User talk:TFOWR/Archive 11

Cascade protection
Just FYI, ITN is cascade protected, which means that anything transcluded on it is protected from the instant you hit save. It doesn't make much difference with temporary uploads, though, since they're supposed to be deleted once they're finished with. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I figured that was the case - I'm a little paranoid, however. Next time I'll know how the process works and it'll be more straightforward. Thanks for the tips, by the way - I've added the diff of your post to my ITN cheat-sheet. It was a lot easier than I'd feared! How's the internet connection, by the way - I gather that the problem is slowness, rather than going down frequently? TFOWR 14:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm staying with family so I'm on a plug in mobile internet thing. It's very slow and it keeps giving me blank pages which, needless to say, is very annoying. Almost everything to do with ITN is easy—the problem is a lack of willing admins or people being scared off because of the paranoia over unprotected images on the MP, which is part of the reason I cascade protected T:ITN. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a plug-in mobile thingy I used, during the great "TFOWR Internet Outage of Summer 2010" - it was a right pain, so I sympathise. Off-topic/tangential, but some editors need to realise that Great Outrage And Trouting (GOAT) causes as much of a problem as the issues the GOAT is intended to solve... TFOWR 15:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been using "a plug in mobile internet thing" from day one! (see Unwired) My plan is only 256 Kilobits-per-second, but I have had virtually no problems, other than it's a 'bit' slow. If it's a USB device it maybe more difficult as my modem plugs into an Ethernet port via a cable so I can move it around if needed, though I haven't had to, plus I appear to be very close to the 'base station' for my area. (ps. Hi HJ!) - 220.101 talk\Contribs 15:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Very true, but wotshisname (I can't type a Delta) does have a point. If our smaller-than-average giant friend were to take advantage of that weakness it would be embarrassing to say the least. Btw, can you take a look at the message at the bottom of my talk page? They seem to have some semblance of a legitimate grievance, but with a connection like this, I can't really look into it—I'm just about managing to look in on ITN a few times a day, partly because I have a record to maintain and partly because I worry that nobody else will. Oh, and eh up 220, what brings you here to give me edit conflicts? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I understand the reasoning, and I suppose it's moot now with cascading protection, it's just there are better ways of making one's point... Looking into the unprotection/problematic editor issue. Removed a - I'd fixed the issue already via WP:ERRORS. Also: I have three edits to T:ITN? That seems wrong. Would have sworn I have more than that... TFOWR 16:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's the timer, not ITN itself. I'm the third most prolific editor of that template (soon to be second by the looks of it, not bad to say I've only been doing it for 5-6 months). You've got 21 edits to ITN itself (scroll down about 1/3 of the way). Another 465 and you'll be where I am! ;) I wouldn't make too much of it, though. I said in my RfA that ITN would be my main focus as an admin and it has been. I also have over 1300 edits to ITN/C (I'm the fourth most prolific poster there) and about 600 at WP:ERRORS and another 200 at T:MP. I wouldn't want to get intimately involved in something like BISE though, that's much tougher. Oh, and I meant the note above the tb (the one about some edit warrior or other). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, thought I had to have got someone wrong - timer, not T:ITN, got it! I realised you meant the post above the Tb: the Tb was a freebie ;-) The post above was covered by ArbCom sanctions, so I templated Quantum166 and logged them on the relevant RfArb page. TFOWR 19:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That works, thanks! It would've taken me forever to load the case page to look at the context, never mind do anything about it! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be a UK issue - when I first registered way back in February 2008 I was on a Vodaphone NZ 3G thingy, and it tended to be fairly reliable. I couldn't plug any other USB things in once I was connected, or the connection would drop, but it was pretty fast. Cost NZD$50 a month, and I got a 1GB limit, and if I went over the limit then Vodaphone sent "the boys" round to repossess my house, but other than that it was OK. Cheaper in the UK - I got 1GB for £10 (about NZD$20-ish right now) - but the connection was appalling. Then again, in Glasgow all the houses are built of stone and tend to be three-four storeys tall, so that may impact reception. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 16:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Stone buildings yes possibly so. I did have about an hour w/o reception ≈a week ago, @HJ I got an edit conflict too! Just saying "HI", havent heard from you in ages like before your trip to the US. - 220.101 talk\Contribs 16:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Long to time no, er, speak! SF was amazing, but I'm afraid my tales will have to wait until I have a better connection. ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed Indeed! I shouldn't be 'here' at all due to Real Life issues, see this, @ point 4 on my talkpage. I will try to stay way from WP for the next week+, don't know how successful I'll be! Addendum: No sooner had I said I had 'no problems', I was unable to connect to WP! but I think the issue was the WP site, as I could still get Google etc. RL calls, bye!- 220.101 talk\Contribs 00:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * @ HJ: You are now #2. I'm =19th!!1! <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 09:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

advice
Could you have a look at this situation for me, no hurry. The user has editing issues as you can see on his talkpage, he likes to add content without cites and sometimes with low quality cites. Many of his edits are reverted. He doesn't communicate much and hasn't made a talkpage contribution for over three months and has made less than 40 all the time he has been editing. He was blocked a month ago for a week by Admin:The Rambling Man who is close to indefinably blocking him and imo is only holding back due to a degree of interaction that could be seen as involved. As he does sometimes add ok content that is not reverted was hoping to work something out, would  it be possible to put him on a edit restriction to not add any content without a quality citation or any ideas are welcomed. I would give him a warning about adding uncited content but if he needs one it is better from an uninvolved Administrator. Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * . I meant what I said about their edit summaries - they are great - but the rest is less than stellar: >99% edits to article-space suggests far too little communication. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 18:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks TFOWR. He needs to move to communicate or the options are extremely limited indeed. At one point early in the year he wasn't adding cites and I was reverting almost all his contributions and did have a word with him then (can't remember him replying) but he did get a bit better adding some cites but there are still issues that two or three users are reverting, hopefully he'll communicate and raise his game, best wishes to you. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

AA2
Hello. Could you please explain the reasons for your decision. I do not understand what was wrong with my edits. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I explained why when I provided notice of the restrictions. However, again, it was because you had previously been warned about the restrictions when you had been blocked, however this was not recorded. Additionally, your edits at Culture of Nagorno-Karabakh prompted an administrator to protect the article (they commented that they had had to choose between protecting the article and blocking you). Finally, I was concerned at your edits at Dadivank Monastery and Gandzasar monastery - although your revert at each was spread out over several days.
 * Having been blocked and warned once already, it should not have been necessary for Looie496 to have to protect an article in response to your editing. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 09:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand what was wrong with my edits at Culture of Nagorno-Karabakh. I asked Looie496 to explain but he didn't do it.
 * And could you please explain what was wrong at Dadivank Monastery and Gandzasar monastery edits. What was your concern? I am not trying to undermaine your decision I just want to understand what was wrong there in order not to make mistakes in the future. --Quantum666 (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * At all three articles you were edit warring. At Culture of Nagorno-Karabakh you reverted multiple times, prompting an administrator to protect the article. At the latter two articles you did only revert once, however it was primarily your conduct at Culture of Nagorno-Karabakh that concerned me - your reverts at the latter two merely confirmed my concerns. You can avoid mistakes in future by discussing proposed changes, getting consensus, and then making the changes. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 09:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But I did discuss and was waiting for replies before making changes. Did you see the discussion page history? Was the discussion wrong? --Quantum666 (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, discussion is good - edit warring is wrong. Re-read what I said above: "discussing proposed changes, getting consensus, and then making the changes". Discussion isn't a justification for edit warring - you need to wait until there's a consensus for the proposed changes. You can't simply post on the talk page and then revert, and try and pretend that that's a discussion: it's not. The discussion "ended" with another editor asking you to explain - that's hardly indicative of a discussion that's arrived at a consensus. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 09:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. Then I need your advice about 2 hypothetical situations where two users are involved: A and B
 * 1st situation
 * A makes some changes in the article.
 * B reverts
 * A explains his changes at the talk page and waits for B's reply. There is no reply for a few days.
 * What is the next step for A?
 * 2nd situation
 * A makes some changes in the article.
 * B reverts
 * A explains his changes at the talk page
 * B says "you are a vandal" or smth like this
 * A explains his changes at the talk page again
 * B says "you are a vandal" or smth like this
 * What is the next step for A? --Quantum666 (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Neither of these hypothetical cases appear to apply here: other editors were participating in the discussion at Talk:Culture of Nagorno-Karabakh. If that hadn't been the case, then Silence and consensus would suggest that there was already a consensus, however that clearly was not the case here. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 10:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not saying they are similar. All I wanted was your advice. I don't insist. But I thought administrators are supposed to help users. --Quantum666 (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No that's fine - and you're right: admins are supposed to help users, and particularly in situations like this. I just wanted to be clear that your hypothetical cases didn't apply at Culture of Nagorno-Karabakh. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 10:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's clear. But I still need the advice for the two situations. Thanks in advance. --Quantum666 (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Silence and consensus would suggest that there was already a consensus" - wait a few days, then reference the discussion in your edit summary. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 10:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. Can I rely on your help if such hypothetical cases ever happen? --Quantum666 (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. What is the time of my restrictions? --Quantum666 (talk) 10:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I hadn't entered a time. I've to record a restriction lasting for three months (from yesterday). You certainly can ask me anything, and in particular you can ask me about anything regarding the editing restrictions. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 10:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. At the moment restrictions are clear for me. --Quantum666 (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Arb break

