Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:31, 24 September 2010

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

If you are unable to post here follow this link to post at my unprotected talkpage.

I will do my best to speak clearly and avoid "bad language" unless you let me know that you are happy for me to do otherwise.

Unless you request otherwise, if you post here, I'll reply here (I'd suggest you watchlist this page to make sure you see my reply). If I post on your talkpage, I'll watchlist your talkpage to look for replies there.

I'm currently: overwhelmed with real-life issues. I'll be dropping by sporadically, real-life permitting.

Click here to leave a new message.

15 January 2025
From the editors: Looking back, looking forward Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024 In the media: Will you be targeted? Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Misplaced Pages Opinion: Reflections one score hence News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Misplaced Pages In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics Humour: How to make friends on Misplaced Pages
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Seasons Greetings

Why be everyone a–talkin' all strangely today?
☠  Because we  ☠ ☠ ARRRRRR! ☠
	With a yo-ho-ho, I be wishin' yer a right rollickin' ☠ Happy International Talk Like a Pirate Day ☠ To be a joinin' the fun and frolicks, yer can be addin' {{User:Chzz/pirate}} to the top o' yer talkpage / userpage for today, fer a fine fancy decoration. Emptied after midnight it'll be, so don't be dallyin' now! Hoist yer mainsail t'wards the I-R-Sea, either a'helpin' new sailors or on me own poopdesk, and let's parrty like it's 1699!  Cap'nChzz  ►  00:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Happy ITLAPD Capn' slappy and Ol Chumbucket Problems playing this file? See media help.	*How To Be Speakin' Pirate-Like *Official website *Auto-translate to pirate speak
Disclaimer: It's very rare for me to send messages like this; it might seem frivolous or hypocritical, as I often complain about myspacing of the project. However, as a pastafarian, this is my equivalent of a Christmas greeting. I seriously believe we need to have fun sometimes. If you object, I apologize; let me know, and I won't bother you again.

That would explain Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 18#Yarr. Uncle G (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That be a right pleasure me 'earty. Me native land is Libertatia, where any pirate who takes a fair turn at the rigging can do as he please.

Now, gettin me letter of marque was an honest affair—the Governor took a purse of treasure and I set sail with me scurvy crew for Hispaniola. But the rogues in gov'ment get ever more greedy, and an honest privateer must answer for his skills as a navigator.

As one such rogue to another, sir, I must ask a boon. Thou and I, sir, we mark our treasure with an "X", and depart for further adventure. Our treasure becomes historic—this much is ordinary, sir, and I crave your indulgence for telling you that which you know. In these more modern and enlightened times, sir, I have seen treacherous vermin ransack treasure afore its rightful owner has departed. And now the location of fresh buried treasure becomes a question for gov'ment to ask the wouldbe privateer. Would I be correct, sir, in saying that the question would be advanced without respect for our calendar and for our traditional, God-given seven-day week?

It is my hope that our cant is like a well considered treasure map—without meaning to all but its designer—but if this correspondence appear too frank, sir, I offer thou my neck for retribution and grant that you might dispose of it as you wish.

I have the honour to remain, sir, your most humble and hobedient servent, Capn. T. Fowr ☠ 09:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Land lubbers' notes

1. In the 17th century "he" was a gender-neutral pronoun amongst pirates.
2. Casting aside contemporary convention, Captain Fowr reserved "thou" for his equals, preferring "ye" for "normal" society, i.e. for those who considered themselves superior to a "mere" pirate.

• ... I am, quite honestly, speechless. I don't hold an opinion on the matter you're discussing (as I be not a pirate but a landlubber lass who'd never stand a day at sea), but that was an absolutely epic reply. sonia♫ 09:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't really know what happened there. My contribs, and the page history, say that I wrote it but I have no recollection of it. There are several empty grog bottles littering my flat, most rooms stink of rum, and outside my front window there's a ship where I'd expect cars to be. I assume I've been channelling my ancestors again... ;-) Hopefully I managed to accumulate some treasure - I've got an electricity bill due for payment... TFOWR 09:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, and you already know my views on a life at sea - you'd be well-suited to a life afloat. Someday I hope you'll venture forth from the calmer waters to the Spanish Main... TFOWR 09:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Matey, thou art forgetting the Code of the gallant rogue to look upon all men, jack tar or landlubber, fairly and without evil in his heart. With but one look a man who truly is from the sea should discover no fondness for what is told in an old salt's yarn. There be no cause for a qualm of conscience to come athwart yon raw pup's stomach, and Davy hath no grip upon un, aye but he be summoning Charlie Noble and warned about the wind of ball, all for enquiries pursuant to the distribution of justice. The Quartermaster hath his hand stayed upon his cutlass, and with the first light of morn some cruel wretch will be marooned for violations of Ship's Articles. Swing at thy anchor until sunrise, take the wind that it will. Uncle G (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Everything should be clear, now. Uncle G (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, only just seen this. This deserves some sort of reply. Why wasn't I notified sooner? What is this "pending changes" thing, and why are we having a poll about straw? ;-) TFOWR 20:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The 'HighKing's nuts' incident

An 'indefinite ban' for something as innocent as writing "HighKing's nuts" in a summary over his opportunistic insistence that the Irish never used the term "conkers" for chestnuts (when their government does)?

That was a little bit of overkill, wasn't it? Others seem to think so.

