User talk:TFOWR/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
Archive 3	Archive 4	Archive 5

CSD example

Hi there, please can I have my CSD example back? The speedy tag was only there as part of a question at a current RFA. I would have thought the title made it obvious that it wasn't really supposed to be deleted. Cheers, BigDom 11:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I paid no attention to the title, just to the history. I'll undelete now. TFOWR 11:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Once again, apologies for this. TFOWR 12:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

redlink archive

Hi TFOWR, what have I done wrong to create a second archive and add the template for archive navigation and it is showing redlinks, I got a space in the wrong place and created a redirect, that may need deletion and I have no super powers, would you have a look for me, please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Gore_Effect/_Archive_2 Off2riorob (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a talkpage stalker beat me to it ;-) TFOWR 13:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorted! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Yes, you need to be fast round here. Off2riorob (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Israel vandalism

Thanks for your assistance on the Israel talk page. That was my first request for any kind of protection on a talk page, so I wasn't even sure if my RfP was appropriate. That's one of the nice things about Wikipedia -- I learn something new, even if I don't read an article! ;) Cheers! -- Bgpaulus (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries - and don't hesitate to return to WP:RFPP if that kind of nonsense starts up again. I've never protected a talk page, and I would be very reluctant to, but as far as I can see it is possible, and - sadly - it might be necessary too. TFOWR 12:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Dramaout

I see you have signed up! Consider notifying 3 good editors of this to encourage more participation. Perhaps saying

I am participating in this. Please consider doing the same! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd#Participating_Wikipedians Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

When you are doing notifications, make sure to add a timestamp, or the section will never be archived by a bot! T. Canens (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Bwhahahahaha! It was all part of my evil plan to ensure that the Great Wikipedia Dramaout never leaves our talk pages!!!! Oops, sorry about that. Though I will take this opportunity to mention that this is just another reason why bots are evil ;-) TFOWR 12:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice work

Just wanted to say good work the other day with the Mau Mau Massacre pages - you show far more patience with recalcitrant editors than I have.. & I just noticed you new admin status - congrats for that too. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks. It's actually been a while since I took a look - the problems seem to have died down. And other editors did far more useful work than me, I suspect...! TFOWR 12:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

About Cog

Hello! I'm responding to you about the copyright concerns about the C.O.G. article. Yes, I am one of the band members. What would you like to ask? it may be a moot point though given what has already happened. I'm still open to a conversation at richard.leo.ramos@gmail.com. Thanks!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Doomwriter (talk • contribs)

• Replied on your talkpage. TFOWR 12:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

URL still shows up in Google, can it be deleted?

{{adminhelp}}

Hello,

I wrote earlier about removing the URL of deleted pages so that they don't show up in google search. But one of my pages is still showing up in google search 10 days later. And the strange thing is that pages that I created and were deleted after this one have stopped coming up in google search.

The real problem is that I created pages for several people in an honest attempt to write about their research, now I see that they do not meet the notability guidelines and they have been userfied instead. But the one page still coming up in google search has a deletion message that is not good for the page's subject, see here:

"03:01, 11 June 2010 Ckatz (talk | contribs) deleted "Francois de Soete" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): non-notable grad student, adding own page)"

The problem is that this person did not add his own page, and he is not a grad student!! If the deleted page will keep coming up in google search, can this false information in the deletion log be removed at least? (The comment about adding his own page and being a grad student.)

Thank you for your time! 2010philosopher (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This is beyond the control of anyone on Wikipedia. Please see WP:UNGOOGLE for the suggested method to remove anything inappropriate from google searches.  7  09:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Already read! And congratulations again. TFOWR 14:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Alex latham again

Hi. Alex latham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has unsurprisingly continued down the same path as before, creating Vincent Weijl and Alex Kacaniklic with false information. Perhaps a few days of non-edit rights may force this user to read-and-heed his talk page (assuming he doesn't revert to his alternate account). While it turns out Weijl passes ATHLETE with his loan move to Helmond, this user was probably unaware of this as the edit history shows he simply copied Ryan Babel and changed some information, including an unverifiable game for AZ Alkmaar.--ClubOranje^T 08:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've dropped a level 2 warning ("creating inappropriate pages"). If this continues I'd be tempted to go to final warning next, then short block. I strongly suspect that this is an editor who pays no attention to their talk page, but I'd like to hope that they may get the message before blocks become necessary. I'm also hoping that the Weijl/Babel issue arose because the editor used an existing article and intended to complete it later. I'd be more confident in that analysis if they had, in fact, made any effort to complete it, instead of leaving it to other editors... TFOWR 09:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd have been inclined to have put a WP:SPEEDY tag on Krisztián Adorján, instead of sending it to AfD - it looks like a fairly clear hoax at worst, and at best an enthusiastic fan of U19 football wanting their hero to make it into the first team... I'll see how the AfD plays out, but I'm strongly thinking that this editor does not have the necessary skills to contribute constructively. TFOWR 09:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said an at WP:ANI...user ignores all messages. Since your last note he created Krisztián Adorján and Zsolt Pölöskei, both with exaggerated information, so half a dozen real contributors can spend some more time searching to see whether they should support the delete nomination. Obviously keen, but a block for a few days could at least bring him to the table for talks.--ClubOranje^T 10:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Gill....if it hasn't been deleted yet.--ClubOranje^T 08:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

New creation from the last 24 hours or so. It's deleted now (by another admin). I have, however, indef'd Alex latham (talk · contribs · count) for continuing to create articles which at best are non-notable, and at worst are blatant hoaxes ("Oliver Gill" seemed to be a copy-and-paste from Wayne Rooney). TFOWR 12:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

2008 Mumbai attacks

Regarding your page protection of tha article, TwoHorned has expressed the intent to continue edit-warring once the article is unprotected[1], this even after the antisemitic Conspiracy Theory he is espousing has been debunked by the Anti-Defamation League, a highly respected source[[2]].59.160.210.68 (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, they have another two days to change their minds... I won't block them pre-emptively, but I will take action once protection ends to prevent further disruption. TFOWR 09:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I ran across the page using Huggle. I gave 'em my strongest possible (non-admin) warning to cool it down, citing WP:CIVIL, but you may wish to watch this mess closely. Thanks, Jusdafax 10:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw that, and it was a well-overdue warning, too, so thanks! The editors at 2008 Mumbai attacks should realise that warnings about WP:CIVIL are relevant no matter who they come from: using phrases like "hateful prose" and "terrorist toilet" when talking about other editors is not cool. (They should also note that Jusdafax is a respected editor, who I consider to be well aware of policy and when it applies).

I prefer not to protect articles or block editors. When I have to do so, I take the least restrictive option. Normally I would regard protection as preferable to two blocks. When two editors are engaging in non-WP:CIVIL discourse, two or more blocks easily becomes preferable to extending protection indefinitely.

TFOWR 10:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Basically, I agree. The IP is uncivil, not me. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 10:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Referring to wikipedia as Mossadpedia is not civil.59.160.210.68 (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Both of you: continue your discussion on the talk page, at WP:WQA or on your own talk pages. TFOWR 11:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

button

Hello, after a comment from Mr Mitchel on my talkpage regarding the benefits of rollback as regards pending changes automatic acceptance would you please switch rollback on for me. I have just had a re-read of the Wikipedia:Vandalism article and understand that the tool is to be used only for such edit reverts. Off2riorob (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Your wish is my command! I'm kind of surprised that you didn't have it already? Anyway, you are now a rollbacker. Enjoy! TFOWR 12:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you'd declined it in the past. No worries. TFOWR 12:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have also added that script you recommended to reveal blocked editors and that is quite useful also, thanks TFOWR. Off2riorob (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Rob's moving on up to the eastside I see [[3]]. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

AIV

Thanx for blocking the vandal. :-) --82.55.244.228 (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

IP warning

Sorry for the warning on the IP editor - he did the correct thing by reporting the vandal to WP:AIV. I just mistook what he did, and you were correct in indeffing him. M-R-Schumacher (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries - and thanks for apologising to the IP! TFOWR 15:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, I am also trying my best to fight vandalism (thus keeping a watch on World Cup articles), but I didn't know it is this hard! M-R-Schumacher (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ain't that the truth! ;-) TFOWR 15:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Disney Channel Games 2010

I am considering redirecting Disney Channel Games 2010 to Disney Channel Games. Please give me advice on this, as I am, what many users would consider me, an amateur. Hidividedby5 (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea! To be honest, if I'd been more on the ball that's exactly what I would have done, instead of deleting it. Oops! But I'm also an amateur...! TFOWR 15:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I've done just that. Thanks for the nudge! TFOWR 15:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Physchim62 No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Shame it came to that - I still feel everyone at Gaza flotilla raid is more than capable of collaborating together without the WP:BATTLE approach that everyone seems to love. I doubt AE will solve it - this one in particular, or AE in general. I'll remain hopeful, though. TFOWR 12:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed a shame it came to that. Please note that what he said is not "close to the line" but quite a ways beyond it, at least according to several people at AE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sigs

Your sig is cool too :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It's nice, but it needs more cowbell. Or perhaps some annoying shadow and background coloring. As with Homer, I didn't want you to think yours went unnoticed.  7  01:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think his sig is disruptive and he should change it back to the much more entertaining one he had before. Just 'cause you;re and admin doesn't mean you have to have a sensible sig! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but the new signature is shorter and I for one can't see the old signature ever returning. TFOWR^{signatures should be short, and should not be used to make a point. Additionally, signatures shouldn't change too often as that's just silly} 09:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Never say "never", though, and it's possible that the old sig may return one day. TFOWR^{...though I will admit that it made life "interesting", and I don't recall there ever being complaints} 09:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes and TFA

Thought I'd bring the conversation here for a bit, if that's okay. I have a ton of PC pages watched and have been reading all the threads. Read somewhere yesterday that others were also having difficulty with rollback, so I'm thinking a simple undo is better. Also read somewhere yesterday that there does seem to be a timelag, although Almathea (hope that's correct!) tested an article w/ pc and then turned it off and retested, and didn't find any differences. At any rate, other than the first hour or so, this seems to be going fairly well. Today is a big soccer day, so maybe people don't really care about Wikipedia! BTW - congrats to New Zealand! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

One thought I had was that the articles we're currently using PC on are precisely those articles where the technical problems will be worst: large articles, many viewers, many editors. I wonder if that's why Amalthea saw OK results (checking on a "typical" article, instead of a "typically PC-protected article")? I could be way off here, but I'm seeing these issues with a fast broadband connection and a fast PC.

I've always thought undo works slightly better than rollback. OK, it's not as "one click" friendly, but it doesn't suffer from "issues" in quite the same way. Rollback and Twinkle are, as far as I can tell, separate, but I've noticed the same issues (probably even worse) with Twinkle.

Soccer? Yup, some important games today! US vs. Algeria should be interesting (I presume you're rooting for the US?!) and I'll be following the England/Slovenia game with interest. I'm been really impressed with New Zealand: they're doing no better than England, but I'd have thought they would be doing much worse. I suspect they'll lose to Paraguay tomorrow, sadly... :-(

TFOWR 12:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Our household is half Brit and half Yank, so it's a toss-up. We're trying to figure out how both US and England can get through, but as you know, that's a complicated scenario. Agree re rollback vs. undo. Am posting about that to the Hemingway page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Kiwi and Scottish but English relatives throughout, so there's none of the usual Scottish anyone but England nonsense. I had to protect one of the World Cup templates, recently, and followed the talk page for a while afterward: apparently the templates for each group have a "scenarios" section, that would (if used) show what needs to happen for each team to go through. I'm not convinced it can solve the "US and England" problem, however ;-) Oh, and have you (I'm sure you will) seen this comment? I agree with it completely. TFOWR 13:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Forgotten I do this, but remembered just now: I've been using "Default accept" as my PC comment. I figure that way it doesn't imply anything further about the edit I've accepted, and editors will understand why I (a) may immediately edit to fix or remove, or (b) not do anything even though something needed doing ;-) (Sometimes I accept and then get distracted...) TFOWR 14:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Protection of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

Hi,

This page has been fully protected by you recently. The article in its current is having the words/phrases "Hindu Supremacist" and "paramilitary" in the lead sentence which are under serious discussion on the talk page and multiple users, including me, have objected to its addition. The terms are very serious allegations and will need a lot of deliberation and consensus if they need to be retained in the article. Requesting you to remove these terms from the lead sentence. If the editors arrive at a consensus, they can be added back later. Thanks.

The updated lead sentence can read "The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) (Hindi: राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ), (National Volunteer Organization or National Patriotism Organization), also known the Sangh, is a volunteer organization in India." --Deshabhakta (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to wait until there is consensus. When there is, use the {{editprotected}} tag, and an admin will make the change. TFOWR 18:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

User:IBen/TB —mono 23:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

They had hit MuZemike's userpage first, I'd seen it when I blocked them. They've not done anything since I unblocked them, so here's hoping they'll behave... TFOWR 23:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

AGF is always good... —mono 01:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

...hopefully! Sooner or later I'll unblock someone and regret it... ;-) TFOWR 09:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You're being trolled

See these contribs.--Chaser (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh definitely, and I blocked the IP for 3 hours because I figured a longer block for a dynamic IP troll would be excessive. I'm concerned about the semi-protection on the article, though - that was Twinkle getting over enthusiastic (I assume you're here by way of WT:RFPP and know that?) I'd be up for unprotecting or punting Cigna to WP:PCQ. TFOWR 09:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Heehee

In regards to the comment here...