 * Quantum, have you ever read WP:BRD? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. --Quantum666 (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly not, or else you would not need to continue this discussion. You were bold, it was reverted, and until you actually get new consensus via discussion your edits cannot be re-added.  As already noted, silence is not acceptance. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are wrong. Silence is not acceptance of course but it is consensus (although it is the weakest form). --Quantum666 (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Silence and consensus is an essay, but I'd suggest that waiting a reasonable period (a few days, at least) without receiving any objection should be sufficient. Where I would be concerned is if an editor posted at the talkpage and then reverted within a matter of minutes or hours - that's not enough time for other editors to consider and reply. Equally, other editors can't "stonewall" a discussion by refusing to reply - there has to come a point where their silence is regarded as acceptance. I think if it's clear one editor is acting in good faith - by raising the matter on the talkpage, by waiting several days for a reply, and then by referencing the discussion in their edit summary - that should be fine. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 11:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then what can be called an "objection". Can we say that statements like "you are vandalizing the article", "your edits worsen the article", "you should leave the article" are objections? --Quantum666 (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd consider an objection to a well-reasoned argumenent on the talkpage - edit summaries alone would rarely be a satisfactory objection. An edit summary comment like "your edits worsen the article" would not be a valid objection, and the other two examples are even worse ("you are vandalizing the article" is particularly bad: "vandalism" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, and it does not cover good faith edits). <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 11:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then it's clear for me that Ishxanaberd's comments were not well-reasoned objections. --Quantum666 (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a concern. You seem to be focussing solely on Ishxanaberd's edit summaries - they also participated in the talkpage discussion, and their participation there does appear to consist of well-reasoned objections. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 11:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only edit summaries but the comments at the discussion page. What is more serious for me is that being involved in edit war Ishxanaberd wasn't even warned. --Quantum666 (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I regard their comments at the talkpage as fine - my point is that there were valid objections. I don't know why Ishxanaberd wasn't warned, you'd need to ask the admin responsible. I sanctioned you because you had previously been advised about Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, and had subsequently been warned by an administrator for problematic editing within that area. This isn't about other editors: it's about you. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 12:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * E.g. "you are trolling" "I recommend that you leave this article alone" "I suggest to make the ban permanent"? --Quantum666 (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the examples of well-reasoned objections I was thinking of include:
 * "Please abstain from making sweeping changes to well-established articles simply because you find them "very stupid."
 * "You have unwisely (but honestly) admitted that you were making the changes because they look "stupid" to you. This is not good faith editing (and thus POV), and I recommend that you leave this article alone."
 * "1. Shushi is used according to WP:PLACE; please read more carefulyly 2. Gandzak is used according to WP:PLACE; please read more carefully 3. Artsakh is used according to WP:PLACE 4. no need for POV tag. POV tag needs for your edits 5. the article uses dozens of references. your refderence to WP:SOURCE is redundant stop edit warring."
 * ...but I repeat: this is not about other editors' behaviour, it is about yours. There was a discussion on the talkpage. You didn't have a consensus for your proposed changes. You edit warred regardless, before a consensus emerged. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 12:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You must be right about this. I should have given him more than 30 hours to answer.--Quantum666 (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are wrong here. He had more than 3 days to answer but answered only after my revert.--Quantum666 (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert after this comment.--Quantum666 (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So as you can see Looie's decision to warn me is based on my only mistake which is choosing incorrect time between commenting at the talk page and making changes in the article (30 hours instead of a few days). Actually I was sure 30 hours was enough. And I don't think one wrong edit can be called "edit warring" --Quantum666 (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. But my behaviour cannot be considered without considering my opponent's behaviour. And I don't agree that I was edit warring since silence means consensus. --Quantum666 (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've moved your comments: please don't insert comments into other editors' comments - it makes it very difficult to see who made the original comments.
 * I'm not debating each and every example I gave. You were warned for a pattern of behaviour; a pattern that included but was not limited to the article I referenced above. There was a talkpage discussion: you acknowledge that, and yet you want to pick apart each comment made in that discussion? No. There was a discussion, and you should have waited for a consensus to emerge to emerge before changing the article. Wikilawyering is not going to work here, and attempting to deflect attention to other editors' behaviour won't work either: this is entirely about your conduct, over time, and over multiple articles. Accept your warning, work within the bounds set, and move on. Really, after your previous warning (the one that accompanied your block) you should have known better than to engage in behaviour that prompted a page to be protected. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 13:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I can accept the warning only if I understand the reasons for the warning. At the moment I don't that means there is a high risk of making the same mistakes.
 * As I understand "a pattern of behaviour" consists of all the edits made by me so I must understand which of them were wrong.
 * How am I supposed to understand when the silence means consensus and when it doesn't? --Quantum666 (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When your last post in the discussion is on 9 October, and other editors comment in the discussion on 12, 13 and 14 October there is no silence. There's an ongoing discussion. Silence does not mean consensus: the essay I linked to says "Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing)" - here that was very clearly disagreement. You had been on 8 October - again, there was clearly disagreement. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 13:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On 8 October I was reverted then I posted on 9 October (without reverting) then waited for 3 days and only after 3 days of silence made changes. Isn't 3 days enough? And I didn't have time machine on 12 October to see the comments made later. --Quantum666 (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No. If you post on a talkpage, wait, there's no answer - then it's OK. If you edit an article, are reverted, then post on a talkpage - you need to get consensus. "Silence" means no objection. If someone's already reverted you then there's been an objection. This is clearly described in WP:SILENCE, which I quoted above. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 13:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But if there is silence at the talk page after my post what should I do? --Quantum666 (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You could post on the other editors' talkpages, or you could make a request for comment. You could also raise the issue at any relevant WikiProjects, though in this case there don't seem to be any WikiProjects listed on the talkpage. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 13:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to talkpage stalk, but I think if there's 3 days with no reply (assuming its a dispute with just ONE other editor) and that editor has continued to make contributions elsewhere (therefore they could have replied) then the changes could be made again. If there is a second revert with no discussion on talk page, maybe WP:3O? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

In this case, there were two (or maybe three) other editors involved, but WP:3O might still have been a good bet - WP:30 seem to be a bit more flexible these days, compared to back when I was involved. It's worth a try - the worst that'll happen is that they'll point you somewhere else...! <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 14:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Although it seems for me to be unwise I understand and accept it. Thanks for your patient explanations. I hope I wasn't too bothersome :-) --Quantum666 (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

ITN
Can you have a look at WP:ITN/C? I'd be inclined to post it, but I'm the nominator. Also, I just posted the typhoon, but now I can't load the timer or ITN/C or the talk page and swearing at the computer doesn't seem to be helping. Could you tie up the loose ends for me? Much obliged, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   11:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do! Swearing at the computer generally works for me—at least, it makes me feel better. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 11:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Timer ✅, looking at French Strikes now. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 11:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I left a note at WP:ITNC - it seems to me that (a) there is consensus to post, but (b) it might be better to wait - the next strike is set for tomorrow (following on from a strike on Saturday) so leaving it for ten hours or so would tie in nicely with the event. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 12:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

- thanks
Thanks for your support for my removal of on Benoît Mandelbrot. Pointless notices do lessen the impact of warning notices that are genuinely needed (ones re POV, missing citations etc.). And the merge notices that hang around for months really annoy me.--81.106.147.132 (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. It's become a pet-hate of mine recently! The tags seem to be used more for "embellishment" than to fulfil any read editing need. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 12:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Simon MacCorkindale/Harry Harper
Just seen your talkpage, was looking into it when the orange bar appeared ;-) <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 14:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ping!
You have e-mail, TFOWR. Jack 1958 (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Is Heymid socking?
Hi there. Could you please have a look at ? To me it looks like couldn't lie low for the duration. Favonian (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * . If this were anyone else I wouldn't hesitate to block as a WP:DUCK: I hesitate in this case solely because I'm so involved. I'd actually spoken to Heymid earlier today and he seemed fairly OK about waiting out the block, so this is very disappointing. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 22:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your sentiment, having followed the drama from the sideline. I've indef'ed the sock, but something should also be done about Heymid.  Isn't the right procedure to send him to ANI—again?  Favonian (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just reading up on blocking and tagging. Not sure about ANI: on the one hand I'd like to avoid the drama for Heymid's sake, but on the other I don't trust myself with a block reset - I'll either be wimpy or over-compensate and add on another week... ANI it is, I fear... <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 22:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Please Assist
TFOWR, just want an opinion. Could you please look at the Archiving and Bot sections on my talk. This guy seems to lack understanding that I don't like what he did re. archiving my talk page without asking.(2 weeks after somone else did the same thing!) I reverted him once before, but it seems I was too circumlocutious (or too polite!) in saying no, and he put it back! I am getting annoyed. I am nearly at the point of simply deleting his posts on sight! - 220.101 talk\Contribs 02:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * . This isn't just Wayne - someone else did it a while ago, I think? What about an HTML comment - or even a visible banner - explaining "thanks, but no thanks"?


