a comfort to your mother and the rest of your family.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

My neurosurgeon is probably the second-best in the country - and a quite amazing, warm, likeable, fun-loving guy into the bargain. His last effort (on the other side of my neck) was close to 100% sucessful :o) And, in the meantime, I haz morphine! Which helps. Not necessarily the best substance for improving one's judgment, but hey, we can't have everything. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For keeping a stiff upper lip under a hail of abuse and invective while defending Wikipedia against incivility. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As a consolation, I have volunteered to maintain all of Badger Drink's articles - time permitting. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness. I suppose I may have to keep an eye out for disruption on mine, now! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Don't stop being nice to people. It's folks like you that make Wikipedia a more pleasant place. Ϫ 09:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Aww, thanks! I want a magic wand full of niceness to wave over the wiki. Fat chance! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Baiting

When somebody is upset, you ought to leave them alone. [4] I do not like it when vulnerable individuals are picked on by a gang. The purpose of Wikipedia is to write high quality articles and too help each other, not to provoke the downfall of other editors. Jehochman ^Talk 12:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to "bait" - I was trying to stick absolutely to WP:CIVIL, do what was suggested there, and actually help the guy not to drop himself into it, bearing in mind his RfC/U. But to believe that, people would need to assume I was telling the truth. I appreciate that your comment here is very well-intentioned, but my one actual message to BD's talk page was nearly a month after the notification, and as he refused to participate at all in the RfC/U (even to read it, apparently, or he would have known weeks ago that I was a granny, and not a petty little juvenile shithead), he can't honestly have been affected by anything that anybody posted there. Including me. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Just adding - I would really appreciate it if you would strike your comment about checkuser being needed. I appreciate that you probably hadn't seen the replies when you added that, but striking it with a comment that it was mistaken would probably be a good idea. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I untemplated the request, because it's inappropriate on many levels. No CU is going to go for it anyways. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I do wish people would leave just a little room for good faith. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I do think Jehochman's added comment above was unnecessary and I've left a message on his talk page about it. I've never heard of him before and it won't endear me to my fellow admins, but now perhaps you'll understand why I'm not keen on letting all and sundry get hold of an admin hat. There seems to be an odd atmoshere of support for Badger Drink as the downtrodden party, and a general acceptance of incivility as a standard means of communication. I get the impression that some people just enjoy flaming, and read everything between the lines deliberately to see if there is something they can interpret as uncivil or a PA and have something to complain about - and there's a story about that too behind two of the oppose votes on my RfA. Even pointing out obvious cases of bad faith is considered an act of bad faith - but usually by the sanctimonious ones who live in glass houses and throw stones all day long. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

It's best that everybody focus on editing the encyclopedia or developing new editors or helping future administrators, or whatever is productive, for a while, okay.

Nobody is excusing BD's incivility; you should read what I and others have written with more care.

Sincerely, 17:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs)

Try to look at the bigger incivility picture Kiefer and stop throwing stones - nobody has hand-held BD and protested his 'innocence' more than you have. Also, consider signing your posts please. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I should like to think that I behave nicely to any editor who could use support, and some who are behaving badly but whose humanity I recognize. I have never claimed that BD is innocent, as I clarified above. I am not throwing stones. I suggested that you do whatever you do on Wikipedia. There are 1000 administrators who can prosecute evil doers. Give BD a rest, now.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

To offset the verbal beatings you've received for leaving one message on a talkpage when in reality a hell of a lot of others things contributed to the editors departure. I still think you're awesome, definitely my favourite granny (aside from my own). :)

^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 15:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Awww, kitteh! thank you; much appreciated. Comes to something when caring about civility makes someone suspected of sockpuppetry! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Concerns re copyvio

It appears to me that you reviewed closely [5] and [6].

</sarcasm> Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The first of those two edits stated that it was removing "possible plagiarism from okstate.com."

It turns out that that edit did, in fact, remove blatant and obvious copyvio from okstate.com that existed in the article for almost 6 years. That edit was reverted by this identification of vandalism. It was obviously not vandalism, and I've left the appropriate strong wording for the abuse of twinkle, edit summaries and what not (the second edit was reverted by the same user, deceptively. I've warned him for that as well.)