I specilize in edits to music articles - or so I say as I think these are my most frequent edits, though I do branch out every now and then. However, even I have decided I would be wise never to touch these articles. Ever watch TMZ? They mock him and follow his movements everywhere, going so far as to report the girl who was mistaken for Bieber at a local bar; police asked her for ID to prove she was not Bieber.

Thanks for the chuckle in any case. =) CycloneGU (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I stalked another editor's talkpage, while they were first blessed and then cursed by a Bieber fan ;-) My ventures into music articles have mostly been sock-related... and I try and stay away now as much as I can! TFOWR 15:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Your thinking is wrong

Hoping it ends soon? I hope they stay on serve forever! :) — Timneu22 · talk 12:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I just think the poor souls must be exhausted! I hope they have lots of Lucozade ;-) They've set several records, now, I believe? Surely you must want them to relax and celebrate! TFOWR 13:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope the match lasts two weeks, and Wimbledon officials determine that the winner of that (first-round!) match is actually the tournament winner. None of the other matches matter. :) — Timneu22 · talk 13:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Just poking my head over here...it ended 70-68 in the fifth set after total play time of 11 hours and 5 minutes. Yowza. But mebbe you knew that by now. Players and ref all got awards for their participation in history. =) CycloneGU (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes for Ipod 4

I traipsed over there to check if it needed semi-protection, and noticed that you had made it employ pending changes. I thought that until next week, we had to post over here before doing so. I'm sure it won't do any harm, so I've left it, but I just want to make sure you know something I don't. (probable) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I do. If I don't, I'm citing WP:IAR and running for cover...! There's the shiny new edit notice at RFPP, and this from Yamamoto Ichiro. Basically it looks like sense is falling, and PCQ is being integrated with RFPP. Which I think is good ;-) TFOWR 00:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we're good. Just checked with Yamamoto Ichiro, and he said there was consensus to do so. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool. though I was hoping to have used my first IAR mop... TFOWR 00:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

2008 Mumbai Attacks

OK, right. I'm tired of all of this anyway... Thanks. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 09:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

See here and here. Consensus is not clearly established that the antisemitic Conspiracy Theory containing book "Who killed Karkare" by SM Mushrif is worthy of wp inclusion.59.160.210.68 (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a typo in my last post to your talk page. Corrected.59.160.210.68 (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• If either of you continue to edit war before there is consensus, I will block you. Both of you have reverted since protection ended: this is unacceptable. TFOWR 10:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The IP does not answer your question: why does she revert sourced material ? (The Hindu as per WP:RS, Frontline etc.) - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 10:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

See this. I could not have put it better than User:Jayjg.59.160.210.68 (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Well allow me to try: both of you continued to edit war after protection was lifted, with no evidence of a discussion reaching a consensus on the talk page. It is unclear what, if anything, the pair of you have resolved at WP:RSN. If you continue to edit war instead of discuss I will block both of you.

IP, would you also please explain the comment you made here: It gets worse. There is an admin backing him now[4][5]? Quite apart from the fact that you link to a diff that appears to contradict what you say, do you really feel that what you said is (a) accurate, (b) honest, (c) likely to help your cause in anyway? Repeat this crap again and I'll open up an WP:WQA. TFOWR 10:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That is part of a conversation that I am having with Jayjg. If you disagree or don't approve, feel free to comment there so as to clarify your position. I am not looking for your "help" in any "cause". Let's see what an established (longer than you) admin and high-profile editor (higher than you) like Jayjg has to offer to this discussion.59.160.210.68 (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't feel comfortable explaining your comments I will certainly ask you to do so at Jayig's talk page. TFOWR 10:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And done. I look forward to your explanation. TFOWR 10:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Heyy

2011 Cricket World Cup semi protection. Why aren't you approving this Article for semi protection?--Karyasuman (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

? I've not commented on it yet. I've neither approved nor declined protection. TFOWR 10:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Looked at it now. Another admin had declined semi-protection; I agree with their reasoning over semi-protection, however I think it's worth trying pending-changes protection. I've applied it for a month only: see how it goes, and if it's too much hassle I'll reconsider semi protecting in a month's time. TFOWR 12:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer rights

Hi, TFOWR. I know I knocked back the reviewer right you kindly offered me, but I'm having second thoughts. I did say that I wouldn't be in a position to use it so wouldn't need it. I'm thinking now that if the time ever comes when it is needed it would come in useful. I know, I'm back tracking in my belief system here that I don't want any kind of power here on Wiki, but this seems to be less about using power and more about using common sense. Ahem! (awkward silence) Anyway, would you kindly offer it to me again? Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 11:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, we're allowed to change our minds! I've given you the "reviewer" right now. I must admit, I'm seeing its value a lot more now, now that the WP:PENDing changes trial has started. Anyway, enjoy! (Like all "power" here on Wikipedia, it's not what it's cracked up to be...) TFOWR 11:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated,TFOWR. Jack forbes (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes is not imo the answer to almost any questions, its a shame that so many good people have worked so hard on it. Off2riorob (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've had my thoughts on it, Off2riorob. What do you think would improve it? Jack forbes (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been treating it as the answer to "this article doesn't deserve to be semi'd, but I'd like it semi'd anyway" ;-)

Aye, I'm still in two minds about it. I like that PC1 seems a natural fit between no protection and semi, but it's a pain in the arse. (PC-protected articles take forever to load, reviewing is a pain, etc). The old WP:PCQ and WP:RFPP approach was annoying too, I'm glad we're able to just treat WP:RFPP as a one-stop-shop now. The conclusions I'm coming to over PC is:

• we need to sort out the technical issues - pages should load quickly, and reviews should happen quickly.
• pages that have been semi'd forever are not good candidates for PC1. There's a reason they were semi'd: there's no need to force reviewers to deal with that reason (endless bloody vandalism).
• pages that have been semi'd forever may be good candidates for PC2 - but I've not used PC2 yet, so I don't know. And I suspect the technical issues are no better than PC1. Except only admins get to review.

In conclusion: PC may work for low-traffic pages. It becomes a right pain when there are several edits every minute (like many FAs and GAs).

TFOWR 11:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jack, (and TFOWR of course) I don't see an issue with applying more semi protection, as the wiki is quite written now, I don't think we need to allow editing without an account. Unconfirmed accounts should be allowed to comment on talkpages and request edits only. This will remove almost all disruption and the quality editors that we have now and the new ones that will create accounts will be free-ed up to work on improving the content without the disruption that comes from unconfirmed accounts and IP users. As the wiki exists now I feel that the idea that this is the wikipedia that anyone can edit is outdated and disruptive to the content and destructive to the project.Off2riorob (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

In general I'm a non-protectionist - I'd prefer no protection; failing that, PC1 is better than semi, etc. But I think you have a point, particularly with mature articles. That said I can think of at least one regular editor who is unregistrered, so I'm concerned that too much semi would shut them out. I'd like to see GAs and especially FAs semi'd more, and - as you say - there's always {{editprotected}}... TFOWR 12:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, cool. I have found myself moving towards to more protection, the more I have contributed the more I want to protect it. I am in agreement with the present wide test field, which has been mostly anything that was semiprotected, and after it is over it will be very clear as to the type of article and where the pending protection will be beneficial. Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I first thought of some type of protection when I saw the Gaza flotilla raid article when the text was changing with every news story coming out, only to be changed (or argued over) when another news story contradicted the previous one. My thoughts then were that ongoing news stories like this should be held back, or written away from mainspace, until the story had settled down. I wonder, will the pending protection be beneficial to this and other similar articles? I don't know how many users who were discussing that article will have reviewer rights, but if there are a number would it have made a difference on that occasion? As you say, Off2riorob, it should be clear as to the type of article where pending protection is beneficial, and also which ones it wont be. Jack forbes (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I have seen although a bit painful that is how the wiki articles get created. From discussions around it appears that similar articles to the Gaza flotilla are not benefiting due to the high volume of the edits, but the trial results will tell us more, respect. Off2riorob (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Aye, interesting example. I suspect Rob's right and PC would be horrible at "Gaza flotilla raid" - the article and talkpage already take forever to load, and PC would only add to that. I'm hoping that that's just a technical issue that can be worked out in the long term. Many of the problematic edits were from non-autoconfirmed users, though obviously they soon made enough edits to become confirmed. The reviewing guide suggests accepting edits for all but obvious vandalism, BLP-vios, etc, so I suspect PC would introduce new problems: "my edit was fine but that editor refused to accept it because they're biased against me and my fitba team - I'm off to WP:ANI/WP:AE/WP:UncleTomCobbley". (I assume this complaint would arise from "unaccepting" edits, rather than ignoring edits being reviewed). TFOWR 13:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Nokes

Looks like full protection is required. Caroline_Nokes Off2riorob (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If I were to fully protect it, I would have to protect it on m:The Wrong Version ;-) Discuss with Nomoskedasticity. It looks like a decent WP:CITE to me, but the incident also seems fairly non-notable. Beyond that I can't help! TFOWR 14:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

89.210.49.183

Hiyas TFOWR, wanted to drop you a note. You said on 89.210.49.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s talkpage that afayk the user wasn't blocked, but for future reference you can click on 'active blocks' and that will show any rangeblocks that cover the IP. There is in fact a rangeblock on 89.210.49.183, so I advised the IP that they can either log in or have an account made for them. Syrthiss (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for that, Syrthiss. I'll get the hang of this block-malarky soon, I hope! TFOWR 16:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hehe not a prob. It does take a little bit to catch all the nuances. Syrthiss (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Omega Point

I'll comment here, as I think it would be counterproductive to reply to the article talk page at this time. First, the tags. I generally don't bother much with placing, removing, or arguing about them. I would prefer to have 95% of cleanup and improvement tags excised from all articles, at least in their current form. So that's a non-issue for me. All I'm saying is that the article is highly non-neutral and has always been the product of one biased, single-purpose user. Again, what is needed is to get other knowledgeable people interested. I'm confident that such people will easily spot the major neutrality issues in the article. Until others get involved, posting specifics of the article problems will just enable the article owner to continue using the subject as an extension of the battleground mentality that he has spread across a wide swath of the internet for years already. Tim Shuba (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, you may be interested in discovering for yourself that all these are almost certainly links to User:Jamiemichelle's personal website. There are other mirror domains as well. Enjoy! Tim Shuba (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that more eyes would be good (which is partly why I'd be keen for relevant tags to be added). I don't believe that the article is as encyclopaedic as it could be, but I am also concerned at the (IP) comments. That latter issue can be dealt with simply by monitoring the article, but the former issue will need more eyes. I had a look yesterday for a Fringe Science noticeboard (I assumed I'd come across one before, but apparently not...) but WP:RSN may be a good first step. I'll take a look at the WP:CITEs used today, with a view to asking for outside advice. TFOWR 09:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it will be interesting to see how this all shakes out. Here are some automated reports regarding the spam links [6][7][8]. This is only the tip of the iceberg regarding sourcing problems. An over-referenced article, especially one clearly disproportional to anything found in reliable secondary sources about the subject, immediately raises questions about synthesis and original research. Tim Shuba (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You were probably thinking of WP:FTN, which is meant to discuss fringe theories of all kinds. Tim Shuba (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I was indeed! I'm not sure how I managed to miss it, I certainly checked out Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Since the board covers everything from clear-pseudoscience to alternative theoretical formulations I have high hopes for WP:FTN. I'll post something later. TFOWR 09:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Tim Shuba, those aren't "spam links", contrary to your false and Wikipedia-policy-violating statement (e.g., it violates WP:Assume Good Faith). The Theophysics website is hosted on free website hosts, some of which place ads on HTML pages, yet no money goes to the website creator.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced you two are going to agree on this ;-) I honestly have no idea, either - which is why I felt that WP:FTN would be a good call. They'll bring more eyes, and a better awareness of sourcing in this area than me.

Incidentally, there are issues I've not raised there - I remain concerned about the civility of some IP comments, for example. But the main issue is the article itself - if we can get consensus on the article, the other issues should be a great deal more manageable. TFOWR 08:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Big Brother 2010 (UK)

Hi,

Noticed that you have semi'ed the Big Brother 2010 (UK) artical - I have added it to the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue/Pool - thourght I should let you know incase you feel it is totality inappropriate (or just regularly inappropriate) Codf1977 (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all - I think PC-protection may be more appropriate than semi. In general I think I prefer PC1 to semi, and I'm happy with PC1 at Big Brother 2010 (UK). TFOWR 15:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've commented at the pool. Didn't go into it there, but my feeling is that the article has some good IP edits which makes it good possible candidate for PCP. TFOWR 16:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Codf1977 (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the Queue / pool system has now come to an end (without Big Brother 2010 (UK) being changed) should I add it to the RPP page - asking you first as you protected it. Codf1977 (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you should. As far as I can tell (there's an updated edit notice at WP:RFPP, and a post at WT:RFPP) RFPP has now replaced WP:PCQ for PC requests (which I think is a good idea - it gives us more flexibility in protecting articles, and means there's only one place to go for protection requests).

Incidentally, I'd be happy to reduce protection at any time: if you think pending changes protection makes more sense than semi I'd happily change from semi to PC1...? I'm equally happy to wait until 8 July, though. From what I've seen so far pending changes protection works best (from editors' perspectives) when there aren't too many edits, and is a good fit for articles involving WP:BLPs. Too much vandalism/BLP-vios etc, however, and it starts getting difficult for reviewers to manage - at that point semi makes more sense.

