User talk:WebHamster/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Dr Feelgood

I note you have added Bary Martin to the "Former members" list of Dr. Feelgood this raises 2 points:-

I seem to remember a story that Barry was offered a job by the Feelgoods immediately after The Hamsters had quit their day jobs and turned professional, but Barry turned it down and stuck with his band-mates, so was he ever actually "a member"? (You could ask was Henry McCullough "a member", but he did an entire European tour)
I cannot find a reference about Barry's membership "that appears in reliable third-party publication" as required by WP:Verifiability. It is not in Nic Clacy's Story, on the Feelgood's official website, nor in Tony Moon's book "Down by the Jetty".
When I have time (!), I hope to re-write the Feelgood entry - I have tinkered, but the history after Wilko left is appalling. Could you point me to a "verifiable" source, for when when Barry joined (or was offered a place, and turned them down - which could still go in the text) I assume this was between Gordon Russell and Steve Walwyn?

I note you have linked Barry back to SPS (despite reverting my edit giving the real names, in December '07, and explaining that SPS & ROE did not want their names to be known, which i have abided by). This seems inconsistent?
This link is also confusing, as readers arrive at the Hamsters page, looking for Barry Martin - but he is not there.
Arjayay (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

He did actually work for them for a short while although didn't do any recordings whilst with them, in fact I seem to recall it's even mentioned on the Feelgood's site (Automobile). As far as his anonymity is concerned, well on reflection I've decided to ignore his request as being a little silly. I know he's a very, VERY private bloke, but I can't see it doing any harm being on WP. In fact I've started to work on an article for him in my sandbox. So if you want to ignore my previous remonstrations, please feel free :) --WebHamster 01:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Bugger! Pressed save instead of preview! As you've discovered getting sources is proving to be incredibly difficult on the whole Southend scene in general as it all pre-dates the Internet so everything is in dead tree sources. As I live in Manchester it's also proving to be additionally difficult as I can't check local sources. I'm not sure if the official Feelgood site would be considered to be a reliable source, though on matters such as this which is logistical information I can't see it being a problem. --WebHamster 02:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Found it - Blueprint magazine December 1997 - it was an overlap with Gordon Russell, who left following a personal tragedy, so the offer to join, that Barry turned down, was accepted by Steve Walwyn.
Arjayay (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find the specifics of what happened and the chronology. I know that Barry did officially work for them for a short while, possibly months, and he did do several live performances. I'll try to see if he did so as a member of the band or as a temporary session musician. --WebHamster 17:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

You're being discussed here, in regards to that Sheree Silver articles for deletion. The creator, Spring12, seems bound and determined to belittle and discount anyone who voted delete. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster, sorry if I offended or upset you with the comments I made. I was checking with Black Kite to make sure the consensus was read correctly. Cheers, Spring12 (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Labour UK

The British Labour Party is not neo-liberal, and the current layout of idealogy is faction form, is ugly and looks bad. My edits are perfectly valid. Stop trying to complain about them for political purposes. --Welshsocialist (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no politics unlike someone with "socialist" in their user name. What you think the Labour party is is irrelevant. When there is sourced data saying that they are neo-liberal then that is fine for WP's purposes. --WebHamster 16:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It has been discussed and editted back by others from claiming Labour was neo-liberal for months if not years, many other people do seem to agree that calling Labour neo-liberal is both inaccurate and could well be considered vandalism in itself. The discussions are there if you want to look at them. --Welshsocialist (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, the only person describing it as vandalism is yourself and your various sockpuppets and IPs. As I said, your opinion of what the labour part is is irrelevant. WP is not about your opinion, it's not even about the truth. It's about that which can be verified by reliable sources. Once you understand that you are well on your way to editing WP correctly. --WebHamster 16:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit on LP Conference but also rewritten it to take out the 'rally' bit that rereading it is POV, also added link to BBC website report on 2007 conference to answer your OR point. Haldraper (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring your childish accusitions, I do think it be much better that we try and come to some kind of agreement over this, rather than carry out an edit war. Now, I think the place for such information would be under the "New Labour" section of the page, rathern then in the idealogy category box. All that is needed in the catergory box is the three core idealogies, Democratic Socialism (Clause IV), Social Democracy and Third Way. The references all talk about how they believe that New Labour as adopted Neo-liberal politics. --Welshsocialist (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't respond well to being described as "pathetic" and "childish". So go fuck yourself... quietly! --WebHamster 18:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You've been mentioned in ANI

Hello.
Bad as I feel about doing it, I've requested assistance at AN/I. (right here)
I haven't asked that anyone 'do' anything to you, but I believe it's customary to inform a person when they've been mentioned. All I want to do is try to resolve the issue without childish insults. Maybe someone will have a chat with you about it, maybe they'll tell me I'm too 'thin-skinned'. Maybe nobody will even bother. However, I felt you were entitled to know what was going on, so it didn't come out of left-field.
(You are, of course, entitled to reply on my own talk page. However, as it's a dynamic address, it's just as likely that someone else will get it, and be thoroughly confused) 209.90.133.75 (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be very worried about it Hamster, they saw how much of a waste of time the report was..WackoJackO 23:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

G'day hamster

I wondered if given Obama is settling in nicely, you might consider removing the rather explicit picture from your userpage? If you're interested in my thoughts on explicit imagery on the wiki, I've written a bit of an essay about it (complete with a ton of very much 'not safe for work' pics which apparently I'm advised to disclaim that you really should be over 18 in most countries to view) - whaddya reckon? Privatemusings (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

ps. I came across this here - although you know as much as me about how that page works! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly I don't consider the image as being "explicit", as far as nudes go it's actually rather tame. Secondly I have no interest in what the religious right (or those that give in to the religious right) in many countries deign to allow to be seen. If people, yourself included it would seem based on your request, have problems with non-explicit, tasteful images of the female human body then it's their problem. I don't have a problem with the image, that's why I used it. FYI I did actually make a conscious decision to use the tamest picture I could find whilst maintaining the joke. I deliberately didn't use an explicit image, plenty of which are available on Commons. If people wish to be prurient then they are free to do so in their own home... not on my user page. --WebHamster 09:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

okey dokey - you raised a smile down here with the comparison to the religious right :-) - I'll have to bash my bible elsewhere t'would seem!! I genuinely have no idea about any guidelines or policy in this area - but it does interest me, so I'm going to open a thread on a noticeboard (probably the admin's noticeboard) just to find out if any apply etc. Suffice to say, I can dig pic.s of naked chicks, but am perhaps less sure than you that they're a good fit on userpages - if consensus says that they're cool - then that's how the wiki works :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

done that here - your thoughts / comments would be useful, no doubt... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ordinarily I don't allow myself to be drawn into someone else's gun barrel, but I left a comment there. A comment that should leave no doubt about whether the image will be removed. --WebHamster 11:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll try again. Yes, it's user space. If it were in a relevant encyclopedia article, there would be absolutely no question here- the picture would belong. In userspace, it's a question. That's why it was brought up. Here the best tool for us to apply is a balancing test- we need to weigh the value of having it there versus the harm of having it there. On one side of the balance, we have.. nothing. Nobody has yet given a reason why having this picture there improves the project. On the other side, we have 1) some but not all editors have expressed an opinion that it's inappropriate. This counts for a little, but not very much. But we also have 2) public opinion. How does it look for gratuitous nudity to be there? Is this potentially harmful to Wikipedia's reputation?

Now, that said, I agree with one point you've made. In a sane world, people wouldn't get their panties in a bunch over nudity. But this is not the world we live in, and it is not Wikipedia's purpose to be a vehicle for people who want to change the world. We report what is, and we make no statements about what should be.

Does this help you see where some editors are coming from? In the balancing test, you can see the imbalance. There is potential harm caused by having it there, and there is no value of having it there. This, the best answer is for it to go away. Unless there's something on the balance that I've missed, I think the answer is clear. Friday (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)What gave you the impression that user pages are there to "improve the project"? It's not my impression that they have anything to do with the encyclopaedia/project one way or another. They are simply there as a means to show who the editor is that belongs to any given page. The page as it stands demonstrates my sense of humour, aspects of my general outlook and the sort of response I am likely to give should any editor contact me. As for "harm", well as far as I am concerned no harm ever came to (or will come to) anyone or anything because of this picture. And yes I see were the other editor's opinions are coming from. And as is my right I can either agree or disagree. In this instance I disagree. As for "changing the world", well I'm not attempting to. Whereas by your opinion and actions you are attempting to maintain the status quo. This in my view is just as dangerous to the project, if not more so. By objecting to something you personally don't see as being something to "get their panties in a bunch over" is in my view capitulating to the view that the picture is indeed harmful. Also in my view, the most dangerous people in the world are those that do nothing.

Now for purposes of clarity let me try to clear up some misassumptions. I am not displaying the image to be controversial (I could do without the mither), nor am I showing it to piss off people. It is there simply because I like the pun and the fact that the opinion of it in the viewer is biased by their sensibilities, not mine. It's ambiguity appeals to me. Like I said though, I don't find it harmful, indecent, obscene, tasteless or puerile. As such I won't be removing it anytime soon... regardless of what others' think. After all if they pay no heed to my opinion/tastes then why should I pay any heed to theirs? --WebHamster 14:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe "courtesy" would be the name for the reason that you might take other's sensibilities into account. I won't say what you "should" do or not; I can see an argument for leaving or removing the picture. There's just one thing you said that I'd take issue with. (By the way, I support your right to keep the photo up.) My problem is with the statement, "It's not my impression that [user pages] have anything to do with the encyclopaedia/project one way or another. They are simply there as a means to show who the editor is that belongs to any given page."