I am concerned that you are unable to recognize copyvios, and inappropriate use of "vandalism." Please review WP:COPYVIO and WP:NOTVAND and confirm that you will remain cognizant of those policies going forward. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Pardon? I've pointed out "over there" that I've personally been responsible for tagging over 100 copyvio pages as CSD G12, whcih were removed; plus others which have now been re-created as non-copyvio articles, plus others where I have "ccleaned" sections. Since the beginning of September (yes, this year). I never once questioned the validity of BD's actual edits themselves - just the wording contained in his edit summaries. Per WP:CIVIL, as quoted "over there". And I have no idea what you're referring to re the vandalism thing. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this an appropriate edit summary? Why or why not? When you became aware of that summary, why didn't you do something about it? Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI Request Concerning Badger Drink

Please let this serve as an admonishment for your (admitted) actions as discussed at length in this case. I am assuming you meant well when leaving the message but given all the other actions that led up to that I hope you can understand how that could be perceived as hounding. It's not necessary to monitor the behavior of other users, if it spreads other users will take note and report as warranted. While your warning had polite wording it had the tone of condescension and that wasn't helpful at all, as I hope your will agree given the ensuing firestorm. --WGFinley (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)As per "after further discussion at my talk page I have agreed this warning was too strong and am removing it."

I hear what you're saying, but I'm not responsible for other people's (over)reactions. When requesting comment on another user's long-term history of intransigent violation of one of the five pillars of Wikipedia is regarded as "hounding", how are we supposed to uphold (consensus-built) policies? If an editor were to leave, not a warning, but a politely-worded suggestion on the talk page of an editor who had been violating, say, the copyright policy for nearly four years, and flatly refusing to address the issue despite several people having asked them to, there would have been no firestorm.

Quoting from WP:CIVIL:

• "to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated."

... and from m.dick:

• "Remember that your perception can be wrong. If the other person is writing in an unfamiliar language, or has a different cultural background, you may misunderstand their intentions."

My cultural background is that of an English granny. Even assuming the best of good faith that I possibly can, your "admonishment" of me is wholly unjustified here, and little short of an attack on the civility policy itself - let alone on me. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 17:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

:I understand and I'm not disputing his overreaction. However, you have a responsibility at some point to realize further comment is not going to be productive. As an admin wholly uninvolved in this incident I've looked at all the comments there and your actions and chosen to admonish you as future behavior along those lines could lead to sanction. Consider it constructive criticism intended to help you avoid future difficulties as you were purporting to do with him. --WGFinley (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)As per "after further discussion at my talk page I have agreed this warning was too strong and am removing it."

Which actions in particular did you consider I should be sanctioned for? And how would you feel if someone decided that they could "admonish" your grandmother for the manner in which she was brought up to communicate? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 17:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

His complaint that you had followed him from various venues and then left that talk page message. His reaction was entirely inappropriate but his claim was not without merit. What if he were brought up where it was completely acceptable to use the language you are chiding him for? I'm certain you wouldn't find that acceptable and the same standard applies to you "old English granny" or not. --WGFinley (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And that's exactly where the problem is. It was based on the complaint, and not on the true facts. Here in Wikipedia, accusation should not equal guilt. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"future behaviour along those lines could lead to sanction"? Sanction for what? An error of judgement? Pesky's message to Badger had exactly the opposite intended effect, truly, but she's only human. Nothing she did was in bad faith or intended to be malicious - quite the opposite. Since when do we sanction people for making honest mistakes in communication? She apologised straight away, too, I don't see how vague threats of sanction are in any way helpful here. This is a bit like rubbing salt in the wound. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 18:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a calf have?
A: Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so.
-Attributed Lincoln

Likewise the fact that an editor -- even a previously uninvolved one acting in good faith -- slaps a closing tag on a discussion and decrees consensus doesn't make it so. The fact is there was no consensus, as discussion was still ongoing, albeit it had primarily morphed into "block was good, block was bad" regarding the other party. Consequently, the WP:ADMONISHMENT above should be taken with a grain of salt. Gerardw (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

