User talk:Waggers/Archive 11

User Bardcom
I noticed your concern a short while ago about User:Bardcom and his systematic removal of the term British Isles. He seems to be at it again. Look at this, and there are many others recently. Is this guy an expert on all the subjects whose articles he edits? I don't think so. Clearly he's out to expunge the term British Isles from this encyclopedia. In your experience of Wikipedia what can be done about this? 86.27.186.36 (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank You
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk pages. --Deadly&forall;ssassin 21:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is it unconstructive
It shows the public do not like her and the section is on public image and i know it exists you can look yourself i am part of it and as what i think of heather mills what i wrote was restrained :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.61.26 (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi uhm you deleted my edits to the article on call of the wild. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.216.241 (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Recently blocked vandal
block log. Would you consider a longer block? Also, could you protect the vandal's talk page? thanks  Enigma  message Review 22:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page! Kind regards, --Abrech (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the revert on my talk page. You caught that one fast. Tnxman307 (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

not vandolizum
--Night shadow187 (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC) i dont think my edits were vandolisum i thouht it was true i will check my info from now on :D ty

New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Greek museums
Did it occur to you that the article may have been vandalised? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 11:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the procedure for continued vandalism?
hi Waggers,

I am convalescing in the bath this evening, and am excited by the prospect of exploring how repeated vandalism is coped with in Wikipedia. Are you able to ping me a quick outline of how things would unfold? (assume I am able to compete in the arms race).

I am also curious - were you requested to protect this page, or are you a part time guardian? (Yesterdays edits were not reverted so quickly).

thanks in advance, 88.144.50.200


 * datestamp for archiving: Waggers (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

changes to the The World Ends With You Pin List and noise list
sorry, i made changes that you had to revert. i just wanted to save people time, because i saw some more edits being done to that page even after it was marked for deletion.
 * ds Waggers (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Block info
This looks to be blockable as an open proxy maybe. Just for info - cheers -- Herby talk thyme 10:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
I was going to rv my own edit here. Sorry for the note, I happend to be on the same place then my browser was slow so you got it first. Pardon, best regards -- 'Kanonkas' : Take Contact  19:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Third Eye
Hi,

Indeed I stumbled upon this article and edited it because the whole first part seemed to me, at best original research, at worst wild claims. The idea of a "third eye tradition" in the Gospel is, to the best of my knowledge, totally unheard of. Even if there happened to be acadamic backing to such readings (which would need to be referenced), there is no question this is a non mainstream theory, which is why it should definitely not be the first heading of the article. 212.234.178.122 (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wes Brown
Dear Waggers, I do not think my addition to Wes Brown's page is "unconstructive". As you might be knowing he is part of the Man UTd Champions League Winning team, and he was part of their team during the treble too. He also provided the cross to Ronaldo in the final. This can be checked on any football website. He indeed does deserve a bit of praise, thus I, being a Aston Villa fan and having an unbiased view, feel that this was not at all "unconstructive". Anyways hope u edit it back, as I feel Wes Brown is an integral part of this United team. Keep it cool, Thanks, ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.159.4 (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

He is not my favorite footballer. You can edit his page, and put it in your own words, but I just wanted to tell you about him. When other footballers have descriptions about their assists and goals, why not Brown?I am not saying you have to go over the roof in your praise, but at least his cross to Cristiano should be mentioned. No need to praise, it can be put in a subtle way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.159.4 (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving a message.

I recently wrote a reveiw on Kiss The Dustand I'm really dissapointed with the book so thats why I wrote that.

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.50.252 (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bell Farm Christian Centre
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bell Farm Christian Centre, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? John Carter (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah
Put my note in. SirFozzie (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2008 (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 ForteTuba, 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) 02:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert of my revert on Madden NFL
Hi Waggers,

It seems you reverted my revert and returned the page to its vandalised state. I have re-reverted so do you mind if I remove your warning template from my talk page? Cheers, A v nj a y Talk 14:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Brazil
How come my change of "Brazil" to "Brasil" is classed as vandalism??? If you look on the ACTUAL OFFICIAL BRASIL BADGE it says "BraSil" and not with the "Z". Brasil is spelled with an "S" in Brasil, so it should be spelled with an S elsewhere, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.19.124 (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that is appreciated. But I don't agree with it being labelled vandalism as I was clearly not aiming to mess a page up on purpose. I just preferred it spelled that way.
 * Datestamp for archiving: Waggers (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm..
It was, unfortunately. I don't really know why math formula tags are needed in an airport article. And I happen to think that templates are useful. NcSchu ( Talk ) 19:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Tyler Faith
I page I updated is about myself and its a bio I had someone write me professionally. So its all good :@) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler Faith (talk • contribs) 13:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Why revert of Shaw (surname) ?
Cliff Shaw is an existing entry in WP -- not some random name. He was coauthor of some of the earliest papers in Artificial Intelligence with Alan Newell and Nobelist Herbert Simon. The edit summary did name him. You are free to fix your mistaken revert if you wish; I leave it to you. --71.162.82.56 (talk)
 * Datestamp for archiving: Waggers (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Constituency updates - thanks
Thanks for correcting my constituency corrections ;) -- it's all going to remain thoroughly confusing until the next election! Playclever (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made two additional changes: You were right to place Northam in Southampton Itchen, it won't be in Southampton Test until the next election, so I've reverted that -- and I've moved your Bevois Valley update to the Bevois Ward page (since Bevois Valley is entirely within Southampton Test). Cheers. Playclever (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I merged the Template:Wards of Southampton and Template:Districts of Southampton templates into the latter, I think it works pretty well Playclever (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Cannabis Culture & Cost
Eleven years ago The Ottawa Citizen published four consecutive Editorials in four days calling for the legalization of Cannabis. Calling the Editor to commend him for such bold action, it was suggested an article be submitted for payment if published on the Op-Ed page. On submission, the Editor said, "Now we're going to have to shit or get of the pot."

It was published as a Letter To The Editor with the heart and guts edited out so that no reader would have a clear perspective or understanding of the issue. If you're interested, you can read the article in the discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier and maybe comment on the images in the article. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Above Bar Church, Southampton
Hi Waggers

I have just looked for the first time at the page for Above Bar Church, Southampton, which you apparently created. Unfortunately, you have - understandably - confused two separate churches, as had been suggested in the brief discussion.

Above Bar Church was founded in 1876. Initially it was a Church of Christ, but became independent in the early 20th century. I'm writing up a brief history of it now for the new church website. I am happy for this to form the basis of a revised Wikipedia page when I've finished.

The other church is the Congregational Church. This is the church that was established in 1662 and, as a result of the bombing, most of the congregation and the minister moved to St Andrew's Presbyterian. The site of this church was on the other side of Above Bar Street, and further down towards the Bargate. This church was Above Bar Congregational Church. This church could have a new page, but I suggest it be incorporated into the page on Avenue United Reformed Church (which St Andrews merged with).

I will correct the Above Bar Church page now with a very brief summary history, and add to it later. If I get time, I will transfer what you have about the Congregational Church into the Avenue URC page.