I can't agree that user pages have "nothing to do with the rest of the project." They're the public face of the project's writers, which is a relation different from "nothing". As such, each user page has a small influence on how this project is perceived by the public. Does that make sense? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Gee Friday. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#nudie_pics_on_user_pages, the general though seems to be that this is not a big deal. The image is tame. You can't even see any of the "naughty" bits. Chillum 14:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, dropping by to ask a question. Your upload notes say the original version was uploaded by a user called foto-rainer. No uploads or edits by that username turned up on searches of en:wiki, Commons, and the German Wikipedia. Variations on the capitalization and hyphenation didn't help. Could you provide a link to either foto-rainer's edit history at some WMF project, or a link to the original filename you used to create this adaptation? Camera data is missing from the metadata, which is indicative of possible copyright violation. Durova^Charge! 18:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Copyright confirmed; found original file. Durova^Charge! 20:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to confirm anything to me, I already knew the copyright. You're the one who was looking for a non-existent loophole. --WebHamster 23:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps you might consider adding a link to your talk page in your signature, so users do not have to traipse past the naughty bits while coming to talk to you? –xeno (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

To do that would be tantamount to me saying that there was something harmful to avoid would it not? --WebHamster 23:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No, but it's the courteous thing to do - regardless of whether you have something "harmful" (whether or not it is) on your userpage - why force users to jump through a hoop to talk to you? To be perfectly honest, it gives the appearance you're being intentionally difficult to prove a point (either about republics, or shorn beavers, or both). I'm sure you don't want to come across that way. –xeno (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to prove a point by not having an additional link in my sig, I've never had one. It's hardly "jumping through hoops" to manage one extra click. Are WP editors getting so sedentary that they can't move their hand or finger another inch? As for appearance, well all I can say is that I have no interest in how others see me, whether what they see is right, wrong or implied. I have no control how I come across so I don't even try. If people don't like what they see then they are more than free to go see someone else. --WebHamster 00:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I link to my talk page in my signature, not because I think there's anything wrong with my userpage, but because it's convenient. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Convenient for whom? Perhaps you want people to come to your talkpage? I don't. --WebHamster 00:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes. Considering that we're here to work collaboratively, making it easy for people to get to your talk page is in the interests of the project. Collaboration is more difficult when we erect impediments to easy communication. Your user talk page is not here for you to hold dominion over a little piece of Internet; it's here so that other editors can communicate with you effectively - no more, no less. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You are making several assumptions, and making them erroneously. I'm not here to work "collaboratively". I'm here to do my little bit. I do it within the rules and within my own personal time constraints. If what I do is actually collaborative then it is merely coincidence, nothing more. I neither make it easy nor make it difficult to get to my talk page. One extra click is hardly making it difficult. Your other erroneous assumption is that I think this is my own little bit of the internet. I don't, I have plenty of other domains/websites to do that. It would truly suit me down to the ground if I never had to see this page much less type on it. That can hardly be construed as attempting to own anything much less this tatty page. My above comments were to state that I don't want to be communicated with full stop. It was not to say that I don't want anyone to taint 'my' page with their comments. It's the same in real life, I have no interest in hearing strangers' unsolicited opinions on me or anything else for that matter. Hopefully that will make things a little clearer for you? --WebHamster 01:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Good day to you sir, I'll take my leave of your talk page then. –xeno (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's clear. Thanks. I'll trouble you no more. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You'd probably get less traffic if that image wasn't the first image on your user page. As is, anyone with the right javascript active who hovers over your sig gets a preview of it. Do you mind if I ask why you choose to put that image there? It's tasteful, but it's explicit. I suspect that you think people shouldn't be made uncomfortable by it, but we both know that it is making people uncomfortable. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make me uncomfortable, in fact I think it's rather a pleasing picture. So why should I be deprived of an inward smile just to make a few editors marginally less outraged than is their habitual state? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

@Fatuorum: If the picture itself gives you pleasure then take a copy of it. If knowing that it upsets other people gives you pleasure, then you should be deprived of your pleasure because it requires upsetting other people - for the greater good if you like. PS. I do share your concern that WebHamster, an otherwise good contributor AFAICT, is going to overreact to this. I don't know what to do about it though. There is no absolute right to have that image there, the page is 'his' only in the same sense that 'my' desk at work is 'mine'. WP:USER isn't on his side, and wiki-lawyering is always a good way to lose friends and influence people. He's coming close to PA too.

@WebHamster: I know you've seen my earlier post, and chosen not to answer. That's your right. But you don't have the right to upset other people, which the combination of the picture and the signature does. Going on what you've said, you like the joke. That's your right. But why share it in a way that upsets people? I guess you think it makes you look witty and cutting edge? Hamster, It's been 16 years since I first heard the joke and it wasn't young then... My suggestion - crop the picture back to be street legal and change your sig. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Do those who want the picture off have the right to upset other editors by their behaviour? Because that is what at least some of them are doing. As for the sig - if admins can get away with sigs with no links whatsoever, one that links to the userpage should be absolutely fine. DuncanHill (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The point you seem unwilling to accept is that neither you nor anyone else has the right not to be upset. So why not keep your upset for those things that are actually worth getting upset about, instead of wasting it on this kind of risible self-righteous indignation? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no right to upset people. There is no right not to be upset. There is discussion. I would like WebHamster to change the picture or the signature or preferably both. I'm trying to explain that in terms that I hope WebHamster will agree with. I know that WebHamster wants to show some things about himself, including that he doesn't back down when he thinks he is right. I know he's prepared to offend people, but I hope that he'd prefer not to. And I hope he can be persuaded that not offending people is a good thing, one that's worth making a minor backdown for. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Casting the question in terms of "rights" doesn't seem to me that it will be helpful. Nobody has any kind of active right protecting them from being upset by the others, and that's true all around on this issue. Rather than worry over who has which "right" or "entitlement", why not talk about what would have the best effect on the project. Casting the issue in those terms is likely to be much more helpful, because we won't spin off into abstractions about whose rights offend who else's right to not be offended by others' rights... ugh. None of us deserves a goddamned thing here, so get off the entitlement horse, and put the good of the project ahead of your own sensibilities. Everyone! Seriously.

Oh... if you care less about the good of the project than about your own sensibilities, then let me know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If I may say so, that's a rather naive analysis. The way this issue was brought up and has been handled made it almost inevitable that positions would become entrenched. Which they have done. The issue now is damage limitation. The image is not going away any time soon, WebHamster has made it perfectly plain that he has no intention of altering his signature, so it's time to let this drop. Not start some metadebate about "the good of the project". --Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Naive? Alright, let's see if I can understand that. I suggest that people stop acting as if they're entitled to avoid offense, because it created the current shit-storm. You seem to agree with that, and therefore I'm naive? No I don't get it.

As for the image not going anywhere... Jimbo would disagree with you. He just weighed in. He didn't talk about rights but about the good of the project. How naive. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Very simple solution

If you're honestly not doing this to get your lulz, there's a very simple solution. Change your userpage and/or your signature. Piece of cake, and it'll get people off your back. Friday (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, Friday's solution to all Wiki-problems is for everybody to do what he wants them to do. DuncanHill (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hardly a unique position though, one that he shares with too many other wikipedians. I have read the above nonsense with a sense of increasing incredulity. What a fuss about absolutely nothing. I am coming around to the view that this sanctimonious rubbish is still being piled on in a rather shameful effort to get WebHamster to react in a way that could be used to justify a punishing block. Or at least I can't see why else the overly prudish or dictatorial don't just let this drop. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, fun! Do I fall in the "overly prudish" or "dictatorial" category? Or both!? Casting aspersions is very, very helpful, especially when you do it on the talk page of someone who has said he doesn't appreciate messages showing up on his talk page. Rather than prudish or dictatorial, that just makes you inconsiderate.

Seriously though, I doubt there's a conscious effort to provoke him into blockable behavior. More likely it's just another example of poor Internet social skills. It wouldn't hurt anyone to learn that demanding or arguing that someone change isn't a very good way to get them to change. It is a good way to entrench them in their position, especially once it's been cast as a battle of wills. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever been particularly concerned about whether WebHamster—or anyone else for that matter—appreciates seeing my pearls of wisdom on their talk page or not. I guess webHamster and I are rather similar in that respect, which is why I feel able to wholeheartedly agree with your suggestion that "demanding or arguing that someone change isn't a very good way to get them to change." --Malleus Fatuorum 16:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Signature

Next time someone complains about your signature, you should simply point out that it complies entirely with the "Internal Links" section of WP:SIG - "it is common practice to include a link to one or more of your user page, user talk page, and contributions page. At least one of those pages must be linked from your signature to allow other editors simple access to your talk page and contributions log." DuncanHill (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

But what if it upsets someone, puts a picture of a poor little furry hamster struggling in a spider's web into their minds? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

:-) Actually, it reminds me of the hamster in a blender, but I didn't want to bring that up. I assume it's a reference to the band. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A development

[1] Surprised me a little, I gotta say, but I can see where he's coming from. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't surprise me in the slightest. He's got previous for suppressing what he doesn't want to see or hear. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This one will go far. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

He's just stating an opinion. It doesn't mean anything more than any other editor. -Chunky Rice (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A hopefully useful answer to your presumably sincere question

"After all if they pay no heed to my opinion/tastes then why should I pay any heed to theirs?" This is easy to answer: because Wikipedia is not a free homepage provider. This is not a free speech zone, but a professional work environment. I encourage you to reconsider.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So this is your idea of encouragement is it? Looks more like bullying to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's bullying - but from a man with such a profound mistrust of the community what else do you expect? DuncanHill (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It may be "a professional work environment" to you, you're salaried. I'm just a "volunteer" with no "rights". I only heed the opinions of people I have respect for. Power-hungry dictators don't come into that category I'm afraid. --WebHamster 08:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous storm in a tea cup, I can only imagine Wales has not seen the image in question. I have seen more provocative images posted on metro stations and billboards throughout the capitals of Europe. Is morality and the speed to take offence very different on the other side of the Atlantic? Giano (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wales has demonstrated on many previous occasions that his judgement is not always of the best. And it's certainly flawed in this case. What's different on the other side of the Atlantic is the speed and confidence with which those who have only the vaguest glimmering of understanding jump in to offer their half-baked ideas as self-evident truths, and brook no argument against them. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster, I've begun an MfD discussion about this at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WebHamster. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear God! Is this all you have to worry about? What's next if the MfD fails? Blocking everyone who doesn't agree with you? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:Consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Why? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what has sway here (when there is any). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Much more of this and the project will have to create WP:SUPERMARKET to give people yet another place to go! --WebHamster 14:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I asked what you will be proposing next if the MfD doesn't give you what you think is the right result. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think I have any take at all on what would be the "right result"? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That you went to the trouble of starting this, instead of letting the issue quietly die away, as it was otherwise starting to do.--Malleus Fatuorum 15:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The link to WP:CONSENSUS is straightforward. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No doubt it is, but so what? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two." Does starting an MfD make it more or less likely that the parties involved will reach agreement in your opinion? Or do you subscribe to the view expressed by Jimbo among others that the way to reach consensus is to issue threats of deletion and blocking? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say any of that. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No you didn't. I said it, in the form of a question to you. A question that you have repeatedly avoided answering, which is answer enough for me. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't found an answer in my posts it's because the question had nothing to do with me or my outlook(s) on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As you clearly didn't recognise it, the piece I quoted came from WP:CONSENSUS. And by avoiding my question you have already answered it more eloquently than words could ever have done. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write that. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually read WP:CONSENSUS yourself, in particular this section on consensus building? Or are you suggesting that you don't agree with it? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you're not happy I started the MfD. Thanks for letting me know. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You should be glad for this MfD, it will settle the question. It even looks like it might settle in your favor. If you want this issue to drop then the MfD is the fastest way to do it, otherwise people will just bicker about it for ages. Chillum 16:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Mild suggestion