So, can you please "define terms" specifically --- or are you just going to retain the right to fuck me over for any minor typo, alliteration, light pun or little happiness that you happen not to like, or do not understand, for the rest of time?

Why not send the HighKing off to do his own homework before he makes false suggestions requiring other to do his homework for him? Why not account for them all and put some limitations on how often he makes such time and energy consuming errors for others to deal with?

Again, as happy as I am to play scapegoat for you, all the punishment seems to be a little asymmetric.

Thank you --Triton Rocker (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It was overkill, and I apologise. In hindsight a month's block would have been more appropriate, but I'm happy with DGG's two weeks.

In respect to your topic ban and civility, I can only suggest that you familiarise yourself with Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Alternatively, avoiding the topic entirely will enable you to contribute constructively to the project without getting into further difficulties. It's obviously a topic you feel passionately about - that's exactly the kind of topic editors should seek to avoid. TFOWR 08:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and once you've read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA you might want to strike or remove some of your recent comments at WT:BISE. TFOWR 08:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Threaten and taunt of block

If you are a just decision maker would you step into the ongoing matter of taunting and threatening me of getting blocked again by Codf1977 here and then removed my requests here then again here . I recently edited few Lebanon related articles in which an unintentional wrong edit was made for which I admitted and left message at more than 3 places including one here . What are your views on this?? - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think both you and Codf1977 have misread posts and edit summaries. I believe George has explained that to Codf1977.

• This began with George's edit here, in which he reverted several editors' edits, including yours. George removed some vandalism (made by an IP editor), fixed a reference, and removed some text that was repeated elsewhere. You then reverted George's edit here. I assume you only wanted to restore your edit, but in the process you also restored the vandalism, and the repetition. George then reverted you here, again explaining in his edit summary that he was removing vandalism, and repetition, and poorly cited material.
• I believe that both you and Codf1977 were concerned that George had labelled your edit as vandalism. Codf1977 raised this concern with George : "one thing is clear they are not vandalism".
• Per WP:OWNTALK, editors are allowed to remove posts from their own talkpages - it indicates that thay have read the post.
• This is not a threat. Likewise, when I warned you that "Edit warring over this won't help, and will likely result in you being blocked again" I was not threatening you. Several editors - not just Codf1977 and myself, but Atama (talk) as well, have tried to advise you to read and understand policies. If you choose not to do this, or are unable to do this, you are likely going to get blocked. That's not a threat - that's just the grim reality of editing at Misplaced Pages.

So... you believe that Codf1977 was threatening and taunting you over an edit to Lebanon. No. Codf1977 was concerned that George was describing your edit as vandalism, and raised that with George. How you can possibly read that as taunting is beyond me. This was Codf1977 trying to help you. Drop the WP:BATTLEfield stance, start working with instead of against other editors, listen to what they're saying, accept that everyone makes mistakes, and you'll do fine. Continue to view good-faith editors as your opponents or as sock puppets, and you're liable to get blocked. That's not a threat (I have no intention of blocking you, or Codf1977, or George, or Atama (!)) just a recognition that some other admin will see that several editors have tried to explain this to you, have failed, and the admin will come to the conclusion that the best way to prevent further disruption is to block you. TFOWR 08:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well thanks for the consideration, I am not scared of getting blocked if I commit an unpardonable mistake which I did not do even I still say my earlier block was also unjustified hence in protest I did not apply for review. But why is Codf1977 not willing to listen others, if the user scribbles in others talk-page either warning or requesting then why not paying heed to others' requests, deletion of posts is not an issue, but is it OK if done without issue being closed?? Advising of getting block again is only applicable if I do something wrong, refer my edits post block and tell me if that qualifies me to get blocked??? You should pay attention to this fact as well. - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Shout Shout Let it all out. These are the things I can do without... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 08:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at your edits post-block, but I have - at your request - looked at your behaviour post-block. I saw an editor who was describing advice as threats, who interpreted support for you as an attack, and who is complaining about another editor's conduct still - despite being told that the other editor has done nothing wrong (well, they stood up for you to George, and I think that that was a mistake - as noted above I don't believe George was in error). Because this project (Misplaced Pages) involves working with other editors behaviour is as important as edits - if not more so. There is an entire page devoted to issues of editors' behaviour: WP:ANI, along with other pages like WP:WQA that deal with aspects of editors' behaviour. TFOWR 08:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, your reply made me laugh, well no issues whatsoever..No grudges from my side for anyone. Thanks and good luck . - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Favour?

Hey, as an uninvolved admin, could you please review WP:ANI#Proposed Solution and decide if a community consensus has been reached and enforcement of the proposal can take place? Thanks, Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 12:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad to... however it won't be just now, as I'm about to go offline (I'm really just checking in, between a couple of offline tasks). If no one's beaten me to the punch, I'll close etc in four/five hours' time. TFOWR 13:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 13:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Back online and looking at this now. Rob, if you're talk-page stalking this page right now, thanks a bunch for complicating matters ;-) TFOWR 18:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It is done. A few random thoughts which might be helpful to me in the future, interested talkpage stalkers, and involved parties:

• For a first run at this, *Kat*'s proposal was very good, and covered most bases. There was clearly a consensus to include a warning to Ryūlóng over and above the proposed remedies, so I included a warning to Ryūlóng. The proposal stated a general ban for one week: I modified that to specify articles and article talkpages: any developments re: mentoring are going to require that Odokee be able to edit user talkpages, so I felt it prudent to limit the ban to articles and article talkpages.
• There's recently been some confusion regarding "how long is a month" (28 days, 30 days, 31 days). I felt it prudent to specify four weeks for the topic ban, and I also felt it prudent to specify when it began. It was clear from *Kat*'s proposal, but I suspect leaving any grounds for doubt might prove unwise.
• I doubt the community is unaware that it can change its mind, and modify community decisions, but, again, I felt that spelling this out was prudent. In Odokee's case, the prospect of editing with supervision from a mentor was mentioned and I felt it best to leave that possibility available. In Ryūlóng's case, the prospect of further sanctions if edit warring continues was also something I felt best to provide for.
• The proposal was not unanimously accepted: Off2riorob clearly disagreed, but did not state why, nor did they provide an alternative proposal. I felt that my resolution - specifically, allowing for subsequent modification by the community - recognised the lack of unanimity.

TFOWR 18:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, TFOWR. I did want to add in a part about how edit warring is never, ever acceptable but wasn't sure if I should re-write the proposal or modify what was already there. As you know I had never done that before and didn't want to do something that messed up the community's consensus.--*Kat* (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Aye, it's a tricky one, changing proposals once people have started supporting/opposing. If I'd been in that position I'd have left it for the poor soul who had to close it ;-) Fortunately the original proposal was basically complete, and it was only the Ryūlóng part that needed added, and that was relatively minor. TFOWR 01:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Swedish election: too cosy

Hi, TFOWR. Would you like to comment here? Bishonen | talk 16:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC).

Done. I've got into trouble before for some of the terms I like to use, but "far-right" seems more than reasonable here. TFOWR 17:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 17:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC).

Odokee

I saw that you finally closed the Odokee discussion (and I realize that you must still be setting everything up for that), but if I may have a moment of your time, would it still be improper if I were to undo this edit considering the outcome?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd counsel against it. My advice would be to avoid any appearance of edit warring, so discussion on the talkpage would be my recommendation. TFOWR 18:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the last discussions on the talk page was where someone could find an illegal download of the game. I don't think it will be of any use to bother with a thread that will not be responded to. I want to remove the wrong information and replace it with the correct information, but now I cannot do this because it will be seen as edit warring as you suggest. On any other page, this would not be a problem.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think the talkpage won't elicit responses, what about an RFC? It's maybe not quite appropriate, since it's a dispute involving exactly one editor (!) but might be a good way to proceed and get outside input. I presume there are no obvious WikiProjects that could provide input? TFOWR 20:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, had a rethink. Leave this with me, I'm tied up for the next few hours but I'll post at ANI. TFOWR 21:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know what you're thinking too, when you get a chance to talk about it. I think its fair to say that I'm not involved.--*Kat* (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, nothing exciting - in fact, that's basically it: I'll post at ANI ;-) Ryulong isn't edit warring, they've asked me for my advice, my advice is... limited, so I'll look to ANI for guidance. TFOWR 21:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The pronoun you are looking for is "he".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll use gender-specific pronouns if you'd prefer (indeed, if any editor requests it) but in general I use gender-neutral pronouns. Thanks for nudging me, I'd got caught up in some unpleasantness elsewhere and haven't pinged ANI yet. I'll do that now. TFOWR 23:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ryūlóng, there's not been any opposition to the revert at ANI. I'd say go ahead and do it - if there's any fallout you can blame me. TFOWR 15:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, it turns out that the name in Japan is entirely parsed in English, so it kind of renders things moot unless I add the Katakana reading of it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you take of this?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it the edit summary that's the problem? (I'm asking because I'm unsure what it means - I could guess, but I could be very wrong...)

From the perspective of the editing ban, I'm OK with it - I limited the scope of the ban to articles and article talkpages, and removing posts wouldn't fall under that or fall foul or WP:OWNTALK. Assuming that the edit summary is ... dismissive, then I'd be a little concerned, but not unduly: I'd put that into the category of "venting while restricted". Without understanding the edit summary, however, my take on it is necessarily limited. TFOWR 08:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack

Hi TFOWR, any chance you could tell me if I did the right thing here? Maybe my judgement is clouded because I'm involved, but I just looked back at ANI and was rather... angry to discover that the one response to what I felt was a perfectly valid thread was an attack made against me by the user in question, which had been there for two hours and no one had even said anything to the user... I'm going to go take a break to maintain my WP:COOL; please let me know if it's me who has erred, if you get chance to look. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch 19:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Blimey. You did the right thing. What is ANI coming to? Ironically, today's the first time in ages that I've made an effort to ready everything on ANI - I even resolved a whole load of threads. Missed that though (several hours after I did my rounds, though). I note you've warned the user - I'll keep an eye on them. TFOWR 19:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I appreciate it. GiftigerWunsch 19:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Admin Behavior Concerns

