User talk:Tbsdy lives/Archive 3

Midland Metro/Alan Cox
Yes "Alan Cox" == AlanCox, that one but I don't advertise the fact, in part because the last thing I want is someone deciding that any Linux related edit I make must be right... 81.2.110.250 (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 19:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Just want to let you know that you've been mentioned at ANI, as if you need any more drama. —DoRD (?) (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Goodness. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 19:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Stimulus and recovery
Hi Tbsdy, there is troubling remarks and such, you can of course continue but sometimes two worlds collide, the discussion appears to have totally stalled and I would suggest you let it go, there has probably been small infractions but it looks like its going nowhere fast right now, take him off your watchlist, I could tell you a few stories about some of my fallouts, but mostly I was able to communicate with them after some time, it's not such a big deal, say something like, ok, lets agree to disagree and that is ok and later we can hopefully work this out, then you are free to forget about it, which is good for you. Please take my comments as very friendly suggestions as that is all they are, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Images
Insulting images need to stop, now. Don't call other editors baboons. You should certainly know better. Hipocrite (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you. :) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No probs... but what for? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for some extra button pushing you did a week ago. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, no probs :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Recall
Your userpage states you are open to recall. What is the process that you use? I should note that I have not yet determined if I will avail myself of this avenue, merely that I'd like to know what it is you require. Hipocrite (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I striked that out. You are harassing me now. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to harass you. I have removed you from the category that you overlooked. Hipocrite (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It implies that you are about to take me to recall. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was. Recall is not harassment. Harassment would be if I followed you around with the intent of making your life worse. I'm not doing that. Hipocrite (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A number of your comments have felt a bit threatening, your comment above is sufficient for me to believe that you are not in any way threatening me. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Without going into the details of Hipocrite's other comments, I would point out that it's not unreasonable to ask an admin about their recall standards, especially if they just recently added themselves to the category. My own standards are at User:Elonka/Recall.  You can also check Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria for information on what other admins use (many just copy someone else's standards). --Elonka 22:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I was more concerned about his timing, given that there is a discussion going on at WP:AN. I have now accepted that he has asked this in good faith. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that Hipocrite fully intended to invoke the recall. He has since added me to past requests for recall, even though no recall was done. He has now started a user RFC page (at least, I'm fairly sure it's for me, I don't know of any user by the name of TBDY...). I could have sworn he told admins that he was going to leave me alone. He really is harassing me now. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A further note - the discussion was closed by Hipocrite, somewhat inappropriately I feel, as I was asking for others to respond, in part, to his assertions. His comments when he archived the thread (which I note he made hidden!) was that "Furthermore, if you wanted to bring it to the community, best practice would have been to work with me to draft a question we could have presented to the community neutrally via RFC." I categorically reject this assertion, my explanation of the various issues that were highlighted was entirely accurate, in fact nobody has disputed my summation. There was no need for me to discuss this with him to come up with a "neutral" statement (I hardly think that would have been the outcome here!).
 * The bottom line is that it's suspicious that he:
 * archived the discussion well before hand when it looked like I really had no case to answer, except for the AFD which had already been dealt with,
 * obviously hadn't looked into any of the incidents that he's concerned about as they have already been discussed on WP:AN/I and are now well and truly in the archives,
 * has admitted that he was told, via email, by a number of people that his actions were harassment; yet at the same time has stated on the etiquette alert that he filed that he was not engaging in harassing behaviour,
 * added my name to the list of previous admin recalls, when no such thing ever occured,
 * edited my talk page to remove images, and
 * has admitted that he has a watch on my talk page
 * I leave it to the general reader to make of this what they will. If he files a user RFC, I will be defending myself vigorously. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * well, as a general note on life, if you're not pissing someone off at least some of the time, then you're not really living (exceptions made for saints, buddhas, and other people who never seen to edit wikipedia). I can't see any reason that you have to worry, although it is unfortunate when someone gets this cranked up.  It will (like all things) pass in time.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Focus Softnet
Hi. I may be confused with another article that I worked on, but I thought the subject had a chance for establishing notability. I fully respect your decision to delete the article, but if possible, can you please "userfy" the article so that I can work on it for a few days? Thanks, -- Pink Bull  01:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No probs, done. It's at User talk:Pink Bull/Focus Softnet. Move it back when you are done. It might get taken to AFD if you can't establish notability... if that happens don't stress, but instead see if you can convince the submitter of your cause. And it goes without saying not to enlist supporters if it does occur... :-) I'm not saying you would do that, btw. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not a problem. I stopped taking AFD's personally :) -- Pink Bull  01:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I never realised you did :-) It was just a standard friendly bit of advise I give to editors (which is why I noted that I'm suggesting you would...). - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you take another look at the article? I added a few more references.-- Pink Bull  02:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that it still doesn't have enough information to assert its notability. The referencing is spot on, however. You need to find information about why the company is significant, and add this in a neutral fashion. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I thought the very fact that it's covered by multiple sources in-of-itself shows that the company is significant and notable. Can I request that we get community-wide opinions at an AFD? -- Pink Bull  02:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you like... but before I do, perhaps it would be best to look at how to improve it a bit more. If this is a significant company, can you tell me precisely why you think it is so important? i.e. number of people employed, important clients, unique aspects to the account software you can't get anywhere else, sales figures, etc. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I can't answer that. The company receives a significant number of googlehits so I'm presuming its somewhat notable. I read through the few sources and added what I thought was encyclopedia-worthy. At the very least, can you please hold off for a few days on speedily deleting the article. I hope to put some more work into it. Thanks, -- Pink Bull  02:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As it's in your userspace, I won't delete it. In fact, nobody else will either, as the sole reason it's there is because you are trying to contribute to Wikipedia. If the company gets a lot of Googlehits, that may be because they are good at gaming Google. Or it may be because they are in fact significant. If you can winkle out which this is, and it's because of the later, then this article will probably be kept. I'm willing to move back to main space whenever you want me to, but in its current state I suggest that it will go to AFD which will probably go to delete. I wish you the best in your efforts though! Keep up the great work on Wikipedia :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Support free speech
I fully support your right to post what you want on your user and talk pages. Too bad we dont have any type of free speech or ownership of user/talk pages established here on Wikipedia. Some of the same users who have opposed you are ones I myself have had problems with in the past. In general it appears to me sometimes that those who yell the loudest about incivility do so to quiet those who oppose them and not because the speech "offends" them, that is my opinion from past experience, though it may not be the motive behind those individuals at the AN/I thread. AGF says we must give them the benefit of the doubt until they prove they arent worthy of good faith.Camelbinky (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely a believer in free speech in wider society. It's unfortunate that the editors have chosen to attack me like they have, but I think I've been able to show that what they are attacking me about is being gone in a completely over the top sort of way (i.e. a block disagreement). Definitely AGF is important, a bit of friendly humour I have no issue with. Of course, I'm never happy about personal attacks, which is why we have a policy that prohibits this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations....
...on the baby boy. I lol'd when I realised I'd only ever visited your user page twice, and between visits your err 'status' had changed. :) MickMacNee (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * lol! Thanks Mick :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Gajaman Nona
Dear Tbsdy,

