User talk:pablo X/Archive4

yahn (2005—2007) | tahn (2009 part 1) | tether (2009 part 2) | mether(2010) | mumph (2011)

hither (2012) | lither (2013) | auver | dauver | dic

A view from under the bridge, and related comments

Incivility

The gang's (nearly) all here!

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a link to this alleged attack. Oh there it is. Please explain the incivility.   pablo_hablo. 20:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Abductive attacking Dream Focus in a discussion by referring to him as a radical revolutionary responsible for the deaths of thousands is itself not constructive and only invites escalation. To make matters worse, you followed up Abductive by calling Dream Focus a "stooge". Please note WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Abductive's comment was apposite; you, Ikip and Dream Focus were huge fans of Fences & Widows until he quit the ARS. Then, lo and behold, you appear at his RfA to denounce him for having the temerity to think for himself and not toe your party line.   pablo_hablo. 20:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, no, I have always been wary of Fences. If we are going to talk about partisanship, see my message below. Ikip (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you see Wikipedia as being about parties? We are all a community working colloboratively on one project to catalog human knowledge. I do not at this time trust Fences and Windows's judgment and as such opposed him just noting as much. Dissenting opinions expressed in a civil manner is a hallmark of free discourse. I sure in heck do not think he is comparable to someone whose policies a la Marat or Robespierre resulted in thousands of executions via guillotine or mass drowning and endosring such a hideous allegation is unconstructive at best and disruptive at worst. Then, trivializing those with whom you disagree as mere "stooges" is further unproductive and not conducive to building a community environment. Moreover, it does not help the candidate as it potentially baits those being attacked, which can turn an RfA into an insult exchange, while certainly not giving those mocked the incentive to want to switch to support. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Travellers are advised to be cautious.

But that's the thing - I don't see Wikipedia as being about "parties", but you do. So does Ikip, who probably remembers that one of his many previous usernames directly referred to this. And it looks increasingly that those who perpetuate the i/d schism are those who feel that it validates them. Such behaviour certainly does the encyclopedia no favours.   pablo_hablo. 21:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

See the excerpt from One Tin Soldier (The Legend of Billy Jack) on my user page; your use of "validates" maps directly to the word "justify"; and the other mappings should be apparent enough to any biguns about ;) Sincerely, Jack Merridew; tin soldier, sockpuppet, rogue. 07:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Seriously now. You have shown up trash talking me and others in various venues now that I have by contrast stayed out of and by and large just ignore and do not play into. It is always baffling how even when I ignore people and their drama boards, they still have something to say about me. How dare any of us not want to play these games! That more than anything else is why I cannot take criticism from such accounts as valid. I am here to help build the paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit and not to feed into all these discussions in which everyone tries to get everyone else, not continue to acknowledge anyone who follows me around maliciously, and so on. Instead of arguing with me, just do the same. Do not fall into the trap of losing time and effort adding to commenting on users rather than improving articles or if anything making users feel welcomed. It accomplshes nothing beyond raising tensions. It certainly does not improve articles, which is supposed to be the main reason why we edit after all. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of things, particularly 'trash talking you' in venues that you "just ignore". I think its pretty evident that I have not done that (unless, of course, you are psychic, in which case I will think you an apology). I am aware that you do not accept any criticism that you do not choose to accept. I even believe that you think you are here to build an encyclopedia. But do not whine when you are called on your bad editing.   pablo_hablo. 22:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Lumping me together as a "stooge", for example, as you admit above is not exactly whatever the opposite of "trash talking" is. I accept good faith suggestions to improve my editing; I only have and will reject bad faith or hypocritical commentary masquerading as something else. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see you may feel that as a tad unfair, especially as you were the first opposer. But it does seem to me that quite often when you, Ikip, or Dream Focus post anywhere, at least one of the others will shortly follow. I suppose there are other examples of triumvirates that I could have used which you might have found less offensive, the three musketeers perhaps (although Dumas seemingly couldn't count, there were four of them) Gilbert, Sullivan and D'Oyly Carte, or Manny Moe and Jack. But it's done now.   pablo_hablo. 23:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is Fences will win handly. Retracting the comment will only make you look good Pablo, and not hurt Fences. Ikip (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Pablo refers to the personal attack as brillant.[1] Ikip (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It was indeed a brilliant analogy. Now, I am not interested in 'looking good' (same as you two, it seems, so we have some common ground there) I do not believe that either Abductive's or my comment will 'hurt' Fences & Windows. So are we done here, or am I still waiting for Dream Focus to chime in? If so, could you e-mail him and give him a heads-up? (I know you know how to do that).   pablo_hablo. 21:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In the future just remember that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not play games poking fun at others. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Back at you, feel free to get on with it.   pablo_hablo. 21:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be much easier to do if others would join in that effort to improve articles rather than focus so much on attacking others. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And yet - you're still here.   pablo_hablo. 22:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to confuse matters, I'm a member of ARS and I think you're swell (to use a vulgar Americanism), and hope to see you around editing. The opposes at the relevant AfD are telling. Verbal chat 22:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, I love you man.