		The Angel Heart Barnstar
		for equinimity, when resistance to civility becomes personal attack Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 19:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

What if he were brought up where it was completely acceptable to use the language you are chiding him for? sorry, i have to call BS, at the Born This Way (song) defense. i'm all for cultural diversity, (even the cultural diversity to insult each other), but we need a minimum threshold of civility, and then we need to enforce it. when will it happen? until you enforce the pillar, it does not exist. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 19:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I shall add that scar to all the many, many, surgical ones :P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

@Slowking If you are going to call it BS then you also must call Pesky's "old English granny" BS, you can't have it both ways. Thanks for making my point, "born this way" is not a defense. --WGFinley (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• The best way to enforce civility is to identify instances of incivility and politely ask the user to refactor their remarks. I have never seen a situation where blocking improved civility; often quiet the opposite. Jehochman ^Talk 05:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Indef blocking certainly reduces a source of continued incivility, especially when the subject is not prepared to respond to suggestions of non-blocking solutions. Civility is also helped when admins lead by example and help enforce it. What's going to happen here eventually is that the constant hounding of Pesky will cause the loss of a truly industrious contributor. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

HUMOUR ALERT, HUMOUR ALERT

NOTE: The following message is intended to be humorous attempt to alleviate unnecessary pressure.

PLEASE read it in that way. Whoop Whoop. Humour alert. Whoop Whooop.^{Anyone who has a problem determining appropriate use of humour might be well-advised to consult a medical practitioner, although of course, we cannot give medical advice. Or, apparently, any other kind.}

<Begin alert text>

Warning: by clicking 'Show' you are accepting that the following material is intended as humour only
Slowking4, I find the term "BS" to be entirely inappropriate and offensive. Now kindly stay the fuck out of this.

<End of alert>

 Chzz  ►  20:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"Angry young men"

I hate to change the tone of all these barnstars and kittens, but I hope you'll accept this comment as a constructive suggestion from a (bemused) observer of the ANI thread. You've said twice now that you're a British granny. Whilst it's always good to know the background of our peers, especially as we rarely get to meet them, what you said on ANI - that "we aren't all angry young men" - was out of line. Nobody has stereotyped your background or age, and you should not do so in turn. Such a principle should apply especially where the discussion was about professionalism when dealing with other editors. Just my two pence, AGK [•] 11:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Will you be making a similar suggestion to User:Malleus Fatuorum regarding what's at the top of his talk page - or is he not quite so easy a target? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps AGK missed the post immediately preceding the HUMOUR ALERT, HUMOUR ALERT. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, given the known stats from that study of WP showing that the overwhelming majority of wikipedia editors are, in fact, young men, Pesky was, at most, only 1/3 out of line. And frankly, even there, given the type of tendentious a--h---ness I've encountered in my 5 going on 6 years on wiki, while it is true that not ALL young men are angry, there is an abundant population here of those who appear unaccustomed to having their will thwarted. (Of course, I'm getting fully in touch with my inner emerging crone, so there go the stereotypes). (Full disclosure: I'm not precisely sure of Pesky's age, but I am, in theory, also old enough to be a granny, though I am not) And I also must point out that a--holedom is NOT a culture, nor a protected class. Jerks are jerks, and it's not a culture, unless one found in a petri dish and to be discarded. That said, some petri dish cultures gone awry can turn out OK. Montanabw^(talk) 02:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Poor judgement

