This is an archive of past discussions about User:Floquenbeam. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
That's really nice of you to say, Dr.K; in spite of my sharp intellect, I'm still a complete pushover for people saying nice things about me (I'd offer to block all your enemies, real and imagined, but I gave up the mop). But this wasn't an "I'm leaving forever you ungrateful wretches" thing, it's more an "I'm not excited about this place anymore, so while I'll still eventually read what's posted here, don't count on me for anything useful" thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
A typically witty and delightfully honest answer. As far as blocking my enemies etc., thank you very much :) (although I would never dream to ask you of such an onerous thing and, hopefully, I don't have any real enemies anyway. :)) I knew that you had given up the mop but I did not want to disturb you by commenting on it, given also the typically graceful and quiet way you went about it, without fuss, without noise. I pondered commenting on it yesterday but I decided against it for brevity reasons and because I didn't want to comment on something that actually disturbed me. In my opinion losing you as an admin was tragic. For a long time, even before I actually talked to you personally, I saw your contributions and I was impressed with your incisive comments and your grasp of the issues; but I was more impressed with the intelligent and forthrightly honest way you delivered them. I also remember regretting not seeing your RFA so that I could !vote for you, but I rarely watch the RFA report and I missed it. This fresh, intelligent and honest approach to adminship was your trademark. I will miss it. But I thank you for raising the admin standards and the bar for civil, intelligent discourse on Wikipedia and for giving me the chance to comment. Take care and my best wihes to you. Dr.K.λogosπraxis15:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again, and cheers to you too; I'm sure we'll continue to bump into each other every once in a while. And losing me as an admin isn't tragic; all I do around here is clean up after some vandals, delete some spam, and block the occasional admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Sodding hell. My RFA noms are turning into the kiss of death. Accounting4Taste just quit the building. The curse of Pedro. Pedro : Chat 19:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Pedro, sorry to hear about A4T, he seemed to have an actual head on his shoulders the one or two times I ran across him. This isn't quite the same thing; indeed, it probably has more in common with your own stepping back of a few months (was it a year?) ago. I've got my share of "Wikipedia is Failing Because It Isn't Being Run The Way I Think It Should Be"TM opinions, and they are a part of why I decided to step back. But the less dramatic fact of the matter is I'm a lot more busy in real life, some of the things I do in my spare time had to be pruned back, and since this place has annoyed me enough recently that I wasn't enjoying it, it was an easy decision which hobby to prune back. My password isn't scrambled, I can get my admin bit back just by asking, and I imagine my time constraints and my disdain for the way the place is run will eventually fade somewhat. Until then, I'll probably just log on occasionally to fix a typo, or maybe start talking baseball with Keeper, or read Malleus' talk page when I need my fix of irresistible admin idiocy colliding with immovable obstinacy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Not enough alcohol. I realize you're just being friendly, and I'm quite sure I'm being a dick by responding to it with snark, but that thing we've emailed each other about a couple of times is one of many reasons that this place is slowly but surely pissing me off more and more and more. Is the issue dead, or are the wheels just turning slowly? --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
They're turning slowly. The committee priority right now is two very big arbcom cases, one of which has been largely rewritten on the PD page and the other of which I am currently writing (really, it's in the other window). I had a feeling that our discussions were playing a role in your decisions, and I am genuinely sorry that it is not resolved yet. It's next on my hit parade. Risker (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry Risker, I edit conflicted with you, trying to undo my comment, but it was too late. I'm just in a shit mood right now, and everywhere I turn on-wiki there's smugness and bullying and stupidity that makes it worse. So I snark at someone who dropped by at the wrong time, trying to be nice. A smart person would walk away for a while, so I'll try to act like a smart person (wouldn't want to disappoint Dr.K above, lol.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Still swamped IRL, and still unenamored with several things around here, so probably won't be any more active than I have been the last few months (i.e. still semi-retired). I'll just be able to block people who annoy mehelp the Encyclopedia with administrative tasks when I have a few free minutes. However, if you see me at WP:ANI, or any of the locations listed in my anti-to do list, please block me. It's become clearer to me that 90% of this place is a timesink filled with ... nevermind who it's filled with. I'm just hoping to stay within the remaining 10%. Might even write an actual honest to god article.
I've replied (in part) to your message at User talk:SyberGod, although I did want to make a few more comments that aren't entirely appropriate to leave on that user's talk page. Beyond what I mentioned there, I'm far from convinced that WP:COMPETENCE is also an issue. It's clear English is not their first language, and they don't seem to be understanding what FQ and I were saying. Aside from that, however, I find it rather offensive that you'd call all of us out in that manner. Supporting an unblock is one thing, especially if you feel we were in the wrong; however, outright insulting us in the process, particularly on the blocked user's talk page, is unprofessional and quite frankly rude. Assuming good faith goes both ways. If you read my decline reason again, you'll see that I left two links that should directly help the user understand the problems they're having. If not, there's only so much I can do when for all I know there's an entire world between us. Hersfold(t/a/c)15:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Your taking offense at my lack of professional courtesy is noted. It is matched by my taking offense in the way that several admins bullied a new editor who doesn't know how things work here. You are not alone in your opinion that deference to admins is more important than being helpful to newbies; that's a very popular attitude. So, I won't spend much effort trying to persuade you otherwise. If you read your decline reason again, you will see that right above the two helpful links you provided is the comment "I don't see that allowing you to edit here would be a benefit to the project". If you cannot see that such a comment (after being incorrectly called a vandalism only account) would be insulting to someone, and make it much less likely that they will read some links you throw at them, then indeed there's an entire world between us. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me? Where did I say that "deference to admins" is more important than not being BITEy? You're reading an awful lot that I'm not saying. Hersfold(t/a/c)19:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
True, I'm assuming bad motivations to explain (what I consider to be) bad behavior. I shouldn't do that, it isn't fair. Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! I've never known how to correctly move over redirect, and then when the other editor moved it to a misspelling, I really didn't know how to fix it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. It's slightly complicated for mortals, easier for admins. You couldn't do it because the target had a bit of history, and the software won't let you do it once other edits have been made. Of course, in a rational world, you'd have been given the bit by fiat and could have done it yourself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
If you're dumb enough to think that I'm smarter than you, then you're so dumb that I'm smarter than you. No, wait, that can't be right... --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
For copy-pastes from WP article to WP article, where you don't plan to merge the articles back together, this can be fixed with a note on the talk page, a dummy edit in the edit history, or (preferably IMHO) both. Admin tools aren't needed, but I'll do the necessaries for you in an hour or so (running away from computer for a bit) if you'd like. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for closing that. Didn't want to start reverting without admin closure, hence why I put it back up. It can be re-archived if you like. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up; you're right that I was confused. Now that it's deleted, I obviously can't see it, but I vaguely remember it was a couple of giant walls of text. I don't remember why I tagged it A10, but I may have been trying to put a G2 tag on it and accidentally hit the wrong button on Twinkle, which would be the second time I've done that. Thanks again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The first paragraph was a condensed biography of Frost; that may have been what got you. Anyway, all settled now. Looks like a legitimate subject, hope the author comes back and writes up an original. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Regarding the images I uploaded ([4] & [5]), can I use the selected licenses as the images are a screenshots of tags generated by the MediaWiki software? Cheers. Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd?00:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Interesting question. {{self}} is probably not the right license. It's not really created by you, or the MediaWiki software, so much as created by the people who edited the template. I think, since it is your derived work based on a template created by other users, that you have to attribute their work. Your best bet is to say you're licensing it under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-by-SA), based on a a previous work also licensed as CC-by-SA, with the source being a permalink to the template page.