Pablo, who is the monkey in the picture?

um this is to a nobody, you can listen into Pablo, since it is your talk page. The conversation here is why I try to avoid editors talk pages. I would suggest in the future a nobody, post the warning, let the editor post a snarky reply, and move on. Otherwise there is always a risk that editor will make you say something in a heated argument that you will regret saying later.

I see warning messages as only help for future editors, in case the information is needed.

So post, and ignore. Ikip (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure who the monkey is, or the organ-grinder.

Cheers Verbal, I love you too, despite the vulgarity (chill out Ikip, I know you saw him first!) but did you mean AFD or RFA?   pablo_hablo. 22:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

yes. Verbal chat 22:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up!   pablo_hablo. 22:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

O Hai ;) It's just so-kewl to see all the shite that goes down while I'm asleep — all on a plate for me to review over early afternoon tea. RFA/F&W has closed as an obvious pass, so, as nyb said, "The opposers' concerns are unpersuasive." — IMHO this would apply to other venues, too.--Jack Merridew 06:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm closing this, if anyone wants to pick up the stick again they're welcome to re-open.   pablo_hablo. 16:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This horse can run no more

Who you choose to support

First you support AMIB, and now JM, both who have a long history of harrassment. A rather troubling record. Ikip (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's "whom". And - right back at you.   pablo_hablo. 21:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't planning on responding beyond this, but who have I supported which has anything close to this level of harrassment? I have never supported anyone misusing their admin tools, nor stalking other editors. In fact, I have gone up against some really, really powerful editors/admins for what I see as abuses. Ikip (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

One 'r' in harassment, Ikip ;)

*You* engage in extensive harassment as a capo for those whom you support. See here.--Jack Merridew 06:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the support at my RfA, and apologies for triggering a spat on your talk page! Fences&Windows 23:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and no apology necessary, I let myself in for that.   pablo_hablo. 23:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

A (somewhat confusing) message from 24.44.55.154

"Why do you see Wikipedia as being about parties?" -The USA was not supposed to be about parties at the creation, and yet "we" had them by 1800. "We" probably would have had them sooner if the Internet was available. Unless on-line voting was available. Interesting, would the possibility of direct democracy have prevented the development of parties. It seems you believe it didn't happen here, although maybe it was not a democracy to start and parties rose in response to that? This might make for an interesting experiment. Make a completely democratic website and see if parties develop.

I don't know the history of wikipedia, but maybe one person, we'll call him GW, founded it, and parties arose to oppose him because he had all the power. Only groups who were making a contribution he considered meritorious could oppose him because otherwise he could just delete them. He wouldn't want to delete people who were contributing because this would hurt the site, so they got power.