TFOWR, I am interested in having a third party come in and help hash something out. ] is a request for someone to review a situation they commented on with a reply that is not in accordance with policy and is highly rude and insulting. I understand reverting or even asking not to post to a page but when you are asked for clarification in a polite manner an appropriate response is not gibberish. I realize that this is not a huge deal as far as attacks go but how in the world is that meant to help stop disruption or foster a more civil environment? I would have attempted furthur discussion myself but I believe you see how useful that was. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like an ideal reply, but I'm seeing it without any context. I don't know anything about the Speed of Light case, beyond what little I've just read. You've raised Guy's reply at WP:A/R, and the request seems to be "going your way" (as far as I can see - this is all a foreign language to me - but it looks like GWH's request has been declined or is in the process of being declined). I'd recommend ignoring Guy's response and trying to disengage as far as is practical. If the A/R does start to go against you, worry about requesting proof then. Sorry I can't be more help, but arbitration really isn't an area I have experience of. TFOWR 20:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Isle of Man, Triton Rocker and inserting British Isles

Please see here for another breach of Triton Rockers topic ban. I do not care if it was agreed or not to add the term, Triton Rocker should not be doing it. Bjmullan (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It was certainly unwise, and I do regard it as a violation of the topic ban. However, as the edit was agreed beforehand (albeit with the expectation that it would be made by an editor who wasn't topic banned) I don't intend to block Triton Rocker at this point. I do think it should count, with any subsequent behaviour, towards any future block. TFOWR 22:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

...give him an inch, he'll think he's a ruler... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

True, and I'm not hugely happy about that. But the next block is going to be a month, and it's going to be hard to justify blocking an editor for a month for what's relatively minor. It's less than ideal: it gives a problematic editor license to be problematic, but in the long run I feel it's the best option. TFOWR 22:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

12hrs block should send the correct message that the project is serious. The next will be a month. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ya want me to delete TR's addition? Certainly he won't revert me. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

He can't revert: he's blocked for 12hrs. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Solves this dilemma. I assume this in no way resets future topic ban vio block lengths? I don't want to be back to a 24 hour block when the next vio occurs (assuming it does - maybe this time is the time TR realises what the community's problem with him is...?!) TFOWR 22:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean that the Isle of Man is no longer part of the British Isles? Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've claimed it on behalf of Canada. It still remains a British Isle, technically. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note - I've got some information on TR and another editor we discussed a while back - remember? I can "tease" you and the (talk page stalker) with what beginning I have here (it's even written like a teaser), or send it off-wiki. It was a lot to muck through, so I wouldn't have "it" ready for a bit. Send it or post it: it's up to you. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • It's posted. We'll see how it goes... Doc9871 (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

revdel-worthy?

Special:Contributions/66.69.210.3 might be worth looking at for BLP concerns. sonia♫ 08:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'll ping ANI - I tend to think "... is openly gay" is OK (should be reverted if uncited, per BLP, etc, but not necessarily rev-del-able). I'll ping ANI and see what smarter folk think... TFOWR 08:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Smarter folk than what I am have been consulted ;-) TFOWR 09:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I wasn't sure either... hence my consulting you! I've observed that my level of tolerance appears to be higher than the community in general, like the time I usernameblocked a user on simple and deemed the username non-revdel-worthy and it later got oversighted. Whilst I've learnt a lot about what comes under RD2 and 3 since then, I've still got a long way to go. So seeing what the admin body thinks is probably a good idea :) sonia♫ 09:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Rev del is also one of those "new" things, where the community as a whole is still finding its feet. There's a proposal at WP:AN#TIme for WP:RFRD? for a "rev del board" - I'm not convinced that's a good idea, but one positive aspect is that it would eventually help firm up what our limits are. I was a bit unsure about the edit to your talkpage that I rev-del-ed yesterday, but figured it was better to ask for forgiveness after the event than leave it in place, giving gratification to a vandal. So far no one's asked me to beg for forgiveness... TFOWR 09:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The matter can now be discussed here. HeyMid (contributions) 09:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

They're on a 24 hr holiday now! 220.101 talk 09:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit requests

Hi TFOWR, could you perform edit 1 and 2, on User:AzaToth/twinklefluff.js and User:AzaToth/twinklewarn.js, respectively? I have explained here, but never received a response. And HJ is in San Franscisco, I believe (like you said too). Thanks! HeyMid (contributions) 08:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Blimey, technical stuff! Slightly out of my comfort zone, editing stuff I don't really understand (and another editor's stuff too). I'll ping AzaToth (talk) and ask them to do it. TFOWR 09:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. HeyMid (contributions) 09:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, pinging AzaToth was exactly the same thing I did, but never received a response, so I am really curious to know whether this time will succeed or not. HeyMid (contributions) 09:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I wouldn't recommend edit2 - those are, obviously, the same template. But the edit summary and the reason for warning is different. --Errant 09:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the information is misleading, as they may be good-faith edits, like unsourced material is not disruptive editing, see WP:RFD#September_4. HeyMid (contributions) 09:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a level 4 disruptive editing template, if you get to level 4 and they are adding unsourced data it is definitely disruptive :) I agree with you that it is not vandalism (as was agreed in the RFD you cite), but disruptive editing is different --Errant 09:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree: {{uw-error4}} and {{uw-unsourced4}} redirect there for a reason, if any issue needs escalating to a level 4 warning the user is being disruptive. If you disagree discuss it with the Wt:WikiProject user warnings people.
Regarding edit 1: Meh. A blocked editor shouldn't be surprised that he can't use Twinkle, but I don't care either way. Amalthea 09:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, then we have the following question: Has there ever been any cases were a constructive editor has received the uw-error4 and/or uw-unsourced4 warning? If so, you can't claim (s)he is a disruptive editor. HeyMid (contributions) 09:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of the "warner" to make sure that the template Twinkle inserts is appropriate. Sometimes I do choose to drop a L3 warning on top of another one because the L4 one is not what I want to say. Of course, I do think Twinkle's descriptions should endeavour to not be misleading, because not all editors will check the templates before use (and those who do are often pipped at the post by those who don't.) sonia♫ 09:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What I really mean is that the {{uw-error3}} and {{uw-unsourced3}} likely already does the job on top of the L4 redirects. HeyMid (contributions) 10:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, the reasoning is that if a user keeps getting warnings so that it escalates to a level 4, the user is being disruptive. That's why those redirects exist (and are mentioned explicitly in WP:UTM#Multi-level templates). I agree that Twinkle could be more explicit, as Sonia says.
By the way, I do not appreciate that you neglect to mention the ongoing RfD you started for that redirect. Don't forum-shop to make the warning go out of practice; find a consensus in one place, and one place only. If it's deleted, I remove it. As long as the redirect is found proper it will be offered by Twinkle. Amalthea 10:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Amalthea: Yes, but a user can use Twinkle at their own user talk page to revert other's edits, while blocked (assuming that the blocked user has talk page access). HeyMid (contributions) 10:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