 * Tweak the above to get the right balance between humour and assertiveness... <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 10:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just going to "edit my post" and would likely have conflicted with you! Maybe I should start wearing a 'tin'foil cap! - 220.101 talk\Contribs 10:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Somethin funky goin on at that 'Olajuwon' page. It all in a column on the left side, at least on my PC on IE7. - 220.101 talk\Contribs 10:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks OK to me, in Chrome and Firefox, but it also looks like there's an open span and an open table for the archives: and the table is floated right. That might explain it? Having said that, the archive box is hard-left when viewed in Chrome and Firefox, so I don't know if that "float: right" is doing its job properly...
 * What are you doing using IE anyway? I thought you'd be in the cheap-but-fast seats with HJ and me, i.e. (heh!) using Chrome. Upgrade to Chrome and enjoy Template:Gradient! <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 10:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Fast sounds good! Think I may have even downloaded Chrome, just not installed. 'Blatant plug' indeed! Nice 'Anti Archive' banner BTW, but I think Judge Dredd ("Prepare to be Judged"!) is a bit more my type of 'assertveness' ;-) I'll go now before the trouts start flying! :-)) - 220.101 talk\Contribs 10:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I used a browser called "Phoenix" when it first came out, and made the switch from IE at that point. "Phoenix" got renamed to "Firebird", and then "Firebird" was renamed to "Firefox". They were all faster than IE, but over time the "curse of Netscape" crept in and Firefox got slow again... Chrome is really fast - I notice it more when I have to go back to Firefox for testing, or have to use IE on a friend's computer. There are a few wrinkles with Chrome (it seems to not want to let you see pages while other pages are loading...) but in general it's really fast, particularly with JavaScript. As an added bonus, you can create your own "applications" - if you use, say, GMail you can tell Chrome to turn GMail into a desktop application - you get a GMail icon on your desktop or start menu, and when you open the "GMail application" it starts Chrome without the usual browser-y stuff - just what you need to GMail, and nothing else. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 11:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oooohh, that's a useful tip - thanks for sharing TFOWR, didn't know Chrome did those things with gmail. I will do you a favour and drop round later and archive your pages for you in gratitude. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I second the recommendation to use Chrome! Stonkingly speedy :) --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 12:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh! Don't even joke about that. I used a "manual" approach for a long time - "manual" here meaning "never quite got round to it". Eventually I tried to set up ClueBot, but lacked sufficient clue, so my archives got hideously broken. Much later - like a few months ago - finally got and  to help me with MiszaBot. My early archives are a bit of a mess as a result of all the archiving shenanigans... so any attempt to change archiving will be met with a swift and brutal response: I'll sic 220.101 on you! <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 12:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism
Just an FYI, I have been keeping a casual eye on the page but I've not said anything because it all seems to be ticking over nicely, and I am frankly useless for any content issues on that page :) but just so you know I didn't just forget it... what's your take on the progress? --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 12:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about "ticking over" - it seems awfully quiet - maybe I've successfully sucked all the joy out of it?! I wouldn't worry too much about content - your value comes from mediation, which you're very good at. I'm also pretty bad at content - it's been a learning experience for me, but one I was quite happy to undergo - it's a topic that broadly matches my usual interests. Going forward, I'd like to rope in more editors - I was thinking the various WikiProjects, particularly Sociology, Philosophy and Politics (Libertarianism, I assume, is already interested). It'd be "good" (sorry!) to get the article back to Good Article status, at least, and non-partisan editors would be invaluable for that - particularly WikiProject members with GA experience. I'll take a look at what GAs exist in the Sociology, Philosophy and Politics WikiProjects later, and see if any of the major contributors would be interested in helping, or at least providing pointers. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 12:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes point taken. I'll maybe catch up on the content discussions then and see what's going down. Drumming up more activity seems like a pretty good plan, the page does appear to dip and dive (activity wise) a little. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 13:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, no point made, I think - you're doing a grand job. Though if you want to dive more into content, don't let me stop you ;-) <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 13:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Indonesian vandal's edits... recently discovered.
The Indonesian misinformation vandal has hit again five days ago using another offshore proxy. This time, he used the Taiwan based. I only discovered his vandalism just now. It might have been three articles, but same old vandalism (ridiculously connect Telenovelas and American movie/TV studios to anime). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All semi-protected for one month. It does feel that we're making progress with this - just there articles targeted seems like a big improvement on a while back, when they were IP hopping and hitting 10-20 articles. Here's hoping! <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 09:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I only discovered the vandals' edits just days ago. I just stumbled upon them while searching at related articles. I was expecting for the guy to hit the Digimon Tamers article, the protection of which expired days ago. And as you can see, because of the large range of categories of articles he vandalizes, I don't know if he repeated his brand of vandalism on other related articles the next day or sometime later until they are discovered (days after the fact sometimes). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, the "protection ending" scenario concerns me. I'm reluctant to protect for much longer than a month, because this clown targets so many pages. Maybe a pattern will emerge in the IPs they use, or the proxy folk will identify them and I can block them as proxies... who knows. In the meantime I think this is the best we can do. Slowing them down, even if we can't shut them down completely. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 10:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Help or the article stays locked forever
"LOL are you thick? .. just go to Google Maps and see for yourself if that isn't a "external source" then I don't know what is. Maybe you should get out more whoever you are and see how the world really works."

"89.110.232.235 THE source-MAN"

etc.

What you can see is a total lack of understanding for how Wikipedia sourcing policy works and even users making fun of me as thick and being "the source-MAN" for trying to follow those rules. Those are the same users that removed fact templates because "you can see for yourself that this is true, what else do you need" etc. and then the edit war over the maintenance templates brought the article to locked state.

For as long as an admin doesn't step in and gives a clear explanation of the rules for sourcing, the article will stay locked. What is also needed is a clear explanation of what happens to those who insist on adding unreferenced original research and to those who remove maintenance templates. Can you please help? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Google_Street_View#UPDATED_ANIMATIONS

--89.110.232.235 (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought I'd said at Talk:Google Street View: I've taken the page off my watchlist. If you want the article changed:
 * Get consensus (even if that means making a proposal and waiting a few days to ensure no one objects); and
 * Explicitly state what change is needed in your request.
 * In the meantime, if you have a dispute with other editors use the usual dispute resolution mechanisms. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 10:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

OK now please read what I wrote because it's got absolutely nothing to do with edit requests nor is there a dispute and the issue is general, not tied to this article that is "now off your watchlist". It's about the lack of basic rules understanding which is the primary reason why the article is locked and for as long as it's not pointed out clearly and directly these users will continue to believe that sources are not needed, and this will be the problem not in this article but in any article they edit.--89.110.232.235 (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've told you twice already, and I'm now telling you a third time - I have taken the article off my watchlist. You know how to make edit requests, you know how to pursue dispute resolution. You have a dispute with other users. You might not realise it, and that's certainly the impression you've given me, but you do. Frankly, given how you've responded to me, both above and at the talkpage, I'm not entirely surprised. Regardless: this isn't my problem. Pursue dispute resolution. Do whatever you want. But I'm not jumping through hoops for you - sorry. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 12:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are an admin. You can't ignore issues you don't like. And the thing is, this is not about an issue that you don't like - it is my request to you regarding your job of explaining the rules to users. Nothing, yes nothing, to do with Google Street View. Just explaining the rules. Is it that difficult?
 * There are users who believe that "seeing for yourself" can replace references and I the ONLY thing I am asking you to do is to explain it to them that per WP:V and WP:NOR external verifiable sources are needed. Nothing more, nothing less.
 * So please forget about the article, forget about me, forget about anything that is particular and focus on the broad issue of rules. You are an admin, and even if it is pain in the ass for you, it is still your duty to explain the rules to users who obviously fail at understanding them. Whether sources should be added or not - it is the simplest you can get with Wikipedia rules, there is absolutely no gray area here, you practically need to write one sentence - "sources should be added"/"sources should not be added". Is it that hard? --89.110.232.235 (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a volunteer - like every other editor here. I can choose what I do - or don't - work on, and who I do - or don't - work with. I have done my best to work with you, and I have done my best to work at Talk:Google Street View. I now choose not to work there, or with you. If you have a problem, I've told you about dispute resolution. You could also try the help desk, but disputes with other editors over rules really falls under dispute resolution. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 22:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am asking you to answer if the sources are needed on Wikipeda or not per rules regardless of users, so it's not a dispute but a rule question that has emerged. Yes, sources should be added or No, sources should not be added. It is that simple and if you don't know the answer to this question then it might be a bigger issue because you really should know that as it is one of the three core Wikipedia rules. So I am not going to open a dispute resolution as there is no dispute, I just want you to come in and answer that simple question on the talk page.--89.110.232.235 (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, there are only so many ways I can say "no". Despite what you claim, there is a dispute: that's why the article was fully protected. It's commendable that you, at least, are participating on the talkpage and it's regrettable that the other parties to the dispute aren't, but the solution is to pursue dispute resolution - not for some random admin to parachute in and issue a dictat. You really do not need me to link to policy - you're more than capable of doing that all by yourself. The article is off my watchlist, and I having nothing more to do with it. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 12:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I think I told you that I did link and explain the rules to them but they just mocked me as a "source-MAN" after I cited the rules. The newest ones include "Dude you opened yourself up to being mocked by saying stupid things. Do you really think someone would sit down and write a document on a minor change to web-based software? "OMGZ GOOGLE TWEAKS STREET VIEW ANIMATIONS" is not a very newsworthy headline is it ?? Go and untether yourself from your computer chair and get a life." and "If we find a source must find another source for sourcing first source. Or what. Big LOL".
 * That is why an admin needs to react and inform them of the rules, they are not mocking me personally (nor this has anything to do with the article on street view so you can continue to keep it off your watchlist forever if you want, this has nothing to do with it), but the rules of Wikipedia about the sourcing of information.--89.110.232.235 (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, admins aren't arbitrators; they not like "moderators" on other websites. Apart from having access to some technical tools (like protecting and deleting pages) admins are just regular editors. This needs to be resolved by the editors involved. If the other editors won't discuss this with you, then it's going to necessitate another form of dispute resolution. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 18:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And I am an editor, it's not my job to enforce Wikipedia rules nor should I be expected to waste my time on running dispute resolutions when a random user comes in with an obvious disregard to the most basic rule of Wikipedia. Admins are there for permanent control when such issues emerge, they are not specific but very broad. If a user believes that sources are not needed on Wikipedia then an admin should step in, not as a moderator with a decision but as an advisor and someone who should be interested in the well-being of Wikipedia and inform him about the three core rules. An admin shouldn't come in with a verdict as you misunderstood my intention, but as an advisor. I myself am not, so to say, a rule, so I cannot be the one to start a dispute resolution. Whomever is in charge of making sure that the rule of sourcing is followed should do it. Who is that person? If it is not an admin, if it is not any of the users, who is responsible for keeping Wikipedia in minimum order?
 * Let's say no one ever starts a dispute resolution on a user who keeps adding completely fictional information to the articles based on his belief that sources are not needed. Do we lock all articles in which this causes obvious disruption? Or do we do something about it instead of hoping that some of the editors would bother with running a lengthy procedure of dispute resolution? Why is the first step already official, dispute resolution, why it cannot be an informal friendly advise?--89.110.232.235 (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is your job to enforce Wikipedia rules - it's every editors' job to act according to, and enforce when necessary, the policies that apply at the articles they edit. Or, put another way, you're either interested in improving the article or you're not. If you are - do it. If you aren't - don't. If you have a dispute with other editors take it to dispute resolution, or move on and find another article to edit. I've told you I have no interest in this article: it's up to you, as an editor with an interest in the article, to work on the article. It's not up to me. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 23:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't up to me to enforce the rules, I can only advise (and get mocked for it). When I tried to enforce them the article got locked because someone thought it is a better option than to block those who remove maintenance templates.
 * Anyway I told you it is not about this article at all, it is not about the street view article, nothing to do with it. The issue at hand is broad, whether Wikipedia requires sources or not.
 * So therefore I am going to ask you a few questions here as you are an admin and I have an issue so you can help me out:
 * 1 - please inform me, according to Wikipedia rules, if sources should be added to the articles or not?
 * 2 - per Wikipedia rules in general, is a simple claim by any user considered a valid source? Are user claims considered good enough to add dubious and unverifiable information to the article?
 * 3 - if I find content without a reference is it a right thing to add template next to it if I consider the information dubious? Can this template be removed by a third party without providing any reference instead?
 * Thank you in advance.--89.110.232.235 (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Should? No. Every claim must be attributable, but they do not have to be attributed.
 * A dubious and unverifable claim is not a simple claim. Every claim must be attributable: unverifable claims should be, ideally, removed, and failing that I'd suggest adding a tag and asking the editor who added the claim to provide a reference.
 * You can either remove the claim entirely, or add a tag. Any editor can remove any tag: if this happens ask them for a source.
 * These are all straightforward; I suspect where it will become less straightforward is when an editor insists on either removing a tag or reinserting unverified claims. At that point you have a content dispute, and need to use the usual dispute resolution processes: try and discuss on the article's talkpage and/or on the editor's talkpage, and if that doesn't work consider other dispute resolution processes - a third opinion, a request for comments from outside editors, etc. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 11:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Borrowing..
Just borrowing your toolbox from your main page..is that okay?Lihaas (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, go for it! Most of mine is "stolen" from other editors, anyway ;-) <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 10:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Name change
Hi, TFOWR. I thought I'd let you know that I have eventually taken your advice and asked for a change of name back to my original. Just got to wait and see what happens now. Jack 1958 (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * About time! All these numbers... if you need a hand at any point I'll be happy to vouch for you or do anything I can. I can block old accounts, which you may want to happen: I blocked recently... <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 11:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Would it be a good idea to block now the accounts (two) I've had between my original and my present one? I'm still not sure how it works. Jack 1958 (talk) 11:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly/probably - I left my old account unblocked for a year or two, and nothing bad happened. It's just really a precaution. I'm in the middle of something right now, but I'll block them in an hour or so unless you decide you'd prefer not to. I need to remember not to block the underlying IP address (if you use a "static IP" I'd end up blocking you as well as your old accounts) but other than that it's easy enough. I'll make sure the block log shows that it's a "security block" and not a "naughty block". <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 11:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be great. Thanks, TFOWR. Jack 1958 (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, again. I've been asked if there is any way I can verify that the Jack forbes account was my original. The thing is, I'm not sure that I can. Any ideas? Jack 1958 (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replied that you may verify in some way that Jack forbes was my original account. Hope I'm not taking too much for granted here. Jack 1958 (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ;-) I don't know if it's enough, but it's the best I can come up with. Several editors - me, Jeanne, Dai, etc - have taken it for granted that you are Jack forbes, across several usernames. You either are Jack forbes, or a damn good imitation! <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 14:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's Jack forbes. He's consistantly come out of retirement, whenever I've entered the E/W/S/NI country talks. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While you're here, GoodDay: I notice you have retirement plans. Do not scramble your password! I can only cope with so many name changing dopplegangers at any given time...! (And get your PC situation fixed sharpish). (And good luck with the new apartment). <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 14:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I won't scramble it & will remember it too, whenever I get back to Wiki-land. Thanks, I hoping alot of gals will visit. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 14:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a million TFOWR. No more name scrambling for me. I'm Jack forbes for ever more. Should User:Jack 1958 be blocked now? Jack forbes (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