Being completely unknowledgeable about wikipedia, this whole thought is premised on your observation that parties even exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.55.154 (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And by oppose I simply mean to advocate for their own view which might be different from his. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.55.154 (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't study the history of the formation of the USA in any great depth at school, so I'm not sure I've grasped the point that you are making. It is certain, however, that people had distinct political views before, during and after secession, despite the lack of broadband access.

I used the phrase "toe the party line" (which then prompted the reply "Why do you see Wikipedia as being about parties?") above in reference not to a political party per se but the Wikipedia concepts of inclusionism and deletionism which are, to my mind, themselves somewhat drama-inducing and irrelevant. You may want to read those two links if you want to know more about the history of Wikipedia.

My point is that although people do act according to their allegiances, political or otherwise, they should be aware of this and not let those allegiances remove from them the ability to act according to conscience or judgment. The most honest politician is not the one who votes always as his party tells him to, it is the one who has the integrity to stand up and oppose, or even cross the floor.

Back to the revolution; before it occurred, participants were (nominally loyal) subjects of the British Crown. Had they acted according to that allegiance then we would today be in the ridiculous position of the USA being a "dependent"(lolwut?) colony of Britain. However, seeing the injustices that being a colony led to, seeing that Britain's was an extremely weak position, and having spare time on their hands due to not having to wade through e-mails offering cut-price Viagra or lots of money from friendly Nigerians or lots of sex from even friendlier Eastern Europeans, they acted as they saw best, thus paving the way for a world littered with shit coffee shops and worse fast-food joints. Huzzah! (I suppose you reap what you sow, but while we're on the subject, enough already - we're sorry for the whole taxation without representation deal! Let it go!!!)

Do let me know if I can help you with anything else.   pablo_hablo. 20:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"Gaffa tape" and "chic peas"

I mentioned during the "gaffa tape" discussion that product labels prove nothing, as evidenced by labels I'd seen for "chic peas". I've now taken a photo of these labels, uploaded it, and posted it at Talk:Gaffer tape#OED. By the way, Language Log, which is an authoritative source cited many times on Wikipedia, says that Google hit counts as a measure of a word's frequency is no more reliable than using a ouija board. Instead, LL recommends using corpora such as COCA and BNC, each of which has 6 hits for "gaffer tape" and none for "gaffa tape". BNC is rather dated, though. -- Zsero (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Zsero, you need to drop this per WP:STICK. You are being disruptive. We have conclusively shown that Gaffa tape is a common term and is no typo. Jeers, Jack Merridew 21:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw your photo of chic peas (or, if you will, pea à la mode), and very fashionable they were too. Did you see the mentions of "gaffa" tape from the OED and numerous secondary sources? They show the usage. Enough time has been spent on this already, let's move on.   pablo_hablo. 21:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Greetings from Wyke College

Hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.250.5 (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi yourself.   pablo_hablo. 14:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

pakistan

hi, i think you would like to see this.... [2]... may be drives feel it easy to drive on the side where they sit, at least in pakistan. Regards . الله أكبرMohammad Adil 12:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

See reply at User talk:Fences and windows#Pakistan.   pablo_hablo. 12:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ali Mirzad

Hi there I believe you have disputed the neutrality my article about hon.Ali Mirzad. I agree with your findings and did the necessary edits . please remove your Dispute Stamp at your earliest convenience. Also you'll be please that I have already passed the somewhat excruciating thoroughly drilling through another Wikipedia Admin (Ketabtoon) - thank you --JamshidAwal (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I have disputed the notability of the subject, who has got a couple of degrees and written one book. Your sources are a bit lacking - blogs don't usually work as sources that indicate notability. Any clown can write a blog. Please read the sourcing guideline, the notability guideline, and the guide to writing from a neutral point of view.

ps - your fourth sentence is a mystery to me, but good luck.  pablo_hablo. 22:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Mirzad

Hi, why not just revert it back to Utaninodes stubbed down version, that looked like a good edit to me. Off2riorob (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Duh! That's kind of where I got to in the end, after a lot of messing about ... thanks for the handy reminder to check the history first in future!   pablo_hablo. 22:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