But Twinkle continues to work there, right? Amalthea 10:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, correct. HeyMid (contributions) 10:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Commonwealth Games

An IP 59.93.64.95 (talk · contribs) has dumped a lot of unsourced criticism on this article DIFF I have reverted twice per wp:verify, and warned twice for unreferenced additions. Regards, - 220.101 talk 09:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on them, and I've left them a note about WP:NPOV. Way too much editorialising, and unnecessary, too - the conclusions they reached are obvious just by sticking to the facts. TFOWR 09:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, by looking at the history a bit further back ≈04:44, 59.93.94.85 (talk · contribs) (very similar IP) was putting the same/similar material in and was reverted as copyvio from the BBC, DIFF

* If I revert another unreferenced section am I then at 3RR? - 220.101 talk 09:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR means that you are not allowed to perform more than 2 reverts per page, per day (24 hours), or else you may be blocked for breaking the 3RR rule. However, if you perform 2 reverts on multiple pages during a short time frame (like 24 hours) or more than 2 reverts on the same page, but between a longer time frame than 24 hours, you'll get blocked for edit warring instead. However, those rules do not apply to vandalism, but do apply (mostly) to good-faith edits. HeyMid (contributions) 09:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I was about to say, if it's another obvious copyvio/vandalism it's okay. sonia♫ 09:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What if it's just an unreferenced block of text? (though I suspect it is a copvio too) 220.101 talk 09:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If the IP is disruptive and blocked it should be fine. I doubt you will get called on it - so long as the addition is clearly unsourced or a looks a lot like a copyvio. 3RR means 3 reverts per 24 hours per article, but people are usually sane about these things :) --Errant 09:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

So you mean I only break 3RR if I perform 4 reverts on the same page during a 24-hour time frame? If that's correct, I thought the rule was only 2 reverts per page. HeyMid (contributions) 09:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts (as defined below) on a single page within a 24-hour period" (you get an extra edit ;-) That said, admins can and will block below the 3RR limit: it's best to err on the side of caution if you're at all unsure. Do as 220.101 did, and check with someone - that way if anyone accuses 220.101 of edit warring they can refer the accuser back to this talkpage discussion. TFOWR 09:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The (obvious) reason as to why Misplaced Pages (at least the English one) has the 3RR rule, is to teach users to discuss the edits, rather than edit warring. They get their punishment if they break it, with a block. However, for probation terms, that number can be lower, like 1RR or 0RR, for example. HeyMid (contributions) 09:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 9999) Agreed. My personal preference is for WP:BRD - revert once, then discuss. But BRD is an essay, and 3RR is policy. I'll stick to BRD, but I have to accept that most editors won't. TFOWR 10:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Errant The other 2 IPs mentioned have added the lump of text (7k+) 3 times in about 4 hours, One I warned but they haven't been blocked.

@ Heymid, it depends on what you revert. If it's falsely saying someone is gay, for example, then I would imagine you can do it till they are blocked or stop? 220.101 talk 10:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

As per the policy, violations of BLP or veritable vandalism can be reverted until the cows come home, but there are better ways of protection than doing that. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Aye. My only concern with protection would be that it would shut 220.101 out (probably a good time to mention this page... again...) but I've watchlisted the page and will keep an eye on it. Strange title... "Concerns and controversies over ..."? "Concerns" sounds... wrong. Not very encyclopaedic. "Controversies" sounds like a POV-magnet, but that's a discussion for another day. TFOWR 10:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably anonymous editors from cities who lost the bid to host the games getting all snippity :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hyderabad, India, could be. - 220.101 talk 11:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In general, 3RR depends on whether the reverts are controversial or not (non-controversial ones are probably trolling, vandalism, obvious bad faith edits, unsourced claims, etc). HeyMid (contributions) 11:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