Sorry for bugging you.

I agreed there was unambiguous with the below link. But i was middle of the process to get the authority from the author of above site. And i was changed the article last night. So i am surprise why still deleted.

The article was simple since i changed but no longer unambiguous with below article.

Please explain me or activate the article to put the waiting authorisation code.

"Gajaman Nona" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.lankalibrary.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=713)

Thanks in advance.

Eeriyaka.

(Eeriyaka (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC))
 * I didn't see anything on the talk page for several days. I've now restore the last two edits, but not the copyrighted material. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In the drama of the moment, I forgot to mention that it's probably best to contact OTRS with proof of copyright status. I'll send them a message. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate , I will take necessary action to prevent copy right issues, or will write a fresh page.I understand how stressful job you are doing no need to say sorry. Please feel free to warn me anytime! (Eeriyaka (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC))

You...
...have always managed to impress me with your ability to stay cool when others might not be so graceful. Also, it's incredibly refreshing to see that the old school WP civility ethic isn't quite dead yet. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 04:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and another thing. Congrats on your spawn new baby! – ClockworkSoul 04:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow - thanks Clockwork! It's been an interesting week :-) Matthew (the newborn) is going great, only came home today and my little girl Emily is finding things a bit interesting, but she's doing OK! I think my time is going to be limited soon (if not now)... - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. I love the image of the chimp! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It loves you right back!– ClockworkSoul 00:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop aping me! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just monkeying around. – ClockworkSoul 01:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Groan! I can't top that. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, enough monkey business, I guess. :P – ClockworkSoul 05:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Boy! Congrats!
All best! Let him be in a good health and joy! :) Also, when you have time see this!