TFOWR 08:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes - I think that moving it to PC1 now would be worth a go - and agree with the too meay edits - that was the case with the article on the new Aus PM. Codf1977 (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

In that case - I've removed semi, and put PC1 in place (14 days from today). This will mean that anyone with the reviewer right will see vandalism etc, and that bad edits will need to be undone or rolled back. It will stop IP and non-autoconfirmed vandalism from being seen by most readers, however. This will place a burden on the article's regular editors: if the burden is too much let me know or request semi at WP:RFPP; I'd certainly be happy to reinstate semi. TFOWR 09:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil

Good morning, TFOWR.

This [9] is how the article about Emperor Dom Pedro II of Brazil was before I began writing it and this [10] is how it is now after all the hard work I had.

This [11] and this [12] are a couple of other articles related to Brazilian imperial history that I wrote from scratch. I am, as we speak, the only editor in English Wikipedia who writes articles about the history of Brazil. I am saying this not to look impressive but to let it clear that if I reverted the edits was because I was pretty sure of what I was doing.

This unidentified editor appeared a coule of days ago an made changes to the text. When I wrote the article, I wrote "Historical character A did this and this" according to page X of book Y. That unidentified author came and changed the text to "Historical character A did THAT and THAT". He did not bring alternative sources nor discussed in the talk page why he was changing the text if that was not what the sources said. As far as I know that is vandalism. I reverted them and now I am being threatened with block? Is that fair? P.S.: In the request for page protection you wrote "Consider dispute resolution. There seems to be only one IP involved, and they appear to be as constructive as other (registered) editors". I am supposed to waist my time going after a dispute resolution with an unknown editor? What he did by changing the meaning of sourced sentences without presenting other sources is "constructive"? What?! --Lecen (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Edits like this one are definitely not vandalism. I appreciate the work you've put in to the article, but none of us WP:OWN articles. We have to be open to edits from other editors - if they're constructive. Right now I'm seeing plenty of good faith edits; my concern is that two editors are reverting each other repeatedly. That's disruptive. As I see it, there are two ways I can stop the disruption: I can fully protect the article (preventing both editors from further reverts) or I can block both editors. Both editors are very nearly at the WP:3RR point. The warning was a courtesy; any other editor may also notice that 3RR has been reached, and may file a report at WP:AN3. I continue to recommend WP:DR - at the very least I'd expect you to have attempted to discuss this with the IP: I can see no evidence of this. So yes - you are expected to go through WP:DR, and that includes discussing the issue with the IP. TFOWR 12:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

How could I discuss with someone who is not a registered editor?! I can't not even sen him a message! The only thing I could do was to explain the reason of what I did in the small box in the edit page. That's all. By your tone, I've seen that I can't expect much. It's not about ownership of an article, since other editors made changes to it and I never complained. But an unregistered editor who changes the meaning of a sourced sentence - ruining the reliability of the article since the source does not says what he wrote - is treated as equal as myself? What? I could expect that if he had created a section in the article's talk page arguing for a change, or sharing his view and I had ignored his remarks or something similar. None of that happened. But you threatened my with block? --Lecen (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You can post on their talk page (I know this works: I did it earlier). You were edit warring: I warned both you and the other editor, which is the appropriate thing to do when two editors are at risk of WP:3RR. TFOWR 13:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the beginning you did not bother to learn the facts. I do not know if that's because you must witness as an administrator so many cases of disputes that you simply walk around on "automatic" mode or something similar. What I do know is that this kind of behavior from administrators is the one who drive away good editors. Since you clearly has no previous knowledge of Brazilian history you could at least have tried to understand what was going on. I bet you did not know I was a regular contributor to the article and that you did not bother to look in its history log to see what was happening. Certainly treating me like a child who wants the toy of another kid was not the best option to deal with the matter. You threatened me twice with block even though I came here trying to explain the situation. That's great. A very good way of making editors feel good about their contributions and their place in Wikipedia. --Lecen (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you wish to make a complaint about how I handled this case, WP:ANI is that way. Beyond that I can only repeat what I have previously said: you were edit warring (and no amount of experience at Wikipedia gets anyone a free pass). I have not threatened you with a block; I warned you, using widely used and popularly accepted templates, that you were in danger of hitting WP:3RR. Discuss this with the IP. Come to a consensus. Show good faith and try and welcome newcomers. TFOWR 14:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Omega Point (Tipler)

Hello, Flag, I was wondering, since the article had been the subject of dispute numerous times between IPs and regular users (in other words, see the file I've reported here), that the article would be subject to more general disruption. Do you think that you could semi-protect the page for a some amount of time, preferably a 24-hour day to when my case closes? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

From their comment at SPI, Jamiemichelle seems willing to use just one username (i.e. "Jamiemichelle", and not IPs), so I'm reluctant to protect at this stage. I'm continuing to keep an eye on this, and I will admit that I suspect this will end up at WP:DR sooner or later. TFOWR 11:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, then, I'll let the page go. The SPI, though, I haven't had time to look over. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Just commented at SPI: I'm not convinced there was any intention to deceive or mislead (Jamiemichelle seems to have been quite open about their IP edits). I am concerned about other issues (some IP WP:CIVILity issues, which Jamiemichelle has raised, but mainly the wider issue of "not enough editors", "one long-term editor with possible WP:OWN issues", sourcing and tagging. Below, Tim Shuba pointed me towards the WP:FSN board, and I'm going to start there: even if it's an inappropriate venue I'd hope that the good folk there can point us towards some board which will consider this. TFOWR 09:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if my SPI blows over, you can open a discussion at the WP:AN3. I mean, its not like Jamiemichelle hasn't frequently edit war'd over the Omega Point (Tipler). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Gayla Leigh Shoemake

Would you consider restoring this article? I hadn't noticed the prod or would have removed it. The person who added it clearly didn't read what little was contained in the article, Shoemake was not just Miss KSU, she won the Miss Kansas title and competed at Miss America which establishes notability. Obviously it's difficult to reference the article given the fact that she competed in 1960 although there are a couple of references in the Google news archive 1 2, neither of which is overly helpful. Regardless, I think it merits restoration due to an erroneous reason for the initial prod. Cheers. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 10:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• What about userfiying it and you return it to mainspace when there is at least one reliable source in the article? I'm not sure merely being a competitor in Miss America is enough to satisfy notability, at any rate. As a contested PROD, it'll be restored by default, but I'd rather userify it, because as it is it would have to be sent immediately to AFD. Courcelles (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, technically it should be undeleted on demand but I understand your concerns. It's a BLP. Did it have a source?--Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Not enough for me to be 100% comfortable with: "Souvenir Program --14th Annual Football Festival, Berkeley, California - Junior Chamber of Commerce: 1959." That was the only reference. TFOWR 13:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm unfamiliar with the notability requirements for pageant contestants, so I'm loath to restore just yet (i.e. could you point me at the guidelines/policies you'd use?) I can userfy in the interim, if that would help? And I may restore once I've perused the guidelines and satisfied myself that the subject is notable. TFOWR 10:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said, it's difficult to source an article for a person whose notability was established in 1960! The news archive has one article from the night before she won the title and one from the following year when she passed on her title (including a photograph of her)... so what can you do? As for notability of pageant titleholders in general, I can't actually find an AFD that can be directly compared, however Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kandice Pelletier did see a number of editors suggest that being a state-level titleholder and Miss America contestant is enough for notability. The afd isn't directly comparable because Pelletier had also competed on The Amazing Race but there are a few relevant comments near the bottom. It was generally established in AFDs relating to other pageant articles back in 2007ish that titleholders who have won state titles and represented their state at either Miss America or Miss USA do meet notability. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 13:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Saw you restored it, cheers. Finally found a solid ref, K-State girl is crowned; KU Lass 3rd. One problem with the news archive is that sometimes it doesn't read the print very well, so it takes some creative hunting to find what you want :P PageantUpdater talk • contribs 14:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Good source, too: could be used to expand the article. TFOWR 14:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've also found this...seems very tempting, age looks about right and how many people have that name... but have resisted including it yet because the education info doesn't tie in and I can't find enough to link the two.... PageantUpdater talk • contribs 14:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And this. Even more tantalising because I don't think more can be gleaned from it :P PageantUpdater talk • contribs 14:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent work, by the way - I took a look just now with a view to doing some copy-editing and left the article untouched ;-) TFOWR 12:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Request to extend protection of an article

Could you please extend for a little beyond 14:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC) the protection of East–West Schism? From my point of view, it is "the wrong version", but if only one user continues to get to edit it, I fear "the wrong version" may get even worse. The user who responded to a 3O on the justification of that situation has not yet expressed an opinion on its legitimacy. Esoglou (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)‎

I've asked the editor for their advice. If I don't hear back from them I'll consider the case on its merits - and do please avoid edit warring. TFOWR 13:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Your decision seems to have been a wise one. Thanks. Esoglou (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternative text

I've replied on the RFPP page. I don't know whether your decision is final or I can request it be reconsidered. I'm reluctant to cause the drama that an ANI request would invoke. All I want is for everyone to be forced to take baby steps and to work with a mediator to resolve this. Colin°^Talk 11:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied there also ;-) My thinking with ANI was that everyone at RfPP has worked with the admin concerned (myself included) and is "involved" in some indirect way. I would hope that the admin concerned would not revert again, but I don't feel competent in enforcing that. TFOWR 11:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made a request at ANI. Finger crossed this doesn't blow up in my face. Thank you for your honesty in this matter. Colin°^Talk 13:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned you've done everything correctly (with the disclaimer that I'm a relative newbie). I'd imagine if ANI decide to take aim at anyone there's a fair chance it could be me ;-) TFOWR 13:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Colin, your attempt at manipulation here is not appreciated. Admins do not edit through protection, but they also don't add protection pre-emptively, which is what you were requesting. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm very skeptical....

I am very skeptical, one is a Sock-puppeteer that has a history of making troublesome edits that the other opposes. This bickering between them from the looks of ANI and 3RR Notice board[13][14][15] shows these two have been going at it with each other for several years. Personally, I think that Lovemokey should have a month long ban because he knows better and the other needs to be banned indefinitely for all the trouble he is causing after be given a Final chance with SPI case Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll see how it goes, then! At least one other editor has commented, now, so hopefully more eyes on the article will improve things. TFOWR 15:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

page protection

Thank you for the protection on Invasion of Normandy. Malke2010 15:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries! From memory, it took me a while to get to it - apologies for that. Sometimes I get sidetracked by my watchlist when working through RfPP...! TFOWR 15:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

An Award!

User:QwerpQwertus/The Puzzle Piece Award

You've been rewarded the Wiki Puzzle Piece Award - Puzzle Piece Seven! ~ QwerpQwertus --------------- Award One

09:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Example spam

Coming soon to a Wiki near you...The Third Great Wikipedia Dramaout will be July 5-9. Please join us for serious content creation! Signup is here. You have received this message because you participated in The Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout.

09:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Penalties

England v Germany on Sunday, you couldn't make it up could you. We are calling up the best English penalty taker Off2riorob (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

1966?! I'm having to support England now - New Zealand did valiantly, and better that I feared, but they iz out :-( TFOWR 11:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

They are being bigged up by all the pundits, NZ and Aussie did very well. 1990, penalties, that was the last biggie against Germany (I think). Off2riorob (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I remember 1990 (I also think... but hazy, was 1990...) I guess it shouldn't surprise me, how well NZ did - when I was last back home every school kid I met played "soccer" after school. Mind you, most of them were born in London so that's maybe not too much of a surprise...! TFOWR 12:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Good morning TFOWR. 1990, was a tough game. I am edgy about tomorrow, but I have a good feeling about it, the team is ready for this match and both teams play a similar style, one not to be missed. Also Spain v Portugal..and today the game england are supposed to be in USA v Ghana, Ghana are not even in the top 25ranked teams. At the end of the day you have to beat good teams to win the world cup. Off2riorob (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Saw BBC News 24 this morning and realised: 1990 was the famous "Gazza crying" World Cup "we" lost on penalties: not one I'd like to see repeated, way too emotional! I'm beginning to realise why everyone is talking about "nae penalties this time"...! TFOWR 09:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sure England will win a penalty shootout. After all they have players with a well known pedigree of not missing penalties in high-pressure situations like John Terry.. O Fenian (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, language barrier here - "penalties"? That's British/Irish English for what we in New Zealand call "wives and/or girlfriends of team-mates" - right?! TFOWR 09:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I was referring more to this than any extra-curricular activities.. O Fenian (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspected as much, it's just fun playing the dumb Kiwi card to drag threads into the gutter ;-) TFOWR 09:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

While I have your attention could you possibly have a look at Glasgow rosses and do whatever you believe is the right thing? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