comment
Replied here, looks fine. I have had some good meals in the hotel restaurant there and some whiskey in the bar. Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking as I needed to get out of what I have been wasting all my wiki time on for a couple of days, Ed Miliband's ethnic status and atheism. You write well, enjoy yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah - an atheist politician. I'll wager Mr. Milliband must be some sort of damn liberal - it's always lefties who need to have their Godlessness exposed. ;-) You have my sympathies... I've sworn off British Isles for the week (until that MfD finishes) so the most controversial I get is this: . (I declined a speedy for a university and it ended up at AFD two minutes later - the AFD notice edit-conflicted with my first copy-edit... <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 21:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha - it was more complex: he's a Jewish Atheist Marxist. I see! We should surgically remove that field from all infoboxes. Not entirely joking, either... <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 21:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We could create a category for it, WPJAM he he . Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the AFD, I do that, if I request speedy and it is rejected I immediately (when I am on the ball) open an AFD, it is the next logistical step, although if you have said you were gong to work on it, I would have allowed you some days to expand. You are doing well there also. I think you should step back from the task force and allow someone else to step in, you don't want to get admin burn out he he. Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't get me wrong - it's fair enough sending something to AFD if a speedy's declined - I'll cheerfully decline a speedy and prod in the same edit. It just the timing - give me a damn chance! It was the assumption that I "hand't given any reason for the decline" (I had) and that I wouldn't clean up after myself (I would, and I did). If they'd waited, it would likely never have gone to AFD because it'd have been obvious that the one line, unreferenced stub was actually a three paragraph, well referenced stub.
 * But aye, I'm enjoying not being involved at BISE. I suspect the MfD will fail, but it's still probably a good time to take a break. Better now, than getting dragged to ArbCom - which is going to happen sooner or later. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 21:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and WP:JAM: WikiProject Jam bands. Only on Wikipedia... it should be a WikiProject devoted to fruit preserves, at the very least - though Jewish Atheist Marxists do deserve their own WikiProject ;-) <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 21:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The MFD will fail, I think that is only because you have marshalled it so well. Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * - I would like to say that as a support in your RFA I have been massively impressed with your step up to the work and you have my respect and as I see, the respect of many others for your efforts. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The cake is a lie?
I must be getting old... I had to look it up here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorianMutant (talk • contribs)
 * I'm not a teenager, but I play one on TV...! Aye, without your link I wouldn't have known where the meme originated, or what it meant, but I had come across it before. I have a few teenage relatives so I have some awareness of these things. All very silly, all quite funny I suppose, but we can do without the vandalism. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 10:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I understand the meme, I suppose what I should have said at WP:RFPP is: "This will end vandalism forever! (No it won't: the cake is a lie)." ;-) <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 10:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh oh... I seem to remember seeing something about this on ANI before; someone felt that "the cake is a lie" was a BLP issue as it implied perjury or something. I had to point out that the cake really is a lie. Though it sounds like you're talking about it being added to an article as vandalism; this was it mentioned in a discussion on the ANI thread :P  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  10:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It does seem familiar - I wonder if I'm remembering it from ANI? I wonder if there are any BLP issues with me saying I play a X on TV? What about if I say it about another editor?! <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 10:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not familiar with that one.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  10:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, c'mon! The Simpsons reference it quite a lot. Shocking! <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 10:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do they? I guess the reference was lost on me so I ignored it.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  10:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest I think I only understood it once someone here linked to Snowclone. I think it's Lionel Hutz who uses it the most - I'm thinking of one episode where he expands on it: "I'm not a lawyer, but I saw X on TV last night and I think I got the jist of it..." The meme originates (the Snowclone article tells me...) in a US ad from the 1980s, which I obviously never saw. But I see the idiom quite a lot these days. But it's like anything else - once you start looking for it you see it everywhere. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 10:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah I had a look at the page and I see what you mean now, I was just a bit confused by the "I play X on TV" specifically. There's also the futurama reference with the 80s guy: "X? X!? You're not seeing the big picture!"  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  10:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Lip Service talk page
Hey, I've noticed that you reverted the change made by the IP address. You probably can tell by the history that the IP frequently vandalises the talk page. I was wondering if there are any measures we can take to protect the page, or atleast stop the IP (who coincidentally has a randomly assigned IP)? It's getting rather tiring to keep reverting the change. -- Hana ichi
 * Protecting the talkpage is probably the only viable option, and I'd be reluctant to do that (talkpages in general shouldn't be protected - I'd consider it for WP:BLP-violations, etc, but not for garden-variety vandalism and WP:FORUM-cruft). The editor's ISP is BT, which is the UK's largest (I think) ISP, and a range-block wouldn't be possible - there would be way too kuch collateral damage. I think for now just WP:RBI - revert them, I'll block them if they persist, and we ignore them. That should encourage them to focus on their three jobs and 6-figure salary. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 11:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I have the page (and another) watchlisted now, so I'll revert them when they reappear. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 11:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully they'll get bored and quit it fairly soon, usually works that way --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 11:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On a tangent, but Lip Service is set in Glasgow. I'll need to make an effort to watch it (it's on iPlayer! The TV License system works! <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 11:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * They really do showcase Glasgow. Give it a try =) On the sidenote: if you're not prepared for graphic scenes, avoid the last part of the second episode. -- Hana ichi  14:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I started watching episode 1 on BBC's iPlayer earlier, and was (a) surprised to see a "warning! Graphic scenes!" warning - you don't get that with Doctor Who (which is what I normally use the iPlayer for...), and (b) it really is Glasgow! I recognised the Airport (Braehead, rather than Glasgow) and the opening titles have my favourite comic shop ;-) <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 14:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Second episode has even more graphic scenes. I quite enjoyed the EP1 and 2, although the writer seems to have the view that every woman in Glasgow is either a lesbian or secretly a lesbian but pretending to be straight... --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 18:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