Kind regards,

Tony Watkins

Tonywatkins (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Christianity WikiProject Newsletter - July 2008
This Newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Category sort
I have made a small change on your userpage ,so that the category is sorted properly instead of "U" for "User:". Hope you won't mind. :) --  Tinu  Cherian  - 07:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Think About Life
Hi Waggers. Would be be open to restoring this article you deleted? In the deletion discussion no one actually said they had made attempts to search for sources to establish notability. Yet sources exist as follows:
 * "Think About Life's Van Pelt Builds Miracle Fortress", Pitchfork Media
 * "Miracle Fortress and Think About Life Tour Eastern Canada", Exclaim! magazine
 * "Dream team: The pop-culture pick-up games of Think About Life", Montreal Mirror
 * "Accidental plan: Things go wrong the right way for Miracle Fortress", Montreal Mirror (it's about Miracle Fortress but has verifiable relevant content to add to Think About Life)
 * "Fortress of solitude, Montreal Gazette (ditto)
 * "Triple threat, Hour
 * "Think About Life: L'Urgence de la Pop", Voir
 * "Think About Life: L'harmonie du chaos", Voir

(All of those were found with Google.) There's also (found in my library):
 * Dunlevy, T'Cha. "Raw, corny and somehow compelling. Let's Think About Life", Montreal Gazette, p. D3, 2006-06-08. (A 700-word article entirely about the band, with the most relevant content to add)
 * Wenzel, John, "15 buzz bands at small to midsized venues", Denver Post, p. F4, 2006-04-30.

Thanks! Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 14:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As you suggested:

Deletion review for Think About Life
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Think About Life. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Browser OS
Hi You closed the AfD of Browser OS, and while I suggested that the page should be redirected just as it is now, I don't undestand why you protected it as welll. As far as I can tell nothing in WP:PPOL supports it, since it has never been deleted before (let alone repeatedly), and there hasn't been a content dispute — the only thing that was mentioned in the AfD is that there was a related version at Oos. Can you lift the PP again? Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) I'll keep it watched just in case though. Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

IP 86.xxx.xxx
Hello Waggers. Does anybody know who those IP accounts are? He/she seems determined to troll & bascially cause trouble. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I guesss the best thing to do (when he trolls on the talk-pages), is to ignore him. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion for Muziboo page
Hi Waggers. The page for Muziboo was deleted even though there is enough press mention and credibility. I am not sure why the page has to be deleted when pages for similar services exist in wikipedia. Such as this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioverve

Looking forward to your reply. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prateek.dayal (talk • contribs) 07:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ak'sent
An article that you have been involved in editing, Ak'sent, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Ak'sent. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Happy Editing! &mdash;  00:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

78.16.xx.xx
Per your reverting of 78.16.xx.xx - you know he is User:Wikipéire don't you? See this SSP. User:Pureditor stopped editing as soon as I made this new SSP, and I've seen a number of other suspicious accounts pop up since then too. Nobody seems to give a fig, but we could be dealing with a long-time socker here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRIT
You do realise that a discussion on this very matter only closed yesterday? And that the result of that discussion was a keep? What has changed in 24 hours? Crispness (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine. Genuine mistake. But there still remains an issue around the shortcut. I'm not sure if you were for, against or just curious, but my take is as follows:
 * If another project/working party/whatever wants it, they are quite welcome to have it.
 * If not then, personally I haven't got a problem with it. If others have a problem, or are offended by it, perhaps they should register their objection on the project talk page. If sufficient objectors do that then I am quite happy to take it back to RfD myself, with a recommendation for deletion.
 * If not, then it is a legitimate shortcut so it stays.
 * Is there an issue with any of that? Crispness (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "If others have a problem" - given that it's been nominated for discussion (=deletion) twice in rapid succession by different people, I don't think there's much of an "if" there. Waggers (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well 2 Rfd's, but there seemed to be only a single voice against. I honestly don't know if you are for/against or not sure. My guess from this latest response would be that your against, but I'm not sure of the 'what' or 'why'. Do you think you could expound a little on that? Crispness (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I did that in the RfD nomination - "Brit" has a completely different meaning that is applicable to the UK only, which is far from helpful in ensuring that editors from all backgrounds are comfortable contributing to the task force. Also, it's completely unnecessary - there are plenty of adequate shortcuts to that project page already.  The guidelines concur with this view: "The ideal is to show one or two shortcut names that are easy to remember at the page top." - also see WP:WTF. Waggers (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

List of administrator hopefuls
Hi - I'm working on a tool that creates List of administrator hopefuls from Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls and noticed you have a page in the category. Since you're already an admin, it seems like you might want to remove yourself from the category. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Waggers (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Equivalence
Waggers; please stop make statements of your own political POV and then demanding that I accept them as fact. Sarah777 (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I've ever stated my political point of view on Wikipedia. Waggers (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Check out your contribution on my talk page. Sarah777 (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, none of my politics revealed there. Waggers (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Slightly shorter proposal at British Isles
I've proposed this. I know you feel the intro shouldn't show more on the dispute than it already does, but I honestly think having more information is the only wasy to prevent the word "offensive" being used in a non-policy way. I don't know if you've trailed through the links or not, but only Kearney uses it in the sense Wikipedia does at the moment - he doesn't verify it, and he goes to use it for modern Ireland anyway. So he could have been referring to nationalists, as the other "many object" quote does more directly. After that it's about objection. We certainly cannot suggest that Irish gov discourage it wholesale - we have no evidence for that at all. Again, its a Policy thing (ie the strongest WP guidelines).

It's still a shortish intro even with the additional info. I've gone into cartography, where there is some evidence of change. It's not as much as claimed, but I'm personally I've always been happy to show the awkwardness over the term, and the objection to it - I'm just not having the the article used to attack my nationality. As we've both seen, the arguments backing-up the intensity can be anti-British in themselves. Without proper argument, and without proper sources, how can the sentence remain? It is because of a 'lock-cycle' - every time it is unlocked and a change is made, a war is started (always with IP and socks involved) and the article gets locked again on the previous version. Over time it looks like a consensus - but outside of a small group of ubiquitous people, it's not.

Surely this must be the most unweighted introduction of its type on Wikipedia - I can't imagine there being one worse than this, simply as extra informaion is not being allowed, simply to keep it short and sharp. What is presented (constantly in a protected version) is totally outside of policy, totally unweighted and exaggerated from the sources that exist, and couldn't possibly be more removed from the encyclopedia I signed up to help build. People have said they have abandoned this article, but I can't let it pass - as Britain is simply an issue that is close to my heart.

I've put a huge amount of my time on the guideline at WP:BITASK and BI is the core article. I cannot take one seriously, and not the other. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Britain is simply an issue that is close to my heart. is rather unencyclopedic Matt and must be regarded as an example of I don't like it. Sarah777 (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why?


 * It's not that I like the word "British" next to "Isles" (only a fair guideline can manage that) - it's the way the unverifiable word "offensive" is put next to "objectionable", and in direct relation to the word "British" that I find upsetting. It's appropriated into the text because a few people insist it is fact. It is the least sensitively made edit I've seen in this place - and that is because every other edit is allowed to be changed at some point, or weighted with other balancing information. This one has not been allowed to change. The objection to the term as it is currently presented is totally against sources, verifiable, weight. As is the Irish gov line - they are both presented in a way that is not only crude, but completely outside of policy.