England should attemt to win the match and avoid penalties. Ghana USA today is an interesting match two different styles. I will cease this footie discussion for a while as TFOWR bats for the other side so to speak, prefers the other shaped ball if ya ken what I mean. hehe. Off2riorob (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I decided that the right thing was speedy deletion as a blatant hoax. "Goals park" is a local name for "Goals", a 5-a-side facility in Queens Park. Teams that play there are inherently non-notable. The article was unreferenced, which surprised me for a team that included (allegedly) Celtic players. I can't believe I'm actually slightly knowledgeable about fitba... TFOWR 10:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You missed the part about them playing in the SPL and Europa Cup as well?! There is also this small hurdle the article failed to leap over.. O Fenian (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd forgotten that - I lost interest when I realised where "Goals Park" was ;-) I googled for "Glasgow" + "rosses" as well - that returned more, but it was all unrelated. The only good result was to a website with user-generated content... "Wikipedia", it was called... ;-) TFOWR 10:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, and I recommend this for all, switch off your computer and head for the beach take a radio to listen to live Glastonbury. online at http://www.bbc.co.uk/glastonbury/2010 Off2riorob (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Radio's got to be better than TV - I was watching Gorillaz last night and it spanned three channels (BBC3, BBC4, BBC2). To be fair, it was a long set but c'mon! I like the beach idea... might have to settle for a river, though... TFOWR 10:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yea, do it TFOWR. I am out the door now, have a nice day amigo. Off2riorob (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, my to do list consists of this, and telling people how they can stop me being an admin. On balance I think I'd prefer to be beside running water... enjoy the beach, and don't expect me to be too busy today ;-) TFOWR 10:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

this is on your to do list? You have a busy day ahead of you. How do you find the time to be on here!? Jack forbes (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Duh! By ignoring my to-do list ;-) I deleted the article after a WP:PROD expired; then I restored it when an interested editor requested it and dug out several interesting sources - so that got my interest up. I suspect I'll be leaving it until July 5-9, however... during that period I will be doing nothing controversial, which should free up most of my time... TFOWR 14:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You should have gone to the river...game on. May the best team win. Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Weather wasn't that great - I was hoping it'd improve today, but nae luck so far. Need to be near a TV anyway...! (Best of luck, by the way). TFOWR 13:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, best of luck to all the contributors. This is it, what they dream of, lets see the rewards and the memories created. Off2riorob (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the semi pending of Angel TFOWR. So, that was exciting, I haven't watched it all yet but I saw the disallowed goal (I get too stressed), you could not make it up if you tried. Who are we going to support now, Os Brazileiros, the Brazilians. I will get my flag out ready. Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

  No worries! I saw most of it, missed two goals when I popped back online to check my watchlist. Pretty depressing, but aye, on to Brazil now - they're a fairly safe bet ;-) TFOWR 19:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Ok, Thanks. :) --Karyasuman (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

See, another case of vandalism took place (2011 Cricket World Cup). The thing is not that vandalism is taking place after many days. The thing is that number of edits related to vandalism are more as compared to total no of edits.--Karyasuman (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

With pending changes protection applied, edits like that don't go into the article unless they're reviewed and accepted. In this case the edit was reviewed and undone (within a minute of the first edit). If it had remained unreviewed, most readers would not even have seen it: only reviewers would see it, and they're able to undo it - as happened here. I would consider semi-protection if PC1-protection was placing an undue burden on editors; I do not believe that that is the case here. TFOWR 09:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok.as you say.--Karyasuman (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

See this change. Even the editors are not able to identify what is vandalism and what is not. After that, only an IP did came to rescue.  :( --Karyasuman (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle and Landovan

Sometimes I think Jimbo tweaks Wikipedia to get a laugh out of Twinkle users. Or, is that just me? ----moreno oso (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

;-) I love Twinkle, but I wish I could get it to behave itself. I've always preferred small padlocks as a reader, and I'd like small padlocks when I protect articles... TFOWR 19:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I like it too but the new interface seems to be having an argument with it. Or is that just Jimbo logging me out to see if I'll notice? ----moreno oso (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Aha! The new interface! I'm afraid I know nothing about that; I went back to Monobook as soon as I found the "Escape back to Monobook" button. :-) TFOWR 19:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Me too. Vector did not play nice with Twinkle. Must be me. . .----moreno oso (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI and User talk:Zlykinskyja

Hello, TFOWR. As an administrator who has commented on this (currently unresolved) discussion at WP:ANI, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on suggestions that I have put forward regarding User talk:Zlykinskyja, which can be found here as part of a discussion on administrator EdJohnston's talk page. Thank you. SuperMarioMan 21:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi SuperMarioMan, I've not forgotten this. I've got a couple of "meaty" issues on my to do list, including this one, and I'm trying to find some spare time to look into them. TFOWR 13:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

...and bang goes my excusing concerning the one remaining item ;-) Proof, as if it were needed, that if one ignores a problem long enough it goes away... TFOWR 14:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits to the Omega Point (Tipler) article

TFOWR, I would appreciate it if you could offer your opinion and/or assistance regarding the matter discussed at Talk:Omega_Point_(Tipler)#Disruptive_editing_by_Tim_Shuba.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jamiemichelle, I've not forgotten - this is the other "meaty" issue on my to do list (the other one being the one mentioned in the thread above, and unrelated to this issue). TFOWR 13:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, TFOW. In addition to that matter, I would also be grateful if you would look at the related matter of Talk:Omega_Point_(Tipler)#Disruptive_and_biased_editing_by_LuckyLouie.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Studiodan...

...has actually reverted Circumcision FOUR TIMES in less than 24 hours. The first of those was to re-instate his previously-reverted notion that "uncircumcised" is "hate speech". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave that for the WP:AN3 folk to deal with ;-) I arrived there by way of WP:AIV, so I'm reluctant to do much beyond warn the editor. I strongly suspect that their unblocked days are nearly behind them, however... and if they revert again (after I've warned them) I will block them myself. Is there something I'm missing - that we're all missing - here? Did "un" become a bad wurd overnight and none of us got the memo? If so, I'm very non-happy about that. It may appear non-important, but we can't act if we're non-aware of the issues. Anyway... I'll leave that point to the editor to make in their non-block request. TFOWR 09:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a POV-push by an SPA who's been flying (almost) under the radar for quite awhile now. And I think his information is out of date. But whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

They're very much above the radar now. I've told them if they have a complaint about my handling of this, they can raise it at WP:ANI. Failing that, they've been warned about WP:3RR, WP:EW and WP:NPA. Any more nonsense and I'll block them. If they take it to ANI I'm prepared to explain why I didn't block them for WP:EW immediately, which I suspect is all ANI will be concerned about (with regards to my conduct). Kudos to them for imaginative use of a dictionary, however. I've seen that done before, but it always impresses me slightly. TFOWR 10:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no end of fringe groups who go looking for something to crusade about. And shur as shootin', if you go lookin' for something to get offended by, you'll either find it or invent it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't help thinking that "invent" is right here - like they were looking at the various definitions of "uncircumcized" and thought: "Bingo! One of the definitions is just enough for me to argue the word constitutes hate speech! What a find!" I wish they'd spend have as much time looking up words like "consensus", "tendentious", "disruptive", "wrong". TFOWR 11:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Kinda reminds me of one of Alan King's jokes. He said the U.S. was going lawsuit-crazy. (That was in the early 60s. It's fair to say it has not gotten better since then.) He ran into his neighbor and asked, "How are the kids?" The neighbor said, "Kids? Kids are goats. That's defamation of character. You'll hear from my lawyer!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Then there's that old one about the prudish lady who calls the police to complain that she can see the couple next door getting it on, through the window. The cop comes over, looks out the window, and says, "I can't see anything." The old lady says, "You have to stand on the top of the footstool." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's fair to say it has not gotten better since then - that strikes me as a glorious understatement ;-) The complaint you hear in the UK is that we're importing "the American culture of litigation". I liked Accident Compensation Corporation in New Zealand: if you're injured "in a trip or fall" (to quote the UK commercials for injury compensation lawyers) you claim from ACC. For anything. None of this suing people because you slipped nonsense. Probably a bit too socialist for many countries, though. I'm guessing Barack Obama has more important insurance-related matters to deal with... ;-) TFOWR 11:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I don't think it's physically possible to revert a circumcision. at least not very easily (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My biggest complaint with this entire episode is that I'm forced to think about things I would much rather not be thinking about ;-) And I've just made the connection with a thread at ANI what I was avoiding because they used phrases like "snip snip snip" - PEOPLE! Enough! I'm in pain just thinking about it... Now I live in fear of a torrent of puns... TFOWR 11:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi TFOWR. Could you please take a look at User_talk:JamesBWatson#Incorrect and enforce the restriction accordingly? Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No concerns about wheel-warring with JamesBWatson - they're obviously OK with their actions being reversed/modified. However, like JamesBWatson, I'm going to dodge this on the basis of my lack of experience ;-) I'll try and get up to speed today, but in the meantime I'd recommend finding a more competent admin than me! TFOWR 10:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now blocked the user for a week. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, I always suspected you were more competent than me ;-) Good call, I'm certain it's the right approach - just that I was/am too unfamiliar with enforcement. TFOWR 10:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, you have email. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not seeing it yet? Email tends to be pretty quick - my dock icon thing tells me before my talkpage does ;-) - so I'm a wee bit concerned it's got lost in the intar-webs? TFOWR 13:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Lol...oK, I'm concerned now too. I'd sent a copy of the mail to myself and it said that it got sent to you (and I didn't make any typos in the username).... Still not received it? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It may be a problem at my end (well, on the GoogleMail end). I just sent myself a test mail, and that's not arrived yet. FWIW, I used this link - but I'd be surprised if got my username wrong - it's daft enough that everyone double-checks the spelling every time ;-) TFOWR 14:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've emailed you ;-) I also copied it to myself, and I've not received the copy so it may well be a problem with my email. TFOWR 14:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Got it and I've forwarded what I'd originally wrote. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not got it yet, however I have got the copy of a test email I sent to myself. I'm quietly confident that the copy of the email I sent you will arrive soon, and maybe even your email!!!1! Hopefully my email is unblocking... TFOWR 14:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Computer-aided design

FYI 124.125.66.38 (talk · contribs) has continued delecting sections on Computer-aided design I have level 2 warned. --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 14:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update: another editor has now reverted them as well. I'd be a lot less concerned if I saw an WP:Edit summary once in a while - their second edit looked like it was kind of constructive, but all that deleting makes me concerned. I'll keep an eye on them. TFOWR 14:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Gatekeepers

Have you seen this ? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now. Ho hum. TFOWR 18:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Angel de Maria

Busy? Off2riorob (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a wee bit! Real Madrid have "[article subject] to sign" on their homepage; naturally that really means "[article subject] has signed"!!!1! Very tedious. Not as tedious as this, however... - a random IP fancied a debate with an English editor. They lost interest once I told them "my team" had done very well, losing to Paraguay but coming higher than Italy... Note to random punters - check editor is actually English before wading into a pointless argument: it turns out not every editor on en.wiki comes from England. I'm only here because nz.wiki doesn't exist, eh. TFOWR 11:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hehe...sometimes it is good to keep a distance especially if wielding the mop.... As I see it, all the reports are basically coming from the Real Madrid comment, which does not say he has signed a contract but clearly states that he will sign. He is in South Africa playing for Argentina, I was wondering if announcing it like that when the Spain and Argentina will perhaps meet in the semi final is a bit disruptive. Excuse me but I see your playing in the world cup and a bit busy but would you mind signing this six year contract. He likely is going to sign but as with all newsy updates imo it needs to be clear, I would rather we wait a few days with what we have that Real have announced he will sign than to have him in the team with a shirt number for a few days and then have to backtrack. Ho hum , its a bit like trying to hold back the floodgates though. Is your email working now? I sent you one to see if you receive it. Off2riorob (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's working - everything eventually arrived yesterday. It does seem slow, though - I've not got your email yet. TFOWR 11:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I got my copy immediately, perhaps your being filtered through an overseer. Off2riorob (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That'll be it! I got your email just now, no sign of it having been censored but I guess my overseer wants to keep a low profile ;-) TFOWR 12:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hehehe, he sure does. On a similarily silly note, could you give when you have a minute an opinion as to Peaches G. http://twitter.com/peaches_g/status/10412512671 and http://twitter.com/peaches_g/status/10431717349 according to these, what is this persons date of birth? Off2riorob (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say 13 May, with the caveat that (a) the individual concerned seems to have retweeted the same message the following day ("Just went for a lovely birthday dinner- I turn 21 at midnight!": posted evening of the 12th, and again morning of the 13th). Subsequent tweets say "...it's my birthday. Today..." and both are from the 13th.

However... doesn't Twitter have some sort of "official" feed? I remember Tweets - really useful tweets - from "Karen Gillan" (over at Talk:Amy Pond, probably). Only they weren't, really. I can't recall what the tip-off is: something like "official" in the username or something? Anyway, these may be the real deal - you're probably more familiar with this source than me.