@220.101: I've seen several borderline edits to this article; you're probably better placed than me to assess their "badness". Don't feel that just because I'm not reverting/fixing you shouldn't... Not that I'm saying you might be holding back, I just thought I should let you know ;-) TFOWR 13:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Like this one ? about a dog that... ! Facepalm - 220.101 talk 13:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Blimey. "I saw another news report about how sucky India is, lets wedge that in somehow". I'm going to direct WP:NPOVN towards the article - more neutral eyes are needed, and yours and mine need help! TFOWR 13:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It is referenced!! Woof! 220.101 talk 13:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOVN informed. 220.101, I have named and shamed you as a sole voice of reason - hope that's OK! (Let me know if you consider yourself insane or unreasonable, and I'll happily retract my claim ;-) TFOWR 13:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, don't know if you noticed, but the article - wonderful title and all - was created by Australian fighter (talk · contribs), who was (they're blocked) a sock of Polylepsis (talk · contribs) (who's banned). To many good faith editors have edited the article since then to justify deleting the article as a banned-user creation, but it does give some idea why the article has such an unwieldy name... TFOWR 13:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(OMG it's busy around here tonight!) Saw the post at NPOV, added my 2c, nice to know I am moving in such 'exalted' company! - 220.101 talk 13:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You've got five things working against you:

• This is worldwide headline news at the moment. The diff that you cited above about dogs, for example, was citing The Times of India, datelined only a few hours ago. (It was also a word-for-word copy of the Times. This is a major problem, more on which in a moment, more important even than neutrality.)
• The headline news is not exactly positive.
• Most Wikipedians underestimate the size of the potential Indian editorship.
• Indian English. ☺ (I've seen Indian English erroneously tagged as "patent nonsense" before now.)
• The old let's-break-out-controversies/criticisms-into-a-standalone-article that'll-be-inherently-neutral no-worries problem.

I've often found that the best solution in "breaking news" articles is to lead by example (and point people in the direction of Wikinews). If someone dumps unsourced criticism into the article, find a source and rewrite as sourced criticism.

However, the repeated copyright violations are a concern. Don't build upon them and make derivative works. Zap them and write fresh content from scratch. Copyright violations are a no-no here. If there's someone repeatedly violating copyright, then getting an administrator involved, to take away editing privileges, is definitely the thing to do. 59.93.64.95 (talk · contribs), for example, isn't writing original prose at all, but is just dumping the content of an Agence France Presse article written by Adam Plowright ("Copyright © 2010 AFP. All rights reserved.") into Misplaced Pages, twice. If xe does it again, I'm sure that TFOWR will be only too happy to take xyr editing privileges away. Uncle G (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Uncle G, definitely food for thought (I'm slightly ashamed that I've had concerns about Indian English in the past, whereas I'd cheerfully restore words like "outwith" or "pakeha" in Scottish English and New Zealand English articles...) From my perspective, and ignoring the standalone-article issue for now, this is a genuine issue, with my main news provider (the BBC) reporting on it heavily (and in largely unfavourable terms...) I think your advice to lead by example is spot on - though it would have been a daunting task before NPOVN drew in new and experienced editors. I've also been thinking too hard about neutrality, and not hard enough about copyvios - that's an interesting (and very, very necessary) approach. I'll start directing editors at WikiNews and explaining our copyvio policies. And yes, I will be more than happy to enforce copyright issues with blocks if necessary...! TFOWR 14:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

When linking non-diff pages on-wiki

Hi, when you want to link to a non-diff page on-wiki (like this one), don't use the typical copy-paste URL method (like most other's do). Because you use the secure version, all non-secure users get redirected to the secure version, if they (including me) click on your link. Instead, please use the template/form . This is an example of the form I wrote above. Otherwise, we may get fooled by the fact that we are not logged in at the secure version, and we probably don't want to edit un-inlogged and see our IPs get logged in the edit histories.

Also, why haven't you updated your online status for a great while? HeyMid (contributions) 10:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh! Discussed this earlier on a different talkpage. In the past, I've tended to use {{oldid}} instead of fullurl, and it looks like {{oldid2}} may be even quicker and easier. Probably going to take me a while to remember, I'm so used to just using ⇧ Shift+Tab ↹, Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C to get the URL. Of course, the real solution is for everyone else to use the secure server... ;-) Before that happens, though, I might write a userscript that grabs the oldid/diff and dumps them into a string, either in the PC's copy/paste buffer or onto a new Misplaced Pages page, ready for pasting into wherever I need it.

I had to rebuild my PC recently. I used to have this lovely widget that, when I changed my online status, it would change my Misplaced Pages status for me as well as changing my status on other stuff (IM, etc). When I reinstalled the OS I couldn't remember where I'd got the widget from, and I'm too lazy to manually update my status - I say "manually", what I really mean is click the handy links at the top of every Misplaced Pages page, as I've got Xeno's status changer script installed. One of these days I'll write my own status changer for my OS... TFOWR 11:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, one thing that occurs to me is... raw URLs can be clicked in a diff; templated URLs ({{diff}} etc) can't. Probably not a big deal, but it means you need to scroll down to the post to click links. TFOWR 11:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I used the secure server(s) for months, but went back to the normal servers, because the secure one(s) are in my experience unstable; sometimes I am even unable to connect, so I use the normal ones, instead. The secure servers are also (understandably) slower than the normal ones. HeyMid (contributions) 11:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, where did/do you find the batch scripts for TW, for PPs, etc? HeyMid (contributions) 11:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It was a couple of recent incidents that made me change over, where a long-term editor had their account cracked by an external advocacy group who then posted some really unpleasant things while pretending to be this editor. My password has always been pretty strong (mix of numbers, letters and characters instead of words), but the incident prompted me to change my password, to remember to change my password more often, and to switch to the secure server. If someone did crack my account, they'd have access to admin tools, so I'd prefer to be as cautious as possible - the community granted me the mop, not some random cracker ;-) The batch scripts "just appeared" when I got the mop - I had Twinkle installed beforehand, so I assume they're part of Twinkle, but don't show up until you get the mop. TFOWR 11:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I believe that if you use "<span class="plainlinks">" before the link, like in this one, the padlock in the link will not be shown. Also, the {{diff2}} template should not be used for imported edits (such as the old ones dated back in 2001), otherwise you get unexpected results, as the diff2 template relies on the prev variable.