president obama is in da house!
TFO you might want to monitor Revolution Muslim the president of america seems to be vandalising it XD --Lerdthenerd (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On it! POTUS seems to have stopped for now, but I have the page watchlisted. Usernames are outside my skill-set, but I think it's OK. "Contributions" are all bad, but you've warned and I'll keep an eye out. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 11:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * thanks, dont know what silly mood the president is in today XD--Lerdthenerd (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Davegp sleeper sock
today some of davegp's eastender named socks were blocked, i think i found a sleeper can you block it as it was missed when bradley was blocked (and possibly fell off albert square pub)--Lerdthenerd (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking into it, but I'm not familiar with Davegp so it may take a while (and I may get you to punt it to the admin who blocked bradley). <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 16:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * he has been blocked now by anemoneprojectors, another sock successfully whacked --Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool! I meant to get back to on this one - I saw that davegp hadn't been blocked, and I got confused. I'll check this out again now - I need to know who the sock master is for stuff like this. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 10:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Twelfth Doctor is the sock master apparently--Lerdthenerd (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not entirely clear. AP and I had a discussion about the subject at User talk:AnemoneProjectors, but personally I think their MOs are different, though they share an obsession with British soap operas.  Daveygp is monotonously prolific, witness Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Daveygp. Favonian (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not entirely clear. AP and I had a discussion about the subject at User talk:AnemoneProjectors, but personally I think their MOs are different, though they share an obsession with British soap operas.  Daveygp is monotonously prolific, witness Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Daveygp. Favonian (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * yeah i saw that, he has got loads of socks more than Jack nove! you can tell Davey is obsessed with soap operas some of the socks are named after the coronation street characters as well, i'm off to the SPI to sift through the evidence--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Tell 220.101 that I'm sorry
Hey, TF, and can you please tell tell 220.101 that I'm sorry for what I did to his user talk page?  Wayne Olajuwon  chat   20:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I will do, though I suspect 220.101 stalks my talk page and will see this - and I'm also certain they'll appreciate your apology. It takes a bit of getting used to - different editors have different rules for their talk pages. I tend not to mind what happens here, for example, but many editors do. Anyway, on 220.101's behalf - apology accepted, and thanks! <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 20:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your welcome!  Wayne Olajuwon  chat   20:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I drop in to have a look at what's happening, though your contribution are probably more informative. Also a way to tell if you are online. And  Wayne , I will get an account if and when I want to, Okay? As for archiving etc, I suggest you always ask before you 'fiddle' with another editors pages, unless there's vandalism or some policy violation. :-) - 220.101 talk\Contribs 01:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, 220.101.  Wayne Olajuwon  chat   17:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user talk page! I couldn't revert the vandalism on Huggle because it had difficulties showing later reversions on my user talk page.  Wayne Olajuwon  chat   00:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Mandelbrot
Just a reflective note, we updated on the 16th, the article was getting 1500 hits an hour. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Blimey - that's good going. The article went from 850 views to nearly 1000x as much by the 17th... I should pay more attention to page views for stuff that gets on ITN. I wonder how few the stubs I decline speedies on get?! (Off to check now... I reckon the only views will be from me...!) <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 22:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Zeka Laplaine - 78 views last Sunday ;-) Better than I thought... <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 22:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I recently take a little more weight to views, what I was commenting on really was for the future. Although it was the weekend and there is no hurry and the unblock request was a bit curt and we did get on it pretty soon .. it is in high traffic situations like that a priority situation. Off2riorob (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Auriculotherapy
Hi TFOWR, (so much for my 'WikiBreak!) >:-( You may want to cast you Admin eye over this article. Mass re-write by a newby without any edit summary. Books in 'references'list includes one written by someone with a great similarity to the username of the editor.ie "Soliman N. Soliman’s Atlas of Auricular Therapy. Rockville, MD: Alternative Medicine Publishers; 2006." the editor is . I was in the process of adding some tags (dubious, clarify etc) when they removed the cleanup templates, so I restored them. I have welcomed the editor, gave them a template about edit summaries, but the 3 edits after that still were had no summary. I then gave them a COI template.(whew!) Hope I haven't bitten them! - 220.101 talk\Contribs 15:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't look right now, I'm also on a wikibreak (enforced, unfortunately - too much real-life in the way...) I'll throw it open to me friendly talk-page stalkers... anyone fancy taking a look? <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 16:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Know the feeling, no worries! It can always be reverted right back if needed!- 220.101 talk\Contribs23:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Gwen Chan has continually edit-warred with me
This user has been trashing the history of the Peter Sutcliffe page. As a sidenote he has been harrasing me on two pages; this one and this one;. He also refactored my comments on the latter page, to attmept to portray me as supporting his side in a user dispute on the petersutcliffe.com website, a website which has been legally trashed. I don't appreciate having my contributions illegitimately slung mud over like that. He is in breach of numerous community rules, and deserves a several hour ban on his account. Thank you.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How can there be a wheel war when neither of you is a wheel? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, I meant edit-warred, sorry.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "He" is a "she", thanks. Gwen Chan 02:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Gwenchan, do not refactor my comments, and there will be no more problems in the future, thanks.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have refactored nothing. Feel free to continue with your complaints and request for me to be blocked. Gwen Chan 02:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm tied up today, and I don't have any familiarity with the article in question. Without diffs I can't really comment on refactoring posts (beyond saying: don't do it), but WP:ANI would probably be a better venue in any event. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 14:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Huge favour!
You're allowed to tell me a hundred times "I told you so...!" I need my sandbox back. Is that possible? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh! Of course it is (I'm fairly sure I said I'd restore it if you needed it back). I'll do it now - two seconds... <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 20:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean The Ezra one? If not, let me know and I'll delete Ezra, and restore the one you actually meant ;-) <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 20:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ...And does this mean you are no longer retired? If so, welcome back! <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 20:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks the like the talkpage has been restored but not the actual subpage - that's still a redlink. Sorry I haven't been back here earlier, things have been a little hectic. Shades of last summer ... On the fence about retiring, but of course forgot to grab some stuff I might need off the page before asking you to delete. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm an idiot - sorry about that. Correct page now restored. I hope the "seasonal" issues work themselves out OK, and that you manage to come down off the fence on the right side, but if not all the best. No worries about deleting/restoring - it's what I'm here for ;-) <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 09:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks got it and appreciate the help. I'm curious - the page had a few views during the period it was deleted. How it that possible? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia must put this website on her ban list.
Wikipedia has not banned the inclusion of this website:, which fabricates untruths about a person apparently still living. The information about the website on [Peter Sutcliffe]'s page is still in the history. For one thing, the link needs to be gotten rid of from the page history. Secondarily, this Sutcliffe website could easily be adde dback by proponents of the theory it espouses- which is a nonsense theory- and I am worried about problems with the website. I will correspond further via your wikipedia email.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've no familiarity with this article. I'd suggest WP:RSN for concerns about the reliability of sources - the regulars there are superb at sorting the wheat from the chaff! <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 14:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

something completely unrelated
Hi TFOWR, just need some outside sysop input here - specifically User:Cybermud has opened a SSPI against a user whom he now admits probably isn't a sockpuppeteer. When I gave an outside view (not as an admin) he responded with a series of ad hominem remarks. The situation is beyond tolerable levels of incivility and assumption of bad faith, and his comments are wildly off topic For clarity I did have dealings with this user before where he complained that my warning to an IP who was forumizing was inappropriate-- Cailil  talk 13:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Cailil. I'm tied up today - too much real-life stuff keeping me away. I'll take a look Monday. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 14:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem TFOWR - but this needs somebody else to step soon. The WP:SPI clerks seem to be taking a long weekend ;)-- Cailil  talk 22:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A clerk at a BISE-related SPI recently commented that it was tl;dr - I suspect lengthy SPIs put them off! In this case you and Cybermud seem to have swapped roles with HighKing and BritishWatcher ;-)
 * Seriously, though: my advice would be to drop it at SPI, continue at NPOVN (if relevant - I've only skimmed SPI so far, and saw NPOVN mentioned), and I'll follow up with Cybermud at their talkpage. Once I've restored my caffeine/blood ratio to normal levels.
 * Regarding the SPI, I suspect that "SPI is not a fishing expedition" will apply at this point: with only Sonicyouth86 listed now aren't two accounts to compare, so SPI isn't relevant - that may, too, be why the clerks aren't stepping in. You'll probably know as well as I do that SPI volunteers - clerks, checkusers - have a hands off, terse approach - they'll avoid saying anything unless they have to, until they have to, and when they do speak it'll be to provide a bare minimum of information. Right now it looks like there's no reason for them to step in - there's just one account listed, they have a perfect excuse (tl;dr) to stay away, and there's little they could do anyway.
 * Anyway - I'll drop by Cybermud's talkpage in a wee while and try and ratchet things down. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 09:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning Could you remove the part about the WP:GFDL since it's no longer compatible with Wikipedia and since WP:CC-BY-SA supersedes it. Regards, — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм  •  Champagne?  • 7:41pm •  08:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 'fraid not - I don't know the first thing about copyright ;-) The talkpage will have copyright-clued up folk watchlisting it: stick a tag on it. Alternatively,  would probably do it, or at least would vouch for the edit. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 10:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Righto I stuck edit protected on the talk page. Cheers TFOWR. — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм  •  Champagne?  • 10:21am •  23:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Concerned
Editor just yesterday removed an entire article and redirected it, without discussion or any attempt to merge it. Just doesn't seem right. Granted the article needs work and is pretty much unsouced, but I know it is important to the people of my own and surrounding communities. I am willing to merge the two articles, rather than lose what some have put a lot of work into. Grayshi is not even an admin and it seems to me to be way beyond bold and presumptuous. I can undo it but I wanted your opinion first. The article is, well, the diff is Southern California Chinatowns because Grayshi just unilaterally zapped the whole thing and redirected it. I am writing you also because I am feeling very red-headed about it! ;-)  Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a perfectly legitimate thing for a non-administrator to do. We encourage exactly this sort of boldness.  Administrators aren't funnels through which every single content decision has to be poured.  Content decisions are made by the editor community at large, of which administrators are a sub-set.  What isn't legitimate is to do the same thing twice, with no discussion on Talk:Southern California Chinatowns or elsewhere.  You should remind Grayshi of Bold, revert, discuss and Edit war.  This was boldness; this was the reversion to the status quo ante; but discussion is lacking. Another thing that administrators are not is police.  Neither "administrator" nor "sysop" accurately describe what we are.  (I've used "trusty" before now, to make the point that we're the same as everyone else, except trusted with some rather more dangerous tools.)  We're the charity shop volunteers with the abilities to show people out of the shop door onto the street, to throw items in the bin, to retrieve them from the same, to padlock various things so that normal volunteers cannot change them, and to rapidly mop up various spillages in aisle 27.  We're only middle-men inasmuch as every editor is a middle-man.  It's the responsibility of everyone in the editor community to apply peer pressure to editors whose actions are suboptimal.  Editing policy is one of our most-overlooked official policies.  The peer pressure in this case would be you and Ucla90024 going to User talk:Grayshi, reminding xem of the BRD cycle, and asking why the "D" part appears to be missing.  Talking to other editors &mdash; in this case directly &mdash; is the first step in any dispute resolution.  You should also sort out the problem by addressing the underlying issue in dispute.  Find out which parts of the article Fong1994 supports, and cross-link the prose to the citation.  Find supporting sources for the other parts of the article.  Mercilessly apply the sword of verifiability.  Uncle G (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi DocOfSoc, how's it going? I'm catching up with things now but in the interim I'm glad to see you've got some excellent advice from Uncle G. Uncle G's quite right - changing an article into a redirect is a perfect example of being WP:BOLD. There is, of course, nothing to stop you reverting the change to a redirect. Beyond that I'd recommend both of you discussing any further changes. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 09:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking for wisdom...or experience...
Hi TFOWR, hope you don't mind me coming here and asking a question ~ you're a fairly new admin, so you probably remember what it's like not to be one of the all-knowing, and for quite a long time i've noticed you and figured your head was on straight. I was looking through a conflict i was, regrettably, involved in about a year ago, and i notice that the talk page of the article has been archived, maybe to hide the disagreements that happened; i have no issue with that. What does surprise me, however, is that the page was edited at some point prior to being archived, so that it no longer is a correct record of what happened. To be specific, i can easily point to at least one of my comments that was completely removed here, and that isn't the only pruning done. My question is, do i ignore this? reinsert the missing comments silently? reinsert them and add a note at the beginning of the archive? note that the archive is incomplete at its top? I don't know, so i turn for your opinion. On a completely irrelevant side note, have you changed your sig recently? It's seemed to be slightly more muted; i preferred the previous edition. Thanks, and Cheers, LindsayHi 18:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Lindsay, no worries. This does look somewhat "shady" to me. I'll have a closer look and a think about it and comment further later today. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 09:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