As I was spending a significant time examining this editors vandalism, I wondered who he was. I suspect he is some nerdy teenage boy who has extreme problems fitting in socially. I just don't understand what satisfaction anyone would have in spending hours undermining articles with worthless edits. Was it all a meaningless, empty, pathetic game, beating themselves how long until they could get caught? I wonder if there have been any studies on wikipedia vandals, lord knows there have been studies on everything else about wikipedia. Adamtheclown (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. Yes, this kind of vandalism is hard to understand. The "Mr. Sampson's 5th grade class iz teh gay" type vandalism is easy to understand: bored schoolkids with time to kill and an adolescent sense of humor. Who knows, I might have done that at their age and thought it was hilarious too. But the long term, determined, unfunny, under-the-radar vandalism, I don't get. I think there's a page in Wikipedia space that talked about vandalism motivations, I may try to hunt it down if I have time. If I find it I'll let you know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
thank you, I would be interested in this article. When we understand why these idiots do this, we can take more effective steps to prevent this vandalism. Adamtheclown (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
how do I become a power user of footnotes and references?
Pretty used to using endnotes for referencing in MS word and following various academic formats. But the Wiki system with citation templates seems awkward. I may not be doing it right though. Just want to learn to be slick in creation, and efficient in time spent. Thoughts? Is there a guru?TCO (talk)
You should sign your posts (I'm not stalking you, you've posted to several pages I have watchlisted). There is no requirement that templates be used, in fact some ardently oppose them (you might want to talk to User:SlimVirgin on that score). Keep an eye on how it is done in various FA's of recent promotion and find a way that you like, and copy it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Further to that, if you go to "My preferences", "Gadgets" and check the "refTools" box, a "cite" button will be added to your editing window which does a lot of the hard work for you; click it and a form pops up, which outputs into the appropriate citation fields. – iridescent11:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I just forgot to sign, put up an undated one now. Hmm...I kinda get her point. Well, haven't heard her logic, but they do clog up the pages. Actually having them in the text section clogs up the page in edit mode (MSFT Word is much better there, or even just typing). What Iridescent mentioned is what I'm looking for. Although, maybe just learning a particular format and then applying it would be quickest. I'm used to different journals having different format in terms of what fields come in what order and bolding and commas and all that. But if I just pick one and use it maybe that would be the power way. Just did a bunch of cite templates on an article and it was slow. Hmmm...TCO (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
TCO, my dirty little secret is that I'm an admin, but not a content producer; more a content consumer, and on good days, a gnome (well, a gnome with a block button). About as far from a "power user of footnotes and references" as you can get. So you've pretty much come to the wrong place for advice on that score - and it would be silly for me to give you referencing advice after Wehwalt and iridescent (who actually do create quality content) have already done so.
But since you asked, I'll do it anyway. Personally, I don't like cite templates or any other kind of reference information in the middle of the actual article. I like it when they are defined in a Bibliography section, using whatever method you like. Then, inline with the actual text of the article, just a simple <ref>Smith, p.123</ref>, so it is actually readable in the edit window.
But there are a bunch of other ways, all with advantages and disadvantages. As Wehwalt says, look over a bunch of recent FA's, find one that fits your style, and use that. I've my own preference as an article reader, but I'm sure others feel differently, so that isn't a final answer either. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, man. I'm going to try to use Wehwalt as my "can't figure it out" source for content and editing mechanics questions. (Maybe use you as my policy source, semi-retired or not.) I have and will rampage around a lot asking questions, too. And I did/do try reading what is written as well, but still sometimes need to ask, hard to find the answer by searches. Gotten some good help lately on the talk page for Citation templates. Pretty much, most people willing to help me, although one big content creator gave me a "hint" to go learn on another page, so I pulled him off my watchlist, no biggie.
I am evolving my thinking rapidly. Used the templates a bunch, but am kinda wondering if it would be faster (and take less space) to just figure out a style,memorize it (like if it has periods or commas or the like) and then apply it manually. I also agree with you on the referencing in the middle of a page. It's a mess. MS Word is much nicer, very easy to use inline citations that become endnotes.
Will you please remove that from my talkpage, or show me how to do it? (Does not display when I try to edit the page.)TCO (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I want to either clean my page up, to eliminate the warnings at the top or just add all the content that used to be there (for reference and all.) Actually the latter would be my preference. I can still keep the warnings, I don't mind and probably good just as data, but they would be inline and chronological. (Note: There were just a select few edits where I was using the talk page to be incivil, while banned, which naturally resulted in a talkpage ban, would cut those, but I want to get the bulk of my content back).
1. Is that cool?
2. Mechanically, I would just do some restoring and cut and paste editing, I guess. Any other advice on how to do?
Hi TCO, you are welcome to re-add all the content that used to be there, using cut and paste. I agree that re-adding the naughty bits would be a bad idea. As Wehwalt suggests on your talk page, you can also create an archive to cut the length down a bit, and get rid of things that are resolved. You've got a lot of leeway on how you manage your talk page, as long as it doesn't look like you're misrepresenting the past. My own advice (since you asked) would be to restore the entire thing, block notices and all; copy-paste it all to a talk page archive; then remove anything you don't need/want on your talk page, including the block notices if you want to. I can help with the archiving if needed, as long as you're ok with it happening in slow motion; my editing is likely to become increasingly restricted until after the new year. If you want to do something sooner and need help, try the {{helpme}} template on your talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention. I accept your proposal here. I think that topic ban on anything Linux-related is harsh, as in quantum chemistry area there is a lot of important Linux-based sowtware. So I hope to review this ban as soon as possible. Gkrellm (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Urgent - please revert your change to Ben Gascoigne main page lead as I cannot
Writing about Ben Gascoigne and not mentioning Rosalie is like writing about Carla Bruni and not mentioning Nicholas Sarkosy. She is more famous than him by a country mile, AND he was involved in her art during retirement. Feel free to remove "famous" but PLEASE do not omit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamiltonstone (talk • contribs)
Thanks for your comments, I guess I was a little peeved at seeing someone I respect and who hadn't appeared to be a problem, blocked so lightly and then not be given a little help when it happened. However, I just saw Barts1a's talk page, and it appears they've decided it's not worth it anymore. I tried to help, and the guy's walked on us. Thought I'd let you know. BarkingFish02:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Sir how can I become a good Wikipedian and when I will be able to Review the edits of new users.Sir, Kindly tell me how can I become a member of Wikipedian groups. Please give me some suggestions I will be Thankful to you. I hope you will give me good advice. And I want to change my User name, What I have to do?--Just Feel It (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rafhan,
Changing your user name: You've already done all you need to do: you made this request at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple, someone will come along shortly and change it; just be patient, sometimes it takes a few hours (or maybe a day or so at worst).
When you say you wish to "become a member of Wikipedia groups", it sounds like you might want to find some WP:Wikiprojects to participate in. Find articles you're interested in, and on their talk page is usually a link to the Wikiproject (or projects) that relate to that subject. Clicking the link to the project page will give you more information on what they do, and there's usually a page you can sign to join.
Reviewing edits: I assume you mean become a WP:Reviewer? If so, I don't really know the criteria, it's something I don't really do myself. There is probably some information in that link, and probably some suggestions as well at WP:RFPERM, where the reviewer permission can be requested after you meet whatever criteria there are.
Becoming a "good Wikipedian": Just do whatever it is you enjoy doing, and keep the goals of the project in mind, and follow the golden rule, and you'll do fine.
There aren't really any shortcuts to becoming a more confident editor; just watch, learn from others, give things a try, and take it gracefully when people point out your mistakes. Everything else comes with time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, if you look at my actual contributions you'll see that productive editing is still practically non-existent. So I think I'm OK with the semi-retired notice, if only on a technicality. But I really need to get back on the wagon as far as my off-limits pages go; not good for my blood pressure or my karma.