Also, do you know the name of the hacked user's account? And why do you write "they"? Is it a more common and/or neutral writing? HeyMid (contributions) 11:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a template: {{Plain link}} that avoids the need for "<span class="plainlinks">...</span>" ;-)

The editor was Weaponbb7 (talk). There was another incident, I forget the editor's name, where a post was altered, then an image of the altered post was placed online. Not quite the same, but related to the same off-wiki advocacy group.

I use "they" as it's gender-neutral, other editors do this too, but in my case it's due to my political views: I regard gender as irrelevant. Not that long ago there were two words for "you" in the English language: "thee" and "thou". "Thee" would be used for someone who was socially equal or in a lower social class. "Thou" would be used for someone who was "better". We've done away with that, and I'd like to think that one day we'll stop discriminating between people on the basis of their gender - men and women will be truly equal. I will use gender-specific pronouns if people ask me to - I don't want to needlessly offend people - but until I'm asked to do differently, I'll use gender-neutral pronouns. Hope that helps! TFOWR 12:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Details - This is the new account of the hacked user, User:ResidentAnthropologist, see the amusing sock template he has added, and the user that had his post altered was User:Scott MacDonald who sadly retired. Off2riorob (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That sock puppet tag is genius. What was Scott's old username? I was thinking Doc Glasgow (talk), but having checked I'm very, very unconvinced... TFOWR 12:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Scott was previously User:Troikoalogo - a skit on this, the trioka-logo Off2riorob (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Aha! But before that, he was Doc glasgow. (Small "g": Doc glasgow (talk). I knew somehow there was a mop involved... TFOWR 12:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah interesting, an admin for five years, no wonder he needed a break. Off2riorob (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems like he has been enticed back hehe. Off2riorob (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

SPI

Should I alert you of Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Pagemoney. You reverted vandalism of a suspected sock. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No need, I saw their edit to your talkpage and started keeping an eye on them. Looking into it with WP:DUCK in mind... TFOWR 12:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, well I'm a bit new with SPI, would you be able to close the SPI (however you do that) if you sorted out the socks? Thanks, Stickee (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm also no SPI-expert (despite past attempts to pretend otherwise...) I'm reading up on SPI stuff still, so I'll leave it to the regulars to do what needs done. TFOWR 12:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ...but Syrthiss (talk) beat me to it :-( Obvious sock obviously blocked... TFOWR 12:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

tee hee! Syrthiss (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

BISE Closures: Geevor Tin Mine

Hi, in relation to the closure of Geevor Tin Mine, I believe it is more correct to note the the relevant guideline relating to Cornwall is WP:CornwallGuideline. Article has already been changed in line with this by a topic expert. This may also help on future articles involving Cornwall? --HighKing (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In general terms I think you're right; however, in terms of WT:BISE I believe it falls outside our remit. If this had been, say, Devon instead of Cornwall then "England", "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom" would all have been better than "British Isles" - I simply applied the same logic. (Obviously, I think these alternatives ("England", etc) can be placed relatively - I see "Cornwall"/"Devon" as X units, so I'd prefer Y to Z - but the crucial thing for us is that it's not a WT:BISE issue, it's an issue for the individual talkpage). TFOWR 12:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Just thought it was worth pointing out that an "uninvolved" editor had already changed the article (after he saw the BISE template) and logged WP:CORNWALL as the reason. If there's any other articles overlapping BISE/Cornwall, it might be worth bouncing to the Cornwall folk first. --HighKing (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool. DuncanHill has a point about WikiProjects (in general, not just Cornwall) - it's probably worth pinging any listed on the talkpage as a matter of course. Yet another task to remember each time...! TFOWR 16:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Pics

