User talk:SirFozzie - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daniel (talk | contribs) at 21:50, 19 January 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:50, 19 January 2008 by Daniel (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

If you're looking for my archived Talk

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Welcome back ....

... to mayhem :p Looks like it's business as usual around here, on all sides, eh? - Alison 23:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How's that phrase go? "Welcome back my friends, to the show that never ends..." SirFozzie (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And it wasn't me :), anyway welcome back.--Padraig (talk)

/*considers blocking Padraig, just on general principles* :) Thanks, I've been around, but I think Ali was just "welcoming" me back to the usual wars, that's all. SirFozzie (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the edit history on the Ireland article, where we have two editors an a anon IP adding text with a source that dosent even mention or support the content their trying to add, I think the 3 editors may be the same editor, but they seem to have stopped now, but maybe worth keeping a eye on.--Padraig (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

SirFozzie, can you look at this apparently someone didn't like me agreeing with Alison that they were edit warring earlier on another article, I have reverted this nonsense twice already today so I can't revert it.--Padraig (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Page Protected for 96 hours, hopefully Sarah and everyone will discuss it and come to an agreement and I can unprotect early. SirFozzie (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fozzie; I'm out of that article (self-imposed exile) and the socks are blocked so I think you can safely release it. (Sarah777 (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC))

Done, Thanks Sarah. SirFozzie (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So Fozzie comes back soon after I disappear....I guess looking through Orange tinted glasses he must be my sock then right? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I've been around and editing, just Ali was saying "Well, here we go again!" that's all. BTW, Hack, you still using two cans anD a piece of string to get to the internet? :) SirFozzie (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me started on the idiocy prevalent in UK ISPs, you'd think they were all staffed by complete and total fuckwits! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, its not any better in Ireland either. :-( Bastun 10:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Must...not...make...obvious...joke! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Will Beback

I noticed that you and others are trying to keep this user's pages whole against the predations of vandals. I just skimmed by there, and the pages are, once again, blank. If they are protected, as the edit history says, how does this happen? (I am not looking for WP:BEANS; I am just puzzled, and curious. I tried to do an undo for one of the vandal bits earlier that failed, and froze my computer at the same time. (Now I note that the link is red, but perhaps I have just made a mistake somewhere in the user name. (Fixed error in name and User:Random832 appears to have refilled the page. I am still curious as to how it was deleted while protected. Bielle (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Bielle (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, what happened is that the vandal moved the page, and SqueakBox started a fresh page in error, then I moved it back. Wasn't sure what the last good version was, so I let it stand :) SirFozzie (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the play-by-play. I could not work it out. Bielle (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the talk page help. Hard-banned Primetime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently discovered to snuck back and he's angry about being found-out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I saw something about that on Durova's page. If you need further help, just whistle. It's good exercise, swinging the banhammer ;) SirFozzie (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Found some more sock, too. I've updated the checkuser request - Alison 22:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just cos

Nengscoz416 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Advice

Thanks for your comment I will look into the RfC idea, I don't know how it works,but I feel this admin shouldn't be allowed to continue to abuse his editing privilages when he is involved in content disputes, I believe he has also blocked editors during disputes where he was involved as well. So any advice you can give me on how to proceed will be welcome.--Padraig (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Check user

Hi Fozz what happens with the check user that is being requested by TU regarding myself is there anything I need to do and can you publish results if that can be done thanks and wrap up well -23 not good lol. BigDunc (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Dunc, Check Users cannot reveal more then any basic information (even if they want to). I'll see if the CheckUser in question will do it in the style of a RfCU report (IE, Unrelated, Likely, Possible, Confirmed, whatever), just to set all minds at ease. It's actually warmer today, which is good, but yeah, made the walk in from my car a little faster then normal! ;) SirFozzie (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats great thanks. BigDunc (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys, checkuser case is now complete. Per policy, I cannot reveal any background information - Alison 19:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

Hello fellow Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category member!
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.

Hello fellow Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category member!

I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach.

But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole.

I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though.

But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment.

Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version.

Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled.

I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes.