Hello, Floquenbeam. You have new messages at Barts1a's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I finished the year out without a re-permaban! How long do I need to go without an incident to justify your liberalness to my evilness? Anyhoo...take care...and stay liberal (for me only). :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs)
I hate to ask about this, but was it not a promotion only account? I got in the habit of reporting promotion only accounts to AIV because TW has a checkbox under the AIV report type of "Promotion-only account". Is there somewhere else I should have sent that account? Ks0stmIf you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.18:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, my edit summary was too uninformative, I knew that as soon as I hit save. If the account was spamming repeatedly, then AIV is a reasonable place to report it, and I've blocked spammers reported there before. However, I don't want to block an account after only one edit to his user space; that seems too bitey to me. He didn't know the rules, now he does. Better to see if he reads the links you left him. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Mmk, that works for me...sometimes I vary whether I report them straight away or wait to see if they repost promotional material based on how blatantly promotional it is...the more promotional it sounds, the more likely the account has no purpose other than promotion, and the more likely I am to report it sooner. Generally, though, I don't have a problem seeing what the do in the future, so I'm fine with that. Thanks for the explanation. Ks0stmIf you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.18:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
No matter how spammy their first post(s) are, I'd hesitate to report people to AIV for spamming their business if they haven't even had a warning yet. I'd hate to slap someone like that until I see them doing it in spite of having it explained to them. The person is quite likely not evil, but simply thinks we're some kind of directory, that this is a reasonable thing to do, and doesn't know better; even if they never edit here again once they realize they can't advertise, I think a gentler approach does our reputation some good. Just my two cents, I know some other admins are more aggressive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not online much, but I'll try to keep an eye on the talk page. Do you know offhand (do not waste you time looking into it if you don't, I'm just being lazy), has he done this (and been reverted/warned about it) on the talk page before? If he's always added it to the article before, I guess this is an improvement. If he's added it to the talk page too, then I've had enough and will just block on sight from now on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
No, not on talk page, at least not with the 3 IP's he's been using. The improvement is of course essentially imposed, since this account isn't autoconfirmed yet—it had one single edit since its creation—, so there was no way he could add it to the article itself again, hence its first appearance on talk page ;-) - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems like the same guy is still vandalising the article. As you dealt with the previous case I'm bring it to your attention, and I hope you will semi protect the article again for a longer time. I don't particularly want to have to go through the process again and again.
If his claims have any merit at all he is understandbly angry and no reasonable explanation is likely to stop him from continuing to deface the artice. -- Horkana (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like he's been at it since November, so I've protected it for 3 months. If autoconfirmed accounts start showing up, let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
See the Wikiquette alerts, I reviewed it after B's demands and it is clear the interpretation is certainly not consensus. WMOPlease leave me a wb if you reply05:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No. It does not belong there, it is an example of all that is wrong with your participation here, and I will block you if you re-add it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
About edition of List of dock applications and Comparison_of_application_launchers
You're right about me being affiliated with the company publishing Bubble Dock. I'm actually it's main developer. I implicitly supposed that adding it to the list of dock apps (which it is ) was fair. Sorry (and thanks for maintaining Wikipedia which is great ) Emmanuel Caradec (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks like Elockid took care of the account. The underlying IP's are autoblocked for 24 hours when the named accounts are blocked, so it's fairly obvious he can change IP addresses. I'm hoping he's going to get bored when he sees his edits never stick, but if not, you could ask a Checkuser to see if a narrow rangeblock is possible. Semiprotection is also possible, but again, he's so easy to spot I'd prefer waiting to see if he gives up. Finally, I certainly don't mind you coming here to ask me for help if he shows back up, but you'll probably get faster action talking to someone more active than me. For blatantly obvious stuff like this, the admins at AIV would probably be willing to block without the need to jump thru elaborate hoops. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. It's become evident at the SPI that the sock has access to at least two quite distinct IP ranges. I agree that it won't be difficult to spot his return, so we can deal with it then. Thanks for your help.
Aside from that, I think the 'butterfly' picture on your userpage would constitute more 'proof' that god likes explosions (and is rather fond of hydrogen) rather than butterflies (if he were not hampered by non-existence), and maybe that your daughter likes false syllogisms. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I've heard the "rather fond of hydrogen" thing before, but can't for the life of me find who's quote it is. Sagan? It's bugging me, you'd think Google would be perfect for tracking that kind of thing down.
What you call "false syllogism" I call "a poetic soul", so I'll probably wait to try to crush her spirit until she's older. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Funny how the brain stores scraps of information for decades, usually either incomplete or just plain incorrect. After fruitless searches for Sagan saying "God is inordinately fond of hydrogen", I realized that what I actually remembered was Darwin saying "God is inordinately fond of earthworms". But more Googling led me to realize it wasn't earthworms, it was beetles. But then even more Googling led me to here, where it appears that it wasn't Darwin, it was Haldane, and though it is a little unclear exactly how it was worded, one version is "God has an inordinate fondness for stars and beetles", which at least is moving back towards the fondness for hydrogen that I was sure I remembered. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
No problem on the delete. I put in the info as a placeholder and then I was going to come back and edit it down to about half of that and then work in info from other sources so that it'd be a proper page, but you beat me to the punch. I'll put the redirect back in and then when I have a second, I'll fix it (if someone else doesn't do it) - BTW that video is on the bottom of the list of videos. Thanks for policing the site! Ckruschke (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke
Thanks for noticing. I keep making jokes like that; I do not think I'm as clever as I think I am, but quoting movies is about as close as I come to making literary references. I shouldn't admit it publicly, but that movie has been a guilty pleasure of mine for, what, I guess 24 years. My wife and my (old) friends all think it's childish, my kids and all their (young) friends think it just isn't funny, but it struck some kind of chord with me, and I can't help but re-watch the whole thing every time I stumble across it channel surfing. Drives my family nuts.
Hi Floquenbeam, I have replied to your message. You can find it on my talkpage. Also, and I can't say this enough: überthanks for helping me out with this! You have no idea how much it is appreciated, see below. :) Cheers, Ρόμπ☞Life's short, talk fast☜09:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Smile
Hello Floquenbeam, Robster1983 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks for the note, I don't think I have anything to add at ANI. I let him blow off steam once, if he does it again (and Elen doesn't see it first), I'll just block him and move on. Claims to have left, so perhaps it's a moot point. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for the shiny hardware, Tim! Glad you liked it. You'd be surprised how many people with obviously defective senses of humor there are out there, who don't realize how consistently brilliant my humor always is. Consider yourself one of the elite. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much, Swarm... but... I have this horrible feeling that I might have stolen that line from someone, and I have no idea who it was. On the other hand, I'm getting old and forgetful, so it's possible it's mine after all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
user: Unblocking OliverTwist88
I wrote on March 23: I understand that wikipedia has a one username per user rule. HelloAnnoying, please unblock this account 'OliverTwist' instead of 'GrandMariner'. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.218.254 (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
You wrote: There was also the part about "As long as you're willing to promise not to make edits like these (i.e. threaten other users)". Do you agree to that? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I certainly agree to that. It is now apparent, and something I knew all along, I was blocked my mistake as a sockpuppet of Stubbs55. Admin HelloAnnoying realized that as well. What, if any, assistance can you offer to re-activate my account as 'OliverTwist88'? Any help is highly appreciated. By the way FYI, the person responsible to launching a mistaken SPI investigation against me, user Iaaasi has been indefinitely blocked. I knew administrators had to look into this matter for me and on behalf of others to realize Iaaasi is behind a lot of unwarranted attacks, edit wars and blocks for users that write topically of Hungarian-related matters. Thanks for your support. Please share you thoughts at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OliverTwist8824.25.218.254 (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't have the time, or energy, or desire to look into this Hungarian/Romanian bitchfest. I thought I might be able to help sort some things out, and so spent some time looking at the past contribs of the main players, but I was overwhelmed with a feeling of "a pox on both their houses". Your words before and after your block do not lead me to believe you can be a neutral editor, so I do not feel motivated to help get you unblocked, even if the block reason in your block log is wrong. Maybe that's fair, maybe it isn't (I can guess what you think), but I don't wish to deal with hateful people (on both sides), and so I won't pursue this. By the way, I strongly suggest you stop editing with this IP, log in, and deal with this at User talk:OliverTwist88. Someone who cares about this more than I is going to end up getting you rangeblocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Materialscientist beat me to 2 things: speedy deleting it as an A7, and undoing your close of the AFD. You really can't do something like that, IAR or no IAR. See WP:NACD. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Outrage!