Unless you're asked a direct question about the user page deletion debate while it's ran, don't comment further. With the Larry Flynt type responses, you're only inflaming it a bit and could lead someone with a hair trigger to block you. Jimmy said to "block" you of course, but even he has no authority to block anyone completely outside of policy or for no reason. He can bend rules but has zero authority nor power to break them; he's still a servant of the encyclopedia like anyone else. Please try to chill out a bit. You have it appears almost overwhelming support. Let everyone who supports the base ideal fight the fight. rootology (C)(T) 16:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

He's right. Also, Chillum above. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

User page

Hi.. I've removed the inappropriate image from your user page. Please do not put it back. Friday (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What the hell do you think you're doing? Stop. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Now you're protecting the page? I'm inches from blocking you if you don't revert yourself immediately. This is a completely inappropriate use of the tools. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've temporarily protected the page, in hopes that people will get bored with this. Someone should unprotect it once things calm down. Friday (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Now do people understand why I say Friday cannot be trusted with the tools? DuncanHill (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Friday, while you may not be deleting the page, removing the image is clearly against the consensus at the MfD. Please undo it. Nev1 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The image removal is not supported by the MfD. The page protection is not supported by Wikipedia:Protection policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've unprotected and restored the image. I don't care if it's a wheel war - there was absolutely no justification for the original removal/protection. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I support the image rs (owing to the outcome of the MfD) and support unprotection (page was not protected under any policy I'm aware of). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Friday... this was inappropriate. Please don't be like that. The dictator hat ill-suits you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, if I was trying to play dictator, it would have turned out way differently than this. I'm just trying to play the same thing I always play: one editor, trying to do the right thing. If I knew how to be dictator, these problems would be easily solvable. Friday (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, in that case, this was a simple case of poor judgment. I think that using the buttons in a case where you've already been involved and have a clear point of view.... it's something I'll never do, as a personal policy. If I can't find another admin to do it, then it doesn't need to be done. Editing a page, and then protecting it in the state to which I edited it? If I ever do that, I hope someone will take my buttons away. You can take that to the bank, too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This dude ain't going to rise from the museum and trample you.

Seriously, please chill. This isn't life or death. Durova^Charge! 20:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Coming next year: the burqa?

You say po-tay-to, and I say po-tah-to. You say to-may-to, and I say to-mah-to. Po-tay-to, po-tah-toh; to-may-to, to-mah-to: let's call the whole thing off. Durova^Charge! 21:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia user space fashions
• 
  2007
• 
  2008
• 
  2009

Arditi S.p.A

You didn't left me time to improuve the page, or to put the "hangon", and I don't think it is much less relevant than for example Calcomp, Guide Friday or Floform, only to cite a few. What is your advice? User:Miguelfms

December Newsletter, Issue III

Delivered on December 3rd, 2007 by Rudget. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *'s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Soldiers of the Cross - Colorado

You left me a message some time ago about an article with the above title being deleted as insignificant. I am not really interested in playing the silly wiki games that go on here and as another admin put it, he is not interested in the subject and deleted it. Understand why wiki has problems raising money now?

As to what is the importance or significance of it. What is the importance of this article Church of Jesus Christ–Christian? It is/was a white supremacist church run by Wesley A. Swift.

So, lets apply the above to the deleted article on Soldiers of the Cross - Colorado. It was a christian identity school, aka the Rocky Mountain Kingdom Gospel Institue run by Kenneth Goff. Kenneth Goff is listed in the Encyclopedia of White Power, pg. 120.

Do not send me any more messages please (or ban me). I am no longer interested in wiki-politics and I am not interested in the lame reasonning that goes on from what appears to be mostly immature, college kid admins.

January Newsletter, Issue IV

Delivered on January 5th, 2008 by Jza84. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *'s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

March Newsletter, Issue V

Delivered on March 8th, 2008 by Jza84. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *'s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

WP:GM Newsletter

Delivered on April 9th, 2008 by Polishname. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on May 1, 2008 by Basketball110. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

June Newsletter, Issue VIII

Delivered on June 12, 2008 by Polishname. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

WikiProject Greater Manchester September Newsletter, Issue IX

Delivered on 2 September 2008 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

WikiProject Greater Manchester October Newsletter, Issue X

Delivered on 4 October 2008 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

WikiProject Greater Manchester November Newsletter, Issue XI

Delivered on 2 November 2008 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

WikiProject Greater Manchester December Newsletter, Issue XII

Delivered on 5 December 2008 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

WikiProject Greater Manchester January Newsletter, Issue XIII

Delivered on 5 January 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

WikiProject Greater Manchester February Newsletter, Issue XIV

Delivered on 1 February 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

WikiProject Greater Manchester March Newsletter, Issue XV

Delivered on 1 March 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

^^^ You might consider manually archiving all these; the bot won't hit them because there's no timestamp. –xeno ^talk 19:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Just FYI I have made my opinion known here that one who chooses to conduct themself as you have in recent events is "an inconsiderate prick". Though I know you don't care to hear from others, I would not want to be accused of talking behind your back - even though in this case I was talking in general, and not necessarily yourself. You may wish to review these suggested edits to your userspace made in good faith by User:SmokeyJoe and User:Gwen Gale (adoptance of which would render my comments moot), reverted by others. regards, –xeno ^talk 20:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive these uncivil comments. –xeno ^talk 19:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

religion userbox

Without a comma after "religion", the word "anywhere" is redundant and suggests self-contradiction (religion would be convenient in some |a 'single'?| spot, not everywhere). We all over the world who enjoy your userbox would be grateful at your fixing it.--Algorithme (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It says what I wanted it to say. The "anywhere" is not self-contradictory, it clears up any doubt or argument that the occasional pockets of 'resistance' or mini-bible belts (or, in an effort to halt systemic bias, koran-belts) are not acceptable :). --WebHamster 21:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the "any universe"! : ) _{--Algorithme (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)}

Syed Ahmed

You clearly feel you have legitimate concerns regarding this article. I'm happy to assume good faith on your part providing no derogatory comments are made and that no further edits are made without first full discussion on the discussion page and clear consensus obtained. Does this seem reasonable to you? Amicaveritas (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What I don't see as reasonable is your POV behaviour from day one with this article. Your interest is not Wikipedia, your interest and obvious desire is to deflect anything negative about Ahmed. On those grounds I don't feel that I have to indulge you or Ahmed. So long as what I write is within the rules then I'll write it. The desires of a subject's sycophant is totally immaterial to me. You or Ahmed are not my priority in this matter, Wikipedia is. --WebHamster 14:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That is utterly untrue. Check the edit history. I did not delete the content. My edit was similar to yours - however you misquote the sources. You refer to "Ahmed misleading" in your edit. This was Afted Ahmed. You imply it's Syed Ahmed. There is a duty of care with Biographies of the Living and you are not applying it. I think your actions are really not in the interest of Wikipedia. I think they are entirely self-interested. Do you think you are free to write whatever you see fit with out recourse to anything or anyone else other than your interpretion of policy? What you write is not within the rules and even if it was it's not within the spirit of the rules. It's not even an accurate refelction of the underlying articles. I take your comment above as personal attack under wikipedia's policies. Amicaveritas (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually that particular wording was from one of the earlier drafts that I didn't write, as you are so fond of the edit list I'm sure you can peruse it to your heart's content to see the truth for yourself. I don't imply anything and I really don't give a rat's arse whether you believe that or not. As for my "self interest". Hmmm, let's see, more than 13,000 edits over 6 years most of which was before this article was ever created, compared to say, err, the 160 edits of a SPA editor whose only presence on WP is related to this particular article. Now you tell me, where would any right-minded person think the self-interest lay? Now you are free to take my comments in any vein you like, I have little interest, and believe me the more you go on and on like this the less interest a lot more people around here will take in what you have to say.

So let's be clear on this, I do not assume ANY good faith on your behalf in this matter. Every single edit you have made since the 20th of April has been to ameliorate anything negative, or preferably delete, anything that doesn't put Ahmed in a good light. Quite frankly I'm convinced that you have some role in his publicity department and as such I won't trust anything you do or say with regard to Syed Ahmed. Have a nice day. --WebHamster 15:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have registered a formal complaint regarding your personal attack above. Amicaveritas (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll make sure the presses are standing by. --WebHamster 15:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

With regard to publicity:-

Syed Ahmed Website Syed Ahmed Public Profile

this is the sort of content they produce. It bears no relation to any of my edits. I am completely with you in this respect - PR has no place in Wikipedia. The only edit I have made recently is to revert your edits which were made against consensus (a fact subtantiated by a neutral 3rd party). The other edits have been made by a neutral third party after discussion and consensus was achieved.

Given your vast and illustrious history, you're clearly a valued member of the community - therefore please direct your comments to my comments on content if you hold a different opinion.Amicaveritas (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What don't you understand by "although consensus is desirable it isn't compulsory"? And as far as your last sentence goes, a) go kiss someone else's arse, and b) if you're going to talk bollocks find somewhere else to do it. -WebHamster 17:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility Harassment & personal attack complaint made. Amicaveritas (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again you show total ignorance of the rules. How can I be harrassing you when I'm merely replying to verbiage you left here. This is my talk page remember? And please try to be specific. What "personal atteck" do you allege I have made? What a budding wiki-lawyer you'll make, at least you will be when you understand the rules you are quoting. Duh! -WebHamster 20:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I clearly misconstrued your actions and have been guilty of over reacting to what you have obviously done in entirely good faith. Amicaveritas (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Might be interested in this?

You might be interested in this if you haven't already seen it. Some people just never give up, eh? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads-up, I had seen it but I just couldn't be arsed to give the troll a morning meal. I have far hungrier trolls to feed on WP:COIN :) --WebHamster 13:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Gary Stretch

Our Gary shouldn't be any trouble for a little time. Incidentally, you might take a look at the history of his Italian equivalent as well as this if you have a moment. -- Hoary (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC) (amended 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

I've amended both the en and it articles with a reference to show where the current DoB came from. Ain't Google translator wonderful :) --WebHamster 15:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

SPG

Please see Talk:Wish_You_Were_Here_(album) before making further reverts. Thanks. Turkeyphan^t 21:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Blur

Try reading the article.