User_talk:Olaf_Davis --Tadija (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I really hope that now you understand me now regarding Mjroots's admins neutrality question from above. Actually, first time i saw HRB edits, i was sure that he cannot contribute in a good way. It is far from my attitude to be happy about other editors being blocked, so it looks like you didn't understand me. I would be glad that there is more neutral editors that are watching Kosovo and Balkan related articles. Hope that you will accept this barn. I know that i will never do this regarding his edit history, but you're given him a chance. He blow it, but that it unimportant now. Please, be invited to advice me in all the things that you think are inappropriate regarding my editing. Continue wonderful work.


 * All best! --Tadija (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tadija... it's unfortunate that he continues his actions :( Thanks for the barnstar and your kind comments on the birth of my child. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a TV ad a few decades ago, don't ask me for what, and a nervous new father was handing out cigars at the office: "Have a cigar!" Colleague (Paul Dooley, I think): "Have a baby?" New father: "Uh, no thanks, just had one!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk vs. article talk pages
Duly noted. Thank you for informing me about that, I will make sure to not discuss article changes on talk pages of users instead of talk pages of articles. Kind regards, -- Cin é ma C 02:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have also informed Rochass. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter question
Hey Tbsdy. I replied to your question on WP:AN. Just so you know, edit filters aren't solely related to administrators -- for example, I myself am an edit filter manager that is not an administrator. For that reason, those posts might be better suited for WT:EF (I just happened to randomly come across your post, so I was able to answer it quickly, but I have WT:EF on my watchlist so in most cases probably would have caught it there faster). Anyway, I wish you luck if you work on some of the filters. Just wanted to drop a line to let you know if you had any questions about filters or the process in general, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, I'm always around except when sleep is (sadly) biologically forced upon myself. Regards. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 06:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't realise :-) If I have further questions I'll ask there in future. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem; I think there's only about 4 users that are edit filter managers and not administrators, so I think it was perfectly logical to post on WP:AN if you didn't know! Good luck! -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 06:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Favor?
I wonder if you would mind switching the protection from full to semi on these two pages. I'm doing some archive shuffling/condensing, and I had forgotten these had been full-protected, which obviously is a little roadblock to that effort. :) User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive007User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive008 Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I might need to come back and ask for some move/rename tips, but we'll see how things go first. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No probs, if I'm about I'm happy to help. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently you're a night owl like me. :) Specifically, if I move a protected page, does the protection itself copy also, or does it only stay with the original (redirect) page? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Urgh. I'm not sure. Let me do a little test. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Answer is: the protection moves with it. If you leave a redirect page, the protection level is copied to the redirect page. If no redirect left behind it isn't salted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So both pages would stay protected, yes? And the history moves to the new page, yes? That's what I've going to do with archive 8 - move it, and then use it for other stuff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's right. Should do the trick. Let me know if you get stuck, even if I can't sort out any messes, I know a lot of admins who can. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, that's a pretty nifty trick you've discovered Baseball! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