TFOWR 12:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes the source is good, there is an official flag or something you can get added but usually common sense will tell you, as in number of followers and personal comments and such like. I also follow the great founder on twitter which keeps me updated as to which continent our leader is in any any moment.only in one she says on the 13 its my birthday today and in the other 13th she says I turn 21 at midnight..a conflict. I am thinking it could be to do with time zones, she was in LA and the times given are as received in my time zone, time diff is minus eight hours for LA. Just blabbing I am sure its the 13th.Off2riorob (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Time zones? Dammit, I've stopped thinking about them since I started using UTC for everything on-wiki. (I only use BST in the evenings, watching telly ;-)

Incidentally, I've just had to review my own edit over at our favourite article. Very strange... TFOWR 13:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, with reverting back using twinkle that can sometimes happen and I have done it a couple of times, someone is looking into that issue. Off2riorob (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look here at the top right you will see a verified sign, such links are only good for simple self sourced content and only about themselves. Off2riorob (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Whereas Peaches is a rebel and if you look you will see she is not verified but it clearly is her and she uploads pics of herself and other such confirmations that the account is genuine. Off2riorob (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo is also not verified , he says he is in London. I remember him talking about it (twitter verification) at one point, I must ask him about that..Our founder is a real jet setter if I just had his air miles I would be livin high on the hog. Off2riorob (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, got it. The rebels! TFOWR 13:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• I swear, I'm either going to explode and protect the article, or add a really obnoxious edit notice... and I'm particularly annoyed with the IP who provided a Portuguese PDF as a source. TFOWR 13:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, there is a nz.wikipedia ... although we typically call it "Simple Wikipedia"! LOL (j/k, of course) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

;-) Cheeky! ...though I will admit I always feel slightly daunted by simple.wiki - I guess because it's too different to gold ol' en.wiki... TFOWR 13:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I read and translated the PDF, could be real could be home made. Change it to semi prot..or shall we wait, nothing is going to change untill we get a statement from the player or he is presented as having actually agreed or signed. With him at the world cup I don't see that happening soon. Benfica have the same statement on their official page the they have agreed with real to sell the player, and again not comfirmation that the player has signed. http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slbenfica.pt%2FInformacao%2FFutebol%2FNoticias%2Fnoticiasfutebol_futdimaria_290610_63775.asp&sl=pt&tl=en Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Tuesday 29th, Guardian an unnamed Benfica source told Portuguese media that the deal was not yet concluded. Trading of the club's shares were suspended pending a statement.http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jun/29/real-madrid-angel-di-maria

ADP news, Benfica says Di Maria transfer not concluded yet - report (ADPnews) - Jun 29, 2010 - The transfer of Argentine midfielder Angel Di Maria to Real Madrid FC, announced on Monday, is not concluded yet, a source close to Portuguese premier league soccer club Benfica (ELI:SLBEN) told news agency Lusa.http://adpnews.info/?nid=25a7335b6a6d57af

Still not clear . Off2riorob (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Aye, the PDF looked OK to me, but didn't seem to say anything we weren't saying already (i.e. that he will sign). Anyway, I haz given in and asked RFPP for semi. I could do it myself, but figure no harm in doing a bit of penance, seeing as how applying PC1 to Ángel di María was my idea... TFOWR 14:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah it was you, I was the one that requested the semi from SlimV, well let that be a good lesson to us both, imo if a similar issue arises the article would be better back at semi or the new pending one protection. I changed my tack and added some additional content that may help the situation, if they read the citations I added it clearly says that it is still not totally confirmed. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

if they read the citations I added... You're dreaming mate! They'll never read them! TFOWR 14:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have the timeline now.I requested semi prot on the 10 june, Fastily semi protected until the 24 June-then a few days later along came User:Icestorm815 and added the article to the pending trial and removed the semi protection, this expired on the 24th and the disruption continued and I went to the Request Protection page on the 27th and requested pending and you replaced pending as per my request, so I am more responsible than you, and now HJ M. has changed it back to semi for a few days. Phew. Perhaps we will get used to swapping these protection around as we understand them better. Off2riorob (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah! So I'm not as stupid as I feel ;-) I had a feeling the PC trial might have been involved. Ironically, I think this article probably would be a good fit for PC1 in the long-term - just not now. Probably wouldn't want to use PC1 instead of semi for any footballer during the world cup, but the Benfica/RM deal makes it even worse. My thinking is that the more traffic there is, the less likely it is that PC1 will work. A WP:BLP with a few edits each week: PC1 is great. Anything higher: semi it is. Anyway, HJ Mitchell, if you're watching - thanks! Now I just need to return to RFPP to do some real work for a change ;-) TFOWR 14:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Glad to have taken that weight off your shoulders. Yea, anyway, its been amusing, best regards to you. Off2riorob (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandal alert.

Can you block 202.70.59.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? This address was used by a notorious Indonesia-based vandal who constantly inserts misinformation on Digimon related articles and other assorted articles (recent ones involve Little League) without providing a source. Please act as soon as possible. BTW, WP:AIV is backlogged right now. Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm working my way through AIV now. In general, I tend to only deal with vandalism through AIV, but in this case I think I recognise the vandal in question. They haven't edited since their final warning, however, and I'm struggling to link this editor with the editor I blocked for this previously - I don't suppose you recall who that was, or could point me at an WP:SPI report? TFOWR 11:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but I don't have to point to anything, as his MO is obvious although he jumps through various IP addresses. (You'll find it ridiculous for saying that Digimon was produced "in cooperation with Paramount Pictures.") To see what I mean, below are the addresses the vandal used for the last year alone. You can see the edits by any of the addresses for comparison.

Hope this still helps. BTW, I forgot to mention above that he never responds to any warnings and can strike at any time after an unpredictable period of time in another address. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It does, though probably not this time. The IP hasn't edited since their final warning - if they do I will block them - however since the underlying vandal seems to have a dynamic IP address I'd be reluctant to block at this point. I'll keep an eye on them, and thanks for the above list - it's extremely helpful and will help next time. I'll look into WP:SPI, too - it'd be good to have all this in a central repository. TFOWR 12:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The guy's back!! Active right now. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 15:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Not active anymore ;-) Blocked. I went for 48 hours, as previous blocks seemed to be for that length. I didn't label it as a sock puppet/block evader because I've not yet done the paperwork at WP:SPI... TFOWR 15:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that because of that above list and the guy himself, several rangeblocks had to be implemented. One six-month rangeblock is currently in effect. Just to let you know. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 20:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

nickelodeon greece

thank you very much for your help. this channel does not exist, and i thought i used the right db template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mydreamistofly (talk • contribs) 15:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries! A second user agreed with your thinking: they WP:PRODed the article as a hoax. A later user then removed the speedy tag, because WP:PRODs are preferable to speedies (it gives everyone a chance to check). TFOWR 18:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Watcher

It's like something from a horror movie. I'll never feel comfortable again. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole episode, to be honest, I've found quite scary - in a tedious way ;-) I keep several nations watchlisted for vandalism, but I nosey at the talkpages pretty frequently. This just seems to be one of those issues that should be ridiculously easy to resolve... but apparently not! TFOWR 18:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should be simple to resolve. It does though hack me off a little when some people argue themselves into a cul-de sac and still won't back down. Hopefully WP:RS will solve the problem. I doubt it though. I sometimes kick myself for getting involved in these types of debates. Jack forbes (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've avoided getting involved up to now that very reason. I figured with RFC or RSN we might get some new, fresh eyes, which can only help, so it worth sticking my head above the parapets... TFOWR 19:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for extended protection for Apple TV

See this edit [16]. The blocked editor is back with his/her games now the semi-protection has expired. Mattnad (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP as an obvious sock. If they continue (i.e. they have a dynamic IP address) I'll semi the page again. TFOWR 18:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No drama userbox

I'm probably pedantic, but I won't use it yet because it refers to the event in the past tense. What would you say to changing it to suit before, during, and after the dramaout?--~TPW 18:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've no objection - but it's not mine ;-) I suspect there would be no objections to updating it, though. TFOWR 18:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

OH, that userbox! ;-) Sorry, forgotten all about it. Go for it! TFOWR 20:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Right... Scary to leave without any sources. Thanks for agreeing there. (No need to reply) — Timneu22 · talk 20:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

...but...but...but I want to reply ;-) I wasn't sure if it was a definite attack page, either. I decided to err on the side of caution. I left a note for the article's author explaining why it was deleted, and what they needed to do if the article was genuine. Obviously that industry has to have workers, but equally, without references, that industry is a nice target for trolls and vandals. TFOWR 20:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Plus I'm at work (where things are slow, hence my recent patrolling donations) so I didn't want to go googling this! — Timneu22 · talk 20:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I'm in a "NSFW-safe environment" so I'm googling right now. Not very pleased to be googling, but googling all the same ;-) TFOWR 20:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick follow up: I've advised the relevant WikiProject if someone finds good sources I'll restore the article. I'm leaving it deleted for now (though it does look like the article's subject exists) as it's unsourced (and, obviously, a WP:BLP). TFOWR 20:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Tip

When the bot tells you that a vandal is a school IP, that should usually set alarm bells ringing. Considering it's probably some teenager on his lunch break, warning them probably isn't very productive especially when they've already had 2 "final" warnings this week. Personally, I think all school IPs should be blocked a son as they're identified as such since they're ususally pretty static and they bring nothing but vandalism, but then I also think logging in should be compulsory, so perhaps I'm just a pessimist! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough! There were a couple of school IPs listed at AIV, and I noticed MaterialScientist did block one of them. I'm a little reluctant with just one recent edit, but it does save monitoring them all day... TFOWR 11:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Shrug of this reluctance and block their disruptive asses. (riorob manically waves around his enormous imaginary ban hammer) Off2riorob (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, yesterday was the day my honeymoon with PC1 ended: today may be the day I decide that I'm not putting up with schoolies any more... ;-) TFOWR 11:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

My honeymoon with PC lasted for the whole of the hour or 2 it took for my watchlist to become overrun with the vandals who were having a field day at out expense! Adminship'll make you cynical like that sooner or later! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: your edit summary - I am but your apprentice, master ;-) TFOWR 11:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Fear, anger, hate. The path to the dark side are they. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

They are the dark side! I was going to say I would be the Tea boy and make cuppas while you both reminisce but this article was not what I was thinkng. Off2riorob (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Something new everyday learn you do... "ned" is a term I've heard all my adult life, it's the Scottish equivalent (kind of) of "chav" (it's usually seen as meaning "non-educated delinquent") but I have never heard "tea boy" before. Neds tend to prefer another tonic. TFOWR 11:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As a Canadian, I've never heard either term. We tend to simply say "stupid fucking delinquent" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That works as well ;-) "Ned" (and, apparently "tea boy") are uniquely Scottish terms - I have English relatives who don't understand what I'm talking about until I translate it to "chav". "Tea boy", apparently, is a Glasgow-term. I live in Glasgow, and have never heard it, but I also don't hang about central Glasgow on Saturday nights waiting for fights to start... TFOWR 12:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"… my honeymoon with PC1 ended …" – why? Amalthea 11:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it was the result of attempting defend this Ángel_di_María article from weakly claimed breaking news when really it just wanted moving back to semi protection as it appears all articles do in such circumstances (imo). Off2riorob (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (And aye, it was Ángel di María). I've been a big fan of PC1, mostly because my preference is for no protection, so I'd prefer PC1 to semi if any protection is necessary. That's still broadly the case. Where I have issues with PC1 is high-traffic pages, where the IP/non-autoconfirmed edits are coming in too fast for reviewers to easily handle them. My honeymoon ended when a page I'd applied PC1 to got hit by multiple (good faith) IPs adding not-yet-confirmed claims. I still believe that PC1 is appropriate in certain places - WP:BLPs which aren't edited that frequently are ideal candidates. So, the honeymoon may be over (I'm going to think more carefully before knocking back a semi request and applying PC1 instead...) but we're still together, living in the same house, and arguing about whose turn it is to take the kids to school ;-) TFOWR 12:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: 3RR

You should probably see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#KnowIG for this point... Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 13:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, opening it now - I saw the ANI note after I'd twinkled the other party a 3RR warning. TFOWR 13:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Jamiemichelle

Ummm... sorry to be blunt, but your question "Jamiemichelle, your post above appears to be simply a copy of your previous post - or am I missing something?" followed by "I'm not seeing any difference. The first paragraph differs in each post, slightly. The (long) second and third paragraphs are identical. You just seem to be filling up the talk page, without saying anything new. That's not helpful". is rather irrelevant to the article and to the talk page. If you read 74.4.222.208's talkpage (the previous IP that Jamiemichelle had), especially during his little fiasco with Jeffro77, as well as the argument he had on the WQA with me, you'll see that a lot of his edits are copied and pasted from his previous edits. Not that its anything personal, just wanted to fill you in on the matter, if you were ignorant about it (forgive me if ignorant is too strong a word). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I'd seen the copy-paste before. I don't feel that raising the issue was irrelevant to the talkpage: this copy-and-pasting-and-saying-nothing-new-over-and-over was affecting the talkpage, and I wasn't sure if Jamiemichelle would necessarily see their own talkpage if I commented there. It also helps demonstrate to subsequent readers, editors and admins the duplication wasn't due to some vandal coming along later and messing up the page, but was a deliberate act by an editor. TFOWR 09:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, then. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 15:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've also commented at the talk page, explaining - I hope! - why I've been somewhat distant. I had to give Jamiemichelle the benefit of the doubt. Now that WP:FTN have waded in, it's clear that the existing consensus is backed by policy. It was hard not to comment sooner: I saw my username being used as some bizarre justification to support Jamiemichelle's "consensus", and struggled not to challenge it then and there. TFOWR 15:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And it didn't help that boilerplate paragraphs were cut and pasted into Talk Page discussion sections repeatedly. I counted "Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics." repeated 21 times. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That, sadly, does not surprise me. Incidentally, apologies for dragging you into this. TFOWR 19:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

For a mind-boggling revelation about how widely this crusade has been waged across the net, put that same string into google, 258 hits...combined with the Kibo like ubiquity, it's almost enough to start a section on OPT in popular culture. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Brady not a forum

Thanks for stepping in as referee and trying to bring Talk:Brady Campaign back to a discussion of reliable sourcing. Your efforts might help us to concentrate on improving that article.