How dare you modify the sanction I enacted without informing me! I curse the day you were ever born!
Nah, it's no big deal :) Probably a better sanction than the one I enacted. I would have appreciated a heads up about it though. NW(Talk)02:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
NW,
I was 100% convinced that you had commented in that AN thread; I don't know what misfired in my brain. Of course you deserved a heads up, and if I had realized you weren't aware of it I would have checked in with you first. Sorry about that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. The sooner all these "content creators" understand they're working for me and my admin friends, and not the other way around, the better. :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, success! I can't recall where I first heard the word "git", but I liked it so much I've used it alot myself. I get a lot of strange uncomprehending looks around here. Oh, and you might like this... Q. How do you know when you've been on Wikipedia too much? A. When you start thinking in UTC and you don't live in the UK. About 24 hours ago I played a minor prank on my daughter. It wasn't until I saw her puzzled look when I said "April Fool's" that I realized that normal humans in my area still had 3 hours to wait before the 1st. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Despite this episode, the issue unfortunately was not settled afterwards. I tried to do it in the constructive way asking him for a verification of his sources, that is direct quotes from the books he purports to refer to, at Talk:University#Origins and Talk:University#Tag, but for one week now there has been no constructive answer, merely reverts:
I'm pressed for time in real life this morning. If it's time sensitive, you might want to ask someone else. If it's still unresolved, I'll look into it this later today or this evening. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, it's not important whether admin action is taken immediately or with one or two days delay, as long as there is some. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I've blocked his latest IP for 48 hours for continuing personal attacks, and tried to make it clear he can't switch IP's and continue this way. In addition, I've posted at Talk:University. In general, if he continues this behavior after the block, he'll essentially forfeit the argument, and I'll begin blocking each IP as it appears, or semi-protect the articles in question. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I've semi-protected Medieval university for a month. I imagine I'll end up protecting University too, but I want to wait to see if he actually does anything there; it appears at a quick glance that there are productive IP edits there. Perhaps he'll take a hint... --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Didn't see you'd already answered, but I think RBI is best here, unless they decide to have a grownup conversation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Re. Ray William Johnson: removing thread; article full protected, talk page semi protected by Materialscientist. Did you mean for this to go to RFPP?
No, I'd already posted there, and was awaiting a response, and it was getting hectic - hence I posted to AIV. About 10 seconds after I did, the article was fully-protected. So yes, it does seem (reasonably) under control now. Cheers, Chzz ► 23:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Ebe123 has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Thanks for the advice you gave me.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
You're welcome, EBE123. In general, I almost always suggest ignoring rude people rather than reporting them. I also suggest ignoring rude people rather than replying to them, although that can be harder to achieve, as I've learned a few times to my chagrin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Now, he took back his review and put it on the talk page, he put a message on my talk page to not remove what he said, and did a comment on the wikiquette alert (the message on the wikiquette alert was ruder). ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs12:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I dont think I trolled there...Is it trolling, if I inform somebody about an existing information about his name?
Or is it rude behavior by him, if the guy 1. dont even answer 2. revert my information and label it like "vandalism".
What is vandalism in telling an information?
I think vandalism is, when this (Iasiii) guy put a picture on his main page, and writes completely incorrect informations for example about the "liberation of Budapest". No Hungarian can bear these sovinist lies, neither do I. Ok, I admit I provoked the guy but very nicely and following the rules...all I said his name is Hungarian (which is basically true, and I thought it is the biggest offense for him, if he is a nationalist, and I was right, he was angry enough even to ask you to make steps against me). I saw he (Iasiii) has a lot of bans (all because of sovinist and nationalist acts) and I was hoping he gives me an answer like based on what he will be banned forever from being an editor on Wiki. I think editors like Iasiii are far from objectivity in any means, talking about Romanias or Hungarian history. When I see that he is free to edit articles about these topics, can revert others's wriitings (that are not enough nationalist for him)and able to put his nationalist lies which are far from even the mainstream Romanian opinions, made me to do something against him. But I think I never did nothing against the rules of Wiki, I try to make Wiki better, because its clear that he is not the best to make decisions, because of his subjectivity.
I think you need to think before threatening me with banning, I think you try to show power to the wrong guy. The same amount of energy against him would be beneficial for all the Wiki communitiy.
Thank you and have a good day.Zoltan_Bereczki (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Let me make something clear: you do not get to intentionally "provoke the guy, but very nicely and following the rules". That is so anathema to the way this place should work, that it's clear to me that you don't belong here, and to come to my page thinking this is a smart thing to brag about proves that you are probably too clueless to contribute positively. Indeed, since you're admitting to intentionally trolling (albeit "very nicely"), I'm tempted to block you right now; I will certainly do so if I ever see you do it again. People like you and Iaaasi (because, at heart, you are both the same type of person) are a big part of what is wrong with Wikipedia, and it saddens me that we don't have efficient ways to protect ourselves against you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I dont know, where my previously sent answer have gone from here, but the content of it I think is important for you to be the best editor around, so I repeat it for your sake.
The way I see the problem you mentioned a little different from your opinion. I think the main problem on Wiki is that, editors on Wiki are not scientist, not expert of topics, but some ways amateurs. The ones who want to contribute Wikipedia (like me), and want informations up here be free from nationalism and lies (like me), are told "trolls". This is also the situation in many other cases. Tell me how an amateur editor can decide in a scientific problem, that he doesnt completely know? How can he decide, it can be reverted or not? I think for someone, who wants to edit wikipedia as a user, and knows that editors are not experts, logical to have doubts and if these reversions are based on scientific/lexical knowledge, or personal opinions, religious, political or other reasons, that influence the editor who makes the reversion.
Tell me how an editor, who "doesnt have the time to look into the Hungarian/Romanian bitchfest" (this line is a quotation by You, from your talk page)can be trusted, when he reverts some editings on Hungarian/Romanian pages? And would you trust a guy (Iasiii) if you know HE WILL revert ANYTHING that isn't fit into his thoughts, and would you say, its okay? It was not okay for me, and I was called a troll for that.
Unfortunately there is no "super-wiki council" where people can turn to, when they feel their editings are reverted based on personal feelings. If there is one like that, all I would like you to do is to turn their attention to Iasiii and his former editings/reversions on Romanian-Hungarian pages, if not, please to it yourself.
Iasiii on his editor page has a picture, with a subscription:"Romanian army liberates Budapest".
maybe this is a bit of a "bitchfest" for you, but you should accept the fact people aroundf the world think differently about the importance of different things. I would like you or anyone able to do this to make him to remove this sentence from his page.
When I said I "provoked" him (I called him a Hungarian, after I called him a non-Hungarian), you said its forbidden. Why is not forbidden to provoke with pictures and sentences like this on Iasii's page? I think it absolutely the same.
Imagine if an Irishman put a sentence on his page about "liberation of London" - what would you say as an Englishman? Would that be an Irish-English bitchfest also?
Or a german guy would put a sentence about "liberation of Paris by German troops in WW2" - would that be okay for you, and the one who tries to do something against this, would be a troll for you?
I think I didnt choose the best way to reach this goal of mine with this Iasiii guy, when I did what I did, but I still think I didnt do wrong, cause I did it for removing Iasiii form Wiki as an editor, and removing his provoking sentence - which - it seems to me - is well defended under the umbrella of "editors-cooperation".
You warned me last time and said, I shouldnt do AGAIN to write on Iasii's page, and so I did, I didnt write there again.
About your warning and thretening me with ban: It wouldn't be really fair if you banned me for this same thing "backward in time". It would be like when the referee doesnt give a player a yellow or red card on the field, but warns him, but 2 months later he changes his mind and gives a guy a red card for the same fault.