Larry Pieniazek

NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "O"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "P"s through "S"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. (I know yours is already up there but hey, I didn't want you to feel left out) ++Lar: t/c 04:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom

The link is AFAR not AFA :).--Padraig (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Blah :P Virdae already caught me :) Too many RfA's. Arb, Admin.. hmm there's an idea, anyone who goes for admin must go through arbitration.. hmm.. bad idea, right? SirFozzie (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Disappointed that this had to go this far, but his attitude towards the RfC dosen't leave any other option.--Padraig (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, completely agreed. You may want to post that on the ArbCom and no, don't get in a tussle with Aatomic1 over his misunderstanding, please ;) SirFozzie (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Foz - thanks for initiating that. I'm adding myself as an involved party. Statement + evidence + dispute resolution to follow later. Still ill here at home & trying to sleep. Bleargh! - Alison 23:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, you did most of the work on the RfC, I just piggybacked on that. Trust me, if I fall asleep now, I won't be in any shape to go to work tommorrow, and I've already missed the first three days this week due to this bug :P SirFozzie (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have decided to ignore Aatomic as much as possible, he's playing his own little game to Point and has no real interest in this issue beside that.--Padraig (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Am so glad I read this thread before responding to the comment!! I just assumed it was an innocent misunderstanding :) ~Eliz81 23:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

...*chuckles* that's right, laugh it up at the Fozzie's expense ;) (be sure I won't make that mistake again.. well.. until I make it again, at least! :D) SirFozzie (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello there. I saw your statement on the RFAR page, and noticed what's probably a typing error in point C. You say ...he must have been drunk or high while he edited, which he stated he did frequently. It probably should read ...which he stated he did infrequently. In R. fiend's statement about the Ed Poor block, he says It was a while ago, but there's a chance I was really really drunk when that happened (maybe even high) which happens very rarely, but, I admit, it does happen. Cheers, WODUP 00:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will fix it. SirFozzie (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the head-up about the ArbCom. I don't relish having a drunk who has blackouts being allowed to block users for no reason. I don't recall seeing an apology on my talk page; I wish he would 'block' me for 1 minute with a note saying "This is to apologize for my erroneous block of (insert date here)." At least that would clear my record. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Ed. SirFozzie (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen this seems R. fiend is now giving up Admin, so what will happen now.--Padraig (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it may still go ahead, in "fait accompli" mode, as they need to close the case and make a judgment regardless. Personally, I'd like to see them make a statement on the Ed Poor block, for his sake. That was so unfair, esp. given that he was on parole. It's a pity that it's come to this; one of my ArbCom proposals was admin parole (as first choice) and not de-sysop - Alison 02:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this will short circuit the whole thing, as I'm sure ArbCom will accept it and rule that he has to go through another RfA to get it back. (Controversial Circumstances, etcetera). I applaud his decision. SirFozzie (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As do I, although I didn't want a de-sysopping coming out of this one. I don't think anyone wanted an arbcom case in the first place, to be honest. Remember the last? That took so much out of everyone - Alison 02:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If arbcom do decide to close they should at least remove the block from Ed Poor block log.--Padraig (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Padriag and Ali, check out the proposed motion I posted on the Workshop page, and sign off on it if it works well.SirFozzie (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorsed. Hopefully, that will be the end of it, esp. that Brad has now weighed in on it - Alison 03:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hope you're feeling better, too, BTW :) - Alison 02:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Feeling nearly human again, although other events have conspired to remove any trace of a good mood. SirFozzie (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh ... I just checked my mail. I'm so very sorry. I'll pmail you later tonight - Alison 03:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)`

It's ok, she came out of the sedation today.. still has a breathing tube in, and they won't let her sit up (her mother has a hell of a time keeping her from trying!) but it's still a long way ahead of her. SirFozzie (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits to WP:AN

I have unresolved this. I think you may have missed the comment by wikipeace. I have restored it and warned BoL. Thanks, M-ercury at 05:10, January 13, 2008

It was POV-pushing in a memorial thread. I won't war with you, but I don't see anything wrong with the actions. SirFozzie (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a comment at the AN thread. I don't want to war, and I won't revert again. Thank you for looking into it. Regards, M-ercury at 05:24, January 13, 2008

Your block of Chinese3126

Hello. Chinese3126 (talk · contribs), recently blocked by you, requests unblock. I am inclined to grant his request, because I can't see what vandalism the user is supposed to have committed. Did you mean his deleted redirects to New York? I see no reason not to assume good faith here, and wonder why you felt the need to delete these redirects out of process. (I realise that "Jew york" is offensive, but it is a possible typo.) I'd appreciate a comment by you on Chinese3126's talk page. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(duplicate thread) Could you comment on this user's current unblock request? Reformed vandal or not, it seems a bit alarming to suddenly block an apparently experienced, diligent contributor without anything in the way of warnings or discussion (that I can see, at least). Nothing about their edits seemed quite that inherently bad or urgent, at first glance. Is there something I'm missing, here? Has this sort of behavior been a problem, before? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at his other deleted edits, as well as maintenance of a hoax wrestling article. To my eyes, this is a pattern of unproductive, vandalistic edits. I recommend against unblocking, but I leave it up to you. SirFozzie (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. For the reasons mentioned at the user talk page, I recommend that you unblock this user. I think he was acting in good faith, if maybe a little misguided. Sandstein (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree, I will not reblock if unblock is granted, but I don't see the value in the edits. SirFozzie (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend injunction

