Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:14, 11 March 2015

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Archive of my Did You Knows

"Best known for" IP at it again

Hi Yngvadottir. Per Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP, could you take a look at Special:Contributions/200.83.101.199, especially to Tosca, a featured article, where he has twice reverted, followed by this very pointy disruption of the article. Pinging also User:Drmies. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• I suppose that's pointy alright, though I would also have removed "famous". And the commas around "La Tosca". Drmies (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, see Talk:Tosca#Peacock words for the discussion. Do chime in if you feel it should be removed. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure which diff I was looking at--I'm actually typing up an argument for keeping "famously". Drmies (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd say what's worth looking at is whether "forgetting" a 0RR agreement 1 week after a block for "forgetting" a 0RR agreement is likely. Whether or not you agree with the edit and revert and whether or not the IP has a point are separate issues. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That's great, Summer. Run for admin and block them. I'm a volunteer here and am under no compulsion to block anyone. I don't even like blocking, and I don't care much for this entire issue anymore, nor do I think that the project should be declared a failure if the IP isn't blocked soon. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@SummerPhD: I think events have moved on from the agreement I brokered and from the one Drmies put in place with 0RR. The IP editor has subsequently been blocked and rapidly unblocked by two other admins, and in this latest dispute is discussing at the talk page rather than continuing to revert. I wouldn't block anyone for doing what they're doing now, although along the way they provided a textbook example of WP:POINT with one Tosca edit and both Drmies and I have said so. We got the clock reset we wanted, the IP has improved his/her behaviour, I've agreed with his/her edits in a preponderance of cases and disagreed in some (and currently differ with them at Tosca and to some extent at the Russian town article). I think we're in a new stage now and that the old agreement has been superseded by a normal situation (including an apparently over-hasty block for different issue). Yngvadottir (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

So, to sum up: He agreed to 0RR. He broke 0RR. He was blocked for a week for breaking 0RR. He went an entire week without breaking it again, so now the 0RR doesn't apply. Is that about right?

I am certain " Please do not revert to name calling, like "such an idiot" in the future" will ensure a quick end to that particular problem.

Now that you've both told him not to disruptively edit to make a point (somewhere...?), I'm sure that won't happen again.

No, of course admins are not required to block anyone ever. In fact, they are expected to defend highly disruptive, edit warring, block evading, personal attackers from having their good names smeared by anyone daring to imply their behavior is "vandalism". That is what the mop is for. Thank you for your tireless efforts protecting this poor, defenseless, misunderstood champion of all that is good and right. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• I put my quarter in the sarcasm jar a long time ago, Summer. You could have left that abusive vandal sockpuppeteer etc. alone a long time ago, but you chose not to, so boohoo. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's a competing summary. This editor fixed Misplaced Pages's prose for many years, but for reasons known only to them, didn't register an account. When they got reverted, they edit warred and slung insults. They took unpopular hard-line positions on things like "best known for". Because of this and a bias against unregistered editors that I am sure we can both agree exists - and because unregistered editors on dynamic IPs are only recognizable by their editing/commenting traits - they got blocked a sufficient number of times to acquire a long-term abuse page. They were both taken to and went to AN/I a number of times. (They also hit a really raw nerve with you in particular over their use of insults, including one particular one that I've thought of writing an essay on.) I tried something new and got them to agree not to edit war, but to take the issue to talk pages - and user talk pages - instead, and to stop with the personal attacks. And we reset the clock on all the heap of blocks. It was rocky but they improved steadily. They got blocked again a couple of times, and unblocked again. The most recent block was made in complete ignorance of the past history and was overturned in I think 5 minutes. The block before that, they sat out. At present they are discussing on an article talk page after making no more reverts than any other common-or-garden editor, are slinging no insults I consider grave (calling something the silliest argument they have seen in 12 years editing Misplaced Pages doesn't trip my personal attack circuit-breaker, but I grant you mine may have a thicker fuse in it than others') ... and yesterday did make a textbook pointy edit, so there's that. Other than that, I think what we now have, as demonstrated by the block and the equally fast unblock, is an editor among editors, not an abuse case. I can't tell you not to follow them about; there are several editors I check on from time to time. And by the nature of it, someone on a dynamic IP who doesn't register an account will get extra scrutiny because a significant number of registered editors don't like our policy of allowing editing without registration. But this person has decided to stop pinging me and Drmies, and I kind of agree, I don't consider they need my special attention any more. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

To clarify: By breaking 0RR then avoiding 0RR for one whole entire week before breaking 0RR again, they have now "moved past" their agreed upon 0RR and are no longer under 0RR. Right?