I didnt stop writing there because I got scared, I've never bothered getting a ban here or elsewhere for fighting for the truth and for telling the truth.
I stopped, because I saw that, Iasiii is too much a nationalist Romanian, to ever believe a Hungarian (even if he is right), and you will never believe me because you think I'm a troll, and all I did is vadalism.
I was raised like I was told I tell against nationalism and lies. This is what I've done and what I'm doing now, writing this for you.
Next time when you'll try to get someone scared off of an act, please take the time to "take a look into their bitchfest", as deep as possible, before you do anything, or call someone a troll.
You admitted you dont know nothing about our quarrel, and btw the word "bitchfest" on your talk page in connection with Hungarian/Romanian quarrel could be meant arrogant and offending by some, who may kick your ass for this, but I think, we are gentlemen and a "sorry" is enough for me and my country and the Romanian country for that from you. Zoltan_Bereczki (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Wehwalt. I was actually prouder of "humans (and other hominids like bonobos and admins)" - indeed, it's making me laugh again right now - but I'll be the first to admit I find myself much more humorous than others do. Anyway, thanks for the barnstar, I appreciate it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
[calmly noting that she managed to not post even once in the thread] Personally, I think the nekkid pictures would have been the big draw. Risker (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I made my best to join the talk page of University, but I'm under the impression that it leads nowhere. As you started the "debate", I hand-over back to you. --Anneyh (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that you and GPM had engaged the IP editor once he calmed down, and I admire and thank you for that. Since I know nothing about the subject or the references, I wandered away, hoping it would work out. For me, it was primarily a behavioral issue; for all I know, the IP editor could have been correct on the content issue. If things are stuck again, then I'm kind of between a rock and a hard place here, as I don't want to leave you all hanging, but I'm also pretty short of time for a while. I'll try to take a quick look at what's transpired on the talk page today or tomorrow, and see if anything adminny needs doing, or if it's complicated, I can try to call in a favor and see if another admin could get involved.
Again, a hat tip for discussing this with someone when it would have been all too easy to just ignore them based on their approach. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
(*blush*) An actual "great admin" would be dealing with your problem instead of goofing around on ANI. But I plan to look into Talk:University tonight, after dinner (and a stiff drink). Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I have the same feeling. BTW, I'm a woman, so you can speak of me as "she" (I hadn't realized my gender was not public, I made that clear on my user page too). --Anneyh (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Not so much that your gender wasn't public, more that I was too lazy to try to find out. I was going to say "she" because of the Anneyh, but figured I'd play it safe and cover my bases at the last minute; I've been called "she" before because of the Floquenbeam in mine. Anyway, about to go out to dig in the garden for the first time this season, so goofing around on Wikipedia has less of an attraction than normal. I'll see how things are going on the talk page on Monday, if not before, but I'm at a stage where I don't much care anymore if he has a chance to convince other people. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, Il faut cultiver notre jardin, Candide. As it looks like you're not afraid of desparate cases (probably a core skill for administrators), maybe you could help on Martin Hirsch. I feel totally lost there... Happy Easter anyway ! --Anneyh (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, you're way off base there; I hate desperate cases, I just accidentally stumble into them a lot. I don't realize they're desperate cases until it's too late, and I can't extricate myself. I'm going to have to 90% chicken out on Martin Hirsch; if I find a block of time, and if it looks like I can help, I'll see what I can do, but I really shouldn't even be here now. I'm considering blocking myself for a month to enforce the wikibreak I seem unable to keep on my own willpower. So there's a 90% chance you should ask elsewhere. Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I took a quick glance, and this shouldn't be too hard or time-consuming to address. I'll try to deal with it tonight. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey, it's me. I'm doing fine. Could you please extend my ban through end of May? I have some client work I'm doing and need to concentrate on that. Any off time, is for working out, not Internet recreation. Thanks in advance. You are the best. Like a real person, not a moderator! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs)
Done, "Advanced Wikibreak Enforcer" extended to May 31. Congratulations on having proper priorities; wish I could say the same. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Heh. "Like a real person, not a moderator!" brings to mind a line (of mine, I humbly point out) from last week: ...humans (and other hominids, like bonobos and admins)... The word bonobo is comedy gold; 15-20 times funnier than if I'd said chimpanzees. I'm still unbearably fond of that turn of phrase, and plan to toot my own horn and use it in as many places as I can. Anyway, thanks for the kind words, and... what the hell are you doing reading this?! Get back to your job! --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
User: Revan on WQA
Thank you for closing the WQA on User:Revan. You are right that the amount of discourse there would make it difficult for anyone new to comment. However, I do take a bit of an exception to how you characterized the closed topic. I was one of only 2 "already involved people", and I don't believe that I "endlessly sniped" at anyone, I did not engage in a "flame war" at all, and I barely even commented on the page. I made the initial report. I responded to direct criticisms of me and my report twice. After that (less than half way into the discussion), I realized that this was going no where and my only contributions were to ask for the topic to be closed. Perhaps this is a small point, but I think the manner in which this topic was closed is unfairly accusatory of me, and I hope that a simpler title or explanation could replace the current one. To be clear, I am not asking that blame be shifted or cast upon any editor at all, but merely that my name is not tarnished with the broad strokes in the title.LedRush (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes it is hard to be precise with language, which can be especially important on boards where tensions are running high. WQA is probably not the right place for those who find it too exhausting to work towards that goal. Still, thank you for the edit, if not for the snark.LedRush (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, "do as I say, not as I do," got it. Good thing police in the real world don't say "well I don't have to show any restraint because I don't see this crowd doing so." Perhaps if you had expended the energy you used to craft your snarky closing comments on providing some useful admin's moderation when the thread was just starting to heat up, it wouldn't have gotten as bad as it did. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Sadly, Professor Josephson has chosen to continue making allegations about the conduct of others at Talk:Energy Catalyzer, including one of "illegitimate and disruptive censorship". [8] I'm reluctant to raise this officially, as an involved person whom he clearly sees as part of a conspiracy against him. I wonder if it might be better if you, or another uninvolved administrator, could discuss this with him, before he causes further disruption. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the Prof seems to have backtracked a little, and edited out the worst of the allegations, so it may not need further action. If you could maybe watchlist the talk page, and keep an eye on it that might be helpful though. Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I love it when I put off doing something so long that the problem solves itself! I do have the talk page watchlisted. But bear in mind that doesn't mean a lot; I'm not around that much these days. It would be a good idea to ping me if things seem to go downhill again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
It should default to whatever state it is in at the moment. Since that happens to be out, it defaults to out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
"I'll block the next person who reverts that particular section back" and "how about if everybody grows the fuck up". Floquenbeam, could you use less vulgar language please? I don't think this kind of dictating behaviour and language is in line with the Wikipedia code. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry I offended you by using the word "fuck", or using the phrase "grow ... up" with or without that word. I may have used similar words here a couple of times in the last year, mostly because I've become more and more frustrated by the behavior of fools (who seem to be over-represented on Wikipedia compared to their occurrence in the normal population). I suppose I shouldn't let them get to me like that; I don't imagine being ... shall we say "aggressively honest" ... about my opinions helps anything. I apologize for the lack of self control.