I wonder if you might also want to help tame the dog-fight going on at the Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. For two months now, attempts at solving a dispute has been impossible because talk of reliable sourcing gets drowned by discussion of personal opinion. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been following Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution for a while - however, I wouldn't feel confident collapsing large chunks like I did at Brady. I'm simply not familiar enough with the topic to see what's relevant, what's repetition, and what's collapsible. At least at Brady the {{spa}}s made it easy to spot the off-topic threads ;-) What about WP:RSN? One issue I have is the phrase "I'll provide a reference, just not immediately" seems to recur quite often. RSN may help with that, hopefully. At the very least, it should attract more editors, and editors familiar with what is and is not a decent source for a particular claim. TFOWR 17:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Here[17] is a recent RSN request by the AnonIP about one point of English History, though it isn't about the greater issue of the lack of sourcing for the English History section. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Username

Hi,TFOWR. It's been pointed out to me there is a user named Alexsalmond. Now, this may be the Alex Salmond, but I have my doubts. My question is, is it permitted to have the same username as a high profile person such as Salmond? Jack forbes (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Good question! I've posted at WT:UAA for advice. I know that company names tend to be no-nos, but this really isn't a field I've ever worked in, so politicians' names may be considered fair game (I'd hope not...) Hopefully WT:UAA will have some pointers... TFOWR 17:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a small inkling I've heard something in relation to having a username the same as a high profile person. I may be mistaken of course. Jack forbes (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you have had a reply quoting WP:REALNAME. I think the relevant sentence is this one: "Do not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that well-known person or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution". Sounds as though they should make clear they are not that person, however they would do that. Jack forbes (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, popped out. I'll drop by Alexsalmond for a chat - it's possible that they are who they claim to be. I'd be surprised, though - wouldn't the First Minister have staff for this kind of thing? ;-) TFOWR 20:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a turn up for the books if he were! Front page news story I reckon. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

We'll find out soon - I hope! Hey, we could be interviewed by The Record! TFOWR 20:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to cut down on the big words when I'm being interviewed then. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, me again. On a different note, would it be possible to have a collapsible box for some of the off topic conversation here at the reliable source page? When I say off topic I mean some of it is just a rehashing of the debate on the N.Ireland talk page. I thought the purpose was to show the sources and wait for others to give their opinions. I didn't want to charge in and do it myself, but if you think it's not appropriate, that's fine. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, second time today I've declined something like this ;-) No, because the RSN folk will do it if they feel it necessary. I'm sort of involved - well, I am involved - so I wouldn't feel comfortable doing it. They're all seasoned veterans when it comes to this, anyway - they'll be able to filter out the POV from the RS ;-) TFOWR 21:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to get you into trouble, honest!! Best left alone then, eh. I'll stay off your back for a wee while. :) Jack forbes (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries, and no need - you're always more than welcome. TFOWR 21:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

G11/G12 impressive? Bah!

Since it appeared on my watchlist I'd imagine I nominated "Vocalpad" for speedy deletion, but I don't remember now, I've been having another mass-newpage-patrolling day today. Just a friendly note to denounce your claim that G11 and G12 is impressive: I've managed to (appropriately) mark a page as A7, A10, G10, G11, and G12 all at once before ;) Usually I just pick the most suitable criterion, but I can't resist using db-multiple when a page matches five criteria. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It was indeed you! It had never occurred to me to use more than one speedy tag - I had no idea it could be done until just now! I'll look out for them in future ;-) TFOWR 12:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

{{db-multiple}} seems to be unpopular because I believe you have to specify the CSD codes rather than their shortcut phrases in the template; fortunately, I use them enough to know the most frequent ones. I've never been sure how to specify optional parameters in db-multiples though, such as the link to the source of a copyvio etc., though I think I have done this a couple of times before. Template:db-multiple would probabyl clear that up fairly quickly though, anyway. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That confused me for a minute - I was certain I'd checked the copyvio source (I wouldn't have deleted it otherwise, obviously!) CorenSearchBot had also G12 tagged. TFOWR 12:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's right; I couldn't remember how to include the url in the multiple template so I let CorenSearchBot's notice clarify the G12. I checked the template now, it's just the url= parameter, which is used with G12 and a couple of others. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ender2070

This user is attempting to "out" my real life identity in this talk page post. Obviously I'm not going to comment on whether he is correct or not, but could you please explain WP policy on the matter to him and disappear the edit? I don't think it needs to go through oversight channels, as I don't mind if admins can see the speculation. Yworo (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not immediately seeing the WP:OUTING, but I had presumed the third word (capitalised) was an adjective. Is that the problematic part as far as you're concerned? (i.e. is that word a real-life nickname or similar)? TFOWR 14:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The third word is the nickname of a well-known person in the community. Yworo (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I've deleted that revision. I'll have a chat with Ender2070 now. TFOWR 14:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

And done. Let me know if they pull this nonsense again. Their block ends soon, and I'm assuming they were unaware of WP:OUTING so I'm reluctant to extend their block. I will, however, re-block if they repeat this nonsense. TFOWR 14:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. I have no reason to believe that he knew about the policy, but clearly he needed to be informed about it. Yworo (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TFOWR. You have new messages at Routerone's talk page.
Message added 14:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The diff

this edit [18]. Being abused by another editor who has it on his userpage to humiliate me. Routerone (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything there that I'd WP:REVDEL for, and certainly nothing that would prompt me to delete your entire talk page. Am I missing something?

I would say, however, that if another editor was trying to humiliate you that would certainly give cause for concern. Dougweller mentioned another editor - is this the same editor? TFOWR 15:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Why??!!

Why did you remove The Arrivals documentary page??? I am a person that believes that deleting such contents makes it more credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.142.41.46 (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which page you mean. Here's my deletion log - can you point me towards the page? TFOWR 16:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Kelly Rowland (album)

Thank you. I knew that there was enough information in the sources it just that time and effort were required to ensure that it passes WP:NALBUMS. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries! Turns out I hadn't !voted in the AfD, so no worries there, either! And once again - great job! TFOWR 16:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm out of it for a little while and everybody gets delusions of grandeur...

Holy cow, I've been on a Wiki-break for just a little over a month and, as a result, I missed your entire RfA! I'm sorry to have arrived late to the party and I know it won't be official, but you can consider my Strong Support vote as #107 in favor! Congrats!! • CinchBug • 17:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back! Hey, you think you're surprised by the RfA? It's all a bit of a shock to me, too! TFOWR 17:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

And I've already been embroiled in drama with an IB friend from the past... TFOWR 17:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not surprised at all. In fact, I seem to recall asking you at the end of last summer if you were interested in ever taking up the mop. ;) But I do regret not being here to take part. Regarding our IB friend from the past, I noticed that a little bit earlier (from there, I followed a rather circuitous chain of links to finally arrive here to see your link to your RfA). Some things never change, I suppose... Anyway, congratulations, again! Best regards, • CinchBug • 17:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Simon Burns

Thanks for protecting this article. Recent news stories have inevitably all been very critical of him, so I don't know people need to vandalise the page as well. JRPG (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Alex latham

Hi. I see you blocked this user a couple of days ago. Now someone calling himself 'Alex "beast" Latham' has registered an account and made this edit to Bolton Wanderers F.C.. Looks like a block evasion attempt to me, although strangely enough the edit seems reasonable... Alzarian16 (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on them, thanks. TFOWR 18:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Alex latham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Alex "beast" Latham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Heh, just went to block this chancer after they (re)created this. Turns out HJ MIitchell beat me to it ;-) TFOWR 21:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ravn Studio

Hi TFOWR!

Would you have any objections to my un-create-protecting the above-linked article when/if I find the time to write a proper article on the subject? If so, please speak now, or forever hold your peace (or drop a note at my talk if you change your mind :) ). Regards, decltype (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, not at all! I simply answered a request at RFPP, and it met my "three creates" threshold for salting. Proper articles I have no objection to, naturally! TFOWR 19:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know you just did a standard salting, but it'd still be a reversal of your action. Hopefully I can put my money where my mouth is and actually write that article. Regards, decltype (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with reversals of anything I do. So long as you let me know, give me a chance to object. Which you've done, so I'm happy ;-) TFOWR 08:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for your suggestion. Technically, Bruce should make it clear but I wouldn't mind if someone else made it clear. When you suggests steps like this, you are helping WP. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries! Since BruceJenner is indefinitely blocked, I doubt we'll get much help from them! Do you fancy adding a note to their userpage? TFOWR 19:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Close An AfD

Can you please close the this Afd which i nominated. Now i know its notable. Thanks Arjun^codename024 12:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Done :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mitchell. Arjun^codename024 12:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry I missed that. It would have been good to have a straightforward AfD close to do! Last one I did was - not so easy. TFOWR 12:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hamish Griffin

I can you please put the following articles Bournebridge, New Manchester, Sunbiggin, Steward's Green, Flakebridge, Oddendale, Hardendale, Cathkin, Lanarkshire, Sheet Hill, Budds, High Park Corner, Maplescombe, Cotman's Ash through the same delition process as the ones you delited before, as I created them all thanks. --Hamish Griffin (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe! I've looked at the first one, and I'm declining to speedy delete it as two other editors have worked on the article. They obviously think the article has some merit! I'll list them here as I deal with them. TFOWR 13:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Bournebridge - declined, as noted above.
• New Manchester - deleted.
• Sunbiggin - declined (several editors have worked on the article)
• Steward's Green - declined (several editors have worked on the article)
• Flakebridge - declined (several editors have worked on the article)
• Oddendale - declined (several editors have worked on the article)
• Hardendale - declined (several editors have worked on the article)
• Cathkin, Lanarkshire - declined (several editors have worked on the article, and one removed a {{notability}} tag commenting that "a place this size is de facto notable")
• Sheet Hill - declined (several editors have worked on the article)
• Budds - declined (several editors have worked on the article)
• High Park Corner - declined (several editors have worked on the article)
• Maplescombe - declined (several editors have worked on the article)
• Cotman's Ash - declined (several editors have worked on the article)

I only managed to delete one as {{db-author}} (which requires that you're the only editor to have done any major work on the article). I'm not sure if any of the other criteria for speedy deletion would be met. You could try asking at WikiProject England: they'll be familiar with what's notable for English hamlets, villages and towns.

Alternatively, you could "WP:PROD" the articles - propose that they be deleted. You'd need to add {{subst:prod|reason=...}} to the very start of the article, replacing the "..." with a reason like "Non-notable village".

Sorry I couldn't be of more help, but at least it indicates that other editors are seeing your work positively!

TFOWR 13:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Hi,Please give your valueable comment to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Deletion of Jonathan Kane: The Protector.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 15:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Not much to add, to be honest, and it looks like it's largely resolved. I appreciate it's frustrating when your hard work gets deleted, but we do need to be very careful with copyright and we tend to err on the side of caution. I keep ANI watchlisted, so if I'm about I will see replies there. TFOWR 16:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

User:TruthfulPerson

User:TruthfulPerson is incredibly reminiscent of another blocked user we know. The topics, the language, the reverts, the battleground mentality - all similar. Might be worth watching. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

TruthfulPerson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

WP:ANI#User:TruthfulPerson - attacks, talk page blankings, etc.

Interesting thought. Slightly scary thought...! TFOWR 17:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, scary thought. Time will tell. The AN/I thread piqued my interest. The user's contribs seemed very familiar right down to the edit summaries. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There was one at least that was eerily familiar. Also: whois for that IP. TFOWR 18:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, have been lost in an article...yes that's one of the edit summaries. This is the other. It's hard to tell with the "I hate all liberals" editors because so much of the terminology is similar. The reverts and the fast pace looked the same. I have their page watched, so will see. I like the new page btw - forgot to tell you. Nice cat! Back to article writing ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks

First off thank you for helping out with the somewhat vile exchanges going on the page. Secondly, I'm looking at the page history and I see some of the diffs are crossed out, and some of the usernames crossed out and I can't compare diffs. Can you explain the new feature? Pectore^talk 02:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it's not a new feature - my first thought was that "the revisions had been deleted", which removes them from view by most editors (but not admins). However, I can't compare diffs, either - I can't even look at some of my own edits.

My guess is that the revisions have been oversighted. This is similar, but is over available to certain, trusted, editors. It's typically used to protect an editor's privacy (for example, if they accidentally revealed their real name or address, for example, or a registered editor forgot to sign in and accidentally revealed their IP address). I'm not sure if that's the cause here, and I'd imagine I probably wouldn't be able to find out too much (I'm not an "oversighter", so I wouldn't be trusted with the information). I made some of the removed edits, but I can't remember too much about the context - it was as, as you say, a fairly unpleasant exchange, but I'd imagine if the edits have ben oversighted there must have been some other cause, something I've either forgotten or never noticed.