OS X image deletion whoopsie
Hello old acquaintance. You deleted File:OSXBoxes.png with the reason "no objections". There were two respondents, one suggested it didn't meet NFCC8 (debatable) and one voted Keep. Will you restore the image and re-open the IFD for additional discussion toward consensus? Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh? Let me have a look - apologies if I did that wrongly. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, you are entirely correct. I have reversed my decision and restored the image, the image talk page and readded the image back to the article. I got confused somehow with the OS X Server image that was listed for deletion. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem; both the filenames and images were virtually identical. Thanks!  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * On second look, it looks like the other file (server boxen) was never deleted although the IFD was closed as delete. I'd guess the wrong one just got deleted; however I'd also recommend that the Keep rationale applies to this one just as the one above... the singular NFCC8 delete is from the same editor as the other image, and given the content and purpose are identical I suggest it's probably a Keep.  Were the IFD still open I'd add my opinion.  :)  Your choice on the proper path forward (delete per IFD, reopen for more discussion, or keep based on similarity to the OSXboxes.png keep).  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to reopen for further discussion. The instructions don't detail how to do this though. Can you advise how? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're a funny guy. ;-)  I have no idea either; check out my feeble attempt.  Feel free to adjust as needed.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh brother, I really stuffed up those two decisions, huh? Anyway, all's well that ends well I suppose. Again, apologies for the errors. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added your sig to the close. Hopefully that will be end of it.  I'm usually not usually up in other editors' business like this; please forgive the intrusion.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh man... the mistakes continue! Thanks Blaxthos, that was the right move. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Closing may be helpful in future closes. Ucucha 04:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Gah. I didn't know about that. Sigh. That would have stopped all this drama. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was coming here to suggest just that. Saw the noticeboard. Common problem with admins typing out extended rationales while another jumps in and closes it.  Enigma msg  18:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You knew about the Closing tag in 2007. Ahh, you must be getting forgetful and frazzled with the arrival of a newborn. ;) Cheers! Cunard (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm getting to be an old man now Cunard! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for rolling back
I am sorry for rolling back the last edit you made on Human Rights Believer's talk page. I'm on my mobile phone and the screen is small so i tried to click to look at the page and caught the rollback by mistake. I reverted my edit, so hopefully all's well that ends well! I thought I'd better explain what happened so you didn't think it was on purpose! On my mobile, I tend to only look at pages which are on my watchlist but on this occasion it didn't work properly! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise until you said so :-) Had I noticed, I'm certain I would have thought it was a mistake and just asked. No harm done, we all make mistakes (I just deleted an image incorrectly...). Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. it looks like we have editors and admins literally everywhere, all the time! That still amazes me to this day. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I normally edit on my computer (or a friend's computer), but tend to look at my watchlist through my mobile if I'm not going to be online for a day, just to keep an eye on what is happening to articles on my watchlist (as well as RfAs, etc)! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Image closures
Hi, about this FFD you closed of File:Crawlinggnat.gif, I unfortunately don't have hard evidence it's a copyvio (seems I don't frequent those messageboards where it's used so often, and Google image search or Tineye are not good at finding it), but the statement by the previous voter that he'd seen it there could certainly be accepted on AGF, don't you think? Anyway, I've asked him if he could point us to some place where he'd seen it. What do we do now? I really would hate to have to put this through yet another boring process, like DRV or PUI.

BTW, not sure if you're aware, but the closing time for all XfDs including FfDs was raised from 5d to 7d (perhaps while you were away). You closed this bunch about 1.5 days early. I don't mind in this trivial case, but with possibly far-reaching contentious no-consensus NFC closures like those Playboy images it might be seen as a bit problematic.

Oh, and, not that I want to come across as totally lacking any sense of humour, but seeing the crawling bug in your editnotice now is really, really annoying... Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you prove that it's not in the public domain? And I can have the Playboy images extended if you would like, I don't think it will change the decision - sorry about the closures though technically I guess they would be only a day early. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't need to prove that it isn't PD; the uploader has to prove that it is. Since the uploader's declaration has been shown to be prima facie implausible (if Soap is right), and he has a proven bad track record with image uploads, the default is to assume it's not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen it used everywhere also, I thought it was PD. I think that it's definitely worthwhile taking this to WP:COPYVIO. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have seen it elsewhere too, that settles it: the uploader claimed he was releasing it as its author, which is now proven wrong. As for PD status, the burden of proof would be on you – right now it just comes down to a run-of-the-mill "found it on the web somewhere". As it stands now, with your confirmation, I have enough info to speedy it under F9. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - go for it :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Poor little gnat. I'll send a swat team to get it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah... it's a kind of cool animation, but I think you're right. It won't bug me to see it go. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Dang. Not to be a pest, but that chimp image seems to be a copyvio too. :-( Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh man... I'll get rid of it ASAP... let me find another image quickly! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed - thanks for letting me know Future! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion: Files_for_deletion/2010_January_12
Greetings Tbsdy, I see that after discussion, you deleted Ipod_Touch_1st_Generation.JPG. I feel that this was against the results of the discussion. Please read thru the discussion again if you have a moment. Justin Ormont (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Give me a moment to review my decision for correctness. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 05:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have rereviewed my decision, and I think you are correct. Upon review it appears that the compromise was a minority decision. It was only a keep because there was a lack of consensus, however. This may well be taken to DRV or FFD in future. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to jump in here again. If you modify your closure (other than making it more restrictive) I will be taking it to DRV. ÷seresin 06:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By all means. I can't satisfy everyone. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Deletion review/Log/2010 January 31. ÷seresin 06:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As another side note, please familiarize yourself with page-specific norms before jumping in with your administrator tools. You closed FfDs on this page before any of them were ready to be closed, as they stay open for seven days. Please be more careful, or respectful of norms—whichever was the reason for your error. ÷seresin 06:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am not an administrator, but I've dealt with my share, and have seen all sorts. I feel that Tbsdy is certainly assuming good faith in both of the above cases cited. My particular case was a very old FfD, and positive steps were taken to justify its inclusion as soon as recent developments unfolded.  Now it's on its way to WP Commons verification, and if it had been simply deleted as initially intended, it would have been an unnecessary shame.  No harm in reviewing cases from an independent perspective, is there?  Just my 2¢... Doc9871 (talk) 06:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've closed quite a few FFDs now, aside from rereviewing this one decision, do you have any others that you feel were wrong decisions? I have given detailed reasoning for most of the closures. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