However, I don't see my comment about blocking the next reverter as "dictating behavior", don't really understand your objection to that, and still stand by it. I was informing people that if they continued to violate the edit warring policy, I would block them (technically I could have just blocked one of them for 3RR, but I hate to do that when a no-nonsense comment might do the trick instead). We warn people about things like that all the time, and the fact that I didn't say "pretty please" doesn't mean it's dictatorial to do so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Why are you deleting porn star Karina? Monika Star? Isa Meskanen
Maybe you need to simply edit it, but all the sources are there. She is a contract sin city porn star. Please look at it. There are no serious alligation at all. If one source is wrong simply remove it. The fact that she is a porn star there is no doubt: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1439214/ you cannot deny this. Please do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.98.165 (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I think I was fairly clear on your account's talk page (why the IP edit?). None of the sources refer to anyone by this name, and most of them were not reliable (click the link for an explanation). You allege she came to this country illegally, with no supporting evidence. It is obvious there is a porn star using the name Monika Star, but there is no evidence that this is the same person as Isa Meskanen, and there is no evidence of notability, and there are negative unsourced allegations against a living person. I think you'll find that I can delete articles like this. Again, you need to read WP:BLP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand that. I will remove the Isa Meskanen and put Karina and Monika Star, can you please put the article back up and I will put only the sources that are with Karina, Monika Star. Fair Enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike south atlanta (talk • contribs) 04:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
If you can write an article about this person that (a) is based on Reliable sources (NOT the three links you provide above); (b) provides evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO; and (c) does not make any unsupported allegations, then you won't have a problem. That does not describe the article I deleted, so I'm not going to restore it. If you didn't save the text and would like me to email it to you, let me know, and I can do that.
Fair enough: Remember though, Mike South is in your database. He is real. I am going to use his sources as well. Please see his page. He writes specifically about Karina and says she is the sin city contract girl. I will use every sin city and IMDB as well as anything I can find. She even has video of her speaking. Is that a fair source? She in her own admission says "I am a porn star" its under Monika Star. She has 4 aka's that I know. I will pick one. [Mike South] has his real name on here, Michael Strothers. Karina does too. Can I use Karina's real name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike south atlanta (talk • contribs) 04:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
No, Mike South is not a reliable source. I'm not saying he doesn't exist, I'm saying his web page does not meet the requirements set out in WP:Reliable source. Please read that, it's important if you have any hope of writing an article that won't get deleted. In order to use the actress' real name, you will have to provide a reliable source for it. Look, we take biographies of living people very seriously here, especially when they're being identified as a porn actress. I remain concerned that your first account, User:TabercilPorn, and this account, User:Mike south atlanta, have a conflict of interest on this subject. If you're promoting someone you have a real life association with, Wikipedia is really not the place to do that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm promoting no one. I am trying to protect my real name from the porn world. biographies of living people? I read that. a movie with the porn stars name and database is truth. you can watch the actress in motion. she exists. she was a sin city contract girl and scott stein was the publicist. Mike south how is he not a reliable source? he is in your wikipedia database? he is A WRITER AND TELLS ABOUT KARINA. Your losing me on all this. I have 3 names I write under to protect me. Are you telling me IMDB is not a reliable source? I am confused and I did read biographies of living people. How does any porn star prove they are real? Show me where to go? I read other stars on here. They use the same databases. I will show you one now: Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_(porn_star) So the IAFD is a reliable source? I gather it is... I will use it too.. look here: http://www.iafd.com/results.asp?searchtype=comprehensive&searchstring=karina look at number 6 that is KARINA!! HURRAY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike south atlanta (talk • contribs) 05:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I get the feeling you aren't listening to me, so I'm not going to spend much more time on this. I am not disputing that someone using that name exists. I am not saying Mike South doesn't exist. I am not disputing that he wrote about this actress in his blog. But blogs are not reliable sources. The fact that a person is A WRITER AND TELLS ABOUT KARINA means nothing; for the last time, read WP:RS.
I have a hard time understanding how using three different pseudonyms protects you. If they are all editing in the pornography area, you are violating our policy on multiple accounts, because it has the effect of avoiding scrutiny. Pick one name, and stick with it in this subject area. And if you are not the Mike South we've been discussing, it doesn't seem kosher to use his name in your user name. --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I will stick with one name: as for Mike South? He wouldn't care. He promotes himself and thats not his real name. His real name if you read Mike South is Michael Strothers. I didn't use that name. Either did he.
Thanks for your help Mr. Semi- Retired. Looks like you are still working hard. Thanks for the input. I will now go write a page not even you can deny! LOL Thanks
I can't believe you fell for it! You were supposed to be strict. You should permaban me. (Kidding, thanks man.) contract project is complete...71.246.153.105 (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I really, really don't want to get too heavily involved in articles related (directly or indirectly) to a politician I find nauseating. I do not want to become some kind of go-to admin for Rick Santorum related issues. But yes, your request makes sense because they're discussing my decision, so I've commented there to explain my rationale. Thanks for the pointer to the discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I was actually kidding, but thank you very much for following up. I'm fascinated by this "neologism" situation and held in a kind of sweet tension. If it stays as it is, that's bad for Wikipedia, we shouldn't be a part of this attack, but at least it's sticking it to an execrable creep. It's interesting watching the variety of forces at play on the talk page. Some editors have been accusing another of Search engine optimizing the page, which weirdly mirrors a major feature of the article topic. You probably know all this, and I really don't blame you if you have nothing to do with the mess. Thanks again. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Whether he's coming or going, blocked or not, editing from an IP or not, I do wish TCO would be more considerate of other editors' time and contain some of his misplaced ... ummm ... exuberance? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Where he says "Thinking that Hispanics are not white is not racist." (his emphasis)? If you did, I will assume that you agree with it unless you modify your comment. It's clear what his views are, and frankly anyone would think otherwise if we substituted: "Jews", "Gays", "Italians" for Hispanics, why are we allowed to be screwed on Wikipedia without calling people on this??? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Carlos, it's more complicated than that. Race and ethnicity are fuzzy, complicated, overlapping issues, and it's too simplistic to say that anyone who thinks "Hispanics are not white" is a racist and can safely be ignored. Is he wrong? IMHO, yes, but I think I understand where he's coming from. Is he open to persuasion? Who knows? And once you've called someone else a racist, you've pretty much fried any opportunity to convince them otherwise. Racist is not a term to be thrown around lightly, me thinks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Claiming that Hispanics are not white isn't fuzzy. Like claiming Jews aren't white, or Iranians and other ethnicities. To me it's very clear cut. Latinos and Hispanics can be of any race sayeth the census bureau for good reason - we can be. The marginalization of Latinos and Hispanics on purely racial grounds may be over in law, see Mexican-Americans#Politics and debate of racial classification. But more particularly, if Wikipedia is NPOV and someone is editing Wikipedia from the POV that Hispanics aren't White (or Black, even though we have a nice article Black Hispanic and Latino Americans), that's problematic. It needs to be stopped, lest we become a bastion of that POV. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Look, I know latinos can be white, or black, or indigenous, etc. etc., according to my definition of white, and the census bureau's definition of white, and your definition of white, and (I assume) the vast majority of social scientists' definition of white. You can't deny, however, that a non-negligible portion of the US population has a different way of looking at it, a different definition of white. It is self-defeating to call them racists, for two reasons: because it ascribes motives to them that they may not have, and because you've torpedoed any chance of changing their minds. I don't think sorting the census data as he does is a good idea, but I can see how someone who is not a racist might think it is a good idea. It is possible to conflate ethnicity and race, or ethnicity and religion, or ethnicity and nationality, without being a troglodyte. And it is possible to correct that error, without resorting to unproductive name-calling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if you were just another "editor" piling on. I'm glad you elaborated on your comments.
I was stunned by the bad faith behavior of the "editors" who decided the band page I put up needed to be deleted. Their rudeness and snark was completely uncalled for. My issue was not with the deletion but with the nasty juvenile remarks. And apparently they didn't like my getting all uppity and calling them on their rudeness.
Their behavior is bullying -- Think "Lord of the Flies" -- an out of control breakdown of common social manners. I have come to distrust Wikipedia in general now that I have seen how "editors" are free to act without consequences.
One of those delightful people has expressed concern that I might be a "sock puppet". There is a "concern" on my user page. I'd appreciate whatever you can do to clear that up.
Ah, glad I clarified then. Pretty swamped for time today, I'll see if I can sort things out tonight.