 * It's all been about maintaining a damning tone, and nothing at all about reason, balance, or Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. No wonder someone has joined the debate recently thinking there is some kind of current oppression of Ireland by Britain - it was only a matter of time. The article should exaplain why the term is misleading - not damn the British for it being so! --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ireland disambiguation task force
Can you look at this WP:IDTF? I haven't quite finished it (a table showing cross-defined Ireland articles is coming). It's a hugely bold move - but WP:BITASK took an age to get off and it's clearly needed, as the various Ireland-related pages get so filled up, that 'motatoriums' get put in place (which are very anti-WP imo). I have to go out right now, but I'll be back soon. I'm asking Jza84 too - I'll show more later. Feel free to spread it if you like it and think it's ready.--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Its up now but has immediately been put up for deletion. Perhaps you could look at it and vote? (either in the proposal it kicks off with, or the deletion poll). --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Stara Zagora
Hey, what are you talking about? "Referenced"? It's absolutely obvious those IPs have been terrorizing the page for quite a long time and they continue to do so. You think it's "referenced" that Stara Zagora is not a city, but a "metro" and the "second most important economic centre"? Come on, we have sockpuppet IPs used by one person to avoid 3RR, I've been protecting this page for years, now the vandalism escalates and nobody is doing anything to prevent that! If it isn't evident, the "reference" is just a reference to the unofficial average salary study, which has nothing to do in the intro anyway, and says nothing of a fifth largest metro or economic centre of any kind.

What has to happen to that page so somebody would do a thing to stop it? We have an IP 3RR-ing yesterday, another IP 3RR-ing today, the same reverts, the same way they do them (undo function), obviously related to well-known puppeteer accounts (the weird Stara Zagora fetish is enough of an evidence). How am I supposed to tackle that? Leave the vandals do whatever they want to do? This is shocking... Todor→Bozhinov 13:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * AIV is not the place for content disputes. There are other places to report such things.  AIV is for obvious vandalism, and there was nothing that matched that description in the diffs that were reported. Waggers (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2008 (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 ForteTuba, 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) 03:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

British Isles and TharkunColl
Hi. Indeed, a pity that a block had to happen. One thing. That 141 IP address seems to pop up every couple of months and always gets into disruptive editing on the British Isles page. It must be a sock of another editor. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - posted this earlier in the wrong place -- Snowded  TALK  10:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I took it back to the position before the Wikipiere Sock did any edits. That I think is a stable version. If think I should have acted otherwise please tell me. I am getting really sick of these pages but don't want to leave them to persistent edit warrers. -- Snowded  TALK  10:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel exactly the same way. Waggers (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you have a look through the /References page? I think Nuclare recently added some stuff from one of the Irish newspapers at the bottom of the page and got the format a little wrong so it's hard to read towards the bottom of the article.  Still, the content is there.  79.155.245.81 (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't saying that an editor's comments "reek of immaturity" awfully close to a personal attack? Maybe you should read the reference (finally) before being so sure you're mature yourself. You've been on that page a LONG time and it might be mature to read the references before having an opinion there.  79.155.245.81 (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur.
I feel the user is gaming the system, causing as much damage as possible and stopping after a final warning. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  19:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoi.
Sarah777's section will go up next on my report. I will leave you a message when it is done. I do not, under any circumstances wheel war, so I will not directly undo any action you do, so do what you feel is needed. If you take a look at my report, I'm sanctioning Sarah under prongs A, B, weak C, strong E, Strong F, and weak G. --Tznkai (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The basics of the reasoning behind my sanctions of Sarah777 is live here. Please notify Sarah of the same.--Tznkai (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, so you may want to start looking. (struck, no idea what I meant to say here.--Tznkai (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC))Remaining diffs as of this time are going to be further examples of Sarah's combative conduct and factionalism on various talk pages, and then my conclusion--Tznkai (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar!

 * Yay, thanks! Waggers (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

British Isles
Why does DG continue to call you Matthew? GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He was actually replying to Matt Lewis - I snuck my post in between theirs (check out the date stamps!) Waggers (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Okie DOkie, Waggers. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read the references yet? 83.34.245.0 (talk) 09:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Woops! You forgot to sign back in. But why sign out? How many accounts are you running at this present time cold heart? --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Waggers. I suppose it may be slightly annoying that I keep asking, but I do think it's important that people contributing regularly on that page actually read the references.  Meantime, what on earth is MattLewis talking about now? 79.155.245.81 (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Go on, tell me you've read through them by now. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, while I'm at it, one other question. You said on the talk page that "British Isles" is the Common Name.  Do you have any source for that?  Seriously.  79.155.154.185 (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Since you're back now, can you confirm that you've read the references? 79.155.154.185 (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hiya Waggers, ...offensive to the Irish Nationalist..., works for me. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Error
Just an FYI, you changed one spelling error to another error, see here. Don't know if you need to change something in AWB or what, so just wanted to drop you a note so you are aware. KnightLago (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Yeah, thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. Some people have no lives apparently and just want to vandalize pages and pose as dead people for some strange reason DX927 (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

New requested move at Flag of Ireland
You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland. This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Omar Epps
Why am I being harrassed but no harrassment to 'tool'? The info the other person added does have a. Why is his ex wife and elder daughter defamatory? Thanks. 72.66.94.160 (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Newcastle United F.C.
February 2008

"Hi, the recent edit you made to Newcastle United F.C. has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Waggers (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)" I do not believe that I have ever editted that page. Apologies if I am incorrect. What exactly was this edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.20.53 (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're asking me about an edit from nine months ago - my memory isn't that good! Fortunately your edit history tells it's own story (click on the "diff" link to see the changes that were made).  Of course the NUFC edit wasn't necessarily your own - it could have been someone else using the same IP address. waggers (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to clear things up
Hi. I noticed you didn't respond to my reply on the CVU talk page. I reread my post, and realized that I may have come accross as sarcastic or belligerent (my second post; I stand by the first), but I really would like to hear your opinion. Cheers, --AtTheAbyss (talk) 05:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't spot your reply - I have now responded there. waggers (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Webiste
Can you analyze if this webiste should be blocked or not. Please.

It has arrived here because I put in lot's of wikipedias, and ishouldn't do it. But I only want to undo my error, so you could see the page Park Güell and the website: http://parkguell.net84.net/eng/

The bot page is: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:COIBot/XWiki/parkguell.net84.net#Discussion

Bye--RobCatalà (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's blacklisted, and will stay blacklisted. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your own website with advertising. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Apart from some spelling mistakes and a general lack of content, there's nothing wrong with the website itself - but if users have been persistently spamming links to it onto Wikipedia then our policy is to prevent that. From what Ohnoitsjamie says above, that appears to be the case.  Also please avoid forumshopping / "asking the other parent". waggers (talk) 09:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes but the thing is that the firt opinion was Ohnoitsjamie one, and then I asked for another opinion, and it was the oposite as Ohnoitsjamie said, so I ask another time, this was your time, and Ohnoitsjamie take the desicion for you, but, if you say no, that's all. (If you want to spend time reading about this topic, go to Ohnoitsjamie user page, we have had an argue.)


 * By this comment I only want to demostrate that I don't make this:
 * "asking for additional outside opinions until you get an opinion you like."
 * --RobCatalà (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token 6ac2b384edfecd5ea444250d54cc4fb9
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! waggers (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks for help
thanks for your considerable and vital help. i've been looking for someone neutral, even-handed fair and sensible to be able to collaborate and/or discuss with over there. i have no idea why people over there seem to allow the tone which they do. I was really waiting for someone to come along and make the process what it should be, ie more professional and even-toned, so I could simply bow out gracefully, since i really didn't have any objection to any discussion process in the first place. thanks for coming along. people like you make wikipedia go around! :-) (I;ll send you a wiki smile if i can find the right template! :-) :-) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

can you explain to me why you deleted my page?
i wrote an explanation on the talk page but got no reply. u just deleted it, it was livedatelove.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexpr07 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

can you please talk to me here or on my talk page. you were fast to delete my page but did not respond to my explanations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexpr07 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your post on the talk page did get a response - here it is verbatum:


 * There are lot of dating site pages on Wike, why is this one deleted? how is it different? for example, match.com or plentyoffish? also, i wanted to give a link to this page on the list of dating sites page... it said that the list was incomplete so i wanted to add it.
 * Look at WP:WEB guideline on how to create new article about a website. Other articles may be subjected to deletion if they don't satisfy wikipedia policy. Dekisugi (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. waggers (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

thank you
I read the quidelines but still confused by what was missing. Can you help me? This is from the guidelines: "an editor unfamiliar with guidelines may vote to keep an article solely because articles similar to it exist." When I created my article I looked at the similar articles for example so I don't really understand what's wrong with it. Please explain. Also, there's an article called "list of online dating sites" and I tried to add another site there but it's removed. Why? I didn't even put a link to it or anything, just wrote LiveDateLove as name.... It's relevant content, how come I can't add it? It does say in the article that list incomplete and asks for help expanding it... Alexpr07 (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles need to meet our criteria for inclusion, which includes notability. To be included, the website needs to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and you need to demonstrate that in the article itself.  Wikipedia is not a web directory - we don't want to have an article on every dating site that exists. waggers (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

what about my second question when i tried to edit an article? If you don't want to have an article for each dating site it's fine, but why can't I add a site to a dating site list? or only sites that have articles can be added? also look at Yahoo Personals article, it's really amazing

And notability issue is not the reason for speed deletion. look at other similar articles like "erotas online" or "chemistry.com" and etc.... just because a site is not in the news it's not notable? Alexpr07 (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability / failure to meet the inclusion criteria was exactly the reason for the speedy deletion - see the deletion log for proof. The tag that was put on the article was  - "an article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject."  When I reviewed the article, I found that to be the case and acted accordingly.  If you believe there are other articles that should be deleted for the same reasons, feel free to nominate them for deletion - there are three ways of doing this, and you can read more at WP:DELETE.  I recommend you familiarise yourself with the deletion policy and guidelines before proceding though.
 * Regarding the list, your post at Talk:List of online dating websites now has a reply. waggers (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Progress on the Manual of Style?
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force and in particular the subsection Compromise Proposal. -- Evertype·✆ 21:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Forum shopping?
Hi Waggers, I was a little disappointed to see this remark. Another editor reported Freddyboytoy to AN ; I, having also seen Freddy's actions, observed in that thread that AIV might be the better place. The vandalism continued, so, since the other editor had not done so, I started an AIV report. Forum shopping? I don't think so. Please try to assume just a little good faith when dealing with experienced editors, rather than assuming the worst. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reporting the same thing in two different places, hoping to get a different (or faster) result, is pretty much the definition of forum shopping in my book, experienced editors or otherwise. waggers (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you are entitled to your opinion. Sadly, you are mistaken. I reported the matter to AIV not because I was hoping to get a different (or faster) result but because I believed it to be the correct venue for it. You have absolutely no grounds to try to guess what somebody else may or may not be hoping, and, as a general point, as I have said, you would do well to assume that fellow editors are doing what they believe to be the right thing unless you have firm evidence to the contrary. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "you would do well to assume that fellow editors are doing what they believe to be the right thing" - where have I indicated anything to the contrary? I haven't suggested for a moment that you thought your actions were incorrect.  But posting the same problem to multiple admin noticeboards just wastes administrators' time.  If the thread at WP:AN shouldn't have been there, it should have been closed or removed before making the report at AIV. waggers (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Wow. I need to find the CVU award. When a person can undo vandilisim on your own page faster then you it means something! Thanks! You need a hug. (>'_')>Irunongames (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

about deleting my changes.
I MADE QUALATATIVE CHANGES TO RABARI SITE. I REQUEST U NOT TO CHANGE IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayneel rabari (talk • contribs) 16:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

why'd you delete it, its true sir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.199.205.1 (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Battle of the Forward Defence Lines
Why have you reverted me, I don't understand I have not vandalised anything, I updated the numbers of casualties among SLA security forces based on the already given reference. The reference which is given from the Tamil site gives a list news reports of SLA soldiers killed in the conflict and it is up-to-date. I just updated it because today another 130 soldiers were reported to have died, it is all in the reference. Also I changed the number of 12,000 LTTE killed to 7,000 because the reference states 12,000 killed since the beginning of last year and the article covers only this year. So please, don't revert my edit.89.216.236.45 (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
...for unvandalising my talk page, and blocking friend Qwerty. JohnCD (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Ireland disambiguation task force
Waggers, regarding the naming of the Ireland articles could you please explain your initiation of an alternative poll on this issue while a clear consensus had developed based on an existing poll? Sarah777 (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note my intention to action the consensus clearly expressed in the poll which you disrupted. Sarah777 (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Sarah


 * I agree that there was a consensus forming on the original poll, and my suggestion is not intended to supersede it but to supplement it. As I said in my introduction, there seemed to be only one area of disagreement, so my intention was to cement the agreement in the other areas.  Otherwise I fear the discussion will just go on and on and there won't be the opportunity to move forward even on the points that everyone is in agreement with.  If we can get unanimous agreement on the island/disambiguation moves then we can carry those out and get them out of the way without fear of move wars breaking out.  I worry that those who insist on Republic of Ireland staying where it is would revert any moves made to the island and disambiguation pages too, as they might see it all as one package - with my new poll, there's a clear distinction and it takes that excuse away from them. waggers (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It 'takes the excuse away' because it gives them what they want! If we redefine the British Isles to exclude Ireland I'd be happy to drop the naming issue too! Sarah777 (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not up to us to redefine anything. As I made clear, my poll proposed leaving RoI where it is for now and continuing the discussion on what to do with it, not leaving it where it is permanently.  So it wasn't "giving them what they want" at all, it was an attempt to give everyone what we all want and then focus on the bit that we disagree with.  I see Scolare has thrown a spanner in the works though. waggers (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't understand how we can think that Wiki name convention, as illustrated by Google (there are countless other arguments), seems increasingly anachronistic and is based not on WP:COMMONNAME but of arguments about politics, logistics of change, the "intrinsic" primacy of the island etcetera etcetera. Any and everything bar adherence to WP:NPOV and WP:COMMON . Sarah777 (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention WP:DISAM, as DDstretch did three weeks ago. The guidelines on what to do in this situation are laid out clearly, and most editors seem to agree that they should apply in this case too.  The problem is that around these issues there are a number of editors who throw their toys out of the pram if they don't get their own way, even if the consensus is against them.  Somehow we need to balance implementing the consensus + guidelines view (Ireland=dab, + Ireland (state) & Ireland (island)) with an attempt to minimise disruption to the project. waggers (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ya'll are brave, with the movement proposals (which look familiar). As I'm no longer in the thick of things (i.e. British & Irish related topics), I wish ya'll well, in your search for a solution. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate, and thanks for your input previously too. You've been a rare voice of calm and reason most of the time, and I hope you'll be back with more of the same - because I'm sure these quarrels will never go away. waggers (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your vote-of-confidence, in me. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

IDTF compromise poll
This could be a close one. I can think of 3 old-hat ROI editors (all having previously voted at IDTF) who I'd expect to sign and haven't yet, and the positive passers-by the 'vote for change' has been getting aren't around at the moment. Missing also are some other regulars who have previously voted for change. This is a nervy time to finish it for both sides (it is non 2/3 and literally could go any way) - I'd feel a lot less apprehensive if we had a date! I would suggest that any neutral admin you can find would be a good candidate to set out the finishing line. I've invested quite a lot in this, and I at least want to see a fair result, whichever way it is.