Posting on the talk page of an editor you initiated an RFC/U on is unlikely to have a positive outcome. Other have characterized the post as condescending; it also struck me that way. As the English wikipedia spans many cultures, it is best to avoid phrasing which is more easily misinterpreted than bland and bleary boilerplate. As Churchill or Russell or Shaw or somebody said, England and America are two countries separated by the same language, and we have the rest of the English speaking world here too. No, you are not responsible for the reaction, block, resulting admin brouhaha, et. al., and I don't doubt your intentions when you made the post in the first place. I'm just urging you to consider, in the future, that the English Wikipedia is a different context than your local culture and adjusting phrasing is likely to benefit the project.Gerardw (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Didn't Pesky already say she thought her personal message on the talk page (one single message, let's remember) was a mistake? Didn't she, in fact, say that several days ago now? What's the purpose of this continued baiting? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Didn't see it. Post a diff and I'll retract the statement, if appropriate. Gerardw (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Enough is enough. Several people have already said the same to Pesky. This is starting to get to the piling it on stage and surely you can see such a high magnitude of berating is now bordering on needless and cruel. I'm sure you mean well, but can we please give her a break now? This whole incident has been horrible and upsetting for her and you're not saying anything that hasn't already been said in the ANI thread. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 03:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Your phrases "needless and cruel" and "pile on" would evoke pathos and less bathos if they were accompanied by any self-criticism that the RfC on Badger Drink was marred by needless piling-on by you all.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

KW, I don't know if you've noticed, but Pesky - who is a useful, positive contributor under anyone's standards - has been hounded over the past few days for making one comment for which she has apologised. She has not edited for nearly 2 days, which is unlike her and I hope that she has not quietly withdrawn from the encyclopedia. I know full well that if she were to leave, she'd make little fuss and just go and I sincerely hope that has not happened. I'd rather not lose any editors here and suggest leaving them both alone for a while might be a good idea. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. This whole thing is completely asinine. I've not come across a more good-faith editor with a better sense of perspective and humor than Pesky. She's a true gem and the kind of editor WP needs more of. I mean, my god, she puts up with me! Montanabw^(talk) 17:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Civility.01:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatPeskyCommoner (talk • contribs)

Here's a very fitting essay: User:Lankiveil/The Grandma Test ;) -- œ^™ 11:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Illegitimi non carborundum

Please don't let a raucous minority drive you away from the joys of editing. PamD 08:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So sorry, should have phrased it differently, obviously

Instead of kind and polite FemaleSpeak, which is clearly misunderstood as being "condescending and patronising", I should quite obviously have phrased the "problematic" message in BadgerSpeak instead. Perhaps thus: "Look, you halfwit ignoramus, if you weren't acting like a hysterical child and a a mildly retarded kindergartener you might have seen that the next step being suggested is escalating sanctions. So instead of listening to the terrible fanwank and nausea-inducing nonsense and ball-nuzzling advising you to ignore it, you need to stop bordering on the fucking asinine and stop being so clueless but furious and quit soapboxing in your edit summaries."

Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

****!Blowing coffee out nose!**** NOW I know how to handle these things in the future! Bwahahahahahaaaaa! Montanabw^(talk) 18:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking only on behalf of my cabal: 1. No, I'm primarily saying it would have been more prudent to not say anything at all (happy to either discuss further or drop). 2. See my post above 3. Based on my assessment of the qualities of your contributions at Wikipedia talk:Civility, I was surprised to see this false dichotomy -- honestly I think you're better and more sophisticated than that. 4. I think accusations of "hounding" you are ridiculous; I will honor any request by the TPC to leave this page 5. Requests by talk page stalkers will be ignored. Gerardw (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, this has been a case of "Focussing on the obvious can make you overlook the evidence," here. Not all allegations are true. According to Jehochman "The best way to enforce civility is to identify instances of incivility and politely ask the user to refactor their remarks." Except, of course, that one gets admonished for doing so. Ironic. Messages of support are more than welcome on my talk page; I'm politely requesting that people who want to discuss the situation otherwise, in a civil, insightful, and solution-focussed manner, communicate politely with Chzz Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Jehochman is a good guy, but occasionally he doesn't… hmm… have all his oars in the water. (I will take any kind notice to discuss edits, not editors, as read, thanks; I'm pretty sure Jehochman won't take offense.) His best way is one of the worst ways, in my experience, even though it's certainly better than civility blocks, yes. The best way of dealing with (I won't say "enforcing") civility is, in my opinion, Heimstern's way. But that's by the way. I'm in general an admirer of Pesky's tact (as per my post above). Bishonen | talk 13:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