BISE
Hi TFOWR, I've added the template and "Arguments For/Against" sections to Storm Warning (novel) - hope that's OK, not sure if the procedure is to wait for you to add the sections or not. Don't think there's any harm in me adding it. You may also want to check out the [latest contribution from Triton Rocker] if you get a chance. --HighKing (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've not looked at BISE, but I (or rather my alternate account) saw that the TR issue had ended up on AN/ANI? I need to do some catching up today, I'll comment further once my clue-levels are restored. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 09:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * TR was blocked for a year. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've caught up enough to see a one year block. Blimey, I've been trying to suggest for a while that the admins previously monitoring BISE might not be the evil, rouge admins that TR et al apparently believed we were, and that outside admins might take an even tougher line. Well, guess what. Outside admins took an even tougher line. What's the betting that this, too, gets challenged ad nauseum at AN and ANI, and it, too, gets upheld each time? <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 10:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion
Some more block evasion for your attention, if you have time to break out the cinder blocks. They left a note on User:Nakon's talk page, asking why they'd been blocked. Not sure if it's worth overlooking this one since it's a single edit and not attempting to hide their identity, but their account was apparently blocked as a VOA, so that's a fairly good indication of the user's intention, I'd imagine.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  21:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * . Given there's only one edit from the IP I'd be inclined to leave it (might be dynamic, I wouldn't want to block an innocent IP, etc). seems to be about, so they can pick up any blocking if they feel it's warranted. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 09:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I thought it might be worth overlooking a single edit of that nature but thought I'd point it out just in case.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  10:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You got mail
Hi TFOWR, just sent you an email. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've emailed you, but I guess you're as up-to-date now as the email ;-) One other thing - I posted at WP:AN, just in case I missed something. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 14:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The thread
Your actions were fine (you missed deleting the userpage red redirect) but it was counter-intuitive to post about it to AN (increases visibility of their real name on a widely watched noticeboard), so I removed the thread. Best, – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 14:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, I was really looking for some sanity-checking, and I trust you to sanity-check my actions and, in this case, sanitise them too ;-) <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 14:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Think we're all sorted now =) – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 15:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandal block request.
Hellow again. BTW, this request is that of an entirely different banana for the moment. The user on has been inserting titles of tokusatsu and anime shows without any source to several Philippine TV program lists. This guy was previously blocked for 31 hours, but the guy was back to his old tricks after the block expired. BTW, I can't him to WP:AIV because his last edit is three hours ago, but I know he will strike again later in a few hours time. Thank you. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 20:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * AIV might consider it, as it's clearly the same editor behind the IP. That said, I'm going to hold off for now and keep an eye out for edits over the next few hours (their editing times seem to be from about 01:00 UTC to 18:00 UTC). If I catch 'em in the act I'll block 'em. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 20:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, WP:AIV is backlogged right now. This is why I am hesitant to put a repost on there. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 20:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, looks like the bot's on strike ;-) It looks like there's only one outstanding, the others have either been referred to SPI or declined. Anyway, I'm on strike - it's too late in the day for me to start being a hard-working admin ;-) <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 21:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

possible banned user violating their ban
was banned over the weekend for persistant vandalism after added unsourced content to list of simpsons episodes, yesterday an IP called  editted the same page putting in the same unsourced content, I checked both user contributions and they are both editting TV related article so I suspect our banned user is back, on the other hand though the IPs edits are to a lot of disney articles I know this is a big guess/accusation but I fear the IP could even be banned user Bambifan!! the amount of disney articles is a big but probably not enough to prove, althou all the edits look troublesome, they're adding unsourced cartoons/films to the articles but no one seems to have reverted them yet --Lerdthenerd (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at this now (about to look at the IP), but I'm in no way a Bambifan expert so may have to punt that part to SPI or ANI. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 07:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not seeing a connection between The guy who... and the IP, to be honest. The only overlap is to List of The Simpsons episodes. The guy who..., while the IP . I don't really have enough data on The guy who... to call it - it wouldn't completely surprise me if the two turned out to be the same - any autoblock on The guy who... wouldn't necessarily affect the IP (IP could be dynamic) but equally with just one article in common, and the edits to that article not being directly equivalent, it's far to tough to say definitively that they're the same. The only thing I can recommend is keeping an eye on the IP. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 07:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * ok I'll watch them--Lerdthenerd (talk) 08:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

BISE cleanup.
Conkers and Aesculus could probably be archived with resolved cases.

The polls, Categories, States of Alderney, and the deletion discussion could also be archived, somewhere... They weren't exactly cases. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh, I've been putting BISE off since the MfD concluded. I'll aim to take a look at archiving over the next few days. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 11:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed! You've also made your name unclickable, for some strange reason. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's my talkpage ;-) Try it on yours - the second part of your signature will also be unclickable. My sig works normally everywhere but here! <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 14:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The second part of mine redirect to the "#top" of my talkpage, but then again, it's not a custom signature! What happened to the in your face red anyway, it's all dull now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I changed the red as the default "red" was a bit too bright. I have a theory that as time goes by the chance of me returning to the default signature steadily increases... though I did also have a theory that userboxes were evil...! <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 16:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

when you get a chance
. I'd like a quick outside view on the behaviour here (appaently this is relevant also). Mick's had full and fair warning and decided to ignore it, also LemonMonday is back. Just wanted a sanity check in case I am wrong here-- Cailil  talk 18:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Stages: Three Days in Mexico
Hey TFOWR! I made a mistake with a speedy deletion request for this article, but my reason for it was that it doesn't meet notability guidelines. Xwomanizerx (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, it happens! I'd suggest a WP:PROD or WP:AFD, as on the face of it it seems to have enough significance/importance to survive speedy deletion (and I can't think of a speedy criteria that would apply, anyway - A9 comes closest, but this isn't a musical recording and the "Britney" connection would probably rule A9 out anyway). <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 00:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Rangoon11's filing of Sockpuppet investigations/Codf1977 and his other actions yesterday.
Hi,

I was a little surprised to see posted to my talk page, however not surprised by who posted it. I know that I and Rangoon11 have "history" - however can you have a look at his actions yesterday with a couple of new editors and see if there is anything untoward ?

After what looks to have started as a content dispute over Office locations with one editor and at KCL with another  ended with a SPI on me and Vharris44 blocked for harassment.

On Tuesday, it looks like vharris44 had an issue with the Office location section at DLA Piper, after a revert or two this was discussed in the talk page. A number of other editors would seem to have agreed there were problems with the section and the disucssion was progressing.

During the discussion, Rangoon11 posted a of other articles with a similar Office location sections.

Yesterday vharris44 then made edits to the Office Location sections of the articles listed by Rangoon11 (all bar one K&L Gates), in the order that they are listed. Of the list only two (Baker & McKenzie and Linklaters) show edits by Rangoon11 prior to Vharris44, the rest (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Jones Day, Gide Loyrette Nouel, Linklaters and Greenberg Traurig) Vharris44 edited prior to Rangoon11 (this is important as vharris44's block was for harassment). There then followed a revert by Rangoon11 on Linklaters follwed by a revert by Vharris on a series of revert edits by Rangoon11 on King's College London. There then followed a series of revert and counter reverts and talk page postings by both editors to various locations.

Prior to Vharris44's KCL revert, Derekspage had been making a number of edits to KCL, which Rangoon11 then reverted.

I believe then Rangoon11 tried to game the system, he posted to WP:ANI post where he concludes that Vharris44, Derekspage are one in the same and they are also me and that he was "not sure what to do about it.", of cause he knew exactly what to do as he himself had been through the same processes less than three weeks ago. I suspect he was hopeful that another editor would file the SPI, instead Vharris44 got blocked for harassment, which I am finding hard to see (unless there are some deleted edits which I can't see in history) given the fact that it was Rangoon11 that followed Vharris44 to most of the articles and not the other way around.

Having waited some three hours after being pointed in the direction of SPI, when it became clear that none of the other editors were going to file a SPI, Rangoon11, filed one; which not surprisingly, came back as "not related". I believe that this was a bad faith tit-for-tat filing done in revenge for mine on him (I have posted to the SPI to that effect).