If change doesn't happen I will try and salvage Scolaire's recent 'Ireland as island with (state) and NI hatnotes' proposal idea (and his vote for it too), which won't be easy at all after the past few days. It's theoretically feasible - but it's from the brink of defeat, and would need full backing from those voting for the disam page. Perhaps the admin could know that there is actually one more glimmer of 'compromise', should this one not fall with the staus quo. Most people clued-up people on Wikpedia surely agree that something  has to change - more warring is just simply an unpalatable thought.--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep; I'd be happy with the status quo if it stopped the warring - I'd be equally happy with wholesale change if it stopped the warring - ANYTHING to stop the warring! I'll start a thread at WP:AN and see who's feeling brave. waggers (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

RM moves on Ireland stuff
I'd just do it immediately. The quicker we can throw the debate open, the more quickly the now actual disruption that Mooretwin is causing by his highly inaccurate allegations of "stealth", etc, can be stopped and seen for what it is by more people. DDStretch   (talk)  09:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're right; I've done it. waggers (talk) 11:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * e/c!! Don't you think it could still be a bit early, though? A worry could be beligerant voting at the RM - we can't guarantee on all the support it has had. And the 3 people I mentioned above still haven't turned up - despite the constant trickle still turning in. When they feel they are in the majority they are a different kind of force entirely, I promise you! Remember how they fought the taskforce around the AfD (if you saw it)? And it's worth remembering my too-brash 'opening proposal' too - I'm sure some people voted against it simply because I had the cheek to do it so quickly. The same thing could happen here, and the silence from a number of people worries me.


 * Any luck with the admin, waggers?--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No - see for yourself. I think a lot of admins see the word "Ireland" and run a mile, given the problems we've had with Ireland related issues over recent years.  Still, we do seem to have a fair bit of momentum without further intervention being necessary, so let's see how we do. waggers (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm nervous with this back on the Irish main pages - I hope you've done the right thing here. I'll support it, but if it doesn't pass it could be a big blow, undermining the taskforce and giving a huge amount of support to the status quo. My fingers are seriously crossed!--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ultimately, if any move is to be made, the RM discussion has to happen on the main talk pages. And, if the proposed moves don't get sufficient support, they just don't happen and we stay stuck in the current, stupid, stalemate situation, and we'll just have to live with it (despite it being a clear breach of Wikipedia policy). waggers (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets see how it goes, and I must stop letting Moortwin wind me up! Given the multiple attempts at this I think if it doesn't work we have to move it into arbitration, otherwise its going to happen again and again and the filibuster will work.   I also think you can count the votes on the task force page by the way.  -- Snowded   TALK  13:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would hope so, but then I thought every "agree" vote here would translate to an agree vote here, since the latter was just a subset of the former, but apparently I was wrong. People's voting patterns on this issue seem to change with the wind. waggers (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of editors having voted once thing they don't need to vote again, or are getting sick of the number of votes, arguments etc.  I think you can count any vote (either way) if it is not explicitly changed - assembling that and getting an arbcom member or simlar to confirm might be a way forward - if its necessary.  Thanks for displaying courage on this one by they way, without that it would have just drifted on.  Its not easy to take the brickbats on Irish pages.

(outdent)I am fast losing patience with the attacks that attempt to disparage people who have other viewpoints from Mooretwin, and the, frankly, clearly bogus "scare tactics" that are used to say what ridiculous titles articles would have if the disambiguation page move went ahead. As has been commented, it seems such a big matter that almost any type of tactics is considered usable in order to scupper this move. I have absolutely no problem if it fails as a result of honest and fair disagreements, but some of the reasons offered to oppose the move are ludicrous. I think that not only should arbitration be considered if the situation persists for longer, but a case could be made to expand the editing restrictions of "The Troubles" to include all Ireland and British Isles related areas. I think this would not be a good thing, but it may be the best of a bad bunch if this continues. DDStretch   (talk)  15:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya did the right thing in opening up RM discussions at Ireland & Ireland (disambiguation), Waggers. No matter what the outcome, it won't be the end of the world. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks GoodDay, I think so too - it really is no big deal. Personally I came into this with pretty much no opinion at all other than that I wanted to see an end to the bickering.  DDStretch's arguments were the only ones that were thought through and based on WP policy.  DDStretch - I haven't looked at the polls etc. since this afternoon but I'll take a look shortly.  If Mooretwin gets blatantly disruptive he'll be warned and, if necessary, blocked. waggers (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That all sounds very good, but you sould respect that many good people have been burnt by this matter over the years - change is a VERY hard thing to achieve here. It could be said the 'cabal' against change is as much as 15 people - and so far it has a 100% unbeaten record in all its fights. Your RM currently has more opposes than supports, and I worry that it being in the two places could somehow work against it. If this fails and things manage to pick up again, it will be down to work from a few other people than just you and DDStretch, I have to say too!


 * Regarding Mooretwin, it's hard to see how he can be dealt with for stonewalling when so many people stand beside him - he just happens to be more vocal on occasions. It's almost like some of them take it in turns, who knows. Guiliolopez looks like an opening - but people simply need to try harder with each other. There is only so much I can do myself as I made too many enemies fighting the thing past the AfD. I also worry that the last few days do look a bit like steamrolling. I understand the frustrations, but a new and genuinely neutral admin might think - "hang on" - is there really yet a full consensus here? Some of the serial opposers are simply no hopers I would agree, but we need to find out what gives with the ones who have an idea about what they would accept.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If these RMs fail, we'll have to accept the status-quo, Waggers. Also, we'll all have to remember to be patient with those who oppose the RMs & not bite them. Rough treatment can stir oppositon quickly. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. Whatever happens, there's no point getting worked up about it - there are far more important things in life. waggers (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * But again, that is very easy to say. Of course there are more important things in life, but don't forget how words like that can sound sometimes. It's a question of degree, and some people are clearly more passionately into this than you, perhaps sensibly, happen to be (though I do value your presence). Some people have invested an awful lot of time on this, over a long period too - nobody likes to see that kind of investment undervalued, or gambled with too cheaply. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Investment" sounds like you expect a "return". Much as I'd like the change to be made, we're going to have to accept the fact that we may be fighting a losing battle.  If this is a lost cause (and I really hope it isn't), there will have to come a time when we cut our losses. waggers (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To me the issue here is that RoI throws sand in the face of WP:COMMONNAME and is WP:BIASED; no cabal of 15 people can hold out against policy and common usage forever. I for one won't rest until this is made consistent with the rules of Wikipedia. Every vote is getting closer. "Ireland" must eventually become a dab, or Wiki has failed to support its own policy. Sarah777 (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you look at this?
It's late and I don't know if I going potty but I put this to Jza84 (as he's more detatched) - what do you make of it? Obviously, I went to town on it, but I thought he was trying to mislead people. What do you think his point was? He inserted "Republic of Ireland" in each example, suggesting they are piped to Ireland, and therefore the state name was used correctly. I thought he was fooling the vote. Maybe I've lost track of the argument, I don't know - I 'll give it another look.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * False alarm - I changed my reply. I can see what he was trying to do now - ie be a smart ass! He is still completely wrong, of course, but people just aren't grasping the deal here (or in this guys case, he possibly just wants Ireland to cover the past, and ROI the present perhaps).


