User talk:TehGrauniad

Welcome
Hello  and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.  ''Click here to reply to this message.''  ukexpat (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Help_desk
 Chzz  ► 18:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

ClueBot
--5 albert square (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Royal Waterloo Hospital
Hello TehGrauniad,

I'm a complete novice at all this and I haven't a clue what I'm doing so I suppose that you may never get this message.Anyway here goes. I call myself nardilly because I was a patient in William Sargants Narcosis Ward and also because I was given very large doses of the drug Nardil. If the website that we former patients have set up comes across as an opinion piece that is because we have very limited access to any official information about our treatment. The website says that Sargant took the records of all his patients with him when he retired. I don't know the truth of this but I can promise you that no-one who was treated on Ward 5 has so far been able to get hold of the record of their time actually in Narcosis. St Thomas' Hospital recently sent a terse and negative reply to my enquiry asking for any information that they had about any aspect of the regime on Ward 5. The lady that you saw on the BBC4 programme has no more information than the rest of us. Because I spent another 2 years as an outpatient at St Thomas' I have been able to get hold of my outpatient record which refers constantly to my treatment on Ward 5 and Narcosis. One other former patient has been able to get her dates of admission and discharge but so far I am the best documented patient from Ward 5 of the RWH. Of course I can see that this lack of information is anathema to Wikipedia and I suppose that I was winging it a bit when I tried to sneak the link to our website onto the piece about the RWH. TehGrauniad, please be kind and think what it might be like to know that you have been abused and permanently damaged in an incident that everyone would prefer to forget about. Only the doctors and nurses who treated us on Ward 5 know exactly what went on and for obvious reasons they aren't keen to talk about it. Dominic Streatfeild interviewed several nurses and doctors for the chapter Sleep in his book Brainwash and has posted some more extensive excerpts from the interviews on his website. Almost everything else I've read about Ward 5 contains factual errors but gets reprinted because print itself has more credibility than the witness of those who actually underwent treatment. It hurts those of us who were in the RWH to hear people prattling on about the beauties of the building itself, I'm sure that you can understand that. One day when we manage to get our stories believed I will be very pleased to have another go at editing the piece about the RWH.

Bye for now, NardillyNardilly (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined
Your speedy deletion nomination of Bad Education system in pakistan has been declined. The article is not patent nonsense, as that is defined as "incoherent text or gibberish". This article is not incoherent. It is not encylopedic, but it is coherent enough to be understood by a normal English speaker. The patent nonsense criterion specifically excludes "partisan screeds" such as this article. Just let the AFD run its course. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Alternative is added
Hi TehGrauniad, alternative is added as you suggested here.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Note
Hi, may I politely suggest that you are careful not to be seen votestacking by directing notifications and messages to a partisan audience? Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► sundries ─╢ 17:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello TreasuryTag! Thank you for writing here, and may I say (unlike you) I won't delete your post from my discussion page. I'm sorry that it has come to this, but your behaviour has been appalling on the AFD. Chastising and threatening users with wikilawyery just isn't friendly. I wish we could've engaged together when I sent you this message, but you deleted it. I assume that you disagreed with it (In fact your discussion page is very bare). Like most of your bullying, the free links you attach are incorrect (above you've suggested that I'm canvassing, which is indeed against Wikipedia policy, however the RfC demands that I contact a second user.) We have never had an altercation, but you have, in my opinion, damaged the project. TehGrauniad (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:TLDR; I wasn't really wanting to receive a tirade. If I may also offer you another piece of unsolicited advice, which I would have hoped would be obvious but apparently not: I've spotted more than one pice of objectively false information in your draft RfC. I suggest you check the 'facts' you've presented very carefully. Best, ╟─ Treasury Tag ► District Collector ─╢ 08:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think is the best way to resolve this problem? Chris (aka) TehGrauniad (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that you removing the factually incorrect material from the draft RfC would be the way to resolve the problem... surely that's obvious? ╟─ Treasury Tag ► Regional Counting Officer ─╢ 11:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, just guessed that you were probably referring to the more general problem of my perceived incivility. Too early in the morning for me...! Well, I'm afraid I simply disagree on most of the points you raise. I don't think that it is Wikilawyering to direct people to WP:VOTE and WP:NOREASON if they make the comment, "Keep—looks OK to me," on an AfD. I think it is legitimate to direct somebody who effectively says, "Keep because there are probably some sources about somewhere but I can't find any myself but they probably exist," to WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:ITSNOTABLE. That is precisely what those pages were created for; situations such as this. (I know you think that I shouldn't link to them because they're neither policy nor guideline, but if I dare point you to yet another essay, you may find WP:ONLYESSAY interesting reading...)
 * As regards "chasing people across Wikipedia" – when reporting somebody at WP:WQA, it is a requirement that you notify them on their talkpage. So I think the allegation of 'chasing' is inappropriate. I also consider your suggestions that Wikiquette alerts is a 'threat' or a 'tribunal' to be completely misguided at best.
 * I'm open to any suggestions you may have, but I'm afraid I just cannot see eye to eye with you over the issues you've raised over at the draft RfC. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► collectorate ─╢ 11:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean I’m not a morning person either! I agree that essays, and also wikilawyery are fine in the AFD, and as you suggest the best comments in AFDs use policy and essays to make their case. But it looked to me that you were using these to badger and bully editors. As for the chasing (I’ve probably not quite got the right word), there is the case of the ‘Welcome to Wikipedia’ note placed on an established user's talkpage. I really thought you had made the environment on that AFD toxic, which is the reason for the draft RfC.