He he, no worries, this story has still got some legs, the editor is likely going to replace it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the sources are so weak (non-existent) that it'll be heading to AfD soon, methinks ...   pablo_hablo. 11:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Al mirzad

Something is wrong there as regards the AFD as a template has not bee added to the article? Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I know - blame Twinkle! I'm trying to bodge it now.   pablo_hablo. 20:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What a mess that was - I think it's sorted now.   pablo_hablo. 20:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Me an you together is like two monkeys in a mud bath, real funny. Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"Anyone can edit", but it takes real class to fuck things up so thoroughly!   pablo_hablo. 20:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sister Mary Explains It All

I think it is now quite ready for mainspace, and that it will survive and continue to grow. There's also a nice DYK to be shared. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help - I have requested a page move as the redirect has no history. I'll take your word for it about the DYK, I have no experience with those!   pablo_hablo. 23:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hull Brewery

Hi, thanks for the Hull Brewery article, the Hull area appears to be under represented compared with other areas of the country. Have you thought of a Did You Know nomination for the article? Keith D (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No, mainly because I don't know anything about DYK! But as you're the second person to mention it in 2 days (see post above) I can see I'll have to find out. Not tonight however, bedtime looms.
I agree that Hull seems under-represented though.   pablo_hablo. 00:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sister Mary Explains It All

It needed a proper image. Found one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well done, I'd neglected that.   pablo_hablo. 23:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Just seemed like the perfect touch... considering the poster included Keaton. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hilarity

Love the edit summary [3]! Viridae^Talk 12:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I know, me too! Not a film I'd like to see (although there's probably a market for it).   pablo_hablo. 12:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on this edit, too. -M.Nelson (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I fear that I may need a new joke soon though ...   pablo_hablo. 14:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Stolen code!

Just wanted to let you know that I have shamelessly stolen some code from your user page. Great stuff you have here. I've made a complete mess of it, but it works for my purposes. And, of course, per the terms of the CC-BY-SA 3.0, I've given credit where credit is due. Thanks! Wine Guy Talk 12:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem - glad you like it, but I can't take all the credit; I pinched bits and pieces from various places myself, and the whole thing has been tweaked (or is it twoke) by others, particularly Jack Merridew, who's a good person to ask if you run across any coding issues.
I find that messing with my user pages is a good way to learn wiki-markup.   pablo_hablo. 12:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, userspace is a great playpen place for learning markup. I've probably learned more about wiki-markup messing about with userpages than through editing articles. Cheers! Wine Guy Talk 19:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

PS Thanks as well for the tweaks, just noticed that. Wine Guy Talk 19:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL at edit summary, yes I am soooo 1985. I was a whiz on the Commodore 64 and TRS-80! Haven't learned much since then. Wine Guy Talk 22:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I probably meant to type 1995, but you get the idea. I've worked with all kinds of proprietary tagged text, and the basic idea of having the style specified separately from the content is a good one. The style for this page is in a separate subpage, {{User talk:Pablo X/talkstyle}}, which is then copied into this page at the top; this means I can change how this page looks by changing that one.   pablo_hablo. 23:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

suggested reading

;) Jack Merridew 06:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

extra lulz Jack Merridew 06:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

A vandal with a sense of style!   pablo_hablo. 10:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

@ wp:teh n33r35t b14ckh01e:

#REDIRECT [[Wikia]]

;) Jack Merridew 18:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

thank you

thank you for your suggestion :) about categories. Hope you are doing well, as I have not seen you for some time. we will have to continue to share links. ;) Ikip 23:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Only discovered it myself yesterday, there's lots of stuff on that toolserver that could do with better advertising. It's for more than just edit counts.
Oh, and welcome back!   pablo_hablo. 00:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

president of Europe, the Soviet Union and Africa

• Dalton Boutte

Seems the above was created by a singe-edit account, Etb1984. It is only linked from Schlumberger Oilfield Services. A completely unsourced BLP.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional vehicles

is on pay-per-vehicle for the next week. I took home the big prize last year with all the trains from Starlight, but this year's list for ridicule is a whole new barrel-shoot. I just hope the other teams don't come up with a flying mountain of bacon. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am reminded for some reason both of the fictional camel that used to be a vehicle (mentioned by Mandsford in the last go-round)_ and the fictional horse that used to be a vehicle before it met the stick.   pablo_hablo. 12:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought working through the entire Solar System would have helped, but apparently not. I just wanted to stop by to say, well said.Hal peridol (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Why thankyou, there's more in a similar vein here.   pablo_hablo. 11:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The very first Article Incubator barnstar!