 * I added a bit more information in the intro - a lot of people seem to be voting 'oppose' simply because they genuinely want Ireland as the state article, and as it appears to already be so, they can't understand moving it! --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Patients running dry, at the RM proposals
Hiya Waggers. Emotions are heating some, on the RM proposals. If these RMs fail, IMHO we should wait 1-year, until trying again. In the meantime, the Ireland Taskforce can continue to work things out. Our hopes for a consensus, isn't materializing. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - it's fairly clear from some of the comments that there's a lot of using the project to get political points across, and WP:POINTing at that. It's sad, but hardly surprising. waggers (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears as though moving Ireland & Ireland (disambiguation), isn't gonna happen (any time soon). GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * C'est la vie. I'm not going to lose sleep over it. waggers (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How does one, close those RMs? Or is there a time limit on'em. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You can just close them, by sticking archived discussion templates at the top and bottom. The discussions should be open for at least "a few days" - I would go for 5 as that's the standard for things like AfD, but I think they've been open longer than that already so are ripe for closure.  Matt had hoped that an independent administrator would come along and close them up, perhaps drawing comments together into a neat summary, but nobody volunteered to help out (the AN thread I started was archived without a single reply) so I guess anybody can close the discussion at any time, unless the conclusion they draw is going to cause outrage.
 * The dab page seems to have definite consensus to move, but the Ireland page I would close as "no consensus", which of course bars the way for the dab page to move. Having said that, there is still no clear reason after all the discussion as to why Ireland should not be moved; this being a meritocracy and not a democracy, that matters more than the number of votes - but it would be a brave person indeed to close the discussion with that conclusion! waggers (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I ain't that brave. Quoting Mike Tyson: "I'm crazy, but I'm not crazy". GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2008 (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 ForteTuba, 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) 22:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Simultaneous polls
Waggers, what is the purpose at having two polls on the same move request running simultaneously - one at Talk:Ireland and the other at the far-less visited Talk:Ireland (disambiguation)? Given that the disambiguation page receives only about 5% of the traffic that the "main" Ireland page does, a second poll at that location seems unnecessary and any result would smacks of vote stacking compared to the wider view received at Talk:Ireland. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

An administrator has moved the 3 articles. I fainted, shortly after finding this out. With no consensus for such moves, we're likely headed to Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good call by the Admin - maybe that's why you nearly fainted - the novelty of it. Of course there was consensus. Sarah777 (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Waggers, do you now see the fault at running simultaneous polls for the same move request? The pages affected are among the most visited articles on WP (467th and 1877th most visited) - this will have very serious consequences. How will you now address the issue? What questions do you think this raises with regards to your suitability for adminship? --89.101.221.42 (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hold on there. Waggers isn't in any trouble, nor is the Page moving Administrator. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I sense an element of vote stacking through the running of three simultaneous polls, two of which were participated in almost exclusively by a selection of users that were ardently pushing the move. It was one of the polls that enjoyed the participation of only a narrow selection of the community that was used to justify the moves.
 * Since Waggers was an initial proposer of all three simultaneous polls, I would like to know what was the purpose of running simultaneous polls (as I asked last night), what affect he thinks that choice had on the outcome, and if he accepts now (as he did last night) that consensus was against the move? I want to know if he thinks his choice to run simultaneous polls was responsible for a faulty decision being made, that this decision had major consequences for two of the most visited articles on the encyclopedia, and if he thinks that any of this raises questions with regards to his suitability for adminship? --89.101.221.42 (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When it comes to fiddling the votes I'd reckon the biggest problem is IP-voting. Would anyone trust an IP to be an Admin?? So why trust them to vote? (They can't vote in RfAs but can vote on 467th most visited on Wiki!) Figure that. Sarah777 (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you need to be a little more clear, Sarah777. RfA are normally decided by actual votes. IP contributions are not counted in that vote, but can certainly participate in the process and may sway the deciding bureaucrat. "Polls", such as the one that recently took place on the Ireland page (and several other pages!!), are not votes - hence "!vote" (do I really need to explain this to you so often?). It is the value of your comments that counts, not the amount of comments you make.
 * Why can an IP not be trusted to be an admin? Because the IP belongs to the ISP, not the user.
 * For WP-wide problems, it's poor faith, poor understanding of policy, and a poor attitude that gets my gut. Each of which you have in spades. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be a personal attack, then, much like the rest of your ranting here. WP:RM recommends that the move request poll happens on the talk page of the relevant article; therefore the proposed move from Ireland (disambiguation) to Ireland was discussed on the Ireland (disambiguation) talk page and the move from Ireland to Ireland (island) was discussed on the Ireland talk page.  This is standard procedure.
 * It's clear from your posts here that you don't understand the workings of the wiki, contrary to your suggestion above. It's also clear that you have no regard for arguably more important policies such as AGF and NPA.  I suggest you take your foul slurs elsewhere, such behaviour is not welcome on this project. waggers (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:RM? Do you mean this WP:RM? And I suppose this would be a shining example of good faith and not biting the new comer? --78.152.242.239 (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you the same person using IP 89.101.221.42? If you're seriously going to get involved in debates like this, it really helps if we know who we're talking to - PLEASE create an account and stick with it. Re the BI edit, it was clear the editor knew what they were talking about ("infobox " is a WP term and most newcomers wouldn't know what one is) so there wasn't a newcomer to bite. waggers (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, same IP users as 89.101.... As for the other IP user, he "never mentioned the word "infobox" - or any other in-term that might suggest he was had experience of WP. Before you bit him he had made a) constructive edits to 2 articles, b) wasteful posts on 2 talk pages and c) a constructive contribution to 1 talk page. 3/5 edits good, not bad for a new comer, eh? But fear not, you scared him off good.
 * Sign-up? No thanks. I've seen what it does to people.
 * Congratulations on becoming a father. --78.152.229.206 (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I scared him off for good. I think he simply changed IP address - perhaps to 89.101.221.42, then to 78.152.229.206.  After all, you clearly know that they're a "he", which is more than I knew before that last post of yours. waggers (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * he (pronoun, third person singular) 2nd def: used to refer to a person or animal of unspecified sex
 * Anyway, good to know you're washing you hands of it and blaming others. That make it all alright. Cheerio and good luck with fatherhood and your next round of forum shopping. --78.152.229.206 (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration of Ireland article naming dispute
I have filed this Request for arbitration of Ireland article naming dispute and named you as one of the involved parties. I would appreciate it if you could make a 500-word-or-less statement there. -- Evertype·✆ 19:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal
You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

A personal message
Hi Waggers -- I noticed your comment over at WP:RFAR, & want to congratulate you on becoming a father. Speaking as a long-term Wikipedian who recently also entered fatherhood (my daughter is 10 months old now), I would like to share with you a bit of my experience: don't be surprised if you find the time you can devote to Wikipedia reduced to 3-5 hours a week, including reading discussions & doing research. That is what happened to me; it would appear that father/motherhood is the only sure cure for Wikiholicism. Good luck with your new family member, & I hope you don't lose too much sleep. -- llywrch (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I should mention that this is my second, so I was already operating on reduced time!  Parenthood certainly does put a lot of things into perspective though, Wikipedia among them. waggers (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Every comment at User talk:66.29.225.194 pertains to vandalism. I noticed you blocked him or her for 24 hours once before. Is it possible to do it again and for a longer period of time? Thank you! LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ waggers (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I just noticed the IP is registered to the Dade Christian School. The teachers there should know how constructively the students are using their time! LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Comment
I would be very grateful if you would come and comment about Former Schools sections of Navigation Templates. -- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 18:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