May you see what is wrong with this picture? I don't know how to meet the expectation of the admins, I'm the one who take this picture but I don't know how to put my license. Can you just fix it for me? http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:El-Farah_el-Masri_El-2adeem.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capolinho (talk • contribs) 16:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm really no expert when it comes to images in general, and images at commons in particular. I've asked for help on the image's talkpage (where I see you'd also posted a question). I think, though, that you'll need to confirm the picture's details at "OTRS" - an Online Ticket Request System that Commons uses (Misplaced Pages also uses it) to track copyright permissions and other issues. Hope that helps! If you're still having problems, I'll try and track down a Commons administrator whos hould be able to help. It's also possible that one of my "talkpage stalkers" may have experience with Commons, and be able to help out. TFOWR 17:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The picture doesn't exist or has been deleted. Do you own the copyright to the picture? Do you have the original digital image? Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

commons:File talk:El-Farah el-Masri El-2adeem.jpg - talk page is still there, and a Commons admin (Martin H. (talk · contribs)) is discussing it. TFOWR 10:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

recall

Hi TFOWR, I know you have some interest in the Admin recall process and I have created this page User:Off2riorob/Admin recall discussion to slowly develop and get ideas and feedback towards a set of acceptable guidelines to define what it actually is, there is no hurry, no worry, just feel free to add any thoughts you may feel to contribute, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Watchlisted, and I'll post some thoughts on the talkpage later. It does occur to me, though, that it's probably wider than just recall - it covers tool restrictions and returning admins, too. Not a big deal, but you might consider renaming at some point. It also occurs to me that I promised the late, lamented Jack forbes that I'd take regular admin breaks... I'm almost certainly overdue for one, though I did take a break of sorts fairly recently... TFOWR 10:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, tool restrictions and determinate lengths of mop granting are indeed not part of the recall issue. Feel free to rename at will. Required Admin breaks would be imo, if an Admin agreed to recall he would be required to take the tool breaks and edit as a simple user ... I am of the idea of one week in four, also stops Admins becoming overly involved in one issue and would help users targeting one admin as their personal assistant, such associations become restricted by the natural involvement created over a period of time. As I see the objective of the recall and the possible sections of tool restrictions if an Admin is having issues in a particular area is to allow the community to more easily accept some flaws in a candidate in the knowledge that his being given the mop is not forever, in some areas of work we are in need of a bunch more Admins. Copyright violations is one of those areas. Just some thoughts for discussion, regards.Off2riorob (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright is an interesting are with respect to your discussion: an editor doesn't necessarily have to be an admin to be really, really useful: VernoWhitney (talk · contribs) is a case in point (though I'd add that I'd support VernoWhitney in a nano-second if they had an RfA...) "Forcing" Moonriddengirl (as an example) to have one week's admin holiday in every four wouldn't necessarily hinder that much the awesome work she does with copyright. (And if there's any admin who deserves a holiday, it's MRG - is there anyone more awesome?) TFOWR 11:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking you owe a nomination..and I agree with you about VW .. and and we should create a barnstar of most awesomeness one for Moon. I could talk some more but I will add some thoughts later to the discussion page. Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Minutes after your post someone gave MRG a barnstar ;-) I don't know VW at all, except from spying on them: I've never interacted. Wouldn't stop me nomming or co-nomming, but it does make me... shy about approaching them ;-) VW or MRG: if you see this, bear it in mind. Other watchers: likewise: if the opportunity ever arises, mention it to VW.

This Fool Offered Warious Responses. You've prob'ly seen them already, but if not... TFOWR 18:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice one .. I had a quick look as real life is screaming at me, and will expand over the weekend, fuck, I am in real life demand and I am not used to that these days. Thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Civility

Hi. Could you have a look at recent edits to Talk:Itinerant. It's not a well patrolled page and a small number of IPs seem to be able to ride roughshod, without the normal courtesies. If I'm being 'over-sensitive' just let me know, but I've removed what I consider unacceptable remarks only to see them re-applied. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Didn't realise you were so popular. I've no intent on adding to your workload on a relatively minor issue. Any outside opinion welcome in lieu. RashersTierney (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I took so long to get to this - I was offline yesterday evening. I've removed the personal attack and warned the IP who made it/restored it. I've watchlisted the article, so I should see any repeats, but ping me if I miss anything. TFOWR 09:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The IP has read the warning. Their edit summary doesn't inspire confidence, but I'll keep an eye on this for a wee while. TFOWR 18:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ban question

I am currently on a complete interaction restriction with and about a user who is currently banned altogether. I would like to know how, or if, I can get this interaction ban on me rescinded. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

So... the other user isn't on-wiki at all anymore? It seems slightly pointless there being an interaction ban. Honestly, I don't know what the answer is. Possibly WP:AN? That would seem the logical place for bans etc to be set, reset and unset. If you're concerned about discussing the other user, email me, and I'll raise it at WP:AN. TFOWR 09:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I will be sending you an e-mail shortly. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I didn't recall they were initially talking about only a temporary ban. In any case, I have faithfully kept hands-off, and whatever they decide, they decide. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I appreciate Xeno taking the time to comment, but I'd like more comments - I take the view that as an established editor you have a right to a proper resolution one way or the other: "no, keep the ban" would be a better result than "meh, no comment, no consensus." I'll ping-bump AN later... TFOWR 08:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible legal threat?

This is probably borderline, but does this (and maybe also this) seem like a legal threat to you? GiftigerWunsch 21:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like they retracted it. GiftigerWunsch 22:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The IP is obviously a sock, but of who? Is this the M.O. of the banned user "Brucejenner"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced they're a sock (despite the fact that they claimed to have been personally attacked a few days ago having only edited today: they probably have a dynamic IP, after all). They seem to have little grasp of policy, and are apparently unfamiliar with[REDACTED] in general. GiftigerWunsch 22:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The tipoff is the "You again?" message he posted, directed at me. Not that it matters. If he screws around with the article, he can be stopped. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi TFOWR, I was wondering if you could move Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for page protection since that's the correct location for the editnotice. Cheers, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:55pm • 07:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)