Sorry I can't help more. TFOWR 09:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Alex "bwfc" Latham

This appears to be a sock of the indef blocked User talk:Alex latham and is creating hoax articles about soccer players like the blocked user did. Mo ainm~Talk 16:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Obvious socks are best... blocked. Thanks. TFOWR 16:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem lucky spot on new page patrol. Mo ainm~Talk 16:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

rollback

Please remove my rollback I have found little benefit from it and today there was a rogue revert, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do, however - before I do - were you using Twinkle before rollback? If so, fine, but if not it's possible some of the Twinkly goodness may come from rollback (I don't know, I started with rollback first). TFOWR 17:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I was using twinkle and still am without any issue and today this edit happened and I rather not have that happen. Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TFOWR. Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Let me know if ever you want it back. I do tend to agree, though - I used to find it got in the way. That's slightly mitigated now, because everything gets in the way, so it tends to all even itself out ;-) TFOWR 17:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

the only time rollback is really usefull is if there is a slew of intermediate edits other then that twinkle works nicely. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that what happens with Twinkle and intermediate edits without rollback? I'm not sure I'd be keen on that. Incidentally, Rob, there's a CSS trick you can use, I think, to hide rollback. If you found you needed rollback for Twinkle to work properly you could use the CSS trick. TFOWR 17:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I ussualy get that there was conflicted edits between and cannot continue. In the meantime I'm looking for a easy stub to write if you have any suggestions.... Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've not, sorry! But, on a related note, would now be a good time to mention Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/3rd? ;-) TFOWR 17:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The only difference between Twinkle and rollback is that rollback is (much) quicker. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Right now the big dramaout is the least of my concerns. I am bored and I actually enjoy the limited social interaction we have here. It is actually rather satisfying being around other "intellectuals" Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I intend to continue being sociable - I'm not giving up on that. But most of the chatting I do is completely non controversial. I hope... TFOWR 17:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll need to re-try rollback again sometime. I don't recall it being quite as nippy as I'd hoped before I got it, but Twinkle certainly isn't fast by any stretch - but then it's doing a lot more, too. Not sure I'd want to lose Twinkle, but I could understand wanting rid of rollback. TFOWR 17:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You won't "lose" twinkle you will have both. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sure, but if I had to choose. I definitely considered giving up rollback, for example, for much the same reason Rob notes. Right now, though, you could prise the pair of 'em off me only from my cold dead hands...! TFOWR 17:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Admin Request

Hello TFOWR. Hope your ok? Just wondered if you could histomerge User:Lil-unique1/Grown Woman to Grown Woman? Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I moved it for you, do you want the history undeleted? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Request

I have a request at Jack forbes talk page if you would be so kind as to look in. Thanks (Jack forbes) 86.176.211.216 (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It is done. Sorry to see you go, and I do hope you'll return in some form sooner or later. TFOWR 13:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Take care. 86.176.211.216 (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi TFOWR - I just wanted to drop you a note about semi-protection templates. I changed the templates you added to Simon Burns and Christian Wulff because I thought they were too big in that they distracted our readership for highly prominent articles (most people come to WP read not edit, so they don't care whether a page is protected from editing). I hope you don't mind - please let me know if there's a reason the big template is warranted.--Mkativerata (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I blame Twinkle ;-) I prefer small protection templates, but I've not yet worked out how to do them automatically using Twinkle... So, now worries, and thanks for changing them. TFOWR 08:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Tick the box that says "iconify". It doesn't work for indef protections but it does for every fixed time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Aha! I was worried there'd be some crazy config script somewhere. That makes a great deal more sense - I remember seeing the "iconify" box among the scary "cascade" boxes, so I ignored it in fright... TFOWR 12:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahaha! I just tried the iconify checkbox: Twinkle wouldn't let me check it. I will investigate further, once I haz smallified me padlocks. TFOWR 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

On a side note is it possible to get rolllback to automatically open the offenders talkpage? Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

From memory (I've been using Twinkle for a while now) - no. I think Twinkle is supposed to, but doesn't - at least for me, right now (Linux+Firefox). Friendly gives you a "welcome" option on the history page, which will prefill Twinkle with the page name - but it's only for welcomes ("welcome vandal" is an option, but it won't work for level 2+ warnings). I'm still copy+pasting stuff when warning and reverting, but Twinkle does help a lot. Twinkle's AGF rollback is cool, because you get to leave an edit summary, but it would be better if there was a list of common edit summaries. I use "Test edit? Try the sandbox" a lot (especially on Talk:Main Page...) and it would be nice to have an AGF-approved text for that. TFOWR 17:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, you must have enough buttons (pic?) to fill a cadbury sweet bag on your header. Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm zoomed in a bit in Firefox, so it's maybe not as bad as I'm making it out to be, but right now, this talk page has so many buttons I have to scroll right to see them... and I have a whole load of protection buttons down the left which I always forget about because the "pp" button at the top Twinkles it so well ;-) TFOWR 17:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If Twinkle isn't opening the User talkpage for you in Firefox, try:

Tools - Options - Content - Click exceptions next to Block pop up windows and add en.wikipedia.org

That works for me, and it prefills the page name too (that's Windoze though - ymmv...) - Begoon (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ow my. I like firefox, all the add on and the ad blocker and rhe find function and the colour tabs and the spell checker. Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm loving that! Works perfectly! Fantastic, thanks Begoon! TFOWR 17:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You didn't have wiki pop up allowed did you....he he, no wonder it wasn't working very well. Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, feeling slightly stupid! But more impressed with Twinkle, really. TFOWR 17:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It must be rubbish without the pop ups. You gotta love the users here, watching and helping. Off2riorob (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It was, it was! And totally, {{tps}}s rock! TFOWR 17:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the 950 page watchlist more than active (talk page stalker) - but you're welcome. I'll trim that watchlist one day - but Wayne Rooney will be a big hole in my day. - Begoon (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to do something with mine, like move to another account for vandal work or something, You have 4,347 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages). excluding..talkpages. Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - until now I've only really removed the absolute dross that I've done vandalism reversions to - anything that turns into a 475 page argument about whether some movie character was blind - but I think I'll have to get a bit more aggressive - it hurts to scroll through it now - and yours is 4 times the size...ouch. - Begoon (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried pruning mine - got it down near 2000 not that long ago. It's nearly 3000 now. I think regular pruning may need to be done with mine - I seem to watchlist every page I go near. TFOWR 18:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I see you also dropped your archive bot two two days. I'm on one day and it is working tirelessly. I lifted the settings from Jimbos archive settings. I have also been enjoying semi protection on my talkpage which is expiring soon, I think the issue has moved on but if it should return I may request you press one of your magic buttons. My talkpage is fully protected for ever.Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

My talk page is out of control! I remember the days when people were telling me I needed to set up archiving... oh happy days! TFOWR 18:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy days indeed. Pending changes can be a bad deal also, it appears you don't get any credit to your edit history for the work, so you go there look at the addition check if it is ok and accept it and all you get is another obscure page added to your watchlist. Off2riorob (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You forgot the 30 second wait for the P/C revision to load, and the agonising hiatus while you wonder whether the user who actually warned the editor concerned will add his warning to yours, notice yours, or yours will be second at the gate and need reverting. And god forbid 3 or more items in the P/C queue. Theoretically it's easy - just revert as you usually would. Doesn't seem to work out that way though, with 2 other editors both doing the theoretically correct thing at the same time {/rant]. Big fan in principle - not impressed with implementation so far  -  Begoon (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And god forbid 3 or more items in the P/C queue. I like PC1, but I really think it has its limits, and when it gets to multiple items waiting to be reviewed then the article would probably be better off semi-ed. I do love the idea, though, that we can have quiet little WP:BLPs on no-one's watchlists, that survive vandalism and blp-vios because of PC1. Anyway... it's early days, and I guess we still have some way to go to work out what works where. TFOWR 18:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong - I love the idea in principle - best thing that could happen to Wikipedia is that your brilliant description of "little BLPs surviving vandalism" all over the place can happen. A lower level of protection, hiding vandal crap from the public is dead right. Experienced editors monitoring it - perfect. A1. Excellent. 100% support. The problem is the implementation - too slow and confusing right now - but as you say, it's early days and can only get better. I think it will improve after the trial.  -  Begoon (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• The idiot has discovered that... if you check the "iconify" checkbox before doing anything else Twinkle iconifies the padlock! There may be some deeper magic at work here, but I'm satisfied with just having small padlocks. TFOWR 17:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
• Yay! Go, MiszaBot! My talkpage looks halfway respectable again. TFOWR 18:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • But wait! There's more! Down to five (count 'em!) threads. TFOWR 18:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hello TFOWR. I have a question about an article. what criteria to assess it? Example: {{WikiProject Pakistan}} from this - [19]. This article no longer start-class and not stub. How to make changes here? Regards,Sentinel R (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, to be honest. The WikiProject's quality scale might help, but posting at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics will probably get the best help. TFOWR 16:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

... and look, now that you have that template, your talkpage is now a Start Class Pakistan article :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Not any more! Annoyed I missed that earlier; how long has WikiProject Pakistan been gloating about stealing my talkpage? ;-) TFOWR 13:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully your talkpage was of low importance ... but it could have prevented some people from ever posting to your talkpage in order to avoid breaking the "stay away from A-P articles, broadly construed"! LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Breit deletion

Hi TFOWR. I noticed you were involved (I think) in deleting the entry for Canadian guitar virtuoso Kevin Breit. I wondered what I could do to get that page back up or provide the kind of information you need to get it back up.

Tim67.70.47.155 (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I was; I deleted it as an expired WP:PROD (proposed deletion). I've now restored it: Kevin Breit. I've reset the proposed deletion, as the original issues remain: the article doesn't yet seem to assert notability. If the article isn't improved to demonstrate that the subject is notable it's still liable to be deleted. Indeed, if there's no assertion of notability the article could be speedily deleted. TFOWR 13:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't reset the PROD, mate, because the PROD's contested, which means deletion isn't uncontroversial, so it'll have to go to AfD if someone wants it deleted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Doh! I've removed the prod. That's the second controversial thing I've done since the Dramaout started... TFOWR 13:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, IMHO, he'd had 7 days to contest the PROD on an article that does not prove any kind of notability. I would have userfied it if he had a userid, and given him pointers :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ministerpräsident

Voting has started here. Kingjeff (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A favour

There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:ACC-Uniform-combination-CLM.PNG in which I've participated that's been open the requisite 7 days and might be able to be closed, but needs an uninvolved user. If you don't feel it's your area, maybe you have a suggestion. I'm a little concerned the editor might get frustrated at the moment. Any help/advice appreciated  -  Begoon (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting one. I think, since Eeekster (talk · contribs · count) has been advised of the discussion I'd prefer to hold off to give them a chance to comment. Though it does look like the best way forward would simply be to use SVGs... I'm not seeing anything that would require PNGs, and can see plenty of advantages with scalable images. TFOWR 13:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem - yes, he may well comment now so waiting a while is best. I initially thought he had already been advised, but as he hadn't until now - that seems correct - thanks  -  Begoon (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Untitled message moved from your userpage

Why did you delete the page? You have no knowledge of cathopianology, what right do you have?! Cathopia (talk)

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Cathopia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I deleted it as {{db-g3}}, as I consider it to be a blatant hoax. There were no references, my search for "Cathopia" turned up only casual references (none of them to a centuries-old Pacific island belief, nor to a belief that had been transplanted to Cyprus). I am extremely sceptical that "Cathopia" is derived from any Austronesian language, as the similarity with "utopia" is too great. If this was a genuine Pacific island myth I would be minded to restore it; however, if it is primarily a belief on Cyprus then I would want to see that it is more than a minor belief. Given the apparent lack of references to it, I still consider it to be a hoax. TFOWR 13:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TFOWR. You have new messages at Wifione's talk page.
Message added 16:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:Peteypaws//committed identity.css

Thank you. Peteypaws (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries! I like userspace deletion requests - they're nice and easy and everyone's happy ;-) TFOWR 17:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, TFOWR. You have new messages at 69.181.249.92's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dangerously personal information on a user page (urgent)

Wasn't sure what I should do with this, but someone posted this issue to AN/I and I hastily removed the thread; I believe this needs extremely rapid oversight (and at least revdel in the meantime, which is why I've brought this to you). See images I removed from User:McYel. I've marked the images as speedy per IAR as a serious privacy risk but they're on commons so I'm not sure if I've even marked them correctly, and oversight is definitely needed here, I think. Not sure what the policy on this sort of stuff is but to be on the safe side I'm guessing oversight. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, Chris got to it before I finished writing the request. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not before I saw them! Thank you, I am on the phone to my Albanian contacts as I type. O Fenian (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Fuuuu (talk page stalker). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, missed all the fun! If the images are on commons they're out of our hands, but theie admin noticeboard should be up to the task. I'm going offline shortly, but I'll check commons tomorrow, and help where I can. TFOWR 22:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Alison has already oversighted the user page, and Chris + Xeno have deleted the images (from here, at least). That was a pretty fast tag-team response, I'm impressed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Technically the images were never here, the only thing that was deleted was your deletion request ;p –xeno^talk 22:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well that was a fail then. I had a bad feeling that was the case, but given the circumstances I had to be quick and give it a shot. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact that was such a fail I may have an excuse to put this lovely template of mine to good use.