File:Incubator barnstar.png		The Article Incubator Barnstar
		The very first Article Incubator barnstar is awarded to Pablo X for his valuable contributions to Wikipedia:Article Incubator including Diana Millay. Wikipedia desperately needs more editors like you! Ikip 21:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Blimey, I thought you were bluffing! Tell you what, I'll make one especially for you when you find one of those articles that needs deleting (check out Dalton Boutte, f'rinstance - a vanity piece). Here's a lucky dip.   pablo_hablo. 21:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What a cool site, thanks! I voted weak delete a couple of days ago. Changing my vote after aruging with night (it is in my talk page history). So despite my old user name, there is hope for me yet. :) Ikip 21:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It can take an arg, too:

• http://toolserver.org/~magnus/save_a_blp.php?page=Dalton_Boutte

Jack Merridew 22:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sister Mary Explains It All

On January 30, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sister Mary Explains It All, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thankyou for moving my page to the userpage. Much appreciated. Still fairly new to Wikipedia, i only pop up here and there. --Sotonfc4life (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries - and good luck!   pablo_hablo. 14:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Elizabeth A. Coleman declined

Many users are not aware that the U.S. Federal Government does not and cannot copyright their printed works. They are considered to be the property of the American people and may be re-used verbatim without consequence. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware of that. And are websites included as "printed works"?   pablo_hablo. 19:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Note that the page the article was copied from does not have the copyright notices you see on almost every website. Took me a minute to find it, but the relevant policy is at Wikipedia:Public domain#Works ineligible for copyright protection. Apparently it's not quite as absolute as I thought, but it does apply in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

:-)

;-) Anna Lincoln 09:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what that's for, but thanks anyway!   pablo_hablo. 09:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Babel fish

Nice reference. I think i have that right? "Puff of logic" rang a bell -- haven't looked at those books in 20 years, fleeing my geek roots.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, It took me a while to remember where I'd stolen it from (after I'd written it) too.   pablo_hablo. 06:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Bogus accusation of racism

background

• Question, removed with edit summary "removed baiting by editor excusing another editor claling editors "arse" and the "enemy"; I have no tolerance for hypocrisy".sic
• follow-up post (removed). replaced with correct diff; removed with edit summary "I will comment on your page momentarily, which you will be welcome to remove..."

Now read on ...

One comment

Naturally, feel free to remove this post as well... Where I live, I have never heard "you people" used in a non-racist manner. Racism is a subject of particular ire to me. I cannot in the interests of anonymity elaborate. My instinct when I have someone say to me "you people...ARSE...enemy" is to take it as if I am being belittled in the same manner as racist people I have encountered in real life. And my reaction when I see that phrase used and in a sentence obviously intended as demeaning in some context is to feel instant disgust and to react as such. I have no tolerance for phrases that carry such interpretive possibilities based on my real world experiences. As far as baiting goes, a comment that says nothing about the article, but that rather is an attack on members of a wikiproject is exactly baiting, because it does not invite a response to discuss the article. Rather it invites either a response in kind or some kind of defensive reply. My reply to not take the discussion in an incivil and battleground direction is really what should have been followed and headed. The most appropriate response would unquestionably have been: "You're right I should not view you as an enemy nor call editors 'butts' and I did not mean my remark as racist." I then would have responded, "Fair enough, sorry if I misinterpreted you." And then we would have perhaps actually discussed the article. Or better yet, if a neutral and fairminded editor, such as DGG, Michael Schmidt, etc. said something, sure then, but when the same handful of accounts that always show up excusing incivility from those who personally attack me once again flock to the defense and once again ignore the core of my reply (to not take the discussion in an off topic incivil manner), but instead keep it off topic and keep trying to heat things up, it's like... Well, any way, food's almost ready. --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. So basically you called another editor a racist because you felt that he had called you an arse. Got it.   pablo_hablo. 23:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is all about: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility.2Fracism, and I am still scratching my head. Jack notified me, saying I was part of this, but I can't see where. But it is all rather strange. :) Real theater guys, thanks. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 03:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's all blown over now anyway, don't worry about it.   pablo_hablo. 09:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice job on the hoax