iPod Touch images
Thank you for restoring the first generation iPod Touch image; I have re-added it to the article. While it was removed, however, a bold user uploaded new photos and incorrectly tagged them as public domain. Can you have a look at File:Home Screen Menu on iPod Touch.png and File:IPod Touch (3G).jpg please? (All the more reason to use Apple's images.) Thanks, HereToHelp (talk to me) 15:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that File:IPod Touch (3G).jpg might be in the public domain, however under fair use doctrine I still think this unlikely because it is not sufficiently transformative to satisfy fair use doctrine. I would say the same for File:Home Screen Menu on iPod Touch.png. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

IPs Cannot Create Pages
I would like to query about the inability of IPs to create pages. Recently, I tagged a page for deletion, and subsequently you deleted it. In my edit summary, I wrote, "Why can't IPs create pages, because registered users suck at it." Excuse my language if you are offended by such mild use, but will you kindly reflect upon that and write me a response? Thank you and happy editing, 89.215.124.175 (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback 1
Shadowjams (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Why these award pages have been deleted?
You have deleted this page that I had just created: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IITK_Satyendra_K_Dubey_Memorial_Award Why was this deleted? You cited "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion. ". If so, why other award pages exist, like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize. If the content needed to be rewritten, a tag about need of content revision was to be put. Does it mean Indian awards are less worthy than the award in US and Europe? Somebody takes pain to add useful content to wiki and you abuse your editorial to remove that summarily, without bothering to discuss or even inform and suggest how to make that content presentable. I have done 3000+ modifications/ additions in wiki, and now I find this. Seems I have been unnecessarily wasting my time to improve wiki when the likes of you are there to click the delete button unthinkinly. Rawat (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There was absolutely no information on the award in the article, or in the various awards pages. I'm sorry, but you cannot compare this award with the Nobel Prize. It's possible, I suppose, that this is a notable award for the Indian government, but without sufficient context in the article itself, we cannot say. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Abigail Gibbs
I think that this article should not be deleted as the mentioned person is an immensely popular author, who has received rave reviews for her book which has 43 chapters as of now. This is not an easy feat for a 15 year old child and thus is very notable. Even if the book has not yet been published, we all make a start somewhere and having a page on a highly popular website like Wikipedia may just give the writer the boost she needs and realize the dream of getting her book published. Therefore it is my ardent request to just leave the page online and not delete it as, since Abigail Gibbs has a very large fan following, there will be a lot of visitors to this page.Jemimah 1603 (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is being discussed at articles for deletion. I submitted it there for further discussion. Had I not done so, the article would have been deleted without any discussion. Personally, I believe that unless the author has published a book, no matter how intelligent and creative that person might be then they are probably not notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. However, the wider Wikipedia community now has a chance to discuss this and decide in due course. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Talent factory

 * Note the below editor is evidently new to Wikipedia and is not yet aware how to add messages to user talk pages. He is concerned about my deletion of the article Talent factory.

WTF IS YOUR PROBLEM????!?!?!?why do you delete article about talent factory its a major thing in norway! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitristar (talk • contribs) 13:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While it would be nice for them to have an entry on Wikipedia, our policy of strict neutrality does not allow us to give them any undue weight, and we will not take any steps to promote them or their work. I understand that you believe her to be talented, however there is no need to get so excited about this issue and I would suggest allowing the wider community to discuss whether the article is to be kept or deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, hold on a minute. This has nothing to do with the above (Abigail Gibbs)... how very confusing of you. To explain why it was deleted - it was written entirely in Norwegian. We are the English Wikipedia, have you considered the Norwegian Wikipedia? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Bosniak
Thanks for the reasonable way in which you've responded to Bosniak's infractions. He's his own worst enemy, but unfortunately doing damage to himself also jeopardises his ability to continue his important contribution to confirming the substance of the history of the Bosnian War.

His indiscriminately offensive reactions are obviously unacceptable but they're often an understandable response to perceived provocation - he doesn't notice whether it's both genuine and unintentional but there's certainly been a lot of the former.