The problem here isn't (usually) that people are always doing the wrong things; it's that they often do the right things in a really wrong way. This is nowhere more apparent than in the area you stumbled into, the deletion of articles that don't meet our "notability" (I wish we called them "inclusion") guidelines. The three people you ran into are not atypical; trust me, there are much worse out there (and FWIW, Toddst1 was acting somewhat out of character, I thought, he's usually a fairly decent chap). But there is a widespread, powerful, un-overcome-able mindset out there that "writer of a deletable article" = "evil spammer".
I didn't know what I was doing when I first set up an account back in 2007. I'm thinking I confused page creation with account creation. Don't know why there is an IP address account. I do not need any other account but my user account. thanks! 64.170.135.132 (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Squeezindiva
Really appreciate your help! Yes I understand and agree why User:MadMaggies was blocked. Please do remove the spam username block. As a web pro I am sensitive to those kinds of labels. If you like, you can say something like it was just your average newbie blunder. Also now I understand about logging in and how not logging in can look suspicious. I will do so from now on. About the IP address that is my ethernet router setting. Again, thanks.Squeezindiva (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Squeezindiva
Pressed for time IRL this morning. I'll leave you a message on your talk page this afternoon (approx 4 hours), then we can go from there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
To be frank, I might have responded differently to your question in the ANI had I read DGG's post in the ANI, which came a few hours after it was hatted. A short block of this editor for any/all of the misconduct discussed - the canvasssing, the wall of dishonor, the misuse of tools - would save everyone a great deal of time and trouble, and would have the same impact as a lengthy RfC. At this point I must tell you that I am totally confused how to proceed, or even if it is to be an RFC/U or an RFC/Admin. I am willing, as an alternative, to reopen the ANI discussion to discuss a short block, which in my view would be more merciful for all concerned. However, if that is not possible, I'm willing to go on with the RfC. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I brought DGG's post to the attention of Doug, who hatted the discussion, and he unhatted it. (Just to correct what I said earlier, I do believe DGG's post came before, not after, the discussion was hatted.) If we can find a consensus on a short block, which is within the purview of the ANI, that would be a satisfactory resolution in my view and would be best for all concerned. Failing that, we can proceed with the RfC, which I've begun drafting on a subpage. I see know that an RFC-Admin is the place to go. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
(copy of my comment at ANI just now) You know what? I'm out. Reopening the ANI thread, talks of blocking, someone else running to Jimbo's talk page, everyone interested in their pound of flesh more than in solving a problem... I want no part of it. I'm not going to co-certify anything. I was interested in seeing if we could take one problem and try to solve it like calm, rational grownups. It is obvious we can't. If this is just going to be bread and circuses, I've got better things to do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
As per below except more amish, thanks for trying, and both doing so and backing out reflect well on you. Can we just pagemove the notice board to "Bread and Circuses"? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for trying
Civility Award
For your valiant attempt to resolve this issue using civility and logic, here's a Civility Barnstar! Thanks for bringing a small touch of sanity to my daily AN/I lurking. Cjmclark (Contact)15:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Cjmclark and Aaron B, thanks for the kind words. With hindsight, I feel sort of foolish for thinking something productive could come from an ANI discussion. I really do know better, I'm not some noob. If I was wise, I'd unwatchlist it again. Anyway, I appreciate your coming here. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Personally, my exit strategy for when I reached the point of no return was to just lend Orangemarlin my password and sit back with some popcorn. May have to come up with a Plan B, though. MastCellTalk04:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
You know, I don't really know. I'll leave a note there, and people who hang out at that board will know what to do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you acted fairly poorly here, to be honest. And I imagine he might take a wee bit of offense at being called a vandal just now. This probably is a discussion better had at one of our talk pages; if you'd like some more feedback, let me know, if not I'll shut up now and keep the rest of it to myself.
I apologized for the vandal comment, I wasn't trying to call him a vandal, just saying that my reverting disruptive edits of that fashion is like my vandalism prevention mode or such. I oughta watch how I use that comment.
As for the acting poorly, I reverted an edit twice supporting community consensus to close the discussion, noticed his unblock request after he was blocked, and posted my feelings about it. I don't follow; what is so poor about that? CycloneGU (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it isn't fair to single you out; to some extent, you were mirroring what I consider to be poor behavior that is extraordinarily common at ANI. Still, since I seem to have successfully tricked you into coming here and asking my opinion...
Forget using "enforcing the rules" as a reason; why was it important that the thread be closed? In general, it's kind of poor form to smack someone down when they're asking for help, even if several people agree that nothing needs to be done.
If, for the moment, we agreed it should be closed, why a "hat" and not an "archive"? If you put yourself in his shoes, can you see how that might feel insulting?
You kind of treated this like a war, and Tom as Someone Who Must Be StoppedTM; I won't go find diffs, but if you look at your comments at ANI, Tarc's page, and Tom's page, there's an awful lot of pseudo-lecturing and pseudo-gloating going on.
You got involved in something you admitted you hadn't even looked into. I suggest this is a bad habit to get into. A little investigation is always a good idea.
That's just off the top of my head. Not that you're evil, of course, and like I said you aren't alone on ANI, but I just would like to see people treat other editors more like humans and less like adversaries, or prey. </sermon> --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I happened to see in my watchlist one of the revisions and that got my attention (I update my watchlist frequently lately having created the South Sudan WikiProject and doing my part to help get that off the ground - even though I live in Canada). I probably should have looked first - I usually do - but by the time I saw it, it had appeared the community decided the discussion was necessary to be closed. As for why hats and not archive; I used the judgment of a prior editor in leaving it as a hat (I also haven't yet mastered how to archive something properly outside of copying archive code from another page).
I do disagree though on treating it like a war; if you want a war, look into the months-long Pending Changes debacle. THAT was a war. This was an editor who by all appearances was defying a community consensus (yes, I read the discussion first), and I merely supported the community consensus. In general, an editor should know by then that another venue should be explored; he could have perhaps simply posted under the hat asking what the right venue for the discussion would be, but instead by continuing to reopen the discussion gave an appearance of someone uncivil and not willing to follow consensus. I'm sure there are many admins. who might have acted like I did there if they didn't know the user, so I don't necessarily feel bad about my actions there. Does that mean there isn't room for improvement? No, I'm always trying to do that. =) CycloneGU (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Here's how to calculate a range block. Use this tool to calculate the range. List any and all IPs in the box and it will calculate the range. If there are multiple groups of similar IP numbers, you should enter them separately and perform multiple smaller range blocks. Use this tool to look for useful contributions from the range you are considering blocking, and use that information to determine if a longer block will interfere with editing for normal users. Performing the block: click on the block link for any one of the IPs, and substitute the range that you calculated for the individual IP in the field where it shows who is being blocked. There! you are done. For alternate instructions in words of one syllable, click this handy link. Regards, --Diannaa (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Ha! I even participated in that one-syllable discussion (well, sort of), you'd think I'd take it to heart. Or at least remember it was there. Thanks for the note, Diannaa. I fear it may be too difficult to teach an old dog new tricks. But the next time the opportunity presents itself, I'll try to overcome my fear of accidentally blocking all of North America and try to do it myself. (Although blocking all of North America would, at, least, make Malleus happy...) --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Vietminh (talk·contribs), an account you blocked for a definite period with this caution as to what would happen should further vandalism take place, has woken from their slumber to perform a potentially controversial page move. I'm not sure whether it was deliberately disruptive or a simple case of over-boldness, but I thought you ought to be informed either way. Regards, FarmerJules (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. It appears things are going OK, with discussion on the talk page, yes? If so, I agree it's probably just a tad too much boldness, and appears to have been in good faith. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Pro forma ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. In a report regarding an IP editor you blocked on July 14, I've cited your block of the user and accompanying statements. You may wish to comment in the discussion. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, we meet again. Yes, Floquenbeam, I was here to tell you the same thing. Quick update: HW, above, is referring your 1-week block of [[ip|69.249.133.74}}. They came off the block and started the same thing all over again; I've blocked them for a month, but it kind of begs the question of what to do with Jww047 (talk·contribs). I hope the fish were biting. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks like it isn't resolved yet. I'll look into it later today. "Gone fishin'" was just a metaphor for going on vacation, but yes, the metaphorical fish were metaphorically biting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
ya... just got too much addicted to Wikipedia, thanks for getting me a 'speed breaker'. Actually, although I have created my account recently - I have been keeping a close watch to the development of WPF for last 7 years. Still Jimmy Wales is in the list of inspirational people in my FB page - because I know Wikipedia is the biggest cultural phenomenon of the history of mankind. Its the foundation stone for a better, safer and united world - where knowledge and fraternity shall prevail. Anyone could have started this initiative - but Jimmy did it for the first time! - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
First off, thanks for blocking that user. Second, would it be possible to semi-protect the Frank Buckles page (the page the IP user was vandalizing) for a couple weeks so that if he IP hops (and he has) he can't cause more trouble and us be having this conversation again? Thanks. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't bother me, I just know that removing a "Blocked" template during the block is generally frowned upon, hence my asking. I will let you keep eyes on him from here on out, I have eyes on the article. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Santorum. Since you had some involvement with the Santorum redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). CTJF8312:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Malleus Fatuorum, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The guidelines are clear, I think; someone being so upset by my opinion that they feel the need to insult me, is not the same as their requesting me not to comment on their talk page. Of course, you may disagree, but I would like you to observe basic courtesy while doing so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Never met you before - that I can recall - your buttons are your own, I'm sure. If you manage a slightly greater measure of maturity, then I congratulate you on it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, thank you so much for checking out my obviously overwrought complaint. Any advice you can offer me would be very much appreciated. I'm not so sure why this thing has been so troubling to me. Put it down to frayed nerve ends resulting from quasi dotage... DSM75.104.165.169 (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I haven't actually checked it out, I've just offered to do so. I'll take a look at it tonight or tomorrow morning, get up to speed, and give you any advice I have. Your IP address keeps changing, so better to have this conversation on this page; your IP talk page will keep changing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, a few comments that I hope will help. They may not be highly organized, sorry.