User:Coffeepot101/Andre Spooner indeed seems like a complete hoax. nice job in taking care of this. I just put the sub-user page up for deletion. The editor obviously knows his way around wikipedia, so he is obviously an alternate account of someone. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 10:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice that he had userfied it, well spotted.   pablo_hablo. 11:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the New York Times Review of Books, vandals, editors who only add nonsense, and those who abuse the communities openness and trust, are the main reason why so many veteran editors are so extreme now. I have absolutely no patience for these type of editors antics, and I deeply resent these editors for the authoritarian atmosphere these editors helped create.

Great job catching this hoax. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 08:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the Daily Telegraph, I am the cause of an authoritarian atmosphere! I have achieved this with my grinding machine of whip and chain! I shall come in fire and scourge the likes of you and Okie from the earth! Flame! Flame! Flame! Coffeepot101 (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Glad I managed to forestall any rescue attempt, you just know there would have been someone who thought it worth a go!   pablo_hablo. 21:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Coffeepot101

• wp:ani#User:Coffeepot101.

My money would be on you ;) Jack Merridew 18:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

O noes! I missed it! Barbed knives seems a bit barbaric, the pen is generally mightier than the sword (except in the obvious cases; pub car parks, home invasions, muggings, fencing championships etc.)   pablo_hablo. 21:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the bottom of Casliber's talk page, tooz... (and see Kill Bill ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

O dear. New dynamic userpage is pretty groovy tho.   pablo_hablo. 21:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The quote changes on the hour; the image/layout/colours change daily. New horses in about 2½ hours… Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at all that conditional code. Lot of work.   pablo_hablo. 21:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a first draft; I expect to swap quotes and images in and out as ideas occur. Feel free to offer ;) I may refactor some of the switches into transcluded subpages. Or not, as it's more straightforward to edit a single file. Jack Merridew 21:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

PS Without spilling the beans, I think I will be spared. thanks ;) Okip (formerly Ikip) 10:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that one vote from me is enough (in RfD:Sucker-trap), BUT...

I agree that one vote is enough from one person, but you struck out the wrong one :-)
You fixed ("erased") the last one -- and that is the place where my actual keep-argument is located!

Therefore I will erase your edit and then myself remove the first one of my two keep-votes !
--Seren-dipper (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I only erased the portion that repeated the word "Keep", not the rest of your comment. There's nothing to stop you commenting though.

All you have done is undone my edits. Please strike out either of your two votes, or I will revert you.   pablo_hablo. 12:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes! You did not actually erase it(Therefore i put the word in Quotation mark#Signaling unusual usage ("erased").
But I clearly stated, here above, that I would erase the correct one myself! So please be patient (15 minutes or so, because I do not edit that fast!) I will now try again.
--Seren-dipper (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Black sitcom

Widely used? Check the afd. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice job pruning, unfortunately now Mr. "Every Google hit belongs in the article at least once" is on the case a lengthy talkpage will be needed to restore sanity.   pablo_hablo. 17:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

please visit the concession stand

Hi. This message is to inform you that there is free popcorn available at wp:an. Pick up some today, and enjoy the show. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You couldn't make it up.

Beware!