My oars occasionally need maintenance, and are taken out of service temporarily. Jehochman ^Talk 13:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Poking other contributors when they are blocked is the ultimate in bad acts. I suggest you stop. Hipocrite (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hipocrite, with all due respect, continuing to mutter to your friends that you think that a checkuser on an editor is justified, over ten hours after they have been personally vouched for by a WMF staffer, is more of an "ultimate in bad acts". And continuing to harangue somebody about the importance of copyvio work, over two hours after it had been pointed out that they had been responsible for removing over 100 copyvios since the beginning of September, could quite reasonably be considered to be "hounding" or "baiting". Not to mention, especially when one combines the two, illustrative of someone who either has failed to read the thread, or failed to understand it. Unless you are returning to explain, and ideally apologise for, these actions, and to consider what else may have been wrongly done, I would appreciate it if you did not post on my talk page again. Thank you. Adding: having just done a little basic arithmetic, it would appear that for each five of your total edits since the beginnning of September, I have had removed at least one blatant copyvio page. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Emulating Badger's edits, where he was improving Wikipedia, would be preferable to continuing to transpose his worst edit summaries, which accompanied constructive edits (in all cases I've checked).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I know. But right now I just don't have the heart to do it. Very little in the way of motivation. And I'm sure most intelligent folks would recognise the above as a possible attempt to rephrase something in line with a different cultural background. Less grannyish. :P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

yet more defense of incivility: "constructive edits". they condemn themselves with their own reasoning, and they won't let it go. here is the Crocker's Rule: "If some properly formatted, meaningful communication causes your server to fail, that's your own fault". i.e.: if you can't take some negative feedback, about uncivil dysfunctional edit summaries, then it's your fault. Pesky, i'm with you 100%. we need a profound culture change here, from "lord the flies" to "grandma" culture. there will be resistance and sophistry, but it will occur. i trust you will stick around for the hard work: let's hug them to death. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 18:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Gently, Slowking4. And I had to laugh - I actually have a pet eight-foot boa constrictor who would be only too happy to join in with the hugging. She's called Cuddles. Pesky (talk …stalk!)

Cuddles needs an infobox and to become part of the wikifauna... Montanabw^(talk) 18:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

She was Media of the Day on 1st August. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The ANI discussion had very clear suggestions for blocking you unless you stop obsessing on talk pages about Badger.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer, I don't see Pesky "obsessing" about Badger. (I am completely uninvolved in the underlying issue, by the way, and intend to stay that way) I see YOU "obsessing" about Pesky for some reason that seems entirely unclear to me. I suggest you drop this and let it go, or at least take a good look in the mirror before you accuse others of something that you yourself appear to be doing. Montanabw^(talk) 18:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I hear you. But that's not what I'm obsessing about. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You have nothing to obsess about, you did nothing wrong. Wikipedia has long been dysfunctional and that is certainly not your fault. Gerardw (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I clearly need more time out. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

i look forward to such a block discussion: let all the defenders of incivility come forward; bring your best battleground behavior; let us decide whether the civility pillar is real or blowing smoke. it's very easy to see the difference between dysfunctional swearing, and negative feedback. but by all means put wikipedia on a "time out": it needs it; we haven't really earned your kindness here. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 18:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Pesky has a personality and writes well, which makes her talk page interesting. Ezra Pound would envy some of her replies.

Despite having all the flaws of ANI discussions, the relevant ANI discussion did have several suggestions that Pesky and BD "go and sin no more", but do so separately.

'Nuff said.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

yes, i view your ad hominum here and at ANI as shameful, upon the project: Pound indeed. (of course, now that the Ezra Pound facility will now be the Department of Homeland Security, perhaps the insanity defence will spread). i see far more productive editors being run off, with better attitudes. <shrug> Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 19:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The poet Ezra Pound prized the distillation of thought and words into essences.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

OK Kiefer. So take your own advice and become merely the essence of your previous comments on this page and leave Pesky alone. Please. Montanabw^(talk) 19:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Provided that Kiefer can play "nice" (and I mean genuinely nice), he may play. Just don't upset the natives. And Slowking4, I admire Pound's writing, so am not offended. :P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of her smiley face, which I had previously complimented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 21:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but ....