92.11.154.60 (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I did, and if you want to change it to that degree then source the changes, otherwise discuss it on the talk page first. --WebHamster 11:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

woops!

Hey, Thanks for your trouble there fixing that for me, sorry about that, must have been one of those odd ones. Cheers :D Jamesööders 14:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

haha yes, I guess its unavoidable lol, nice to meet you there :D Jamesööders 14:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

re User:Tulkaspa and the reference page (science)

Since the page is over 5,000 edits having the editors contribution deleted is going to require a Steward, and I don't think it is so important to rustle one up. I believe the next spam edit from the editor should draw an indef with talkpage and email blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

yes I understand, but my only reason for reporting him was to prevent any more of his ads. It didn't occur to me to get his edits deleted or oversighted. If he wants his fair share of telemarketeers to call who am I to stand in his way :) --WebHamster 14:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Lyn Took : Round the Horne

Hi...I think I am a reliable source. I am Barry Took's younger son mentioned in the article. I know the link between my late father and Lyn (an ex-wife) and my mother Dorothy ('Dot') Took also an ex-wife only too well. Regards David Took —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemesisthrup (talk • contribs) 23:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Not by Wikipedia standards you aren't. Please see WP:RS for details, also WP:OR. There's a reason experienced editors are not accepting the changes. --WebHamster 00:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I Love Money (season 3)

• will you please put all the info on I Love Money (season 3) you know on there thanks.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.46.73 (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Corcoran

My apologies,I did so because there is already an existing article on Corcoran is opposed to Surname,there is no point in having it,it is wasted of resorces and space,however I did blank it,but undid it as it is against procedure,can you merge these two together or delete the article based solely on the background of Corcoran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.18.175 (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. This certainly wasn't vandalism -- please don't accuse good faith editors of vandalism if your objection is based on content. Thanks! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Offense wasn't intended; I agree that the removal of unsourced material was appropriate, however I think it's pretty obvious that the editor was attempting to comply with sourcing policy and he just didn't quite make it. I'm pretty sure TW has some other buttons besides "vandalism".  :-) In any case, don't take the template or the reply as adversarial -- it isn't meant to be! Cheers! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfuckingbelievable! That was clearly unsourced and potentially damaging speculation in the biography of a living person. I suggest the you brush up on the contents of the welcome page yourself, as well perhaps growing up a bit. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't that the material should have remained; the issue is making an accusation of vandalism when the editor was making a good faith (albeit misguided) submission. Not sure how you come to the "unfuckingbelievable" conclusion given that I explicitly said "I agree that the removal of unsourced material was appropriate"; perhaps you should tap the brakes a bit... ready-fire-aim doesn't work very well when coupled with indignant incivility. Cheers. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Addendum - WebHamster, sorry to have to drop science to Malleus Fatorum on your talk page; I didn't see the utility in re-homing the conversation elsewhere. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Who appointed you head of the civility police Blaxthos? A voice in your head? Don't listen to the voices, listen to your head. Be your own man, not a sheep bleating into the wind. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps in this case a sheep with wind? --WebHamster 22:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll say no more after this one last comment. Blaxthos ought to seriously reflect on whether his single-minded crusade to rid the world of every comment he chooses to find offensive—you have to take offence, it can't be given—is either good for him or good for this project. I'm certain he knows where I stand on the issue, which is best summed up by the old saw "you can't make am omelette without breaking a few eggs". --Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hymera Linux Distribution

Hi. Can I ask you not to delete the page? I'm interested to write other information about Hymera. Were included important references. I look forward to your response. --Thothos (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Goodmornig. I'm interested too to expand this page. I don't think that Hymera is a "Non-notable Linux distro". You can watch http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090525#waiting and http://hymera.linuxfreedom.com/ --Mrubino77 (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've found this article is very interesting and useful. Why do you want to delete it? --Sieben rot (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI

[2] Point taken, but I really would advise you not to do anything remotely supportive of incivility between that pair! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 11:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I just call 'em as I see 'em. In any case "civility" on WP is an expression that has been eroded to the point that it is now a mantra for an accusation whenever an argument is being lost. It's less than useless at this point. --WebHamster 11:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

OK.

I just thought that supporting an editor who told another to "keep their mouth shut" wasn't likely to be helpful.

Sorry. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 11:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That would depend on who was in the wrong. In this instance I believe Drew was in the right. Telling someone who seems to be hellbent on character assassinating you to "shut their mouth" seems a reasonable enough suggestion to me. --WebHamster 11:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think that two wrongs made a right, or that retaliation was considered an exception to WP:CIV, but we'll agree to disagree, then. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 11:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes we'll have to as I don't see it as being uncivil given the sequence of events. But then again I'm always in the shit for my alleged incivility so what do I know! --WebHamster 11:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Civility and decorum

Please do not use gratuitous profanity in Wikipedia community discussions.[3][4] This can create a hostile editing environment for other editors. If you do that again, you may be blocked. Wikipedia is not censored applies to content of articles. It is not a license to use profanity against other editors. Jehochman ^Talk 21:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you asked for it, you are blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing. Jehochman ^Talk 21:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I will use the words I deem necessary to get MY point across, you are of course entitled to use what ever words YOU choose. Now quit with the threats, they neither impress me nor scare me. --WebHamster 21:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is policy. You are not entitled to use unlimited amounts of profanity against other editors. At some point crude discourse amounts to harassment, trolling or personal attacks and is blockable. You have crossed that line today and been blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 21:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Unlimited"? I used one f-bomb on AN and one on your page. That can hardly be construed as excessive. And please don't talk bollocks to try and justify this block. You know and I know it's because I didn't back down from your almighty power. Power corrupts, total power corrupts totally, and almighty sysops don't like it when the proles talk back. --WebHamster 21:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, there is no way "Why the fuck is this being argued both here and on the article's talk page?" would qualify as "Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor" (my emphasis) which is the only part of WP:CIVIL that could possibly apply here. The intention of CIV is "don't hassle people unnecessarily", not "don't ever use a naughty word". Please reconsider this one. – iridescent 21:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That's just the tip if the iceberg. The greater problem is the personal attacks that WebHamster is making. Please do not unblock without prior discussion with me. I'll post some diffs in a minute. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 21:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Whilst looking for the diffs, why not just pop over to dictionary.com and refresh yourself as to the definition of "personal" and then explain who specifically I've personally attacked? I've used general terms for general ethos and belief systems. I've not aimed what I consider to be an attack at anyone personally. Though since this block I can think of a couple I could aim in a certain direction. --WebHamster 22:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Agreeing with Iridescent; not everything that merits a refactor request is blockable. Although the following post to Jehochman's user talk goes farther, as a matter of form it would have been better for the administrator who was targeted to have filed a request for independent review rather than take action himself. Perhaps the best thing would be a good faith unblock and leave the matter at that. I certainly didn't intend to spark drama with the attempt to defuse one f-bomb. Durova^Charge! 22:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the diffs below are enough to justify a block. The crudeness on my talk page merely served to confirm that WebHamster was unwilling to back down. Had they shown any willingness to discuss concerns and moderate their behavior, I would not have blocked them. The fuck drew my attention to a latent problem. You have to look at the entire combination of circumstances here. Jehochman ^Talk 22:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The "fuck" drew your attention? I'm not surprised, it sounds to me like you're in need of a good one. --WebHamster 22:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read the following policies and compare them to your comments: WP:NPA, WP:BATTLE, WP:TROLL, WP:BAIT, WP:CIVIL

• I wish someone would make their minds up where they are going to spout their conservative philosophies.
• You did notice the lower-case "c" didn't you?
• This is just another bible-belter tactic to get the world to come round to their narrow-minded thinking

You need to refrain from personally attacking other editors, treating Wikipedia as a battle zone, and creating gratuitous violations of decorum if you want to edit Wikipedia. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 22:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If those diffs really are blockable, then surely the result of independent review would reach the same conclusion and place the action above reproach. The post Since you asked for it, you are blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing. Jehochman ^Talk 21:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC) (referring to a post that had been directed at the blocking admin shortly beforehand) has at least a superficial appearance of retaliatory action. That may not have been the intent, but differences between appearance and intent are the stuff of drama. Let's resolve this matter without opening that door. Durova^Charge! 22:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Or how about asking for a block review from an independent sysop instead of using bit-bully tactics to win a point? It's actions like this that can get a sysop a bad name. --WebHamster 22:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:GAB which provides instructions for requesting an unbiased review. It's not for me to pick the reviewing sysop. I request whoever reviews this to discuss the matter with me. I'll be able to respond fairly promptly this evening to any questions. Jehochman ^Talk 22:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not appealing an unblock. I'm requesting that an independent admin review your biased actions. Perhaps if you were to be so kind as to make a small post on WP:ANI and ask your peers. --WebHamster 22:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've already posted a notice of the block to WP:AN, and will add a comment that you'd like it to be reviewed. I don't think I've ever interacted with you before. We have no conflict between us whatsoever. You're evidently upset about editing disagreements and see to have misidentified me as an adversary. I am not. If you state that you will follow the above mentioned policies and try to get along with other editors, that would resolve many of my concerns. Jehochman ^Talk 22:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly I should point out that I really don't care if I'm unblocked or not. Secondly my accusation of bias towards you is not because of any previous interactions as like you I don't recall any. The bias I referred to was your knee-jerk reaction based on our short discourse on your talk page. And finally the things that concern you are totally irrelevant to me, much like the things that concern me are irrelevant to you. The only thing I promise is to be me. I am what I am and I don't see any reason that either you or Wikipedia will change that. Now I shall enjoy the rest of my block safe in the knowledge that WP is safe in the hands of sysops like you. Good night. --WebHamster 00:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Chin up WebHamster; there's one thing that wikipedia isn't short of, and I'm certain you know what that is. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed your account some time ago and have been growing increasingly concerned that you seem to show a pattern of combativeness and incivility towards other editors, and you seem to want to push limits. The recent incident at WP:AN with the word fuck brought me to the point where I was thinking, should I block this account now, or wait and see. I decided to assume good faith a bit longer, and merely redacted the gratuitous profanity from your post. You seem to have used the word to either shock or annoy other editors, not because it added anything to the conversation. That's not good. Don't do things to upset others on purpose. When you appeared on my talk page to complain about my redaction, I earnestly asked if you would have prefered for me to have blocked you, because that's exactly what I had been considering to do. Here I am being lenient, and you're complaining to me. You answered my earnest question with a suggestion my proctologist would advise against. I translated your answer to mean yes, you should have blocked me, because I'm going to do exactly as I please, regardless of community norms. That is also not good. Everyone is subject to limits. You can't just do or say whatever you please. You have an obligation to get along with other people. Please understand my decision to block you was not motivated by personal pique. People have often told me to go fuck myself. I'm used to it. That sort of thing doesn't bother me, but of course, it is not acceptable discourse on Wikipedia. Anyhow, you should be you. I appreciate sarcasm, irreverence and individuality. However, please try to see things from the point of view of your peers, and make an effort to get along. When totally uninvolved people, or people sympathetic to you suggest you might be crossing the line, please heed them. I'm going to unblock you now because I dislike controversial blocks. Jehochman ^Talk 01:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"I'm going to unblock you now because I dislike controversial blocks." Presumably the fact that I'm still blocked is purely an accident then? --WebHamster 15:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The block log indicates that you were unblocked. [5]. Do you want another admin to review for technical issues? -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