The Arbitration Committee has adopted a temporary injunction in this case. R. fiend, the subject of the above-linked case, has indicated that he will resign as an administrator, thereby resolving the main issue raised by this case, if the case will then be closed. Accordingly, this case is suspended for a period of 72 hours from the adoption of this motion. If R. fiend is voluntarily desysopped during that period, this case will be automatically closed without need for a further motion or proceedings and with a pre-worded determination, viewable here in italics.

If R. fiend does not resign his adminship within 72 hours after this motion is adopted, the case will resume and this motion will have no further effect. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit

Hey, could you calm it down a bit? I agree that it was a bad block but Archtransit has been an admin all of 4 days. It might be better to calmly explain where he went wrong than to start shouting at him... WjBscribe 18:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I will strike through my comments. SirFozzie (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you have a look

Hi Fozz could you have a look at these edits on Talk:United Kingdom I removed what I felt was vandalism from anon ip here it was reverted by Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) saying it was a good faith addition to talk page which might be right it was then signed by sinebot as user Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) which he removed here. Is it possible that sinebot makes mistakes or is the anon ip and Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) the same. BigDunc (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

SineBot signs the post for the person who added it. Since Pyrospirit reverted, it signed it as his post, even though it was originally from the IP. There is nothing in SineBot's actions that suggests the IP and Pyrospirit are the same editor. Rockpocket 22:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks for clearing that up for me Rockpocket. BigDunc (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Because R. fiend (talk · contribs), the subject of this case, has resigned his adminship, this case is closed. If R. fiend wishes to seek administrator status again in the future, he may do so only through a new request for adminship. The Arbitration Committee finds that R. fiend's unexplained block of Ed Poor on October 1, 2007 was unjustified. An arbitrator will make an appropriate notation in Ed Poor's block log reflecting this determination.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

B'ham pub bombs

Sir Foz - what exactly does "under probation" mean? The edit war version is now locked in place! Sarah777 (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, Aatomic1's probation means the following.. he's limited to one revert per WEEK on all Northern Ireland/Troubles related articles I deliberately didn't look at the content of the page when I protected it (72 hours), because I have to be neutral in all of this, I agree with you that it kinda falls short of what the mediator initially suggested, but if I edited it and THEN protected it, I would be doing the same kinda thing that cost R. fiend his mop. SirFozzie (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Whike yer at it - how long am I on probation - I'm such a good boy!!!--Vintagekits (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You want a safe answer, or the honest answer, VK? The safe answer is, you can ask ArbCom to take you off the Probation terms at any time (you are a very specific case because the ArbCom placed you on probation, the other ones are done non-ArbCom admins). The honest answer is, "Considering, the events which led to you being put on probation, I wouldn't expect them to grant a repeal of your probation for at least six months or more." Considering the alternative, I don't think it's that bad , mind you ;) SirFozzie (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The shackles dont hurt but I fear they could unintentionally trip me on occasion.--Vintagekits (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

M62 coach_bombing

Fozz could you check this out. It is my opinion it is related to the above dispute re Birmingham article. Not going to edit war on it. --Domer48 (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This one's on me this time, Foz. Reckon you deserve a break.

User(s) blocked. for gross 3RR violation - Alison 20:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Something VERY suspicious about that IP popping up, Ali. Probably not anywhere near enough for a CU, but are you thinking what I'm thinking? SirFozzie (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Had my suspicions relieved.. Thanks for the assist Ali! SirFozzie (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just giving a heads up this article, this has been discussed before as outlined in my edit summary. The page history could also be reviewed this edit, struck me as intresting.--Domer48 (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Coming to an admin's page instead of using the talk page? Hmm. Now, pray tell, Domer, why are you highlighting my edits there? Bastun 11:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair point indeed. Domer?? - Alison 15:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Intresting why? Because rather than remove the additional information, they insert information which would create a problem. Why? Fair point ? ? --Domer48 (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC) What sort of edit summary is that anyway. --Domer48 (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :It read "Hired coach" for months. A compromise. In the course of the edit war with illiterate anon-IP, you restored to that, and later GiollaUidir added more. I added more again. You went back to 'Hired coach carrying members of the British Army' (so why didn't you remove the additional information?). I went back to 'Hired coach' and BigDunc went back to 'Hired coach carrying members of the British Army'. None of this answers my question above. But as stated on the talk page, I'm happy to stick to the compromise 'Hired coach', or use 'Hired coach carrying members of the British Army and their families' and let readers draw their own conclusions. Bastun 16:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As to the edit summary - similar tactics to those you used on Easter Rising are showing themselves again here. Bastun 16:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok folks, I don't mind the discussion on my page (it's better then edit-warring, etcetera). But if you're going to make my "You have new messages" bar do Saint Vitus's Dance, I ask that you comment on the content, not the contributor. Keeps my blood pressure from rising :) Thanks! SirFozzie (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, SirFozzie - apologies. Bastun 17:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