Isn't it a bit off for an admin to close with a no-consensus "admonishment", when that same admin had commented, putting his own POV there the previous day, that he considered I needed a "dose of WP:STICK"?

Can't say I'm happy about that, at all. See below. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Already commented [7]. There's a lot off about Wikipedia --definitely a work in progress. I think happiness lies in being the other duck! Gerardw (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your comment, too. And your essay / notes - excellent. Thing is, it's bloody hard to be the other duck, when faced with a case of repeated (over a dozen) WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-type responses, to various people. I think my question above may go a considerable way towards explaining a bad case of denial. Classic triad of blame, minimize and justify. He says "It's only a warning - no big deal." He's wrong - this is a "big deal". It's not "only" a warning - it's a principle, and the thin end of an extremely toxic wedge. It's a big deal to me, too: that an involved admin (and he was involved, he'd clearly stated his own strong POV) should close a bad-faith complaint with a no-consensus "admonishment" in line with his own POV - from which he seemed incapable of budging, no matter what the evidence is. There's a saying: "For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who won't believe, no proof is sufficient." Accusation equals guilt. [Bad PeskyWolf bit too hard! Pain+morphine=irritability+poor judgment. Bite removed as per agreement]

So, I ask myself, "Why should I bother donating my time, my skills, and my effort (not to mention what is quite possibly the most historically-valuable private archive of material in the UK) to a project where an editor, whose total edits are little more than the number of new pages I've patrolled since August, can do something as unprincipled and dishonourable as that, and get away with it?" [snarling removed as per agreement] Pesky (talk …stalk!) 02:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Pesky, this is the first time I have posted to your talk page in all of the BD saga and I want to answer your question above. You absolutely must continue to contribute because the value of your contributions is appreciated by potentially millions of readers for years to come. Those readers will not be privy to the massive undercurrents of dross that underpins WP. They require will written, well sourced, encyclopaedic material that can inform, enlighten and satisfy their interest. You mainspace contributions clearly do that, in spades. If you were an artist you wouldn't stop painting because of criticism. If you were a production worker you wouldn't stop because somebody complained about the product and if you were a teacher you would not stop teaching because of a staff room dispute. I will offer no advice on participation at RfAs, noticeboards etc. where most of the incivility takes place, but as far as your content work is concerned, please try not to let issues elsewhere distract you. Best. Leaky Caldron 12:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Leaky, I find that really touching. You've actually made me go all teary-eyed (stupid old bat that I am ...). I haven't made any kind of definite decisions, at all, just doing an awful lot of self-questioning and profound thinking over the issues. As / if / when I find some inspiration to contribute again / more [delete as applicable], I'd really like to focus on some issues around making the 'pedia an easier, more pleasant, more understandable place for good-quality newbies to get into. Whenever I come across a newbie in npp, I leave them a vast spiel of hints, tips, odds and tods of help, and one of my biggest pleasures is when they come back to my page with thanks, or ask me to look at the "new" version of their article - and it's transformed from a very grubby caterpillar into something resembling an emerging butterfly. I find that quite incredibly rewarding stuff. But, at the moment, I am so lacking in energy and inspiration (real-life issues are an absolute bastard, too; nerve compression in my neck is causing loss of motor function in my back and shoulders, and screaming neuropathic pain in my head from time to time) - so everything is stacked on the wrong side of the scales at the moment. Hooray for morphine! And for my wonderful neurosurgeon, who's hopefully going to be operating on me again within the next six weeks. I will give some very serious thought to your post here; you are, of course, welcome on my page :o) Just don't alarm the natives - we're an oddly-mixed bunch over here! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