Yes, they were blocked again for a personal attack and the block was lifted by someone unaware that the editor has a solid decade of warnings and blocks for personal attacks. How that demonstrates that they are "an editor among editors" is beyond me. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

When are you going to stop your stalking and harassment? If the answer is never, then, as I've said before, eventually you'll get what's coming to you. Even the anti-IP bias that pervades wikipedia doesn't allow indefinite harassment of anonymous editors.

And when is someone going to delete that ridiculous attack page which contravenes policy and is only used by people who want to harass me? 200.83.101.199 (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So, really, so this is what it was all about? Jolly good to know. I have to say, he was quick to go back to his previous ways. Today's edit war issue is proving something very different. I thing you are all AGF him a bit too quickly. Hafspajen (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for clarification from Yngvadottir. The editor agreed to ORR, violated that, was blocked for one week and one week later violated 0RR (and 3RR). As a result, they are no longer subject to 0RR. What am I missing? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The editor has served a subsequent block. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

To clarify: Is this editor under 0RR as agreed or not? If not, why? - SummerPhD (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

They were unblocked under a 0RR condition by Drmies but were subsequently blocked by another admin and served out the block. So the condition has been superseded. That's how I see it anyway. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

New message

Hello Yngvadottir. I left you a message on my talk page. Thanks (Erica Blatt Harkins (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC))

Thank you Message

Thanks a lot for your welcome and tips, Yngvadottir. I'll try again!! --IdoiaSota (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)IdoiaSota

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Manzur, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Constructivism and Guggenheim Foundation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"Best known for" IP

I see you have stated on his current talk page that he is no longer under any restriction. Please explain that and point the way to the discussion that concluded such. I would link to the numerous times you've asked him to stop edit warring and calling people names and he's promised to do so, and the times he has broken that promise, but I'm fairly sure you're content for him to do whatever he likes. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The explanation is in the section further up this page. He's since been treated like any other editor, including serving a block placed by another admin. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not an explanation; that's you saying "I think everything's fine now" when the guy broke a 0RR and showed no sign of changing his behaviour, so he got blocked for it. Apparently that now means he will no longer be disruptive. The fact that someone of your obvious intelligence considers that this editor has changed his behaviour is astonishing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it's me saying it's out of my hands now. He (or of course possibly she) decided at the time of that block no longer to ping me or Drmies; they're on their own, and are being treated like other unregistered editors. I'm now primarily someone who knows their history. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

They're not exactly being treated like other unregistered editors though, as the continued hostility indicates. Bretonbanquet, your comment toward Yngvadottir is a personal attack and shows only that you lack good faith and proper reading skills. Y, I was going to stay off-wiki for a while; now I think I might just throw my bit down here, since if it's people like this we're working for, then I really don't care much for the job. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: I'm clearly too thick-skinned when it comes to discerning attacks ... please don't retire from adminship, I believe the whole point is to try to serve the editing community (and try to hold it together). And we've lost a lot of good admins (far better than me, at least); please don't let's lose you. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, if you think that's a personal attack then I don't know what to say. The editor in question bandies naked insults around like sweets yet you see this as a personal attack. My apologies if Yngvadottir took it as a PA, but I maintain that I have always found the support of this guy to be surprising, given his history and total lack of interest in co-operating pleasantly. That's my point. My reading skills are not what's in question here. Do I lack good faith in either of you? No. Do I lack good faith in the IP? You bet. That said, neither this editor, nor I, nor any other editor, are worth stepping down for. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Bramshill

It passed FAC! Got there eventually. Thanks for the work you, Drmies and Eric Corbett did at an earlier stage!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Good, congratulations! I did very little, though it was fun slamming in stuff alternately with Drmies; Eric did oodles and so did Giano IIRC. And we also had contributions from an estate agent :-) That was a fun collaboration, all told, though seeing what the cops did to the poor house made me sad. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

That was fun. Thanks Ernst (and your colleagues, and the FA reviewers of course) for taking it to the next level. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Althorp is one I was considering taking to FAC next but I don't feel confident with the history at all. It's lacking something...♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As you know, I am a terrible judge of such things. There is a lot about the family rather than the house, but it's the description that I would further research, not the history. For example, what are mathematical tiles? And what's special about the carved window surrounds that merits quoting? Maybe I'm showing the shallowness of my architectural knowledge. My general impression is that it's an excellent article. But that and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee until they raise the price again. Go for it. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is certainly a very comprehensive and resourceful one. View it on wikiwand with white text on dark, that's how wikipedia should look IMO! Much classier. Yes, that was my main concern with the history. The knowledge about the actual house at an earlier stage is sketchy and in parts it's bloated out with too much on the family I think to try to compensate. From the architecture down though I think it's approaching FA quality although the description in parts might need some work for clarity. The prose in places may need a bit of polishing... I think we'd probably be better trimming the history down a bit and not worrying too much about the coverage. The Tower House I think is the best bet next, I've opened a PR on that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
• AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
• Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
• And last but not least, Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Misplaced Pages:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Help

