User talk:Finlay McWalter/archive10

Happy 9th Wikipedia Anniversary to you :)

Hi Finlay McWalter :) Greetings on your 9th Wikipedia Anniversary since your joining of Wikipedia on 14 September, 2003! Best Wishes. Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

Greetings--I'm sorry to do this 'IP-style'. This is user:Djathinkimacowboy. I feel up to the task of requesting my indefblock be lifted. the trouble is, I cannot place the template: {{unblock }} at my talk page and do not really know how I must proceed. I actually haven't tried signing in, but I doubt I can recall my password information! You may reply at Djathinkimacowboy page. My time away has crippled me in the already limited knowledge of Wikipedia operations!75.21.149.52 (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Finlay McWalter. You have new messages at Djathinkimacowboy's talk page.
Message added 02:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

FYI (unblock request) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hetrometro

User:Hetrometro is back to adding non-notables. I am notifying you, per your warning. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iamthemuffinman's unblock request

Hi Finlay. Iamthemuffinman has (finally!) posted a sound-looking unblock request, which I'm inclined to grant. However, you and a number of other admins have been involved with his block in the past, so I'd like to get your take on it too; if you have a moment, please could you have a look at User talk:Iamthemuffinman and leave an opinion? Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 12:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Investigation

Thank you for your assistance with the article on List of Armenian Americans. You helped blocked a rogue editor Hetrometro who was causing major havoc with the article, but it appears he has created a sock puppet account Afer510 has starting to repost non-notable names and write in German (on an English-language site). Can you take a look at this and block the user?--XLR8TION (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Weirding

A tag has been placed on Weirding requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Widefox; talk 11:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Hi sir I am phani. yesterday you gave reply to my thread synchronization post. your explanation is correct. I got lot of confidence after looking at your answer. Thank u sir.thank u very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanihup (talk • contribs) 08:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your SPI

You should request checkuser attention. Behavioral evidence alone doesn't look over the duck like to me. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

doubt on synchronized block in java

Hi sir! I am asking directly to you.Because last time you gave perfect answer.
some people are feeling bore on my regular questions on threads.
sir!do not feel bore on my regular questions.I am a beginner.I am learning java with out any teacher.I need your valuable
suggestinons.Today i am going to ask on synchronized block.

the general form of synchronized block is
class table
{
.......
void printTable(int n)
{
synchronized(object)
{
......
}
}
}

1)Here object means object of any class.i.e we can lock object of any class besides the object of "table" class.
2)if we place this in place of object it is possible to lock object of table class
3)then how can we lock object of a class other than table?can you give example based on below programme?
4) if we want to access a variable or method from table class we need object of table .
if we lock object of table class it is not possible to an object of table class to access synchronized block of table class
from two different places simultaneously.
but if we lock object of another class,say X,how can the object of class X can access synchronized block of table class?
because object of class X is not object of table.object of table only can access members of table.

I think you got my doubt.
I request you to clarify my doubt based on below programme.

import java.io.*;
class table
{
void printTable(int n)
{
synchronized(this)
{
for(int i=1;i<=5;i++)
{
System.out.println(n*i);
try{
Thread.sleep(500);
}
catch(InterruptedException ie)
{System.out.println(ie);
}
}
}
}
}
class MyThread1 extends Thread
{
table t;
MyThread1(table t)
{
this.t=t;
}
public void run(){
t.printTable(5);
}
}
class MyThread2 extends Thread
{
table t;
MyThread2 (table t)
{
this.t=t;
}
public void run()
{
t.printTable(100);
}
}
class synchronizedblock1
{
public static void main(String args[]
)
{
table t=new table();
MyThread1 t1=new MyThread1(t);
MyThread2 t2=new MyThread2(t);
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}
======================================
output:
5
10
15
20
25
100
200
300
400
500
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanihup (talk • contribs) 10:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

It seems you're involved in an edit war on From Russia with Love (film) and are making threats to editors; you've already reverted in excess of the maximum of three times. If you revert again, I will block you from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.143.220 (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/64.175.37.110 as well is another sock, the guy must own an IBM store!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Blofeld

USER Dr Blofeld has been attacking other editors on his talk page, calling them "Losers". I am sure you will want to issue a warning and a block threat to this USER in line with your excellent moderating and to be consistent with the other warnings and threats you have issued today. I (and I am certain ALL other wiki editors) would expect nothing less than even handed treatment towards Dr Blofeld's blatant abuse of wikipedia.