 * I’ve made lots of faux pas on Wikipedia, and I’m sure I’ll make many more. Maybe this draft RfC is one of them. However, I really think you should talk to your mentor of old User:Dweller, who has been observing recent events. All best, Chris (aka) TehGrauniad (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would dispute that I used WP:VOTE and WP:NOREASON to "badger and bully editors." Do you have a specific suggestion of how I could have better directed to those policies/essays? As I say, I can't stop you going ahead with the RfC, and don't particularly want to, but I can only re-iterate my advice to make sure that you make your case well and accurately if you are going to. There are still at least two 'falsehoods' in there which suggest that you've not done your research as thoroughly as you probably should do! (I genuinely don't mean this to sound threatening; it is honest advice.) ╟─ Treasury  Tag ► quaestor ─╢ 13:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for taking so long to reply. I don’t think that your discussion with User: FlyingFish on the AFD was your finest hour.


 * There was a similar situation involving different editors in an AFD discussion on the YouTube video Me at the zoo where User:Fæ disagreed with a lot of the delete 'votes' (as in the Terry AFD discussion you disagreed with a lot of the keep ‘votes’). If it had been me I think I would have left it for the closing editor/admin to decide on the merits of each case (but I’m not you, and you of course, like User:Fæ, you have every right to comment on people’s votes). Although I’m sure Fæ wasn’t perfect in this case, he spelled out his/her position, rather than responding with curt and antagonistic free links. I think if you want to challenge editors in the AFD it might be better to adopt this type of approach.


 * Although, in this case I understand that there may have been a context to your debate with User: Flying Fische, perhaps (I don’t know) Flying Fische had caused problems previously: I do see that he/she is currently blocked for being naughty and his/her account isn’t in good standing. What do you think? All best, Chris (aka) TehGrauniad (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, FlyingF has been blocked indefinitely for a multitude of sins, and their comment at the Fawlty Towers AfD was at the moderate end...! My general policy is to comment where I disagree with a !vote, but to put time and effort into it commensurate with that of the !voter. Someone who has made a detailed statement which I would like to query will usually receive a few sentences with links to policies, past cases etc. But if all they're going to do is the obviously inappropriate, "Looks OK to me," then to an extent I don't think they can reasonably expect anything other than a curt link to WP:VOTE or whatever. I do take your point – perhaps it's just something that comes about when one's seen tons of absurdly bad AfD comments! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► CANUKUS ─╢ 21:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I see what you mean about irritating contributors. Well I suppose we won't be seeing Flying Fishes for a while. Anyway, what do you think about getting in touch with Dweller? He seems quite friendly. TehGrauniad (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks/barnstar
 Chzz  ► 02:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

User:porcupine
Hello,

The editor user:TreasuryTag was previously the editor user:Porcupine. For some reason his block log did not transfer with his user name change although his edits did.

You can see the previous block log here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3APorcupine

99.150.255.75 (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I wonder who this IP is a sockpuppet of... ╟─ Treasury Tag ► consulate ─╢ 15:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not a sock puppet of anyone - I accidentally edited while logged out. Please see WP:SOCK for information about sock puppets.
 * Anyway - Here is Porcupine's mentorship page . Why was mentorship necessary?  99.150.255.75 (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello 99.150.255.75, thanks for your input on this. I agree that it’s a shame that the block log isn’t connected with TreasuryTag’s account. But to TreasuryTag’s credit he is open about Porcupine being one of his former accounts. I’m quite new to Wikipedia, so I don’t know what you mean by ‘accidentally edited whilst logged out’. It seems that you are still logged out. Chris (aka) TehGrauniad (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For some reason the MediaWiki software doesn't (or didn't, it may have been corrected in the ~3 years since, I don't know) transfer block-log records. However, the 'TreasuryTag' block-log does include a very clear note with a link to the 'Porcupine' one, to solve this very problem. I'm still not sure why this IP has decided to trot about badmouthing me, but it isn't altogether impressive, especially since – as you've noted, TG – I openly disclose all my former account names on my userpage. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► condominium ─╢ 18:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)