My IP is autoblocked as the link above attests. Yes please, I would be grateful if someone would finish the process Jehochman started. --WebHamster 15:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've lifted the autoblock. – Toon^(talk) 15:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ta muchly. --WebHamster 21:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster, having posted the concerns about Jehochman's decisions in this episode the appropriate thing is to balance that with concerns about yours. I've defended your actions a couple of times now, but it's been a very close call on each occasion. And frankly it would save quite a bit of everyone's time if your actions weren't so close to the line. It's possible to contribute to the encyclopedia--even on controversial issues--without doing so in a manner that personalizes the issue or increases polarization. The Bible belt reference, for instance, was directed at an editor who describes himself as a European atheist. And although I agree with you on the underlying content discussion, it so happens that I've actually lived in the Bible belt. Please refrain from judging books by their covers; it reflects poorly on you and makes you appear gratuitously disruptive. Durova^Charge! 01:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should point out that I used the term as an adjective, also one doesn't have to be an actual bible-belter to behave like one. I should also clear up my response to the fallacy of comment on the content not the editor. Well that doesn't apply in this particular discussion. When someone is trying to hide away an explicit image then it's perfectly clear that their attitude and belief system is coming to play and is therefore a legitimate target for comment. Now hopefully you will see what it was I actually said and why I actually said it. --WebHamster 21:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, but the way it works around here is that the lowly editor gets the block and the misguided administrator walks away scott free to repeat his abusive behaviour elsewhere, again and again. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That could be dealt with separately if you wish to do so, Malleus. Let's say this was not particularly well done on either side, and I do hope it's the last we need to deal with it. There's a GA drive I ought to get back to. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 01:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive my hollow laughter at the idea of this kind of out of process block ever being dealt with at all. What motivation does the administrator have to conform to the policies laid down instead of engaging in further one-man crusades of this sort? None. Editors are blocked every day because of what an administrator thinks they might do—just ask DougsTech—but I've yet to see an administrator blocked for what they are certain to do again in the future. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Having spent time on both sides of the admin/editor fence, am more of a mind to mend the divide. The block has been lifted by the blocking administrator. Although, to be candid, if he had posted the relevant diffs to the noticeboard before/instead of intervening with the tools himself it's entirely possible a similar block would have been implemented by someone else and withstood review.

To speak more generally, one thing I learned long ago as a student in New York City is that if I allowed every small injustice to eat at me then I really didn't like the person that turned me into. So there's a simple metric: is a grievance worth really doing something about? If so then figure out what can be done and do it. If not then let it go. I have no intention to go farther now (am thumbing through references about Irving Berlin). If you feel so strongly then admin conduct RfC is thataway; it's surprising that process doesn't get used more often. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 02:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC is a waste of time, so it surprises me that it's used at all. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas on how to implement something better? It seems to me that part of the reason that many RfC's fail to have positive impact is that they fail to follow any of the standard protocols for giving and getting feedback and constructive criticism. I dont have any great ideas either, but would be willing to discuss with you and others at some other venue. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This little story pretty much sums up my feeling about most wikipedia processes. A couple are travelling in the depths of the Irish countryside and become lost. They come across an Irish peasant, and ask him for directions to their destination. He thinks for a while before replying: "Well, if oi were goin' dere, oi wouldn't start from here. oi'd go to Ballymollee and start from dere." --Malleus Fatuorum 16:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say WebHamster that while I have defended your right to express your opinion in the past, the moment you throw out civility my support for you will go with it. Chillum 16:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Let be clear, although any support I receive from anyone is nice, I don't request it and I don't require it. As concerns the matter of civility, well my humble opinion is that there's no such thing. It means one thing to one person and another thing to another as such I don't waste CPU cycles trying to figure out the difference and instead I use use my own criteria. I most certainly wouldn't use the moving target set by Wikipedians. As far as I'm concerned I haven't been uncivil in this recent matter merely blunt. Either way I'm not going to worry about it, no-one ever died of incivility and the alleged 'sufferer' of my supposed incivility will soon get over it. So once again it's not something that worries me. It should also be pointed out that when I requested some state who I'd "personally attacked" strangely there was no answer. Funny that. Likewise Jehochman accused me of WP:TROLL the retracted yet that is the only reason on my block log entry. Some strange inconsistencies going on here. --WebHamster 21:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you have to recognise that your interpretation of "civility" is just one of several plausible ones, and perhaps not the one that WebHamster, or indeed I, ascribe to. I consider it far more incivil to issue an unreasonable block than utter a word that may scare the horses, for instance, particularly if that word is not directed specifically at another individual but is used as a perfectly reasonable intensifier. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This really isn't the place for me to tell you what I think of your interpretation of civility Malleus. So I won't. Chillum 16:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No doubt because you couldn't do it civilly. I rest my case m'lud. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

And I rest my case. Chillum 16:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that what you meant to type? All I could see was a circular argument with no place for anyone to leave an umbrella much less a case. --WebHamster 21:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "I rest my defense" would have been more clear. Chillum 15:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester June Newsletter, Issue XVI

Delivered on 3 June 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Nev1 (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi!! Regarding Lady Gaga discography.. you said that Spanishcharts was not a reliable source. But in fact it is. Official Spanish single charts are given by PROMUSICAE. Since Jan 09 the Official Single Charts combines physical single sales + digital downloads + ringtones, making the "Top 50 Canciones", and that is what reflects Spanish Charts.(Nympho wiki (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

St. Joseph's Collegiate Institute

Hello WebHamster. Although St. Joseph's Collegiate Institute says it is located in Buffalo, New York, it is referring to its postal address. Though it does have a Buffalo ZIP code, it is physically located outside the city in the town of Tonawanda. See USGS map or NYSDOT map. I hope this clarifies things. --JBC3 (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

According to those links it's actually in Kenmore. But TBH I don't really care where it is, it's just that at the time I did the revert, the school's article and the school's website said Buffalo. Looking at the maps it looks to be mere yards outside the city's boundary anyway :) --WebHamster 22:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's actually just outside the village of Kenmore too. A thin, dashed line just west of the school represents the village boundary. Even so, Kenmore is part of Tonawanda, as villages remain part of the town. Though the school is perhaps mere yards outside the city, one has to draw the line somewhere. Should it be the official boundary line, or something variable and subjective? --JBC3 (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I don't really care. I was just synchronising the two articles. If you wish to remove the school from the Buffalo article I won't revert it. I'll also remove it if I see that pesky IP putting it back in. --WebHamster 22:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. --JBC3 (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:RBK

Please do not use rollback to revert good-faith edits. The previous edits directly addressed concerns raised in the GA review, and were no way vandalism. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 01:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: That was a serious misuse of the rollback tool. Please do not do it again. Cirt (talk) 01:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I didn't say it was vandalism. I rolled it back because that was the easiest thing for me to do. Your copy-editing used unencyclopaedic words e.g. "snitched" "tattled" and quite frankly was quite poor grammatically. If you'd rather put that in the edit summary then that's your choice. As it is I'd already copy-edited that section a day or so ago with regard to the comments at GA. Again, frankly I believed your version made it worse. --WebHamster 01:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Content issue aside, using the native rollback button naturally implies that the edit is vandalism or made by a banned user. Use twinkle's rollback that allows you to enter a custom edit summary, or undo with a descriptive edit summary. –xeno^talk 20:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about what other things or other people imply, as I've explained above I clicked on the rollback button because it was the easiest thing for me to do at that particular time. So sue me for a moments laziness. Another part of the reason was that I didn't want to leave an edit summary as I couldn't think of anyway of explaining the reason for my deletion without it offending a neophyte editor. Unfortunately due to his reversion and administrative nosing in I was forced to state that the edit I reverted was crap, it was grammatically suspect not to mention using non-encyclopaedic words. So now I hope the relevant admins are happy now they've forced me into that admission. I rarely use rollback and considering the amount of vandalism I revert that's minimal usage. No-one can say (and prove) that I abuse rollback. But if they are so worried about my shameful use of it then by all means rescind my rollback rights. It's not as if I get a drop in salary. I do wish sometimes that admins would realise that I do have a clue as to what I'm doing and why I do things. It's not as I've been here 5 mins. Oh, to clarify something else. The fact that the article is trying for a GA is totally irrelevant to me. I think all this FA and GA crap is total bollocks. It turns the whole thing into a competition, creates extra stress on editors and doesn't necessarily create better articles but certainly creates a disproportionate amount of wiki-drama. I edit the article because there was bad grammar that didn't flow and seemed particularly awkward in its structure. As far as I was concerned I improved it. Then along comes little lord fauntleroy and decimates my amendments with grade school level grammar. Then add to that a supercilious admin then wants me to revert back to the shite version purely because I used the rollback feature. I really don't believe this place sometimes. There is so much bullshit I'm surprised anyone stays here at all. --WebHamster 22:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said, you may have misinterpreted my intentions. I don't have a problem with the edit and I'm not trying to show that you abuse rollback. In fact, I think you should use native rollback a lot more - I see you still use Twinkle for vandalism (perhaps force of habit, or because it automatically takes you to the user's talk page?). Anyhow, I'll leave you to it but just keep that in mind. –xeno^talk 22:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't help but notice that a non-admin's arguable misuse of rollback generates far more sound and fury than the everday misuse that administrators make of the block function. Curious that. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call what I wrote above "sound" or "fury" but as the admin who granted him use of the rollback tool, I thought I should clarify appropriate use of the same. –xeno^talk 20:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have been the third to jump in with both feet though. Is it really that important that it requires the attention of three of you? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just clarifying after WH's response which seemed to hold to the belief that the use of rollback in this case was appropriate. Correcting an honest misunderstanding of a tool's purpose seems important to me, yes. Regards, –xeno^talk 21:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand me. I agree that according to the rules WebHamster ought not to have rollbacked the offending edit. I'm simply pointing out that having a gang of you turn up on his doorstep repeating the same thing is unlikely to lead to an optimal outcome. Is the article now better or worse? What's more important, the rules or the encyclopedia? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Where did I say I thought it appropriate? What I said was that it was the easiest way for me to achieve what I achieved. As it happened I was on the phone at the time and leaning across my laptop awkwardly. I simply couldn't be arsed (or contorte my body enough) to go through the multiple steps with Twinkle and then have to write a critique that I didn't want to write. So no I didn't think it appropriate, just convenient. No-one died, no blood was spilled, nothing to see, please move along. --WebHamster 22:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you (both) misinterpret my intentions here. I was trying to explain more clearly why the two prior commentors objected to the use of rollback. That is all. –xeno^talk 22:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You think what you like, I'll think what I like. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope didn't misinterpret your intentions and as it happens I don't have any problems with you writing whatever you want. It's not as if I listen, you should know that by now :) I've explained why I did it. If it was abusing it it was hardly the "serious" abuse it was said to have been above. It got the job done with the minimum amount of effort by me. None of this would have been necessary if someone had looked at the edit list then checked the revisions before jumping down my throat with the bullshit above that was factually wrong and patronising in the extreme. As it happens the only person who pissed me off was Cirt for his knee-jerk reaction and patronising tone. --WebHamster 22:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