I would welcome your comments and/or suggestions on any action or way forward following this. Codf1977 (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look into it. I had seen the SPI and assumed it was nonsense, so it wasn't a surprise when it came back negative. Right now my big worry is around VHarris - the block and subsequent unblock reviews were around harassment and socking, and it sounds as if harassment may be, and socking is, incorrect. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 10:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I've worked out the timeline (below). Given the timing of Rangoon11's "list of offices" post, and the subsequent edits and reverts by both editors, I wouldn't necessarily quibble with a block for harassment, though an indef block seems a little harsh for a newbie editor (assuming that VHarris44 is a newbie editor). It seems to me that Rangoon11 made the "other crap exists" argument to justify the list of DLA Piper offices. I take no view on whether the list is or isn't encyclopaedic (though I will comment that I hate, despise, and wish to kill-by-fire flags used for decoration like this...!) VHarris44 then took that list and attempted to address what they saw as a wider problem. Rangoon11 reverted them. In most cases (the exception being Linklaters) VHarris44 edited the article before Rangoon11. The case for harassment then hinges on whether VHarris44 working through Rangoon11's list constitutes harassment. I can see a case for it being a good-faith attempt to fix issues that VHarris44 had previously been unaware existed. I can also see a case for it being a bad-faith attempt to justify a change to DLA Piper. I'm going to run this past the blocking admin, as it doesn't seem to quite clear-cut enough to justify an indef block. I'm also concerned at the unblock reviews: there was a justifiable suspicion of socking at the time of the reviews; however, this subsequently turned out - so far as I can see - to be not the case. There may, obviously, be factors here that I've missed - I've considered (and rejected, obviously) whether VHarris44 is a sock of you or Derekspage; I have not, however, looked at IP editors or any registered editors apart from you and the three you mentioned here. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 11:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and VHarris44 has no deleted contribs. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 12:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the time and effort looking into this. You should probably be aware that Rangoon11 has posted to ANI concerning my post here - it is at WP:ANI. Codf1977 (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, seen it. Tangentially related, but to take a look at VHarris44's block. I wouldn't say it's a "bad block" by any stretch, but I do think it's worth examining in more detail, based on the issues you've raised. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 12:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

 * Rangoon11: first edit @  ✅
 * Rangoon11: edit @
 * VHarris44: revert @
 * Rangoon11: list of offices @ 
 * VHarris44: first edit @ ✅
 * Rangoon11: first edit/revert @
 * VHarris44: first edit @ ✅
 * Rangoon11: first edit/revert @
 * VHarris44: first edit @ ✅
 * Rangoon11: first edit/revert @
 * Rangoon11: first edit @  ✅
 * VHarris44: edit @
 * Rangoon11: revert @
 * VHarris44: first edit @ ✅
 * Rangoon11: first edit/revert @
 * Rangoon11: first edit @  ✅
 * VHarris44: first edit @ 
 * Rangoon11: first edit @  ✅
 * VHarris44: first edit @ 
 * VHarris44: first edit @ ✅
 * Rangoon11: first edit/revert @
 * Rangoon11: first edit @  ✅
 * VHarris44: first edit @ 
 * Rangoon11: first edit @  ✅
 * VHarris44: first edit @ 
 * Rangoon11: first edit @  ✅
 * VHarris44: first edit @ 

Matty or Mark, what is the difference?
BigMatty93 and MarkUTR. As quite rightly you will not be convinced they are the same editor, I think a stern warning from someone like yourself over that particular change might be in order? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * . You could probably do stuff like this yourself ;-) Just keep it WP:AGFy, and explain things clearly. Admins only really need to step in if advice gets ignored and editing becomes problematic. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 17:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. People tend to ignore me though.. O Fenian (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You and me both! (Though I'll admit it did seem to work in this case...) It does mean when you take it to an admin or AIV (etc) that the admin will be more inclined to reach straight for the mop. I haven't checked - there may already be one - but there should maybe be an edit notice at Republic of Ireland, explaining this situation. Not that editors necessarily pay any notice to edit notices, either - I seem to miss them all the time... <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 18:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind. You have each other. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick request
Since I know you are here. Semi-protect The Troubles please, it is taking a battering from various IPs. O Fenian (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Sorry I missed this earlier, I was getting a lot of orange-bar madness from an IP (hence the semi-protection right now...) <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 20:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. It seems to have stopped now anyway, but that might just be a temporary respite. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

84.1.210.17
You beat me in removing it by a second, can you block the editor as typical trolling. Thanks Secret account 20:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. I was inclined to leave it, but I spotted Yworo's post on their talkpage and from that their gross refactoring. That, with the trolling, tipped the balance... <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 20:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

BISE opposers
Why can't those editors (who oppose BISE) begin an RfC? The "it's everybodies fault, but ours" cry, is becoming lame. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

TR needs someone to transfer his 'side of the story' to ANI. Do ya know how to do it? GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw it earlier - one thing that leapt out was he had a whole raft of separate sections, and I suspect anyone considering it would think either (a) "that's way too much, and theres some content-dispute stuff in there that doesn't belong at ANI anyway", or (b) "what needs to be copied over to ANI and what needs to be left?"
 * I suspect I'm to blame for the content-dispute stuff - I mentioned that TR's claim re: BskyB wasn't as straightforward as TR was making out, and now TR wants to retort. TR isn't telling me anything I don't know (and haven't already said at ANI), and isn't addressing the underlying point: that the issue isn't as simple as TR claimed. I'm buggered if I'm copying it all to ANI or to BISE - that would be editing-by-proxy (and TR should be aware of that - LevenBoy's been blocked for that nonsense before now).
 * You could maybe get TR to sort out the wheat from the chaff - work out which parts address their block, and which parts are comments on content or other editors - and then copy it to ANI for TR? If TR restricts themselves to on-topic comments about their block, and not content-disupte cruft or comments on Bjmullan (or any other editor), I'd be happy to copy it across. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 14:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've advised him, to remove his comments on editors. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

User Needs Help Vanishing.
Hello, I am a friend of a user you blocked recently named studiodan. He is unable to contact you, so he asked if I could. He would like to use WP:RTV by changing his username to something random for privacy reasons. He cannot change his username because he is blocked, so I’m checking if you might be of assistance. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.58.157 (talk) 10:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly. Studiodan will need to email me to confirm, however. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 10:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for input
Hi. I would appreciate your input on http://admintools.wikia.com/wiki/Admin_Tools_Wiki:Requests_for_rights/Heymid - thanks! —  Jeff G. ツ  14:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I should point out that the above message is semi-spam; see [ this link] . He probably chose the users based on my block log and talk page, so not all users are related (like Kww). He seems to be uncertain as to whether to grant me admin privileges at the Admin Tools Wiki (a test wiki for admin tools) or not. Hey  Mid  (contributions) 15:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I asked everyone who's changed your rights on this wiki, plus your mentor, for input based on you having put forth your experience on this wiki as your sole qualification for adminship on that wiki. I did so because I was uncertain and those people have experience with your behavior as a user here and would be in a good position to evaluate it.  Now that I have seen your reaction above (implying that I am a spammer), plus this input from Kww, I don't think you're ready.    —  Jeff G.  ツ  16:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Hey  Mid  (contributions) 16:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Got it. OK, Jeff G., I've no experience of the Admin Tools Wiki, but it sounds like your decision is sound. Heymid, I've got your email (from yesterday), I've not replied yet but will when I have some time. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 16:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand why a higher level of competence is required at the ATW (Admin Tools Wiki). I just wanted to experiment the admin tools to see how the interface would be if I was an admin here. However, it is a Wikia (don't really know what's the difference). I don't know, maybe I should go to the prototype Wiki and try to get them there. I don't know, maybe administration is not for me (I've always dreamed about having the admin tools), as my attempts to get into those areas have so far really failed and just caused unnecessary messages at others' talk pages. Hey Mid  (contributions) 14:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Really excellent
That was a really excellent response at TR's Talk Page. Holding a mirror up is hard for everyone. --HighKing (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh wad some power the giftie gie us
 * To see ourselves as others see us!

Robert Burns

Jack forbes (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Recently most of the "admin" stuff I've been doing is via email; I've just sent an editor - not involved with BISE - an email in which I discuss, among other things, my views on Wikipedia and anarchy. One of these days I really need to write an essay: "Wikipedia is anarchy"... it'll include Burns:

For a' that, an' a' that, It's coming yet for a' that, That Man to Man, the world o'er, Shall brothers be for a' that.
 * Reason I mention this is: nearly everything we do on Wikipedia is iterative and done through consensus. We're not done yet, but it's coming yet (fir aa that). We don't yet treat each other as equals (but it's coming yet, fir aa that). It's far too easy to look at other editors as our opponents—we've been conditioned into that through society, videogames, TV, war—but it's coming yet, and we're getting there—slowly!—and if we keep at it we'll make progress. Gradually, bit-by-bit, we're moving forward and BISE participants are opening up to the idea that we'll all in it together. Lord knows we're not there yet. DuncanHill's recent posts show there are still areas where we have to make progress, and there are plenty more. But it's coming yet, fir aa that. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 12:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

TR appeal
at WP:AN. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, seen it, ta. I'm trying to find a way to support TR, but try as I might I can't find any way, nor much inclination to bother. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 15:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know exactly what you mean. I'm hoping I'll be pleasantly surprised rather than disappointed...I call it: "positive thinking...sort of". :P Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Labour Party
Is it time for a permanent protect or at the least the review procedure on Labour Party?-- Snowded TALK  19:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about RfCs a lot recently, and I thought an RfC might be a useful first step - it's not just "genres" ("Democratic socialism" etc) but position - I've seen "Centre-left" changed to "Centre-right" recently. This would give us a good basis to revert with confidence, and might draw out some sources... at the very least it would prove there was a clear consensus, and I'd be far happier protecting for longer than the few days I've been doing up 'til now. But aye, this constant genre-changing is annoying. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 22:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The party or the article? O Fenian (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why an RfC? Clear consensus on the talk page and a series of IP editors who edit war.  Clear case for protection -- Snowded  TALK  23:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Short-term protection is easy to justify on the basis of the talkpage (and, if I remember rightly, an ANI discussion). But this has been going on for bloody ages, and I'd like to look at protecting it on a longer-term basis - and I wouldn't be comfortable doing that without clear consensus for it. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 00:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandal alert
I know you're out right now, but the Indonesian vandal has struck again, using. Same MO. And several of the pages he vandalized had their protection expired days ago. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 20:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat
Hi TFOWR; I believe requires a block pending withdrawal of the legal threat; I've warned the user on their talk page (and I'm uncertain as to the validity of the claim, the help desk thread seems to give a good case for why the image is public domain), but either way per WP:NLT it's probably best to block the user until they withdraw the legal threat and agree to discuss the issue instead. If you'd like to do the honours, if you're not beaten to it by someone else ;) thanks.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  00:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I just noticed your note saying you'll be dropping by sporadically, which I missed before because I am as well ;) it'll probably be resolved by the time you see this in that case, but thanks anyway.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  00:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