But if you were a volunteer at the dog-rescue-centre, and another volunteer told you to "[whatever]", and you complained to the boss, and the boss didn't care...then you might just not bother.  Chzz  ►  15:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Point: I didn't complain, though! If one of the dogs attacked me, and the boss didn't care ... I might consider training the dog to attack the boss ... but then I've "done" rehabbing problem animals! They are sooooo much easier than humans ;P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 15:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Different scenario: if the dog attacked me, and then another worker lied about the situation to the boss, and the boss didn't care or investigate properly, I would get on far better with the dog than with either of the two humans. Dogs neither tell, nor believe, untruths. And I could make the dog my friend. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice comment, Leaky! I am going to immortalize it! Seriously! Pesky, keep your chin up, at least if your neck will allow it! Health issues SUCK, and you have my sympathy. My favorite was my detached retina where I had to stay head and/or face down for almost a month, oh my neck hated that soooo bad! Montanabw^(talk) 17:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A first edition for you!

	It reminds me of the Edwardian era
	A hundred years on from "the most discussed case of the century", people still don't get it --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hehehe! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Some things to make everybody laugh - time to lighten the mood here

The Notorious Prehistoric Zombie Elk, and the ArbCom secretballet ... images which will never leave my mind :o)

And some pure whimsy in response to I don't see why the somewhat colloquial style of the article is not suitable for Wikipedia: nothing says that articles must be undigestible! - I found the "creative brain" wandering off on that track to produce this. If I hadn't enjoyed it so much, it might have been a waste of time. But as they say, "the time you enjoyed wasting was not wasted time." Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I want a new neck!

I am soooo pissed off :o( Rhomboids and latissimus dorsi on the left badly affected, poor sensation in left arm, lat's now affected, and triceps and biceps going juddery. :o( Bummer! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I've been unusually busy dealing with accusations of, including other things, bad faith and cowardice. That's what happens when you try to provide a morsel of support to an under fire, provocative editor who is probably far too young and inexperienced to spend so much time fighting his battles here rather than kicking a football around, or whatever they do in Canada!(ice hockey). Interesting background btw. Good idea about the daughter, just don't let her get carried away. Mine is 18 but is only interested in WP as a resource and the other one, bless him, passed away 2 years ago but WP would be the last thing he would have used the internet for!! Your medical stuff doesn't sound to clever. Rest up and get it sorted out before Christmas, the turkey might be heavy! Leaky Caldron 19:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

See The new addition to my talk page.

Have a beer. You need one!

Montanabw^(talk) 21:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Montanabw: Is that apparent typo (in your talk page addition) something subtle I've missed, or an example of Muphry's law? ("will written"?!) PamD 21:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

@Leaky: bad faith and cowardice? [Pesky makes indelicate noise] So sad about your son; bet it doesn't seem like that long ago. It's the first anniversary of my father's death tomorrow - and really doesn't seem like a year. I hope your youngster-under-fire comes through everything OK. That magic wand I want would be so useful here in WikiLand! Daughter will do fine, she'll make an excellent gnome, Medical stuff? pfft! No, far from clever, but the only fix for it is surgical. My neurochappie is cobbling up damage at the minute; he says advances in artificial cervical discs are happening so fast that it's actually better to wait until there's no other option, rather than replacing them now, particularly as I'm a fairly active sort (ahem....) and they do have a shelf life.

@Montana: a beer! I could kill for a beer! But it's one of those sticky choices: alcohol or painkillers? Particularly sticky choice [pardon the wossname]] now that the Baileys-in-everything season is approaching :P Baileys on mince pies, Baileys on Christmas cake, Baileys in hot chocolate (and if you haven't tried that one, you should), Baileys in coffee, Baileys in more Baileys .... heh! And a Laphroaig .... I really, really would like a Laphroaig. Or two. Or three?