heh, fair enough. =) –xeno^talk 22:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Rollback_feature#When_not_to_use_rollback - This is quite clear. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that it is okay to use the Rollback Tool to revert edits of other editors while you yourself are involved in a dispute at a particular article with those editors. This is incorrect, and please do not misuse the tool in this manner again. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And you sir seem to be under the impression that I give a fuck. Have a nice day. --WebHamster 13:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring at article Bart Sells His Soul

You have so far reverted edits by multiple editors at Bart Sells His Soul, three times. Please stop this disruptive behavior pattern, and instead engage in discussion about these edits with other editors, on the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about? I've reverted twice and against one editor. If you actually look at the article history instead of skimming it. Now please go use your broom instead of your lecture podium. Thank you. --WebHamster 06:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

By edit-warring multiple times on this article, which is currently undergoing a review for possible GA status, you are jeopardizing that GA status consideration, due to point 5 of WP:WIAGA. I request that you please self-revert yourself to the last edit before your most recent revert, as a show of good faith. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Bollocks to that. Thye reason I reverted in the first place was because I thought the text that replaced mine was garbage. So no I won't self-revert, why would I? Good faith has got nothing to do with it. And if you look at the timings my copyedits were made after the critique of the article's prose. That's why I did it in the first place. Then along comes someone using terms like "snitched" and "tattled". That's why I reverted and that's why I won't self-revert. It's pretty apparent that you haven't given this any in-depth analysis and have just taken a cursory look at the edit history. Are you really telling me that the crap that replaced my text is better than mine? --WebHamster 13:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that the way you have gone about asserting your stance is inappropriate, and that instead you should try to engage the other editors in discussion, at the article's talk page. So far, you have failed to do so, instead preferring to edit-war. Cirt (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The Mighty Bruce Campbell

Bruce Campbell with smite you with his awesomeness. Love, Brian 69.143.218.36 (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Rollback removed

Inapprop use of Rollback while edit-warring in article dispute: [6], and failure to acknowledge or understand after instruction, see above discussion on this page. Cirt (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you've behaved disgracefully in this affair Cirt. You issued a warning and because the demanded ritual self-abasement was not forthcoming you decided to remove rollback without there having been another misuse of the tool in the interim. Leaves a bad taste in the mouth. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No wonder that so many believe the administrator corps needs a bloody good clear out. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If you see above discussion the user fails to comprehend the tool was misused. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look at what I've said, the user has not repeated that misuse since your warning, so removal was not warranted. It was clearly done because the ritual self-abasement you demanded was not forthcoming. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it was done because the user misused the tools, does not have a need for the tools, and has shown a misunderstanding about how to use the tools appropriately in discussion at this page. Cirt (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: See also the bolded text in bright red, at Wikipedia:Rollback#When_not_to_use_rollback. Cirt (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If users trusted with a tool abuses that tool, then refuses to acknowledge that he did anything wrong, and then he tells administrators clearly acting in good faith that he doesn't give a "fuck", then removal of said trust should be swift and sure. The actions taken here were entirely appropriate; I'm only surprised that so much good faith was extended. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, dear pious Blaxthos, thank you for your comment, however you appear to be incorrect (now there's a surprise). I didn't refuse to acknowledge that I had done something wrong. I knew I had done something wrong. My response was that I really didn't give a shit. It's hardly a hanging offence and doesn't rate even a 1 on my "in the shit again meter". There are far worse problems happening on WP yet someone takes the time and trouble to make a big deal out of an insignificant event. Yup, that's the sort of admin we really need on WP. Why sort the big problems when it much easier to deal with the insignificant ones? --WebHamster 14:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Fully agree with this comment, by Blaxthos (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't try to patronise me. You acted inappropriately and no amount of disingenuous bollox from you or your mates can disguise that fact. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, what? In no way was I trying to be patronizing, and to my knowledge I have not had prior association with this user Blaxthos (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The indentation after the edit conflict made it look like I was replying to you, whereas I was actually replying to Cirt. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Still confused - I think you meant you were replying to Blaxthos (talk · contribs)? Cirt (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant what I said, I was replying to you. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, okay. Well, like I said, the comment above by Blaxthos (talk · contribs) is quite appropriate and sums up the matter nicely. Cirt (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, it's a punishment for not bending over and puckering up whichever way you try to spin it. When you have a free moment from all this important work that you do perhaps you'd be kind enough to remove my rollback rights as well. I see no reason to offer any passing administrator on a mission a similar stick to beat me with. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, it's a punishment for not bending over and puckering up whichever way you try to spin it. Wow, highly inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• My take on this (as I intimated at my talk page) is that WebHamster was basically admitting that it was inappropriate use but that he wasn't too fussed about it one way or the other (DGAF'ism). What I don't see him saying is that he will continue using rollback for such purposes so I felt leaving him with the tool was fine. He's a smart guy, and if he wants/needs the tool, he'll probably use it the right way going forward. It's not that big of a deal anyway and I doubt he will give a toss in the morning when he sees it was taken away. Would suggest re-instatement anyhow, as there was only 1 misuse. –xeno^talk 01:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever "DGAF'ism" is, it is not an excuse to respond inappropriately as was done above by WebHamster (talk · contribs) and Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs). I would be against reinstatement of WP:ROLLBACK for WebHamster, as the user misused the tools and not shown an understanding of this or of Wikipedia:Rollback#When_not_to_use_rollback. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that by now you ought to have got the idea that neither WebHamster nor I give a flying fuck what you think. About anything. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

How is this statement relevant to this discussion, or WP:CIVIL? Cirt (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's relevant to being honest, something you seem to be struggling with. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything I have said above is relevant to this discussion and factually accurate. Your comments seem to be instead laced with incivility, rudeness, and obscenities. Cirt (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Disengaging: It is clear from above that this discussion has deteriorated and is no longer directly relevant to the purpose of the discussion itself, rather it has become a forum for editors to direct incivility at each other, which is most unfortunate. Cirt (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a pity you didn't disengage sooner, and used a little more common sense before doing so. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, what is painfully obvious is that you don't understand what not giving a fuck means. By your words you also can't differentiate between a user "not understanding" and not caring. That in my view makes you admin who is left wanting in the area of 'customer relations'. What is also apparent, and I'm in total agreement with Malleus's assessment above, is that you are one of those admins whose view on the world has been affected by their admin bit and the power it brings them. You obviously didn't like the fact that I didn't immediately do an Uriah Heep at your first words from the Mount and your response was that of a petulant school prefect who brought his power to bear. In my view that also makes you an example of a bad admin. Strike 2. Am I bothered by the rescinding of my rollback, well what do you think? Now on the other hand your evidence to suggest that I would abuse it again, given that I've only used it once more since the use you take exception to, is absolutely minimal. This means that your admin action is one that is punitive rather than preventative. This, as you well know or at least should do, not only makes you a hypocrite (unless you genuinely don't understand punitive vs preventative) because that is a similar abuse of your privileges to the accusation you made against me, it also makes you a bad admin. Strike 3.

Now, has all of this bollox made any difference to how I do business here? No. Has it made any difference to my attitude towards admins? No, I still think the majority shouldn't have the job, you most definitely included. The fact that you are aware that I don't have an absolute need for rollback as I use Twinkle most of the time; yet strangely, even though it's more powerful than rollback and the fact I've been using it for years, there is no evidence that I've abused that either. That in itself shows what a piss poor decision you've made. It also demonstrates that your action is just pure petulance to make a point. Unfortunately the real point though seems to be rather obvious to everyone but yourself. In other words how to fuck up being an admin in one easy go. Have a nice life feeling powerful. It's a shame you can't see the illusion. --WebHamster 06:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing this I would say Cirt was not wrong to remove your rollback. You should consider the very real possibility that rollback was taken away from you due to your actions, not some childish impulse on behalf of a power hungry admin. I see nothing out of line here done by Cirt. For someone who does not a fuck you sure have a lot of spite in your response. Chillum 13:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet I didn't ask for it back. Probably because I don't give a fuck whether I had it or not. I only actually asked for it in the first place so I could give Huggle a try and to compare it with Twinkle. I never got round to installing Huggle, so rollback was irrelevant to me. Anyway, who asked you to chime in? Afraid of missing out on some time-wasting wikidrama? The above paragraph of mine was what I was thinking at the time I wrote it. Your response or anyone else's for that matter wasn't required. It most certainly wasn't necessary. But as you've done your little bit in defence of a fellow admin you can feel proud and fraternal. Not a lot else to hang around here for now is there? --WebHamster 14:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And you, Chillum, should realise that you are once again talking complete crap. I doubt I've ever seen just an ill-fitting username as yours. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's little wonder that people complain about there being too many admins when it takes three of them plus one sycophantic wannabee to deal with a single alleged misuse of rollback. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that you complaints are not based on the behaviour of admins, but rather their response to you behaviour. If you accuse admins of acting unfair then it is only natural that other admins will review it. I don't know Cirt at all, we are hardly brothers, the only basis of my defence is a complete lack of basis for the accusations. If you must make baseless accusations like you have been, you can expect people to show up and tell you it is nonsense.