Anonymous editor question

You recently intervened at From Russia with Love (film) a page I edit. Many thanks. My reasons for posting here have to do with another IP editor - Special:Contributions/81.159.150.93 - who has made only a single edit to wikipedia during an edit war involving two other editors at Stargate (film). (I want to clarify that this anonymous editor has nothing to do with the anonymous editor you blocked.) What I find odd is that this person has made only a single edit to wikipedia... and this anonymous editor knew to quote WP:BRD (but didn't know enough to ensure that the contested edits contained correct information). According to this website, the IP appears to be part of a spam network. You have much experience in these matters. What's your take? - Fanthrillers (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address is part of BT's general ADSL pool (BT is UK's main telephone company and its largest ISP). So the honeypotnet thing isn't relevant - it's just some person in Britain. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 01:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for your help in improving the Dastangoi article! Prad2609 (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add that I look forward to your edits every time I go to the page. Am learning a lot from them and really enjoying the whole thing. Thanks! Bishdatta (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fun for me to help, and it's great seeing an interesting and worthwhile article emerge where it didn't initially look like one was viable. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User page advice sought

Hi there, Finlay. Parker Gabriel here, looking for advice on how to design a Wikipedia user page.

Thanx for any advice you can offer.
--Parker Gabriel 05:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parker Gabriel (talk • contribs)

Another edit war involving From Russia With Love

Hello Finlay,

Today a simple copyedit of the article From Russia with Love (film) apparently incurred SchroCat's wrath, and despite my editing in good faith, he keeps reverting it to a version which, on the authority of dictionaries (which I pointed out to him), I deemed to contain misspellings and misusages. I have tried discussing the matter with him but he came up with no reason as to why his version should be considered better. The discussion in question can be found here. I don't believe he is discussing, or even editing, in good faith, and a quick look at some of his other discussions has revealed a rather belligerent approach to other users. All I want, really, is to be able to edit some corrections into one article (as I've done with countless others) without starting a verbal punchup (by the way, I've decided I cannot discuss anything with him anymore, as he simply doesn't stay on topic), getting various accusations thrown at me (he accuses me of starting the edit war), or having his friend heap praise on him and scorn on me. This would be MisterShiney, who, I suspect, is a sockpuppet. Anyway, I dare not edit "From Russia with Love (film)" again today lest I break the 3RR, but can you have a look at all this? Thanks. Kelisi (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FPC delisting nomination of File:Three cell growth types.png

Hi. This is to let you know that I've nominated File:Three cell growth types.png for delisting as a Featured Picture at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Three cell growth types. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RD/C out-of-line comment

Apologies for the removal of Dmcq's edit; it appeared that Dmcq was attempting to be funny when such was unwarranted/unwelcome. The OP was, in my view, looking for help fixing, not destroying, a hard drive. I judged the edit as unhelpful in every sense and removed it. -- 143.85.199.242 (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:Fb rider

Thanks for that! Will you add the various sock/block templates to the editor's pages? Stalwart111 21:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks! Stalwart111 22:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert!

My thanks for blocking and reverting the changes for the persistent vandal who was most recently at 99.224.111.191. It is appreciated! Caidh (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there's been a pattern of threats (and not just vandalism and silly insults), and/or if you feel concerned that this is more than just the usual run-of-the-mill sillyboots, philippe AT wikimedia DOT org is aware of this particular IP, but perhaps not of other addresses the same person may have used. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Desk

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thanks for the quick answer! I was afraid it would take days for someone to answer it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The anon you just blocked is back already

Please note that this extremely problematic, disruptive and contentious user has already come back with a new IP. User:46.239.43.249, and is also apparently a sockpuppet of recently indef-blocked User:Shaushka. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no any extreme problems at all, it's just changing of IP adress. I came for three reasons: reporting Til Eulenspiegel for 4RR, informing administrators about his POV-pushing and to apologize to Finlay and inform him that I won't repeat mistakes again. Fin, sorry again. --46.239.43.249 (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"There's no any extreme problems at all, it's just changing of IP adress." Oh, it's just that? You were blocked a moment ago, so if you come back for any reason while you are blocked, as you just admitted to doing, it is "block evasion". That's a serious problem and breach of trust, and it is not the least of the problems with your disruptiveness. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Scottish institute of sport logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Scottish institute of sport logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 06:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have a perfectly good fair-use claim for using that logo on the article of the corresponding organisation, Scottish Institute of Sport. Yet it's twice been removed, both times by 81.105.221.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which whois shows to be the organisation itself. Frankly, I don't have the energy to bicker with some unaccountable quango intent on damaging its own image. So we should delete the logo, and probably the article too. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of AndyTheGrump

Andy was absolutely justified in repeatedly hatting Count Iblis' insensitive off-topic remarks about euthanasia in a context that made such remarks extremely offensive. CI insisted on unhatting, apparently being proud of his comments and wanting them in full view. He needed blocking for disruption, while Andy should have been praised for applying common sense and IAR in a situation that actually affected living people. Please unblock Andy now. I have no objection to your block of Count Iblis, which was more than fair. Bishonen | talk 23:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