WagTools
Sounds like a nice tool. Do you have some documentation on it? cheers mate. --STTW (talk)  11:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I haven't got round to writing documentation yet - I'm planning to put a user guide up at some point, but there are still a few minor bugs I want to iron out. I'm hoping that it's fairly intuitive to use! waggers (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have tried using the latest version with firefox 3. Only the wikiproject template addition option is available. This options searches the right article but then does not add the template to the talk page. So was wondering if my installation is correct. Which firefox version do you use? Also is there some conflict with other firefox addons?? --STTW (talk)  00:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WikEd needs to be disabled for WagTool to work!! Apart from that the tool works fine. cheers. --STTW (talk)  11:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, well found! I'm sure that there will be a few other combinations of add-ons and scripts that WagTools doesn't work alongside.  I'll add that to the user guide (which I  have finally made a start on).  Thanks for your input, the more the merrier! waggers (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making such a very useful tool. In a later version would it be possible to have an option to use the Secure Server address instead of the default? I assume that being able to set the web address would also make this tool useful for the other language Wikipedias too. Road Wizard (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the complement, and for the suggestion. Yes, that's been in the back of my mind for a while - I will look into it. waggers (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

As a result of this case, the community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. If the discussion does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure. Until such procedures are implemented Ireland and related articles shall remain at their current locations. Once the procedures are implemented, no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Tiptoety talk 04:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nott? not!
Dear Waggers,

Something is amiss in the first sentence of 'Hampshire Sheep':

"The Hampshire or Hampshire Down is a breed of sheep which originated around 1829 from a cross of Southdowns with the Old Hampshire breed, the Old Wiltshire, and the Berkshire Nott, all horned, white-faced sheep — these were native to the open, untiled, hilly stretch of land known as the Hampshire Downs."

The Berkshire Nott is a 'horned, white-faced sheep'? It is a contradiction in terms; a *nott* is a doddy, a hummel, a moyle, a pollard; a horned nott is a round square.

Regards,

Stephen.r (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't write that - in fact I've never contributed to that article. Feel free to be bold and change it yourself, or discuss it at Talk:Hampshire sheep first if you're not sure. waggers (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Archival
Since your profile says you are a big fan of avoiding vandalism on wikipedia, it would be helpful to know why you deleted my edit to the word "archival".

The misuse of archival as a noun has become problematic in my industry. I'll avoid the obvious stereotype of people from the UK "protecting the King's English", and simply ask why you would instead be protecting this new bastardization of the language. olymons (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For one simple reason: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and Wiktionary already has an entry on this word. waggers (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. Your link to "archival" in Wiktionary produces the following result (at least in the US):  "Wiktionary does not yet have an entry for Archival."; which is strange, because it does have an entry.


 * And I also beg to differ: my comment isn't a definition, so it is not appropriate for Wiktionary.  I believe you should re-think your position on this, because it isn't appropriate to put a non-definition in Wiktionary.  olymons (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It also isn't appropriate to put a non-article in Wikipedia. By your own admission above, your entry was a comment. Please see WP:FORUM.  In fact, I suggest you read (or re-read) the whole of WP:NOT! waggers (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If I can butt in? The edit to Archival destroyed a functioning redirect, and would have been better discussed prior to it being done. That ignores the other pertinent point which is that it was unverified, and written in a style not suited for an encyclopaedia. Given that it destroyed a redirect, it was appropriate to revert it. I consider a better solution would have been to edit Archive to make the point that the adjective formed from the noun was archival, and this could have been suitably placed in the section dealing with the origins of the word. In fact, I went ahead and did just that. It could do with a reference, however, and so if Olymons would like to add that, the matter would be more or less settled.  DDStretch    (talk)  16:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The redirect still worked when I did the edit. Perhaps it was the result of browser caching, or something WP does at some point after such an edit.  ddstretch is right that I shouldn't have broken a redirect, and I tried not to; apologies that it ended up doing so.


 * I considered an edit to "Archive" for a while; but there wasn't a reasonable way to point out the misuse of "archival". In my industry (and related high-tech industries) the misuse of "archival" as a noun is spreading.  A significant number of my colleagues are, to put it politely, somewhat limited in their knowledge (or respect for) the fundamentals of grammar.  In my opinion, a reference to "archival" that simply defines it as an adjective will fail to reach those colleagues who are misusing the word.


 * My conclusion is that the Wiki system attempts to be so politically correct, it isn't able to deal with even this tiniest of grammatical controversies. So, I give up.  I'll try to send a note to the relatively few and much too obscure authors who write about grammar.  Sadly, their discussions are relegated to a small number of readers who are passionate about the perversion of the language, not the masses who are perverting it.  olymons (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that if you are unable to describe the problem without committing hyperbole by making allegations of other editors "perverting" the language, or of political correctness, then wikipedia is probably not the place for you. By the way, if you continue, please try to sign your posts. You can do this by adding four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of the message. However, if you still wish to continue trying to work within a collaborative framework in which personalised comments and hyperbole are discouraged, then I strongly encourage you to continue.  DDStretch    (talk)  17:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't say anything about "other editors" perverting the language. I was talking about colleagues who are misusing the word "archival" and thus perverting the language.  The use of "perverting" is common in pre-internet discussions of jargon like this, I didn't think it would offend.  Sorry.


 * I'm more than willing to hear constructive suggestions for how the point could be documented. Something more constructive than telling me that this tool is "not the place for" me.  From the comments I've gotten here (and from some other discussions I've read lately), it's increasingly difficult to make a point like this.  The resulting blandness reduces contributions and discourse to a lowest-common-denominator, in my opinion.


 * Sorry the signature bothers you. I'm not a fan of smilies and other such stuff, so I tend to let the computer fill in the pertinent data.  I'll sign from now on herein.  Olymons (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional suggestions: If there is no entry for archival on Wiktionary, then you are free to add one. For the matter of the misuse of the term, then along with any verification added, as I suggested before, you could also mention matters concerning the word's misuse in the same footnote so long as you could verify the information you were adding by means of a suitable citation of a reliable source (i.e., referring to a reliable source which discusses the misuse of the term.) If there is no reliable source, then I suggest you write one by creating a short article and getting it published somewhere, either online or in a paper-based medium. Then, someone else can refer on wikipedia to your material as a means of making the point that archival can be misused. I urge to do this if you feel strongly about this matter. DDStretch   (talk)  17:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is an entry for archival on Wiktionary, it just doesn't come up in waggers reference, FNAR. An entry there, as I say earlier, should stick to the dictionary format, which precludes mention of misuse.


 * While I recognize the value of citations of misuse, it's a bit odd to preclude all discussion in cases like this. I can find no documented definitions of the word "archival" as a noun, so it's use as a noun, by definition of misuse alone, is misuse.


 * But I recognize the community has a desire to put some sort of external reference in this. I don't have the time or inclination to publish such a thing.  If someone in the language field decides to write about it, I may get back to putting a reference in Wikipedia.  Like other jargon, it may end up with its own entry and become an accepted (if not sad for some of us) part of the language.  I'll go back to addressing the issue with my circle of colleagues; sending them a copy of Pinkert's or The Elements of Style when I get a chance.  My favorite way to address it is "what did you mean by 'used for data archival'?"  They stammer a while to find the words they really meant.


