Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dylan Flaherty (talk | contribs) at 03:31, 22 October 2010 (→Insane Clown Posse). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to Off2riorob's talkpage. If you are unable to post here follow this link to post at my unprotected talkpage.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Benoit

Sorry, there appears to have been an edit conflict... the vandalism I was trying to remove was the "he secretly liked Nazis" bit; the recent death tag removal is not vandalism, although inappropriate, particularly given the above Nazi addition from an IP. 12:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah Ok thanks. I think the IP edit is reflective of the removal of all protection from the article and if it is repeated I suggest semi protection. As for the death, it is a simple issue and the template has little value imo but it is easy to leave it there for another day or two, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) For what it's worth, I don't think {{recent death}} is warranted - there haven't been nearly enough edits to justify the tag (the tag is used when there are a metric-shed load of edits, not solely because the subject has recently died). I've got the page watchlisted, but ping me if problems get excessive and I'll restore semi. TFOWR 12:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Good morning TFOWR. Agreed, thanks v much. Off2riorob (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Tony Curtis pictures

Hi, thank you very much for moving the pictures to Commons. Also, thank you for reacting so soon, incredible! :) Pumukli (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries, if I can help I will. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Sir Stanley

Hi Rob, you mentioned a few weeks ago that an WP:RFC on this user's ongoing (inadvertent?) disruptive editing would be preferable to him being indef blocked. My good faith (and that of several other editors) is wearing thin, but I've handed him a "last chance" if you like. As I'm now quite involved in this dispute, I was wondering if you would take a more "neutral" look at things. If not, no problem, but let me know. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure that was my comment but I would rather see all other avenues exhausted than an indef when at least some contributions are beneficial. I will have a look and try to explain the situation to him and see if he gets it.. Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your input to the situation for his benefit. I'm out of options beyond indef block. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick NPOV sanity check request

Hi mate, could you do me a wee favour? I've just updated the last paragraph of this section (2008 Mumbai attacks, India releases report alleging Pakistan's involvement). There's support at WP:ITNC to post it, and I'm planning to post it shortly. Could you sanity check it first, make sure the update is NPOV enough? I'm worried I've got so caught up editing that I may be missing any bias. One of the sources is Fox news, says pretty much the same as the other source so I'm not overly worried, but a fresh set of eyes would be appreciated. Ta! TFOWR 20:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will look now. It reads well and in written in an uninvolved manner, all the detail is well cited to a reliable and a little more detail was actually needed, so its all good. One point, perhaps it should be in the opening part about the source of the information and although Headley is linked a few paras above I would perhaps link to him in the comment as well, all these details in the report come from his interrogation, which is important , its not like an interview or a statement...this is just a small issue as it is clearly detailed and attributed in the comment. .. An Indian report of the information obtained through the interrogation of David Headley released in October 2010 concluded that .... Off2riorob (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I'll give the update a quick polish and then post it. Thanks again, TFOWR 20:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Rich

"seems like a solution to the immediate issues." Er.. what immediate issues? Rich Farmbrough, 19:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

The immediate issues mentioned at the thread..? Lack of communication .. bot errors, requests for looking at errors ignored? and such like, an immediate stop and a move to discussion is what I supported , seems like a solution to the lack of communication issues.. as removing that ability will open up discussion..no biggie just a move to discussion..? Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Immediate would seem to say now, so lets look at those 3 issues since the 28th of September, the day the previous ANI was started.

1. Lack of communication: I have added just under a megabyte (946,187 bytes) to discussion pages of various types. While this may not all be relevant it does not suggest "lack of communication".
2. Bot errors. You are welcome to review my talk page archive for October and my talk page. A typical "real error report" looks something like this:

Good day. Could you please investigate why your bot keeps breaking the inter-wiki links, as it keeps doing here (Note the link for "kh" at the bottom of the article.) Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course. Rich Farmbrough, 10:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

Seems there is no kh:wikipedia? Rich Farmbrough, 10:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

kh=Cambodia - yip, looks like a typo by someone. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I have to go off and fix things. Sometimes my fix needs fixing - that's real life.