@Pam: Muphry's Law - love it! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Leaky - the "mentor thing" - would it help at all if GD just felt he could come over here and discuss generalities with me as and when he might feel he needed to? We've had absolutely no previous interaction with each other. I wouldn't want to get into any article-specifics, but granny-type generality stuff I might be able to work with him on. Health permitting! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Alternatively, if more privacy was wanted, I'm very often (though not permanently) available on IRC and open to private messages from people wanting some personal input. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pesky. You could certainly offer to help although I suggest you take a good look at the background before becoming too committed. There is an onus on GD to actively seek a mentor which is why I am encouraging those behind the RFC/U to move on from the calls for sanctions to a more positive approach. Take care. Leaky Caldron 15:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You must be a glutton for punishment, to consider treading near the British/Irish terminology minefield and related areas. Why not find some satisfying area of WP where there are articles crying out for improvement in a calm environment, after the unpleasantness of recent stuff? Take care of yourself, by avoiding unnecessary WP-related stress! PamD 15:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Muphry's law, my usual sin, committed on a regular basis. Thanks for the heads up. My eyesight sucks and I work from a laptop! LOL! But good to know that we ALL have our challenges in RL. Maybe we need support groups with their own infoboxen: Wikipedians with oversight of aging parents, Wikipedians (teens) with insufferable parents, Wikipedians with teenaged children, Wikipedians with toddlers, Unemployed Wikipedians, etc... Maybe even a test like the wikiholic test to see who most needs WP as respite from RL! Montanabw^(talk) 19:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

As for booze and painkillers, yeah the fatal interaction of alcohol and morphine sort of takes the "punch" (pun intended) out of holiday season. And cocktails, and... Montanabw^(talk) 19:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The 'mentoring' thing - I was thinking just in terms of "being me", rather than article-specific stuff. Other half and I have quite a number of "unofficial adoptees" which we've acquired from our various offspring, who come to us with everything from official paperwork needing to be filled out, to ear-syringing and first aid ... Just a question of having someone available with a heap of real-life experience, a possibly-unusual amount of patience and / or tolerance (most of the time), and so on. It wouldn't toch on the Irish/British terminology thing other than to say "If it really, really needs to be changed - someone else will surely do it. You;re not alone, let that project move on to another person, and if things need to be changed, they will be," kinda thing. In other words - leave it alone, right or wrong, treat it like an addiction. The first drink / first "fix" (yes, pun entirely intentional) is one too many. I do find myself wondering why people find new page patrol so stressful (I work the tail end of the queue, though, which may be very different from the front end) - I was doing npp as stress-relief from Real Life! Very soothing ... Leaky, I looked through the RfC and several diffs, so I have a fair idea of what's going on there. Just as "someone totally uninvolved in the issue", who really doesn't want to get involved in it, either - there's a possibility I could be useful just to talk to. Anyhaow - the offer's there, if it's helpful. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I iz vewwy nawwty.  Chzz  ►  13:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Tut! And I'm English. With Scots, Welsh, and a smidge of French in the pedigree. Not to mention Angles, Saxons, Normans, Romans, Vikings, random assorted other Celts, Gauls and so on. Oh, and Danes. Mongrel? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems we're all African.  Chzz  ►  11:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Another interesting turn of phrase

Pesky, as a collector of malapropisms, thought you might appreciate: "An attempt to delete {{Start date}} in 2009 resulted in a seedy keep, due to its importance. Its use has increased significantly since then." I wonder who the disreputable admin was that closed it? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 04:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

ROFLMFAO! (Yes, grannies can use txt-spk too .....) I think the concept of the "Seedy keep" could cover so many things - thank you so much for that shot of humour! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, can I have a diff, please? This one should be added to the stable :P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to avoid misunderstandings here, I'm primarily referring to the "seedy keep" of the "verifiable untruth" (see this - justified by the VnT thing being wikilawyered and / or misinterpreted to mean "Who cares if it's not true - I can show you where it was published!") Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It is in here [8]. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 12:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You're wonderful - thank you! Duly added to my stable :P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• At your userpage link for the Arbcom secret ballet, yet another fine malapropropism can be seen above the green text: fragrant incivility. Made me think of Orangemarlin. Here's the direct link. Bishonen | talk 13:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC).

"A rose by any other name" would both smell as sweet and have thorns? :P (>**)> Hugz to Bishonen for that one - I shall get around to adding it soon. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The other one, of course, would be the fragrant incivility of the SBD. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 15:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

In such situations, I'd think "redolent" would be more precise than "fragrant." But that's just me. Montanabw^(talk) 16:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Or the Greek accusation: You reeker! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)