It seems unlikely he'll change his ways in response to disciplinary measures so it's important to find a procedure is able to contain the fallout from his transgressions, rather than risk excluding his contributions entirely.

I don't think he's unique. There are many disputes over sensitive issues at Wikipedia where excessive reactions result from personal experience. Too often "rules" are then manipulated so as to ensure that Wikipedia remains simply a repository of received wisdom. Rules must be respected but Wikipedia offers too many opportunities for the unscrupulous to use them in the service of their own ends. Opbeith (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. This editor, while they may have potentially valuable contributions, has caused such a high degree of drama, and has shown such a lack of regard for various policies (the main two are WP:NPA and WP:NPOV) that we are better off without him. It's not like he hasn't been given plenty of chances. He will not be unblocked. I appreciate you bringing me your concerns and suggestions. If you disagree with me, I suggest that you make a post at WP:AN. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer. I don't want to pick a personal argument but the comment "we are better off without him" reinforces my impression that Wikipedia administration fails to distinguish between loose cannons and malevolence. "We" are certainly not better off without him, if "we" can be understood as people genuinely concerned for the substance and value of most of the articles he has been involved with. I doubt you have much idea of the amount of substantive information he has contributed on important issues and - as importantly - the extent to which he has defended the integrity of information from motivated attack and uninformed intervention. That level of commitment is accompanied by recklessness and sometimes rage. Which is certainly not comfortable and is often counter-productive. But it's part of the package. I'm sure he is not unique.