I have noticed you have been editing the Misplaced Pages articles on Colombian artist, David Manzur. I'm the artist assistant and coworker, he is very important in colombia and recently many foreign people have been interested in his work and I (with huge help from a friend) have been trying to create Misplaced Pages articles on him in different languages. I created a small text in spanish using references and citing my sources and it has been translated to many other languages. I studied political science and my life is only about Art, I´m not really an expert on using Misplaced Pages, for what i have seen you are interested in art and you know how to handle Misplaced Pages, I would be eternally helpful if you could help me , and specially my friend whose task is to post information on Misplaced Pages, to create proper Misplaced Pages articles on Manzur having in mind that in my country he is widely recognized along artists such as Alejandro Obregón, Edgar Negret and Botero. I'm truly sorry to bother you, and I do sincerely hope that could help us to create something acceptable and proper for him. Thank you. Do excuse my English, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipeatx (talk • contribs) 05:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for answering my message so soon. Yes, I did write the article in spanish trying to be neutral and using correctly all my references. Since David and I work so much everyday, I asked my friend Marcela Franco to create an account to help us upload some information to Misplaced Pages. She did a wonderful job in spanish and I asked her to use the same text in english, french and portuguese with minor variations. I imagine she did not have much idea about copyright policies on Misplaced Pages, I will send to her the message you left me on my page. And also, I will tell her to make a small statement or her page that she is affiliated with the artist, and from now on, all the editing and the uploading of pictures will be through her account and not anyone else´s. I created this account to be able to message you and to ask you for advise personally, but it is her job to create the wikipedia pages on David.

According to the reference of MOMA, it's the Museum of Modern Art of Bogotá and not the one in New York.

I have a final question if you don't mind. Before Marcela altered the Misplaced Pages articles on David, when we searched for him in Google we could see the knowledge graph on him on the right with some personal information from wikipedia and some related searches. It doesn't appear anymore in Spanish or in any other language, why do you think that is?

Thank you for all your help, I'm sure your advise will be of much use to my friend Pipeatx 21:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipeatx (talk • contribs)

Thnak you again

You are always so kind for answering my questions. I do appreciate that very much. Pipeatx 16:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipeatx (talk • contribs)

Måns

Please take a look at the article about Måns Zelmerlöw. I have done several edits to improve the article ahead of his likely Melodifestivalen winning next weekend. Any further improvements are appreciated. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Esin Eden

Hi, You have deleted my article about Esin Eden on 28th of January. First of all she is my mother. There is no better reference than this I guess. Can you please create it agian? Or should I do so? Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimbaud72 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for your support. I was wondering if this a reliable source for my mother, Esin Eden. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1052408/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm. If so, after your restore it, I will be adding this source to that. Or not, then I will search for another source. Best, Ali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimbaud72 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Romanian wikipedia

Hello Yngvadottir,

How are you? Just keeping you posted--. The bio of Nicolae Blatt is now available also on the Romanian Misplaced Pages. The only thing I need to do now is to add the pictures and i am in the process of finding out if the syntax and procedure are similar as on our English Misplaced Pages. Thank you for helping me carrying all this through.

(Erica Blatt Harkins (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC))

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you very much for showing me how to get started. I appreciate it alot. Matthewethanchowtoy (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please don't edit war as you are doing at Lulu Wang. The way to change an article is not to try to force your preference on it by repeatedly making the same edit, but by discussing on the talk page and seeking a consensus. --RexxS (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@RexxS: I have removed that excresence twice, the second time after noting that the article creator didn't like it either. I'd left it alone after it was rudely edit-warred back in, but enough's enough. The status quo was no infobox. It's incumbent on those who automatically add one to justify it; tehre was an ArbCom case affirming that this is true of infoboxes as it is of any other challenged addition. However, I have now expanded on my reasoning on the talk page. I trust that makes you happier. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You're wrong. The article was created as a stub by an IP on 27 August 2005 on the Dutch Misplaced Pages:

• https://nl.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lulu_Wang&oldid=1898005

By April 2008, it had expanded to include an infobox and one has remained on that article in the seven years since. That gives the lie to your claim that it's "not useful" as the Dutch obviously find it so.

Drmies, bless him, faithfully translated the Dutch article in January and complied with the CC-BY-SA licence; but you are no more right to call him the "creator" than you would be to call Fitzgerald the author of Omar Kyaam.