 * Thanks and cheers. Olymons (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

user:JeanandJane
Had you asked me, I would have pointed out the series of edits by redlinked users all adding the same material to the same article, which shows strong evidence of sock or meatpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if such information could be added to the user talk page when blocking them, so that unblock requests can be viewed in context. waggers (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The block was a response to an ANI thread, I believe. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Even more reason to include such information in the block log. waggers (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ross King (worship leader)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Ross King (worship leader), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Article has been tagged as unreferenced for three months and currently fails WP:MUSIC

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Aspects (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

some kind of protection for R. Hansen article?
Dear Sir/Madam,
 * Rick Hansen is a high profile Canadian paralympian, athlete and is well known for his succesful 1980's Man in Motion tour. He is also a member of the Order of Canada. Hansen is widely respected in Canada as much as Terry Fox whose wiki article has been indefinitely protected due to incessant vandalism. Does the amount of vandalism in Hansen's page warrant a level of protection...in your opinion? Some of the vandalism against his page stems from his high profile and it is not a great reflection on Wikipedia since it violates WP:BLP.
 * (FYI, I sourced the 2 images for his article and 96.48.145.212 is my anon IP) I sign in often but I forget sometimes. However, this is not the issue.
 * What do you think? IMO, 90-95% of the edits by anon IPs here are just pure vandalism.  --Leoboudv (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope you can make a reply to my query. Its been almost 2 days now. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to have been much vandalism there in the last couple of days, so I'm not too convinced - we try to limit page protection as much as we can. That said, as you point out this is a BLP, which makes a stronger case for protection.  Hopefully, though, the new flagged revisions scheme should kick in soon which would pretty much annihilate this sort of vandalism.  In any case, the right place to request page protection is WP:RPP - you're much more likely to get a quicker response there than picking an admin at random and expecting them to be online continuously when in fact I was away for a funeral at the weekend... waggers (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I don't pick an Admin at random: I saw you made an edit to clean up vandalism on his page here. So, I thought you had more insight into the situation than someone else who wasn't involved in continually cleaning up Hansen's page. I apologise for contacting you at a bad time. As an aside, I have never heard of a WP:RPP before. I will see if anyone will respond there as I have to go now. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Vine, etc.
The anon editor who was adding unsourced material to Jeremy Vine seems to have diverted to putting the content on Jimmy Young (disc jockey) and Panorama (TV series) (similar edits BBC Radio 2 have already led to it being protected), although not from a consistent IP address. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cookie!
Datestamp for archiving: waggers (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

British Isles
Per your edit comment, I've made a revised proposal on that talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The recurring IP.86, seems familiar to me. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. But deny recognition. waggers (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Our 'friend' is starting an 'edit war' over his trolling posts. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like he (or she) has gone now, but I've given a final warning so if they return please report them to AIV. waggers (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there's as near a consensus as we're likely to get for this: The British Isles is a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which includes the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and numerous smaller islands. There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. The British Isles also includes the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the island group.

The term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections to the use of the phrase and the Irish government discourages its use. "Britain and Ireland" is a frequently used alternative name for the group. So, if you'd like to don your admin hat, I think a change to the page is in order. Re-reading it, I'd like to get rid of one of the "islands" in the first sentence so it would read: "The British Isles is a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which includes Great Britain, Ireland, and numerous smaller islands." But it's probably best to go with what's "agreed" for the moment, unless you're feeling extra-bold.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ - including the bold bit. I'm sure there can be no real argument for needing the word "islands" to appear three times in the one sentence. waggers (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - eagerly awaiting the next instalment! Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

86.42.117.220
I must say I was considering blocking this IP and unchecking anonymous users only, just to see who falls out of the woodwork, as I believe it is another established user who is hiding (or getting around another block), not some new IP user. Canterbury Tail  talk  14:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My hunch is that it's a banned user such as User:Gold heart - there are already a couple of similar IP addresses listed as suspected sockpuppets of his here. waggers (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My thoughts are that it is an established user, and I have blocked a number of the ip addresses used by them in the past. I did that to, like Ben suggests, to see if an established editor was flushed out. I became uncertain about blocking them a while back, and I'm not sure what to do now. I'm glad I'm not the only one who has considered blocking, however. There is one little niggle I have: whenever wotapalaver is silent, the anon ip address person tends to be active and vice versa, thoigh there are a number of others one might say that about it seems.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's quite tempting to semiprotect the talk page, but I expect that would be frowned upon (for good reasons, too). waggers (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I enquired about that on some admin page some time ago (can't recall where now), but the message I got back was that such an act would need many more people to discuss and agree it first, and that any admin doing it alone would be quickly reversed (I got the impression that an admin doing this alone would be looked upon as a limb of Satan, almost.)  DDStretch    (talk)  11:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think protecting the talk page may be going to far, unfortunately, but it's becoming a big issue. The issue is whoever it is isn't always on the same IP (if it is indeed 1 or only a few editors). The thing is the IPs keep coming in with the same arguments as others making it hard to assume good faith and think they're a new editor. Canterbury Tail   talk  14:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) So what do we do about the latest message? My got feeling is that, since the ip address has been previously blocked for the same kind of message, a longer block would be in order (say 1 week). However, the current message is not so laden with vitriol or soapboxing as the previous ones. Would it be correct to block claiming the same reasons? I'm not sure. DDStretch   (talk)  16:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think a block is in order for the latest message. Can't block someone for being completely wrong on a talk page. I don't think it contains anything else that is blockable, no personal attacks, no real disruptive editing. We could always build a bridge over it though, I hear they like being under bridges. Canterbury Tail   talk  20:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed - there's no need for another block just yet. While the latest message is far from constructive, it is at least vaguely on-topic this time (in that it references the changes we're trying to make, before repeating the usual rant) and less abusive.  But still, we'll have to keep an eye on the situation.  The discussion seems pretty close to closing in any case. waggers (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2009 (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 ForteTuba, 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) 22:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

inflammatory attacks
A user has placed very inflammatory and very racist remarks on this page Talk:Turkic_peoples. Furthermore, he has found a way to remove the date and IP signature from the comments. Please look into this. The inflammatory remarks are in their own section and they make no contribution to the discussion of the topic. I hope you can help and please let me know of the outcome. Best regards, WillMall (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. The user in question was 134.105.224.142 which belongs to an educational institution in Sweden. There is a history of someone using that address making similar insulting remarks     and they have been warned for it (and even blocked for it in the past, but only for a short time) so I've now blocked that address for a full year. waggers (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the fast action :) WillMall (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Imran Khan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imran_Khan i have visited imran khan profile and whatever is written in this is wrong please delete that page .his enemies have writen it.false languag is used in this.non written in this is true —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umerm (talk • contribs) 19:11, 19 February 2009 GMT
 * Please discuss it on that article's talk page, providing references where necessary. Thanks, waggers (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hants Userbox
Looks great, thanks! Grunners (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Retirement postpond
OK, ya'll convinced me. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Puzzled on block notice
Your block notice at User talk:173.17.6.235 has me puzzled. Did re-block the IP after I did? --Kralizec! (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Bizarre! Not sure what happened there - I guess you must have beaten me to the block and I didn't notice, so carried on posting the notice anyway.  Oh well, at least they can be sure they're blocked! waggers (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Palringo
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Palringo. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ThymeCypher 15:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, a procedure has been developed at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Eastleigh (borough)
Hi, as you've not edited since I reviewed the above article I thought I'd leave a note on your page in case you didn't see that I've started the GA review. The article is currently on hold for the reasons I give here. Good luck, Nev1 (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

WagTools
Greetings! I wonder if WagTools could be used to assign stub templates to articles, or to replace a stub template with a different one. It seems to me that if WT can place tags on talk pages, perhaps it could handle this too. We used to have a bot that would tag articles, but its owner has flown the coop, and I use a Mac, thus AWB is not an option. Just a thought. Cheers, Pegship (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good thought. I must admit I've been lagging behind on WagTools development of late, but I'll try and pull my finger out and get something working for you. waggers (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be eternally grateful. :P Pegship (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Eastleigh (borough)
How's the article progressing? I'm only going to be editing intermittently for the immediate future, but I though it was worth checking up on the article as the GA review's still open and has been on hold for nearly three weeks. Nev1 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)