Wikipedia is not a country club or an ivory tower. Detachment allows objectivity but sometimes it carries with it a lack of awareness that ends up treating reality as something to be sheohorned into conformity with a set of rules. We don't live in a world of black and white, absolute good and absolute evil. We live in an uncomfortable, messy, muddled world in which we need to be constantly reminding ourselves to keep our eye on the ball. Rules help, but they're not ultimately the point of the exercise. Wikipedia seems unable to handle people who refuse to conform to the rules of polite society. Perhaps it's too difficult to keep the show on the road if you have to adapt to the pressures of coping with them. But even if Wikipedia administration consider itself better off without unruly transgressive committed individuals, you shouldn't assume that's anything more than pragmatic expediency. No need to reply.Opbeith (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why Wikipedia needs to deal with tendentious editors. I agree that the Bosniak has domain specific knowledge on the Balkans that is extremely valuable to us, but I'm afraid that unless he can work well with other editors and work within our existing policy framework, then he's not much use to us. I realise this sounds harsh, but the sheer amount of effort that administrators and others have had to put into him is just not worth the time of a group of volunteers who also have domain specific knowledge in a range of diverse areas they could be contributing to the project. IMHO, the time and effort we need to make to ensure that Bosniak doesn't wreck things and cause huge disputes could be better directed into other areas of the project.
 * Now don't think I'm happy about this state of affairs, but what do you suggest we do about the situation? If you note my comments above, how do we allow Bosniak to contribute to Wikipedia without large amounts of volunteer time and goodwill being expended for what I would consider a lesser gain? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It does need to deal with tendentious authors because on balance they contribute value. That's a separate issue from practicality. In the case of Bosniak and others most of the transgressions are pretty obvious and often end up exacerbated by the dispute resolution process. I would have thought some sort of "blog moderation"-type set-up for identified previous "non-frivolous transgressors" might not be impossibly burdensome, given the amount of time alrready spent sorting out the repercussions of their unacceptable comments and the temperature-raising effect of "requests to block" and blocks that can reasonably be challenged. At the articles that I am involved with this would not be a "lesser gain". And I'm sure that the situation is similar in other contentious areas when committed but intemperate individuals are blocked out or simply give up. Thanks for being open-minded, anyway. Opbeith (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool cap image
Good morning. You recently closed which was an image nominated for deletion as consensus reached. As there were only 2 comments, one in favor and one in opposition, I am unsure how you determined consensus reached. Could you please explain?--v/r - TP 14:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You wrote "why should it need to be [replaced]?" As per the non-free content criteria, if a non-free image has a free equivalent then it should not be used. Therefore, I was forced to discount your comments. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A free equivalent was not found. Further, WP:Consensus is a policy requiring discussion to reach, whereas WP:Image is a guideline.  I'd appreciate some discussion next time instead of simply being ignored by the nominator.  It's at the very very least a friendly courtesy.--v/r - TP 15:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because a free equivalent was not found does not mean that a free equivalent cannot be found. That is what is meant by irreplaceability. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, the point is that I was ignored and no discussion took place.--v/r - TP 14:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was listed for an appropriate amount of time. If you feel my decision was wrong, then you are well within your rights to take it to WP:DRV, and in fact I encourage you to do so. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am ignoring your "last word" tactics. I am not going to bring it to WP:DRV because my gripe is not that it was deleted, it was that I was ignored; I've made this clear.  I considered WP:ANV but it's not worth getting in an argument and stiring bad feelings for.  As an administrator I would have expected you to be more open to discussion.  You apparently feel we cannot achieve an understanding and/or you feel attacked so if I do not see further "correspondance", I'll understand.  I'd like to carry on this discussion, though, because I still don't understand why the discussion was closed without any sort of response to my question.  Hopefully you are willing to talk further.  Happy editting.--v/r - TP 17:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The reason that I didn't discuss it further is that I was the closing admin, and I am not meant to be participating in the discussion. I highly recommend reading our non-free content criteria guidelines. This really is the end of this conversation - if you aren't willing to take it to DRV then I'm afraid that nobody here can help you any further. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Super Ball (TM)
I ask that you restore Super Ball (TM), deleted as a copyvio within Wikipedia. The needed attribution can be given with copied, and then a non-speedy discussion help about proepr forking/splitting/merging. DES (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The speedy tag confused me. This is a split, so I've deleted it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleted the tag? Or deleted the split article? if the latter, when did being a split become a speedy? DES (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose it would be better to unmerge the redir, then there is no attribution issue. DES (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are 7 edits on that page, with absolutely no new infomation or text added. The first edit was a copy and paste of Super Ball, then a copyright violation tag was added to the article - this linked to a Wikipedia mirror. As it was a mirror, the original editor removed the tag. Then a new copyright violation speedy tag was added, but this time it pointed to a previous article revision of Super Ball. When I looked at the reason for the article, I saw that the copyright violation URL was a link to an old revision on the original article, so I looked at the earlier article history to dig a bit deeper. In a previous edit there was a copyright violation speedy proposal with a URL that linked to the "copyvio" mirror. When I clicked on that URL I didn't immediately see that it was a mirror, thus I used the wrong reason when deleting. Given that it was odd that the original copyright violation was linking a previous revision of another article, I messaged User:Shadowjams. See User talk:Shadowjams. Then I got your message, so I undeleted thinking I'd made an error. Simultaneously, Shadowjams replied on his talk page, so then I realised what had happened and consequently I deleted the article again, only this time with the correct reason.
 * This is not what I would call a "speedy" deletion. This took me close to 10 minutes to type this out. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point. But it was speedy in the sense that it was undiscussed. i was in the process of adding copied to the talk page when you deleted the article.
 * Anyway, I have now edited the existing page Super Ball, which was a redir to Bouncy ball, to revert it to the pre-redir state and add significant content and refs. That is what the editor who created Super Ball (TM), should have done, IMO. Thanks for bearing with me. DES (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. I was being facetious. Good work with your further contributions to this article, though. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ...I should note that the above message was not in any way sarcastic. I am not being facetious when I say I appreciate you sorting out tedious article stuff-ups. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I anticipate some discussion over my revival of Super Ball, but it seems no one has yet taken notice. I understand the intent of your comments. DES (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please restore File:Nsulogo.jpg
Could you please restore File:Nsulogo.jpg I have created the proper fair-use rationale and license that the original uploader neglected to provide. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 20:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Rate-Adaptive Digital Subscriber Line
You may have misinterpreted the db-move request, when you restored the previous redirect. This redirect needs to be deleted in order to allow renaming of the lowercase version to reflect the proper noun usage of the title. Kbrose (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Matter has been resolved just now, and move is accomplished. You may just ignore this communication. Have a nice day. Kbrose (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No probs - just woke up! Glad to see everything is sorted out now. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 20:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler
Hi, Tbsdy lives. Articles for deletion/JWASM, a discussion in which you participated, was closed as redirect to Open Watcom Assembler. Open Watcom Assembler has now been nominated for deletion due to notability concerns. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please comment at Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by this? Cunard (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Some may believe you are canvassing. Not me, but review the following block log, in particular 14:20, 16 November 2007 - to forever unfairly blot my record and allows tendentious and nasty editors to use it against me. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have done mass notices (messages to 10-15 editors) before and to avoid the appearance of canvassing, I always notify all the editors involved. The admin who blocked you should not have done so and should have been trouted. I hope I won't be blocked for something like that because such messages are permitted under Canvassing. Cunard (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it annoys me that it was used against me when I asked for my admin rights back. I mean, it was two years ago and it's still brought up today? That's why admins need to be so careful with blocking and blocking summaries. It can unfairly damage reputations. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's too bad. I don't see the block's relevance to whether or not you should have been allowed to regain the admin tools. Well, at least you have a clean block log on your current account. :) Cunard (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed - that was the general consensus, but a number of editors who seem to enjoy finding fatal flaws in others were using it against me. Which I guess didn't concern me terribly, but it was annoying. I'm an admin again now, btw. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Request
Article: Valon Behrami Hello Tbsdy, I am writing to request that the above article be protected; atleast to a level in which no anonymous users may edit the page. Admittedly some IPs have been useful in reverting vandalism ,though I and a few others keep this page on our watchlists. The nature of the edits to have spoiled the article are of a very minor detail, in a nutshell this is just another sensitive Balkan-related subject identical to those for which you recently blocked the Human Rights Supporter. On principle, although there is no WP guideline to dictate these trends, most users observe historical accuracy when applying places of birth to the subjects. This page more than many others however has been attacked many times and all by IPs over the past few weeks. Some examples (of the reverts to the preferred revision) include the following:, (I appreciate this IP's good faith contributions); One by me, , and just to prove that I'm not the only one,  and. I am not closed to conversation on this topic and there are many styles which can accomodate all preferred usages here. But so far, nobody has even tried to raise the discussion on any talk page, they have simply taken the liberties of editing offered to them on pages not protected. I would be grateful if you took control of this issue. Many thanks. Evlekis (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be best to take this to Requests for page protection. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All right, thanks. Evlekis (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Re speedy deletion of Yingli_Green_Energy_Holding_Company.Ltd. article
Just replied to your point against deleting this article: Talk:Yingli_Green_Energy_Holding_Company.Ltd. If you still believe in the validy of the article, I will, of course, defer to you. :) Familiae Watt§ (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have replied on the talk page. No need to defer to me in any way, btw. I only get annoyed when people make personal attacks - I rarely get annoyed about someone reversing one of my decisions if they feel they have a good reason. I would not at all be unhappy if this article was taken to AFD. It may even be a good idea :-) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, no probs - agree with your conclusions. Congrats on the birth of your son, btw..... some sleepless nights ahead I dare say. :) Familiae Watt§ (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely! But not from the new-born - from the toddler. Sigh. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