Overview: The key thing to realize here is that Wikipedia is very close to an anarchy. Within some fairly broad limits, individual editors here deal with things pretty much in their own way. So "Wikipedia" didn't claim you wrote that article, "some guy on the internet" did. Just like in real life, and especially on the internet, individuals react in sub-optimal ways sometimes.
Qworty's response to you: I agree, that was uncalled for and rude. It was also full of advice that is contrary to Wikipedia policies; I'll try to give some better advice below. The only compensating factor I can think of is that he evidently deals with a lot of actual spam and self-promotion, and it has probably jaded his view. But it was still unreasonable.
Article history: It seems fairly clear to me that you did not write your own article.
Current state of the article: It seems Qworty has just restored the article, sans claims of autobiography. He does actually have a valid point that a lot of the stuff in there needs to be clearly sourced to reliableindependent third-partysecondary sources so everything in the article could be verified if necessary. From the links you posted on Walton's page, it look like such sources do exist, they just need to be incorporated into the article. Unfortunately, you have contacted the non-writingest Wikipedia editor that ever non-wrote, so I can't do much with it myself. But I'll put that list of references on the article talk page, and eventually someone may come along and flesh that article out again.
Mechanism for commenting on the article in the future: Take a look at Wikipedia:Autobiography#If Wikipedia already has an article about you and Wikipedia:Autobiography#Problems in an article about you, which have advice for people who are subjects of Wikipedia articles if they want to comment on content. Your best bet would be comment on the article's talk page, identifying yourself as the subject and making suggestions or requests. As long as you're reasonable and don't try to blow your own horn, most editors are quite willing to discuss article content politely.
Next step: if you're just looking for an explanation, I hope this helped. If you're looking for restoration of the page, it looks like Qworty took care of that. If you're looking for an apology, I already left Qworty a brief message hinting at that; I'm not his mom or anything, so I can't "make" him apologize. If you're looking to lodge a complaint, let me know, as there are mechanisms to do that which I can help you with, but to be brutally honest you might find that dissatisfying, and in the end the odds are good that the result would be a general agreement from a sampling of other editors that you were treated rudely, and advice to Qworty that he not do that anymore. Like I said, this place is pretty Wild West. I could be wrong, tho, so let me know if you want to try.
Feel free to ask any followup, or let me know if I've missed something. Sorry your introduction to Wikipedia was so unpleasant. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, Floquenbeam, just saw that my entry has been reinstated. Thank you for your advice and anything you might have done to ease the situation. This matter has already taken up more of my time than I had ever wished. The entry is back. I hope others will amend it as needed. I have a new novel coming out & am deep into revising it. This is a weight off me. Thank you. DSM75.104.164.85 (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi B, I didn't know the backstory, but I could tell it was some long term troll. Any reason that I don't know about why the talk page is always protected for only one day? Is that her choice or something? Indef seems pretty clearly appropriate with a talk page history like that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
GenKnowitall
Re: Your comments in CG. Floquenbeam, I have reverted your redaction of my comments and have taken note of your comments which themselves violate wikipedia policy. You are responsible for your comments, including wiki sanction as well as legal sanction, to the same extent anyone else is. Troubling you wouldn't see that, or know where the line is, though. An advisory given as an apparently undeserved courtesy: You should not edit an author's comments unless you have (wikipedia board) authority and understand what you are doing, neither of which appears the case. Not even if you are an admin (and want to remain one). If you disagree with something I said, believe it sanctionable, and think something should be done about it, then proceed through Wikipedia procedures.GenKnowitall (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood a few things:
A vague reference to "legal sanction" is silly. I'm not going to freak out and run screaming to a noticeboard that you've violated our policy against implied legal threats (see here), but I'm not going to take it seriously, either.
You claim your comments do not violate policy, but mine do. That is patently absurd.
If you take a look at WP:RPA, you will see that redacting someone else's comments can be legitimate if it is a clear personal attack. They even recommended the {{nono}} template I used. I considered (and still consider) your comments personal attacks.
I redacted portions of your comments as a friendly gesture, in lieu of blocking your account from editing. If you don't want me to do that anymore, I won't. Instead, please understand that I will block you from editing for any further personal attacks on anyone (besides me).
That's pretty stupid. You are threatening to misuse your admin privileges block me for what you mindlessly think are "personal attacks" and "perceived legal threats"? That takes things rather far up the ladder, don't you think? Far enough to call into question your own admin status? You have been told to follow proper procedure if there is a problem. Last advisory. No joke.
Frankly I'm rather shocked and dismayed at the level of incompetence demonstrated by Wikipedia admins, whose training and supervision seem seriously deficient. Admins are given tools but then allowed to use and threaten to use them in an arbitrary manner. They can edit as anyone else, but then threaten personal admin action if there is a complaint about what they have done. They wield frivolous claims in reply backed up by threats of arbitrary blocking actions. They do what they should not and fail to do what they should. Well, vague rules interpreted by unsupervised fools seems a poor way to run a corporation, but if that is Wikipedia policy then perhaps Wikipedia should be held accountable for all admin actions. If you want to test that proposition, take it up, I might reply.
As for legal threats, so far I have simply, gently, properly admonished you about watching what you do. Nothing improper, and you may ignore that as you will, but always at your peril. There is also nothing improper about my noting that Wikipedia resides in San Francisco CA and that anyone with proper paperwork is welcome at the nearby Courthouse. The City is beautiful and nearby bistros abound. Just in case someone wants to know where they can get refreshments. GenKnowitall (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you and no apology required! – ukexpat (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samplespeedy.PNG){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samplehangon.PNG){kind=link}
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs)
--Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
--Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Malleus Fatuorum, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The guidelines are clear, I think; someone being so upset by my opinion that they feel the need to insult me, is not the same as their requesting me not to comment on their talk page. Of course, you may disagree, but I would like you to observe basic courtesy while doing so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)