Mal, once again if you have any complaint against me I am completely open to scrutiny. Also I don't know who you are calling a "sycophantic wannabee", but you should know that this is a personal attack an not appropriate on Wikipedia. Please refrain from personal attacks. Chillum 17:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I was beginning to wonder when the threats would start. Simple logic ought to inform you that if you do not know who I was referring to as a "sycophantic wannabee" then it can hardly be termed a "personal attack", as it was not directed at any person. Surely even in wikiwonderland the essence of a "personal attack" is that it's directed at a person? BTW, you forgot to include the the link. I suggest you take the time to read it one day. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) What you refer to as "complaints" are actually observations. Cirt's inital perception of what was going on as he reported it above was wrong. On the talk page in question he's actually listed two edits of mine (simple copy edits, not reverts) as part of an edit war. He's shut down an FA review based on his view that me making 2 simple reverts has destabilised the article. The editor I reverted hasn't engaged in a war, and as we all know it takes two to tango. He's described one single use of the rollback feature as a "serious abuse" when in actual fact it was a legitimate restore of 3 revisions. I didn't label it as vandalism and the accusation existed because it's "implied", but simply because I used the most efficient way of rolling the article back I'm labelled as a serious abuser. So all in all it is my belief that not only was Cirt factually wrong he was also full of shit with his interpretation. Then on top of that, instead of passing it over to another admin who wasn't involved in that article he took it on himself to go over the top simply because I wouldn't bend over kiss his ring and pass him the KY. It's obvious that as an admin you share the power trip of your fellow admin so you will not view things as a regular prole. TBH I really don't know why I'm trying to explain this to you as you aren't going to listen. On the other hand someone somewhere may read it and understand what's being said. What I don't understand though is why the fuck you showed up. I haven't asked for a review, mainly because it would be a total waste of my time given that admin fuck-ups are swept under the carpet every time they can be, and partly because I genuinely don't give a shit. Given that I haven't officially asked for a review I request that you butt out and go do something more useful instead. --WebHamster 18:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Now I am confused, you said "...when it takes three of them plus one sycophantic wannabee...". This seems to indicate it was indeed referring to a person. The fact that I don't know who you are referring to does not make it okay. You were clearly referring to someone and you are not allowed to attack anyone, so who is not really the issue. I am not threatening you, I am just telling you that your behaviour is unacceptable, you already know the result of that. Of you wish to talk about your or I then I suggest you come to my talk page, if you wish to insult people I suggest another website. Chillum 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Since when is an accurate observation using non-profane language a personal attack? I call your accusation an example of gaming the system, or is that a personal attack in your world too? --WebHamster 18:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Who's gaming the system? Calling someone a sycophantic wannabee is utterly over the top, making unsupported assumptions about the thought processes and motivations of a good faith editor only chills discussion and throws editors off from building articles with reliable sources and helpful writing. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's only "over the top" if it's untrue. And the conclusion appears to be based on an editor's actions not on the editor him/herself. -WebHamster 18:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What is was, was a wanton and cheap shot and y'all know it. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Dunno about cheap, I thought it was free... along with all the time we give to this ungrateful project. What I want to know is why the fuck my talk page has turned into an entertainment system for self-righteous admins? Go watch some bugger else's. --WebHamster 19:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is it "free" to blast away at volunteers? Everyone here has flaws, me (don't get me started), you, the lot of us. Nettling away at them with personal attacks is utterly unhelpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh you mean volunteers like Malleus who are exceptionally beneficial to this project, whose hours ov volunteer work are dumped on in one fit of over-enthusiastic pique? Do you know, the one big thing that#s wrong with RFAs is that they give the jobs to Admins who want to be Admins. And then look at what they end up with! --WebHamster 19:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

heh

does this mean you'd rather I not re-enable it? –xeno^talk 22:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I meant what I said. And to be honest I now consider the revoking of it a badge of honour. :) --WebHamster 22:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. If you ever feel like trying huggle again, let me know. It's kinda fun (like playing whack-a-vandal), but also mind-numbing at the same time. –xeno^talk 22:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit that after using TW for so long I've got into a rhythm, which admittedly plays havoc with the Firefox memory leak, but I'm used to it now. --WebHamster 22:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle also takes you right to the talk page and preloads the page vandalized... It's an awesome tool. Anyways, happy editing. Let me know if you change your mind. –xeno^talk 22:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Date linking

Hi. You recently reverted an edit I made to VidZone where I de-linked a date. As far as I'm aware, the policy of linking dates was dropped some time ago. I've also checked WP:OVERLINK which says dates should not be linked. Is there a reason for having it linked that I'm missing? You mention "auto formatting purposes" but I'm not sure what you mean by this? Cheers. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 11:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Date auto-formatting although deprecated isn't forbidden and in this case I used it due to the use of using American date format in an article written in British English about a British company. Auto-formatting gives the best of both worlds and I thought it would be more conducive if I didn't get into the old argument of US vs UK. I don't have any objections to you removing the auto-format linking, but the date should be 11 June, 2009 rather than June 11, 2009. Under certain circumstances if auto-formatting is used the correct regional date view would be seen regardless of whether the reader was US-based or UK-based. --WebHamster 12:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh right. Thanks for clearing that up. I corrected the date format just after I posted above anyway so it's correct now. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 12:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI, this issue is currently at Arbitration Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Proposed_decision as well as the subject of several RFCs. It looks like, currently, linking for the purposes of autoformatting is against consensus and I would strongly recommend against it. -Chunky Rice (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I am well aware of this, hence my deprecated but not forbidden comment above. In this instance I thought it was a convenient way of heading off a possible argument. I should note, in the interests of openness, that I voted in favour of auto-formatting. --WebHamster 14:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Crazy world of wikipedia

Anyone who wonders what the world would be like if it was run by children just has to register an account at wikipedia. Makes Lord of the Flies look like a walk in the park. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it would maybe help if some of the admins got some sex once in a while, that would be a more appropriate place for stress and domination scenarios don't you think? --WebHamster 20:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster, that last comment was really out of line. If you have no legitimate complaints about the behaviour of admin, do not resort to inventing imaginary person problems for them. No Wikipedian's sex life is your business and you are certainly crossing a line with that comment. I haven't heard such a comment since grade school, and never form an adult. Chillum 20:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh fuck here comes the pious brigade. What is this, Times fucking Square? Chillum go lecture some neophyte who actually believes what you say. Hmmm, thinks... you didn't take offence because you felt you fitted into my criteria did you? --WebHamster 20:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent events appear to have taught you nothing Chillum. Do you not think it would be prudent to unwatch this talk page? It ought to be very clear that your opinions and observations are at the very least unwelcome here. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Making sex compulsory for admins would have the benefit of making child admins illegal. Nev1 (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Or very, very fast runners! --WebHamster 20:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WH, I apologize that my comment set off all this drama. I merely thought I would point the thing out to you, and be done with it. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to apologise for mate. You didn't understand what I'd done or why I did it. It's a fair enough action to question it. As far as I'm concerned you've done nothing wrong, either with your original edits or by notifying me that you had a problem with what I'd done. The drama has been initiated by over-zealous admins not by you. If we'd been left alone you and I could have sorted it. --WebHamster 20:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Howdy, just wanna make a comment, holy moley, thats the fastest argument ive seen develop. Jamesööders 14:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Syed Ahmed

I have put the article as an FA please leave comments or suggestions if you can thanks! Bangali71 (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Web, with regard to reason for firing there are multiple sources giving different reasons. One says "despite flashes of brilliance he was too big a risk". Don't have the ref to hand. But if we are going to quote a reason I think it has to be the one given by Sir Alan...Amicaveritas (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That works for me. It's just too open-ended to just say he was fired. This was also why I asked for a citation, not just for the firing, but for the whole paragraph as at the mo' it's much too much like original research. --WebHamster 20:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough and I agree the paragraph needs work. Amicaveritas (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Also seems a bit bizzare that it's been protected and ironically with the content that is considered contentious by some editors. I've actually never been in favour of removal and given the rest of the article is expanded now I think the weight considerations are mitigated. I agree with you it is noteworthy, my only issues have been that I don't want to see the innocent smeared (in general and also in this specific case). Amicaveritas (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Koopa and Tommytomato (talk · contribs)

RE: this. FYI: I left a message to the user 3 hours before you posted this. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but 25 mins after I'd posted on his talk page, and more than a day after it had been brought up at COIN. --WebHamster 21:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting Barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thank you very much for improving the Little Miss Bad section. Could you have a little help in Otto Undercover as well? Kayau (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)P.S. Can you do the same for Little Miss Busy?Kayau (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for copyediting the Otto Undercover page. Kayau (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC) I hope it doesn't bother you too much, but is it possible that you may copyedit Mr. Bounce and Mr. Bump as well? These two sections contain a lot of non-notable information and have made many mistakes in the tone. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayau (talk • contribs) 00:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Lynching troll"

Re: your edit, the whole episode reminds me of a current column in Private Eye which satirised web forums. One fictional online ranter complained that supermarkets trivialised the death of Baby P by selling "baby peas". Sadly, the topic is so emotive that some participants don't seem able to transcend the "hang the bastards" point of view. Thanks for trying to maintain some semblance of sanity here.

Best wishes, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally it isn't like me to remain rational and calm, but on the odd occasion it does happen. :) In any case I think lynch-mob mentality is far more harmful long-term than the crimes that set them off. --WebHamster 15:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

um. what?