computerchemist
speedy deletion by yourself within minutes of article creation, not even a chance to get a hangon in there. very efficient. I understand meaning of A9 (although would question how artist gets onto wikipedia in first instance) but would like to refer to you similar non-A9 tagged artists in the same genre such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Van_Der_Wouden with very similar style/label attribution. Please explain how this one stays and the other goes, or are you now going to A9 this artist too? Gigglebok (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC) gigglebok
 * I normally go through each article in the CSD category. I can undelete and keep it for a few days. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've restored and added the prod tag. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tbsdy! I'm a n00b to wikipedia so I appreciate your help. Gigglebok (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC) gigglebok
 * No probs. I warn you that this may well yet go to AFD as a matter of process. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:William D. Coleman (Pastor)
Hi Tbsdy, just thought I'd let you know that I have restored Talk:William D. Coleman (Pastor) as I had contributed to it, and did not agree with its deletion (thus not a valid G7). Regards, decltype (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm... it was a talk page that a bot had stuffed up - the only edits were the ones the bot made. Totally uncontroversial... I never deleted the article itself! But it's fine to restore, it's just that there was really no need to do so. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I removed the speedy, assessed the article, and added a WikiProject banner to the talk page. The revision you deleted was this. decltype (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This must have been an unfortunate accident of timing, because that's not what I saw when I opened the the talk page. I would say what happened is the following:
 * I clicked on the link and was taken to the tagged page.
 * You changed the page
 * I didn't see this revision, so I clicked on the delete button, then deleted it.
 * Anyway, all's well that ends well. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, a race. Well, it's difficult to guard against that. I'd actually prefer it if the bot didn't G7 the page. Assuming the article is worth keeping, someone will eventually want to add a banner or discuss something on the talk. But that's something I'll have to discuss with the bot's author, not you :) Regards, decltype (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've thought it strange the bot would do this. Don't know why :( Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)