LM's BISE RFC
I've made a note at this vis-a-vis a number of issue but I'm asking for it to have an eye kept on it. Per this LM should be allowed raise an appropriate RFC but needs to do so without vilating WP:POINT and WP:DE. He's had notice on the issues with the current one if it's not fixed I'm asking for a review of his unblock (I'm notifying Jehochman and Sarek of Vulcan also)-- Cailil  talk 15:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Benny Hill
A couple weeks ago you reverted an anon IP edit to Benny Hill labelling it good faith. I'd say it's now crossed the line to vandalism as the same IP has replaced it with editorial comment ("I'll keep reposting it") right in the article space (this edit was added today). I have deleted it again. You may wish to keep an eye on the article and perhaps might want to consider protecting it against unregistered edits if the IP persists on adding the unsourced and NN trivia that two stations considered Hill funnier than Python. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (tps)I left the IP a note suggesting he move to discussion and resist replacing the uncited opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

A cornucopia of sanctions
I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't sanctions and edit restrictions that I've missed. This is your area, I believe. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

IP Vandal
Please just block this IP. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You should better report editors at the related report page for whatever policies you think they have violated. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, alright. What board would that be? And it is my opinion it's vandalism, and they have been warned for it multiple times (see their talk). Sorry Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I reported him here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism - feel free to comment if you feel its needed, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Dealt with already. Thanks, I'll try to remember that board! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Blocked six months by Administrator JamesBWatson, that'll slow him down. As TFOWR is missing in action or rather busy in real life, this is perhaps presently not a rapid response location, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was actually in e-mail contact with TFOWR today. Regarding Wikipedia I don't know, but it may be the "overwhelmed with real-life issues" part that is the problem right now. Hey  Mid  (contributions) 20:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I hope he's ok. Real life is the way to go. Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

footie


New Zealand and Scotland rugby Scottish rugby Good luck to you and who ever you are supporting TFOWR. Off2riorob (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Elan (IIT Hyderabad) for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Elan (IIT Hyderabad), which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Elan (IIT Hyderabad) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism of Template:User wikipedia/rollback
I have just reverted vandalism at this template following your unprotect, an IP editor changed 'Rollback' to 'Trollback' affecting every rollback userbox on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pol430 (talk • contribs)
 * I've re-protected it. TFOWR, I hope you don't mind (feel free to revert or ask me to revert myself). Hope RL is going better for you than it is for me. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Schools
Hi TFOWR. This is a generic message so please bear with  me if you  are already  aware of the situation. In early  September changes were made to  an infobox template that  affected the display of hundreds of school crests/logos in  the UK schools infobox. This is now being taken care of and you  may  find the discussions on  this page interesting: Template talk:Infobox UK school,  do  however leave a message here or here if you  come across any  that  are still  not displaying  correctly. If you are still  actively  interested in schools and would like to  help  out on  school pages and school  templates, you  may  wish  to  consider joining  the WP:WPSCHOOLS project where you  can also  stay  abreast  of developments by  adding  its talk  page to  your watchlist. Happy editing! --Kudpung (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Around ;-)
I see you are around. Just wanted to say I hope your RL issues are improving and that you are much missed! It is holiday time here in the colonies so I extend a Happy Thanksgiving to you because I am thankful to have found you. As Crohnie says: Be well! and Be Joy full ;-)  Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

BISE question
As the admin I see bringing up WP:BISE issues most often, I thought I'd ask you first. Is BISE specifically for only the term "British Isles," or does it refer to other discussions that involve the appropriate names for the constituent parts of the UK? I ask because I was looking at Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests, and noticed a request on Guy Fawkes. The request is at Talk:Guy Fawkes. Specifically, the editor asks to change the use of the word England to Great Britain. Does this constitute a change which is supposed to go before BISE? If so, is going to BISE mandatory, or is it only done when there is an intractable disagreement on an article? Thanks for the assistance. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not TFOWR, but BISE is just for British Isles and variations. As to your other question, it has been made mandatory. Looked at Guy Fawkes, changing to Great Britain would be detrimental in my opinion, especially as I doubt Scotland celebrated much english before 1707. Perhaps add somewhere that celebrations expanded to the whole of Great Britain (also, check for Northern Ireland). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well where the hell is TFOWR? Dude: "wikibreak" is over!  You are needed here, and your RL is far more important... but you're needed here.  It's been 3 weeks - end the silence, please :>  Jus' sayin'...  Doc   talk  10:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, Chipmunkdavis--I missed that TFOWR's on wikibreak. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

my new siggy test
hello this is my new signiture how's it look? -- Lerd the nerd wiki defender 17:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It now links to my pages now-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  17:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

When Adam Delved &c.
Thank you for your reply to my query, which can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive_33. Thank you for recommending the John Ball article, but I would be much obliged if you could find the article for which I first asked. Unfortunately I can't remember the title of the page. Thanks! SRESQ (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I can only suggest you ask at the help desk as TFOWR hasn't edited for five weeks you stand a better chance of an answer there. Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Es icon
Ciao! You unprotected template:es, but recently it was badly vandalized... Can you re-protect it? --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please request Admin actions at the related pages, TFOWR is on a break. Ask at WP:RFPP - thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a note...
to let you know there's a note on my user page that explains nothing at all if you're interested.

You have the dubious honour of being included in the list of people who I felt may be vaguely interested in the existence of this non-explanation.

To be removed from that list just reply to this message with the word "wtf" in the title of your response.

Anyway, whatever you think, I'm a pom living in Australia, and I'm a cricket fan - so trust me - not all is bad right now :)

Begoon &#149; talk 18:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As can be seen in his edit- and talk page notice, TFOWR is currently "overwhelmed with real-life issues", so if you want TFOWR's attention, I suggest you e-mail him instead; the last time I did it, he replied. I'm not sure whether TFOWR is watching his talk page during his wiki-break. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 19:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

I'll leave it here, since it's only really about here - and hope he's having luck with his real life. Mine's not been real good, but it's improving, so hopefully that's a good omen. Begoon &#149; talk 19:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry christmas!
merry christmas! -- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  16:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Card


Merry Christmas At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)





Me too!
Merry Christmas and  A Happy New Year to TFOWR 'Real' lifes'a bitch ain't she? Hope to see you back soon! - 220.101 talk\Contribs 17:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

New Manchester
Hi, You deleted an article with this title in July 2010. I have no idea what state the article was in but I would like to recreate it in connection with some colliery articles I am writing. (It was a pit village) I had made a start in my sandbox when I realised it had been deleted, []. I can provide refs and expand what I have started. What do you think? --J3Mrs (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Shimano Nexus
Hi, I'd like to write about internally geared hubs, and Shimano Nexus, whose article was previously deleted, is a relevant series of such products. This series represented a significant innovation back in the days of its introduction, with amongst others advanced 7 and 8 speed epicyclical hubs. Could you please undo the deletion? kind regards, Keanu (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I took care of it. :-) Regards  So Why  15:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors
I saw you have been really active lately and I clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

CAT:AOTR
I see you are in CAT:AOTR, but it appears that you may be inadvertantly listed three times. That may be because there are some older pages (User:TFOWR/Old userpage? ) or subpages (User:TFOWR/Userboxes/Mop? ) that have it. Let me know if your dup was intentional. I let folk know when I spot it because some folk use the number of category entries to count the number of admins actually so committed. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Added template for SuggestBot
Hi,

Thanks for being one of SuggestBot's users! I hope you have found the bot's suggestions useful.

We are in the process of switching from our previous list-based signup process to using templates and userboxes, and I have therefore added the appropriate template to your user talk page. You should receive the first set of suggestions within a day, and since we'll be automating SuggestBot you will from then on continue to receive them regularly at the desired frequency.

We now also have a userbox that you can use to let others know you're using SuggestBot, and if you don't want to clutter your user talk page the bot can post to a sub-page in your userspace. More information about the userbox and usage of the template is available on User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly.

If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch with me on my user talk page. Thanks again, Nettrom (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

BISE
Hi TFOWR, hope you are well. It looks to me as if you backed off involvement in BISE a while back and as a result it slightly stagnated as a process. At least one editor that I know of is now once more busy deleting BI mentions and states that he regards the process as over. Do you feel the sanctions policy is still in place? On the actual project page, some were tasked with doing a review but this appears not to have progressed. I think there's a tendancy to regard it as a "win" if one side or other takes on the task and does nothing, thereby giving the other side apparent scope. Any thoughts? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps try Cailil. The last time TFOWR posted on WP was Nov 2010.  --HighKing (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. Good luck with whatever you are up to TFOWR! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And to answer the question, the sanctions regime is still in place. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Debt trap
You deleted the "debt trap" article. Pls do not delete it again as it is ever more relevant with current macroeconomic issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deazcue (talk • contribs) 18:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Carva
Hi. I believe that the article on Carva should be removed based on your concern that it has no references or sources. Thank you. Jedoeller (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Last Hope
Hey, I have been trying to reach the guys who blocked the Nimbuzz page for a year now, and I got no reply. I see you have unblocked a lot of pages so maybe you can help me out with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nimbuzz&action=edit

Not sure where to go and who to contact, when I hit the wall of "Admin Silence".

If you could unblock it, I would much appreciate it. If not please let me know what to do at least.

Cheers,

Andi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.79.224.62 (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, TFOWR hasn't been on since November. You might want to try someone else.  Nolelover  It's almost football season!  16:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision deletion request
Please delete all edits made under my IP address. I do not feel comfortable publishing my IP address to the world. It was made visible accidentally, when I saved edits under the mistaken assumption that I was already logged in.--67.243.48.39 (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Handled by the oversight team. In general, posting such requests on-wiki is like to draw attention that you wish to avoid, so you should request suppression by e-mail (see WP:Requests for suppression). Cheers, Amalthea  15:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

User: Lurulu
It looks as though he has recreated 'Altan concert tours' again.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  16:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)