Was it a mistake, or did you mean to remove my post to the Death of Baby P talk page? Ray^Talk 16:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I do apologise unreservedly, I hadn't intended to remove any post, and to be quite honest I didn't know I had until a few moments ago. I can only use clumsiness and a 102° temperature as an excuse. --WebHamster 17:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

no problem. These things, they do happen. Ray^Talk 20:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• This thread could use some more drahmaz. Just saying. –xeno^talk 20:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, what's 102°? Surely hamsters run hotter than that. Let's turn it up, already. Xeno, I demand you take back your vile accusation, or I shall be forced to climb a very large building. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Free speech of a newbie

Can one get blocked for suggesting that many web editors are a little heavy handed with those of us who wish to make edits. I reckon some of them must be quite lonely, can't get girlfriends (or boyfriends) and get their kicks by exerting a delusional power by blocking new contributors from making factual edits. I will no doubt get banned for this, but I do belive in freedom of speech, unlike some others! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakedlunch123 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Speech is never free and free speech is an illusion. Also an illusion is your belief that I actually give a shit what you think, in general or of me specifically. --WebHamster 15:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, WebHamster. I feel so bad now that I have upset you so. Let's kiss and make up? Come on, loosen up a little! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakedlunch123 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"Freedom of speech" refers, at least in the US, to the clause in the Bill of Rights saying that Congress may not make any laws restricting our freedom of speech. Since Congress isn't running Wikipedia, that's irrelevant here. If "free speech" means using this website for anything other than building an encyclopedia, then it's out of place here. Finally, if you wish to "get banned" for saying something you imagine is "controversial", at least make it something intelligent. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello GTBacchus. My little American friend. This all came about from using Pink Floyd in the present or past tense. That is all. As for Free Speech - please do not quote the Bill of Rights at me. America has proven over the past 10 years that it has no concern for freedom of speech, but that is another debate altogether. Freedom of speech here, in England, was defined here long before your country was even a twinkle in your ancestors' eyes! And to be a little serious here. I was not trying to be controversial, but just to build upon this encyclopedia.Anyway, I am sure you are a nice man, so have a superlative day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakedlunch123 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You must be jesting. The UK's illusion of free speech is far worse than the US. Anyway, the fact remains that when you arbitrarily go against consensus then you're going to get reverted. In any case changing an "are" to a "were" and adding a couple of advance gig dates is not even close to building on the encyclopaedia. You could do well by listening to experienced editors instead of whinging and whining about the rules we all have to follow. You screwed up, everyone does when they first come here, so learn from the experience instead of bleating about it. With that attitude you're never going to end up building upon anything round here. Your first task, should you choose to accept it is learning about the difference between an encyclopaedia and a gig guide. Then the next task will be engaging brain and understanding that when an experienced editor reverts you and then places an explanatory edit summary explaining why, that there is indeed a good reason for it and that reason may not be apparent to you. It makes good sense to question it, and then figure out why. What doesn't make good sense is to bleat about lack of free speech. --WebHamster 17:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Actaully, sound advise. Though, you are wrong about the Free speech thing. America has got it badly wrong - Jesus, up to 60 years ago it banned black people from voting. Disgusting. Let's not even mention Mr Bush et al! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakedlunch123 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

And how long have we had the Freedom of Information Act? --WebHamster 06:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Doctor of Physical Therapy page

Please read the reference carefully. Which states "In order to provide accurate information to consumers, physical therapists who have earned a Doctor of Physical Therapy Degree (DPT) and those who have earned other doctoral degrees and use the title "Doctor" in practice settings shall indicate they are physical therapists."

That does not limit the use of the title in any setting. It only states in clinical settings they should also identify themselves as physical therapists. the first paragraph states "The American Physical Therapy Association supports the use of the title of "Doctor of Physical Therapy" only for those physical therapists who have graduated from a DPT program."

As is common usage for all persons who have earned a doctoral degree they have the right to use the title in social and academic settins. the only caveat in this case is in practice settings. Please revert your edits to reflect the intent of the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorDW (talk • contribs) 14:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia terms that is synthesis and is verboten. If it's not specifically mentioned in a reference then it cannot be used in a section to which the cite refers. I may not be a physical therapist but I've been on WP long enough to know the rules, so please take the advice in my edit summaries and don't change the text to something that is not used in the reference. --WebHamster 15:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It is one reference so it is not WP:synthesis. From WP:synthesis "Summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing." The first paragraph states. "The American Physical Therapy Association supports the use of the title of "Doctor of Physical Therapy" only for those physical therapists who have graduated from a DPT program." Therefore the citation supports the use of the title. The source does not confine the use of the title to pactice settings which is why there are two paragraphs. I amy not be a WP expert but I know that much about grammer.DoctorDW (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It does indeed confine itself to "practice". It's in the 2nd para. The synthesis comes when you extract "social", "clinical" and "academic" from a 2 paragraph citation when those words are never used in any context. It's a very simple concept. --WebHamster 17:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster, "DoctorDW" is not seriously looking for a conversation. Three users have already tried to compromise with him/her on the page Doctor (title) where he repeatedly removes sources and insists on inserting vague language. I smell an agenda. Fuzbaby (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still chuckling over the editor who "knows his grammer (sic)", yet still manages to get it wrong. I'm neither a physio nor a physician (although I was a paramedic for 10 years) but to me a physio will never be a "Doctor" and so I suspect will it also be for the majority of the public. A physio is a physio and a doctor is a doctor. It's so much simpler. Anyway, I think I'd be far more comfortable in the hands of a physio who knows they are are physio than a physio who thinks they're a doctor. That's just a me thing! --WebHamster 18:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I used to be an NP and I was proud to be a nurse and to know my area of practice as well as I could. I went to medical school because I eventually wanted to expand what I knew and could do. The most important thing for any health professional is to know their capabilities and their limitations. I have a hard time with people who not only don't know theirs, but try to mislead their patients as well. Fuzbaby (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it appears you both have an agenda. How about objectively looking at the facts and references? Fuzbaby: Your own reference from the ACC states: "The American College of Clinicians believes that the title doctor may be used by all clinicians who have earned a doctorate and who choose to do so. It is a right they have earned. We also believe no one profession owns an educational degree (be it clinical or non-clinical, degree or title) especially at the doctoral level The realities of the healthcare world of the 21st century need to reflect this fact." Here is another one: Nurse Practitioners

1. The title “Doctor” represents an academic credential, and is not limited to professional programs. Graduate educational programs in colleges and universities in the United States confer academic degrees, which permit graduates to be called “doctor”. No one discipline owns the title “doctor”. 2. In the health care field, the term doctor is not limited to medical doctors. Other health care professions use their academic title: e.g. Doctor of Osteopathy, Doctor of Pharmacy, Doctor of Podiatry, Doctor of Psychology, Doctor of Physical Therapy and others. 3. While the titles “Medical Doctor” or “Doctor of Osteopathy” may be title protected by statute in a given state, the term “doctor” alone is not. 4. Recognition of the title, “Doctor”, for doctorally prepared nurse practitioners facilitates parity within the health care system. http://www.nonpf.com/DNPStatement0608.pdfDoctorDW (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Strawman WP:duck Fuzbaby (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

And who would the "we" be you referred to? That points to an agenda to me. Either way I was referring to the real world and not the world where housewives are "domestic technicians" or garbage men are "refuse disposal contractors". Doctors are physicians, this is accepted the world over. A physio with a doctorate is still a physio. All of which is immaterial both to your paranoid accusations and your wikipedia activity. I really don't care if you have a doctorate or not, if you don't follow the rules then I will revert you. It's as simple as that. In this instance my loyalty is to WP unlike yours which is quite obviously to the organisation you represent. I wonder how long it will take before you are hauled up in front of the bods at WP:COIN? --WebHamster 19:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The "we" is from the citation which you should know if you had read it. Your disrespctful communication will not be further tolerated. This is your final warning.DoctorDW (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that we tolerate WebHamster's "disrespectful communication" quite well... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh I don't think we're even close to my "disrespectful communication". What you will or won't tolerate is between you and your proctologist and has nothing to do with me. You can warn as much as you like, it won't get you very far, unless your aim is to frustrate yourself of course. But just so you know, being respectful is not a requirement for editing WP, and frankly I don't have any respect for anyone who seems so desperate to be thought of as a doctor that they are willing to fuck about with WP articles to try to convince the rest of the world that they are one. Ho-hum, yet another self-serving editor joins the ranks of us unwashed. --WebHamster 23:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we now have…

…a spiritual home for you on Wikipedia 92.12.205.147 (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that your best shot? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Dark Side of the Moon

Hi WebHamster, please see this discussion. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester July Newsletter, Issue XVII

Delivered on 4 July 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Nev1 (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wall

My copy of Saturday Night Fever (soundtrack) was a double album. Look at the article- the album is 74 minutes long, far too long for two sides of vinyl. It may have been a single elsewhere, but I've never seen it as one. Even Allmusic think it's a double. Rodhullandemu 15:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

My ex-wife's copy was a single (it had to be her's, I'd die if anyone saw it in my collection! <_>). But I'll give you that one, but as far as sales goes, worldwide The Wall sold more than SNF. The 15m in the SNF article was US sales (The Wall only hit 11.5m in the US) but it doesn't mention worldwide sales. It is widely regarded that The Wall was the biggest selling double album worldwide, over SNF (OST) and HIStory. --WebHamster 15:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly SNF is the biggest-selling soundtrack of all time, regardless of format. I will take a look at both articles when I have time, to make sure we are not comparing apples with oranges. Rodhullandemu 15:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup could be as The Wall wasn't a soundtrack. --WebHamster 15:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Care In The Community

I have no wish to take this further. Pedro :  Chat  23:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I do, but I won't without Web Hamster's permission. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no beef here. But having spent time with people who were affected by that act (due to mental illness and degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's) I find that using it in refernce to an IP on Wikipedia making stupid trollish edits is simply - well - wrong. And I'm not talking some bullshit third party opinion here - my gradmother died shortly after the state decided community care was for the best. So apologies for being over sensitive, but WH - you need to consider that just because you find it funny (as you stated) that doesn't mean it's actually still ok to post it. Pedro :  Chat  23:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

We've all been affected by the daft "care in the community" ideas Pedro, your experience is nothing special. As part of my psychology course I had a placement in a hospital for what was then called the "mentally subnormal". Those hospitals have all gone now, but I wonder to this day what now happens to all those I saw in there who couldn't possibly have survived elsewhere. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

People who actually have a sense of humour can find anything funny. As someone who was a paramedic for 10 years I'm well aware of what "care in the community" actually means. I also have personal experience of it, yet I can still find a laugh somewhere. That just leads me to believe that you are suffering simultaneously from a piousness overdose and a humour deficiency. I recommend that you don't use your own beliefs to lecture others as they maybe lacking in certain areas. Now as far I'm concerned you've had your say, I've had mine. The rest is up to you. Either way I won't be withdrawing anything. --WebHamster 12:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I have no beef with you personally. Pedro :  Chat  15:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)