People have disagreements. They need to discuss them. I didn't block them for disagreeing, and I'm not going to express any opinion about the content of their disagreement. But they both know that the only acceptable way for good-faith Wikipedians, which both undoubtedly are, to resolve disputes is discussion. They warred rather than discussed, so I felt it was entirely appropriate that they stop. Both feel that they're justified; neither is. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(And ten days!) You are being formalistic in blocking two users who you concede were both editing in good faith. Editors aren't children who need their wrists slapped to learn a lesson; they're adults, applying thought processes and things. (Though Count Iblis wasn't doing it with good sense and competence, I think.) The block of Andy is a particularly bad block, both because of the circumstances, which justified his actions, and because it would be a bad thing to lose his services to the encyclopedia for ten days. I'm afraid I'll undo it if you don't. Bishonen | talk 00:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I can't stop you. Both have behaved badly, neither seems to recognise it. I've gone out of my way to not pick sides, and I think you should do likewise. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my note on Andy's page: you think the users equally at fault; I don't. The logic is presumably that you'll unblock Count Iblis. Bishonen | talk 00:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

(Edit conflict with Bishonen) I've been looking at these blocks as well. Count Iblis's comments were shockingly gratuitous and inappropriate, and the only faults I can find with AndyTheGrump's reaction are (1) his decision to hat the discussion (which helps draw attention to it) rather than remove it altogether, which is what I would have done, especially after it became clear that the OP was highly offended, and (2) the edit summaries, which while provoked were avoidable. In this context I would think that the repeated hatting of this particular comments comes close to falling within a BLP-like exception to the policy against edit-warring, and think that a 10-day block is hard to justify on such a basis. In addition, while I admire treating equal things evenhandedly, any equivalency between posting "you should have euthanized your mother" and suppressing it is a false equivalency. Like things should be treated alike, but unlike things, not so much (although I could see a case for commuting Count Iblis' block to a topic-ban from the reference desk). Thanks for your consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your objection, and Bishonen's, relies on you agreeing with one party and disagreeing with another in a really minor dispute. People say things all the time which, in the heat of the moment, they may come to regret, and which may to other seem inflammatory. I didn't block either for what they said, or for edit summaries. Nowhere did I pretend that either was acting in bad faith - indeed WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR really only apply to people acting in good faith, but doing so in an unwise manner. But pretty much the entity of the 4th pillar of Wikipedia:Five pillars is about calm discussion, and that's why I chose to block both, equally. I think it's unwise to treat the two combatants differently, even if one were to feel a differential about the respective positions they may have held. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position, but I disagree with it. (I would generally agree with your view if this had been an edit-war over a garden-variety content dispute, but this wasn't really that.) See also my comment on Count Iblis's page in response to his unblock request. I'm also unsure how you came up with 10-day block lengths. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A point of information. I didn't hat the material in question - it had been done by JackOfOz, 4 hours previously. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noted; perhaps I should have said "re-hatted," but I don't think it matters much. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three points:

Andy was right to hat the off-topic discussion.
Edit-warring is not the way to solve disputes between editors.
It is never acceptable to tell an editor to "Fuck off".[2] I realize that Wikipedia isn't a respected encyclopedia, but it is what we aspire to be. If an employee of Encyclopedia Britanica sent out an e-mail to the entire company telling someone to "fuck off", I'm pretty sure they would get fired (or at least required to attend an anger management class).

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing on bad words dodges the underlying issues. In a respected encyclopedia, Andy's reverts would have been supported (Andy should have waited for that support), and an admin wanting to take action would have looked at the issue and worked out how to help the encyclopedia. Rule-bound admins (two people edit warring = equal blocks for each) are not needed. A good alternative would have been to personally delete the offending text and warn its creator that, regardless of intention, it was offensive and way-outside what is acceptable at a reference desk, and to warn Andy that the situation was under control and he should disengage. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Finlay, I'm trying to understand your latest position on unblocking Count Iblis. I would like to unblock him, but I'd prefer to do it with your consent, or at least some sort of I-won't-contest-it statement. I come to this little drama late in the day (didn't even know it was going on until Dr.K. came to my talk page pleading on behalf of Count Iblis). I skimmed Count Iblis's talk page. I prefer not to attempt to follow the whole thing, minute by minute, point by point, but my sense is there is a consensus to unblock him. I'm going to put the unblock request on hold while I wait for your response. Thanks much.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should do as you see fit; I've gained a great deal of confidence in your judgement regarding previous disputes. My understanding of how Wikipedians should behave toward one another is evidently at such variance with how the community has evolved, that my opinion wouldn't be helpful. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. I've unblocked Count Iblis. I think he sincerely understands what he did wrong and will make an effort to be more careful in the future. To keep him blocked at this point made no sense to me. Don't be discouraged by the behavioral issues. I've not been here as long as you have, so I lack the history, but I'm sure you're not alone in your feelings.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Turf Politics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Clinton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Scottish institute of sport logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Scottish institute of sport logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered this above, you know. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]