User:Giftiger wunsch/Failwhale GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I disagree. The userpage is where people would most likely see the images. With all due respect to commons, of course. I still think it's worth following up at commons, but it's not as urgent. So good call on initiating the tag-team response ;-) TFOWR 22:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm happy with my own rapid response in removing the thread and getting the user page deleted and oversighted, but it's slightly disappointing that my epic once-in-a-lifetime chance to call an IAR speedy deletion was utterly worthless. :p GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not utterly worthless, the plasma screen TV should be shipping to Albania very soon, then my cut will be turning up soon after :) O Fenian (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And another Albanian drug dealer gets a U.S. passport... I suppose we should be grateful he didn't upload that as well. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, a slightly less alarmist topic headline is generally better for things like this. People are far less likely to be nosy if it has just said "Urgent". O Fenian (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a fail, better safe than sorry. –xeno^talk 23:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it's a balance between urgency to get it done and urgency to keep out nosey talk-page stalking bas... oh hi Fenian ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

TY

[20] Thank you so much for the gracious and helpful note. I really appreciate it and will follow your suggestions. And BTW, I love my Kiwis! Namaste....DocOfSoc (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries, and apologies if I sounded short or cross: I tend to get quite terse when I work in certain areas, like WP:RFPP ;-) TFOWR 12:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The pink cake is fine! Ellen Kearns (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That worked perfectly ;-) (Oh, and welcome to my talkpage, too!) TFOWR 13:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI

RE this, there's probably no reason to redact the username, especially given the page that it's on giving it away. I'm not going to undo your change, just thought I'd pass the note that really redacting usernames should only be done in the most disruptive cases, as it can lead to GFDL/CC violations. Thanks for the quick work, though. Regards, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and no worries. A little too quick, perhaps, and I'll fix it now. TFOWR 14:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

...on second thoughts, there's every possibility I'll make things worse ;-) I'll hold off, given that the username is obvious anyway. TFOWR 14:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Re: 92.251.27.110

It takes all kinds! - appreciate the support.  -  Begoon (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries! That was a bit surreal... I'm glad it's stopped, as we'd been WP:AGFing and that final post to your talkpage made me think we'd been wrong. TFOWR 15:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I do try to WP:AGF. I thought, (as you did, evidenced by your comments) that he might just be confused as to what "Issue" meant. The recent edits from that IP aren't malicious, but they trash the format on some entries in coinage tables as well as all the Diana stuff. Funny thing is when I check the sources, the edits to coinage are numerically right - but formatted wrong. It's still possible it was all with good intention, you know. Some people lash out if they feel intellectually challenged, which I could have been guilty of by daring to revert.  -  Begoon (talk)

It's back

Looks like certain diplomas have been readded to you-know-who's userpage (not the birth certificate yet but I'm not going to hold my breath). Any idea what to do about it? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) They contain no information useful for identity theft, as they lack crucial information such as date of birth, address or anything similar. Knowing someone's full name and little else is about as much use as an Englishman playing football. O Fenian (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... alright, I'll leave this for others to debate. Also shhh we're not that bad. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware you were English. O Fenian (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am. I'm not at all interested in football though, fortunately. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Another fine English game. And another fine World Cup, too! TFOWR 21:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

watchin the footie

Bit dull so far, so I was thinking and Sweinsteiger came to mind, and I was looking and thinking about the name swein is pig and steiger perhaps sticker..pigsticker, makes sense and then I googled and urban came up with this http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sweinsteiger is that urban reliable? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090329175039AAPabku I love language it is so stimulating. I used to laugh at that footballer José_Manuel_Pinto as in Portuguese Pinto means or can mean cock, so the last thing you want to hear from a mulher brasileira (Brazilian lady) is, Olha o pintinho! as in olho ronaldinho = look little ronald and olha o pintinho = look the little cock. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Could be pig foreman [21], but what does that job involve? – B.hotep •talk• 21:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The closest I saw was pig raiser, which is like just someone who keeps pigs. Hmm, I used to love wild boar and dumplings and berry sauce. (Wildschwein und Knödel) cooked in the Austrian way by a top chef to the old recipe. Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I can get beyond parsing "Sweinsteiger" as "Steinlager"... I'm thinking it's time to go offline and have a beer ;-) TFOWR 21:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought you had gone to the bar to watch the footie, you were so quiet. Bit dull wasn't it really.. My money is on Holland for the final because I prefer Dutch beer and the Orange supporters. Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I figured I'd sit in front of the telly with the laptop and google. Didn't get very far... aye, boring game, but enough to keep me distracted. Very tempted by a beer, however! If I disappear, that's where I'll be ;-) TFOWR 21:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes Brittny is going to perhaps need pareing back to survive, a case of less is more. I am biased and follow her on twitter, hehe. http://twitter.com/BrittGastineau Enjoy your beer amigo, se ya tomorrow, best.Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

delete

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempography concerns:

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

• 12:59, 22 June 2010 TFOWR (talk | contribs) deleted "Tempography" ‎ (WP:PROD: Nominated for seven days with no objection)

Could you please explain me why you deleted the Tempography - conceptual video art project WIKI page? I have objections. Only saw it too late.

What kind of user are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony bannwart (talk • contribs) 10:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi! The article was proposed for deletion, which means that after a week - if no one has contested the deletion - it can be deleted (and was, by me as you note above).

The good news is that you can contest a proposed deletion at any point, including after the article has been deleted. Since the deletion has been contested I've restored the article.

Incidentally, I am an administrator (sometimes called a "sysop"), if that's what you mean by "what kind of user".

Happy editing! TFOWR 11:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey Anthony, what kind of user are you? The kind who vandalizes people's userpages because they did something you disagreed with? If you didn't contest it during the PROD, it's maybe worth a rewrite or userfication, but not an undelete :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Lucky I checked their contributions after I'd restored the article... Ho hum... TFOWR 11:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, on a completely unrelated note, maybe I should consider turning my fail whale into a barnstar... :D GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh, you mean the "Way too much assumption of good faith, when it was clearly not warranted"-barnstar? Or just a generic "You did your best. Badly."-barnstar? ;-) TFOWR 11:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That'll be the second one; I'm guilty of the first, I wasn't sure if it was actually vandalism or an honest mistake. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

kind of user

Hi,

Wished to pursue the other thread, but impossible, sorry if this is not the right place to answer. Well thank you TFOWR, or Giftiger Wunsch for your answer, it surely clears things out a little, and explains what kind of user you are.

I am not a regular user and still do not understand how to answer and/or react to messages, or deletion the correct way. My apologies. I do not edit other articles so far, neither participate to speedy deletion, or only by mistake. I only wrote and edited the one concerning the Tempography project, trying to be as accurate as possible on how this project was created and developed over the years with my colleague and participants. This, I hope, explains why I was surprised to see this article nominated for deletion, and deleted within a few days only. Now, perhaps I understood to complete the article with more references. Perhaps, but not sure if necessary. I am open to suggestions, made by people knowing the matter. However, against speedy deletion, I am easy to deal with since the making is more to me than the talking.

Thank you for letting me building this article, and contribute with more content and references in the future. Please remove (if possible) the tag on me by scout Riotrocket8676, as my wish is to contribute by assuming good faith.

By the way, do I need a pseudonym, an avatar, four tildes? I ll read the guidelines next.

From Switzerland, best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony bannwart (talk • contribs) 12:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It explains "what kind of user I am"? Could you clarify, please? Sign comments with four tildes ~~~~ by the way; it'll automatically sign messages for you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Giftiger Wunsch, (giftig as in poison I suppose, what a pseudonym! > poisoned wishes) but I am not part of this, leave me out of it. It's always the same with this kind of platform. Now Bwilkins jumps in! I am not here for this.

Please understand that other people are not, all the time dealing with this as you are, perhaps. Sorry if I am wrong, again!

What kind of user are you? The answer lies now in your reaction, I guess. Sorry if it had a different tone from where you stand. What kind of user I am? Well I answered this already with my mistakes, and poor first article (but accurate so far). To me, it explains that you are durably confronted to these never ending conflictual views. And I can read a certain deal of vulnerability in these reactions, due to the constant reactions, not just here, but elsewhere too. I enjoyed reading and answering you.

Bye for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony bannwart (talk • contribs) 12:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

SUPERDRAMA Week!

Sorry, there's a thread at ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Seems like an editor you recently blocked is being accused of further disruption and off-wiki harassment with regard to the same articles. N419BH 15:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ender2070

His attempted outing of me and other issues are being discussed at AN/I. Thought you'd want to know. Yworo (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Seen it, posted. Thanks, both! TFOWR 15:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry to disturb your DramaOut. Yworo (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Needs must! I can't cloister myself away all week ;-) TFOWR 15:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Admin Review

I need input as to a conflict on ani my motives and claims I've attacked the other user. Can you review and comment fairly on way or the other [[22]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnwhale

(edit conflict) It's here! ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Giftiger wunsch/Failwhale	The Barnwhale of Epic Fail
Awarded to TFOWR for demonstrating truly epic fail. For assuming good faith and regretting it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think how poor that looks probably makes me worthy of one of my own, but never mind. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Taking the high road with malcontent users is never a failure. If those users betray our good faith, it is they who have failed, not us. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is really just a feeble excuse to give someone a barnwhale but shhh. Unfortunately it's somewhat fail that my whale's blinking doesn't work inside a table though, for some reason:

User:Giftiger wunsch/Failwhale GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I figured out why it doesn't work inside a table by the way, but I can't be bothered to fix it. I shall stop cluttering up your talk page now, TFOWR. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries, you're always more than welcome! If you do find a way, let me know - I've had no end of bother trying to wedge the barnwhale into my infobox's userboxen-slot. TFOWR 17:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The blinking doesn't work if it's inside an opaque box, because the blinking is achieving by blinking separate relatively-positioned items behind the unpositioned bulk of the whale. And it does that by having a negative z-index, to put it behind everything. I think the positioning needs to be set to absolute, relative, or fixed to allow z index to be used. Maybe I could just set the whale to relative but not set coordinates, and then use positive z-index values for all components to put it on top of everything unrelated. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that worked. Failwhale can now swim wherever it likes. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

...currently swimming in my infobox ;-) Something's not quite right but it works for now! TFOWR 17:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a bit of blinking-box overlap when I fiddled with the z-indexes so I was still fiddling with the failwhale, which is transcluded into the template. It's sorted now, anyway. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What on earth have you done to my poor fail-whale? I just saw it in your userpage, it looks like you've tinned him and sold him for whale-meat :( GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding checkuser

About this: The checkuser policy allows checkusers to use the tool to "prevent disruption", and this is quite clear cut disruptive behaviour. I run a lot of checks like this behind the scenes quite often. People doing things like this is actually exactly when checkusers should be contacted. I just thought you might appreciate knowing that. Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I do indeed, many thanks for letting me know: my contact with CUs has always been through sock puppetry (which, I suppose, this most likely is as well - but far, far worse than the petty socking I've dealt with in the past). My respect for CUs increases still further ;-) TFOWR 20:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a little known fact that a rather large portion (probably about 40%) of checks done by checkusers are based on something that the checkuser spotted themselves, rather than them being contacted by another user. About 25% of the checks I personally have done today fall into that category. I seem to be very good at dishing out little tidbits of information! =] --Deskana (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Very welcome tidbits at that ;-) TFOWR 20:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So much for dramaout week... I think we have half the admins watching those pages now. N419BH 20:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If I manage to avoid causing any too much drama I'll be happy ;-) This week I have used a blatant sock puppet to comment at ANI, though, and nobody batted an eyelid... maybe not the best thing to 'fess up to in a conversation involving a checkuser... TFOWR 21:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I did enjoy the comment from "TFOWR's left sock", yes. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Another tidbit: I'm normally available for questioning in #wikipedia-en on IRC, if you want more tidbits. Just say my name and I'll come out of hiding if I'm there. --Deskana (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks again, I suspect at least one editor is feeling a whole heap better right now. TFOWR 21:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, wait ... one of out newest Admins is socking?  :-O (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping it wouldn't get out, but I feel better now it's out in the open ;-) TFOWR 21:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

My deleted edits? (Richwales)

Hi. My edit count shows 42 "deleted edits". I'd like to find out what these 42 edits were. If I understand correctly, that's something only admins are able to see. Would it be appropriate for me to ask you to look up my "deleted edits" and let me know what they are? Thanks. Richwales (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see them, certainly, and I'm not aware of any reason why you shouldn't know what they are (i.e. I'm happy to list the article names; however, I wouldn't restore them without digging further to see why they were deleted).

Your deleted edits are basically edits to pages that have since been deleted (or deleted and then restored/recreated). For example, in 2008 you edited this talk page; since then, however, it's been deleted and restored - if you check the history now you're not on it. Most of your deleted edits are to pages that are still deleted, however. If you want I can email you the full list, though I'd want to double-check I was allowed to do that before so doing. The list begins in 2005 and continues to 2009 - I guess all your recent edits have been to pages that didn't get deleted ;-) TFOWR 21:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If you conclude you're allowed to e-mail me info on my deleted edits, I'd be grateful. I'll understand if there are other issues that would prevent you from doing this. Richwales (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

... it's quite a fishing expedition for absolutely useless information, however. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

... let me give you an example: some nitwit had once moved the article on Asperger Syndrome to Ass Booger Syndrome. You moved it back. The stupid name was then deleted. Also, talk on a few images that are no longer on Wikipedia because they're now likely on Commons. Have you ever tagged an article for CSD? Once deleted, that gets counted as a deleted edit. See, useless information. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Aye, I was very disappointed I looked at my deleted edits - I was hoping I'd find all those evil edits I don't remember ever making, but secretly fear I might have done... it turns out most of my deleted edits were down to either {{db-g5}}ing sock puppet creations, or fixing Hagger-style moves to userpages etc. While you're here - I assume there's no reason I can't list the page names? I can't really think of one, but this is an area I never considered in the past... TFOWR 22:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, a simple list of page names would be fine. I had asked about this in the first place because I wanted to make sure there weren't any "skeletons in my closet" that I should be aware of (and be prepared to explain) in the event of a possible RfA in the future. Although it sounds like I probably don't have to worry about that after all, it would still be good if I could just see which pages were involved. If it turns out to be too much trouble, though, I'll understand. Richwales (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)