The major contributors to the article did like an infobox, over a period of seven years. The status quo for seven years has been to have an infobox. So that exposes the nonsense of your argument: it is ludicrous to defer to a "creator's wishes" - that's OWNership, pure and simple and only gets used as an reason by those who can't debate the actual advantages and disadvantages of having an infobox in an article. The real "unattractive feature" is the making up of rules that contradict BRD just for when it suits your personal preference. Nobody should feel it incumbent to seek prior permission to make any edit that they judge to improve the article. If you challenge the edit, then it is indeed incumbent on you to provide reasons and discuss on the talk page. The editor who added the infobox, Editør opened a discussion immediately after you reverted him. I see that you have only now deigned to comment, after edit-warring against two others to align the article with your personal preferences. I'll comment further there. --RexxS (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@RexxS: No, I am not. Our article is not the Dutch Misplaced Pages article. Drmies chose not to have an infobox when he translated it, and he subsequently further improved the article; so did at least one other editor. The editor who likes infoboxes added it while the article was on the Main Page in the DYK section. I looked at his edits after noticing that my small improvement was no longer the latest edit, and saw that among helpful edits he had added an infobox. I removed it with an explanatory edit summary. He readded it with a demand that I discuss before reverting him. I decided not to edit war and left it. However, I noticed today that Drmies had politely objected to that revert. ArbCom has ruled that infoboxes are neither required nor preferred in general, and that editors should defer to the creators and maintainers of the article when tehre is a dispute over them. So I commented at the editor's talk page and re-reverted, again with an explanatory edit summary. The editor only started the talk page section after responding to me at his talk. I am not sure why you see this as opening a discussion immediately, or why you consider I am demanding the editor get prior permission to make an edit - having been reverted, especially after it was noted by another editor as an unwelcome change, it was incumbent on him to give reasons. And he still has not done so, other than his personal preference. Whereas I noted my reason for removing it in both my edit summaries and have now given a full statement at the article talk page. Hence my opening statement - you are wrong, I am not. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Oh, and in addition: Editør added the infobox - I removed it - Editør reverted me - some days later I re-removed it - another editor has reverted me - I am unaware of any intervening addition of it, but I would in any case not be the one who removed it that second time, and I have not removed it again since being reverted the second time. How does that add up to my edit warring against two people? Apologies if you see a different version of the history from the one I do - I would not put that past the WMF. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No, my apologies, I hadn't spotted that Editør had restored the infobox among all the edits he made, but I did see that Olive had re-added the infobox. My confusion, sorry.

Nevertheless, I think you are completely wrong in saying that "ArbCom has ruled ... that editors should defer to the creators and maintainers of the article when tehre is a dispute over them." I've examined the rulings at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes and can find only "It is not clear to what degree, if any, the views of editors with a particular connection to an article (e.g., the editor who created the article or knowledgeable members of a relevant wikiproject) should be accorded any added weight in such discussions". Please enlighten me on which ruling you are basing your claim. --RexxS (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I'm afraid that under the terms of the CC-BY-SA licence, our article was the article on the Dutch Misplaced Pages when the page was created here by Drmies. Translation is insufficient to break the link to the original work. --RexxS (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I second RexxS's request that you substantiate this claim. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• FWIW, I don't care much for infoboxes; I can see some use for it here since it has the subject's native name and thus it lightens the load of the first sentence. My real beef was with the rather cursory "take it to the talk page", which is typically uttered only pejoratively. I do think that the spirit of the 2013 case (Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes, where for instance Gerda was allowed to "include infoboxes in new articles which they create") suggest the creator have some sort of say in it. Whether I, as a translator, technically count as a creator, I don't know; I like to think I improved on it if only by adding references; the real work was done by Rosiestep, of course. I do wish that Editor had shown a bit more of a sense of decorum. But let's not fight over this, please. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

When I see an editor revert for reasons that are personal as in "not needed" rather than based on policy, I tend to ask them to take that to the talk page. I have never seen that as pejorative and for me it means just what it implies, discuss please. We should move on, but I wanted to correct the notion that my comment was something other than what I meant.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC))

I wasn't talking about yours. :) Drmies (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The suggestion that "where for instance Gerda was allowed to 'include infoboxes in new articles which they create' suggest the creator have some sort of say in it." is utterly bogus; the point of that criterion is that at the point of such an article being created with an infobox, there can, logically, be no existing dispute about the infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Andy, "at the point of such an article being created with an infobox, there can, logically, be no existing dispute about the infobox" doesn't mean anything at all. If someone creates an article with an infobox, there is no logical reason why there couldn't be an "existing" dispute. Personally, I like existing disputes much better than unexisting disputes; the latter are too much like unknown unknowns to me. Don't make ArbCom say nonsense, please. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I am more concerned about Editors canvassing of others on this (here and here). I've put the article back to the status quo while the conversation takes place (those who favour IBs are always terribly keen to ensure that the status quo is kept if it involves the removal of an extant box, although a little more shaky when it's t' other way round...) - SchroCat (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The Arts Award

	The Fine Arts Award
	For writing up so many art articles Hafspajen (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• ...and all the other good stuff you do, big and small... Drmies (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)