On the other hand there are two (or more) "errors" that are introduced by the fact that I dropped ALL SmackBot's rules as and ran just on AWB general fixes (which are very widely used), I thought definitive way to stop the wikidrama - mistakenly it turns out. These are:

1. If a tag is inside reference a MediaWiki bug mean that the date doesn't get susbt'ed.
2. If an article is tagged by the general fixes (as uncategorized, or orphan for example) it still gets saved, even if no other tags have been dated.

The first is simply fixed by a manual AWB run, the second is at least verging on "not-a-bug", since pedantically the tag was added has been dated, or if one does not wish to be obsessive, it's a good edit anyway.

You will find reams of discussion about these. They seem pretty shrugworthy to me, especially as SmackBot's backlog is now over 12,000 tags due to dropping the rules to try to please al of the people all of the time. Nonetheless I have politely answered the repeated messages about them (and certainly from those who haven't reported them before).

So I think, while there are still problems to resolve, (and I have submitted about 12 BRFAs to move things forward, plus reorganising the way my talk page works - I have about 150 threads a month to deal with) there are no "immediate issues" simply an editor who was peeved about a bold change and decided to report me for "abuse of admin tools" - which would of course make him, as the reverter, a "wheel warrior" <shrug> - I just wish he'd told me he was reverting, ANI first, talk afterwards seems a bad move. Rich Farmbrough, 23:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

Your blindin me with science there Rich, as I said I just supported the editor restriction no bots and move to discussion, all these minor details your presenting here are too complicated for me. Off2riorob (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP assistance

Thanks for the BLP assistance, at Virginia Lamp Thomas. Unfortunately, the WP:UNDUE WEIGHT material has been added back in, again, dominating the majority of the entire contents of the Personal life subsection. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Insane Clown Posse

I'd like to politely suggest that, if you're going to revert changes to this article, you should join the discussion. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You're suggesting that if Off2riorob wishes to remove the sentence "The Dark Carnival has been revealed as a metaphor for God, so the lessons are about repenting so as to avoid eternal damnation." then Off2riorob should participate in the discussion here or here? Off2riorob has participated in both. Regardless, one comment that jumps out from WP:BLPN is "If RS'es differ on a matter, list all the RS viewpoints and let the reader come to their own conclusion." I can't argue with that. It does radically differ from your bold statement that "The Dark Carnival has been revealed as a metaphor for God, so the lessons are about repenting so as to avoid eternal damnation", however. You're parroting the Guardian as fact, whereas reality is slightly different. I'd recommend showing that the Guardian's version is a minority version, not shared by the band. Then, maybe, you won't get reverted. Then, maybe, you'll find other editors to support you. TFOWR 02:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm "parroting" Joseph Bruce's explanation of the meaning of his own lyrics as fact. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? Because I'm only seeing the Guardian cited, and at WP:BLPN I'm seeing quite the opposite, for example this. TFOWR 02:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is cited because it contains the interview in which Joseph Bruce made these statements. As for the link you just posted, it's irrelevant. Nobody ever said he was a regular churchgoer. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

And the point is: you're stating a claim, strongly suggesting it's fact, whereas it's heavily disputed, attribted to one source. And you're complaining that an editor who's been participating on the talkpage and elsewhere isn't discussing the issue. TFOWR 02:31, 22 October 2010 (PUTC)

Nobody disputes that Joseph Bruce said these things. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

So you can provide further refs for "The Dark Carnival has been revealed as a metaphor for God, so the lessons are about repenting so as to avoid eternal damnation" that demonstrate it's not merely a position advanced by the Guardian? TFOWR 02:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you go read the article's talk page, where this has all been discussed. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest if that's your answer then this discussion is over. It's no coincidence that I linked to the talkpage and WP:BLPN ( the discussion here or here) when I first commented. TFOWR 02:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I agree. If you won't participate in the discussion on the talk page, this discussion is over because you just walked away from it. You're welcome to join us, though. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)