New article

Hi Fozz I am working on an article about process states in a UNIX System and I want to put a diagram in to help explain it but dont know how to do this. Could you give me some advice on it. It will be circles with arrows connecting them. Thanks in advance. BigDunc (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the best way to do it is to whip up a graphic and link the graphic in the article, I don't know any way to do flow charts like that in Wiki-markup, Dunc. SirFozzie (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff thanks Fozz.BigDunc (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I can do pretty flowcharts here, if needs be. Just do a rough outline & I can draw it in OmniGraffle - Alison 15:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here . --Maniwar (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A Request

As per your comments at Wikipedia_talk:Television_episodes, please teach me how to work on an article that has been redirected. Thanks! Captain Infinity (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page, Cap :) SirFozzie (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation restore

Thanks for that. You asked when we'd be finished with page so it could be deleted again - can't speak for the others, but I'll have what I want copied by tomorrow evening (Irish time). But, on principle, I object to such deletions. A lot of us, from both camps, put a lot of work into that mediation over a period of months, and a lot of the points, diffs included, etc., would be useful to refer to in future - both for participants, but also surely for other mediators - and editors, too, in the case of similar mediations arising. I'm pretty sure I asked before on one of the Mediation 'home' pages, and don't think I got a response, but is there not some sort of 'graveyard' or archive where such cases can be moved to when closed, off userspace? Bastun 11:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I just put archive templates around it to basically close it off. It's in DreamAfter's userspace, so he's allowed have it speedy-deleted. I think what you say is a good thing, though, and stuff like that should be moved over to wikipedia-space and then stuffed into an archive like Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case is - Alison 15:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(1)Thank you Sir Fozzie (for your help in restoring lol!); (2) Is it simply possible to move the page out of Dreamafter's personal section? Aatomic1 (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(1)You're welcome, glad to be of assistance, and (2) I'm honestly not sure how it would work. I need to talk to the mediation folks to see if this is a page like this is normally archived, and how. Not saying no, not saying yes, saying let me get more info when I have a moment :) SirFozzie (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(2) IMO, the answer is "yes", simply because the text is GFDL licensed and isn't "owned" by anyone. Is it useful? Yes? Then keep it! What makes sense would be that it be archived so people like yourselves can reference it later and that others know of a centralized place to look for it. The latter part is really up to the mediation folks, though. In the meantime, I say copy it to your userspace (though you won't get the history) - Alison 16:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Working on redirected articles

Thank you for the tutorial! That is very easy (I've never clicked on the "redirected" link before). And yes, please, instructions on a personal sandbox would be most welcome. Thanks again. Captain Infinity (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Created one for you :) SirFozzie (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, most appreciated. Just out of curiosity, how is it done? Captain Infinity (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I searched for: User:Captain Infinity/sandbox and one off the options on that page is to create it. Try it with adding a 2 to the title, place User:Captain Infinity/Sandbox2 in the search bar on the left side of the screen, and you should be sent to a page where you can create a page for yourself :) SirFozzie (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's super. Thanks again! Captain Infinity (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

As other admins have said, no edits should be made to the article, including removal of any content once it was protected, until Arbcom renders a decision. I'd suggest following that recommendation by referencing here. But you're the admin... ALLSTARecho 05:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, admin or not, such sweeping edits to a protected article are clearly contrary to the protection policy and should be reverted. ➪HiDrNick! 05:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've self-reverted, but please note, BLP is an issue that needs to be resolved. SirFozzie (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And it will be at the Arbcom case. Thanks. ALLSTARecho 05:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom, last I looked at, was only considering user conduct so far. But hopefully, they take a scalpel to that article. Some of those links are quite firmly NOT NPOV. SirFozzie (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

Don't touch it, it's evil! Aatombomb (talk) 05:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)