February 2010

Using unnecessary swear words in edit summaries and comments and encouraging/excusing others doing so does not add to a WP:CIVIL academic environment. Please remember to only make mature edits. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hypocritical nitpicking at other's edits whilst failing to address one's own shortcomings is not conducive to the collaborative spirit. I have no experience of any academic institution which would condone the style of debate which you regularly manifest therefore will have to take your word for what you think an "academic environment" is.   pablo_hablo. 21:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette

Hello, Pablo X. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No doubt.   pablo_hablo. 22:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have (reluctantly, as this whole thing is even fucking sillier than the wording of your "warning") replied there.   pablo_hablo. 23:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

lolwut? no barnstar?

• Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports#Jack Merridew

Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The Fucking-Clue Barnstar!

Awarded for having a

Clue!

I'm awarding you this Fucking-Clue Barnstar for useful contributions to teh wikis and insightful observations about teh workings thereof.

“ I’m sorry if I offend you. But I don’t swear just for the hell of it. You see, I figure that language is a poor enough means of communication as it is. So we ought to use all the words we’ve got. Besides, there are damned few words that everybody understands. ” — From Inherit the Wind, by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank! I've never been to Austria, clearly it's a very friendly place.   pablo_hablo. 08:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Incubation graduate

This user played a significant role in helping Asa Amone graduate from incubation.

This user played a significant role in helping Andy Haigh graduate from incubation.

Since you graduated them yourself, you never got the proper credit (until now). In the future, you can set the status parameter of the AI template to "status=eval" to have someone look at the article(s) and promote it/them. :) Thanks for your efforts, ThaddeusB (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers! I did ask for a review of Asa Amone here (always best to get a second opinion) but will set the status flag in future.   pablo_hablo. 09:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Afghanistan is NOT a province of Pakistan. Afghanistan was created as a nation state in 1747, 200 years before Pakistan was created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.14.100 (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I never thought for one second that it was, but thanks for your input.   pablo_hablo. 00:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism of my talk page

Don't remove anything from any of my pages. Lara 12:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. It was unintentional, hence the self-revert.   pablo_hablo. 13:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking, this is the second time that someone "unintentionally" altered my user space in the past month or so. How exactly does that happen? Lara 18:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course I don't mind, but I have no idea about the other alteration.
Whilst waiting for a huge (>1GB) Photoshop file to save, I was looking at the subpages that make up your page, particularly {{User:Jennavecia/header}}. I cut the code to paste it into the search box. At some point though, I must have hit the 'enter' key.
Couple of minutes later I noticed the change on my watchlist, swore a bit, and undid it.   pablo_hablo. 20:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the details. I appreciate it. Lara 02:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You're entitled, (although I admit that I had hoped to get away with the quick revert rather than documenting my sausage-fingered brainfart in embarrassing detail).   pablo_hablo. 11:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Pablo

File:Freeballsagger.jpg

Sartorial crime is on the rise, unlike this guy's shorts

Nice to see you again. Care to add some pictures to this thread, as per User talk:Pablo X/Archive4#A view from under the bridge, and related comments? Okip 11:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If I can find, or make an appropriate one. Right now I have a lawn (well a patch of grass) to cut.   pablo_hablo. 11:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Beans.   pablo_hablo. 12:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Holy shit, you have had this up: User talk:Pablo X/Editnotice since february 28th?

Let me copy and paste it here, so in case you decide to delete it, it will always be here on your talk page for prosperity:

this maybe incredibly shocking too you, but I am not an attention hog, drama queen like many editors argue childofmidnight is. I don't go looking for sandcastles to kick over. So the extra attention that I am receiving is not welcome, and it is a little uncomfortable. The ANI was a who's who of powerful editors who don't care for me, and I don't care much for their opus morandi either.

Sad that JzG decided to break what I saw as a unannounced truce of sorts. He gave me a barnstar a while back, so I went completely silent about his "coulored" comments (with a "u"). My only surprise in this case was who was not there: Lar, Scott, etc. Maybe me leaving BLP alone after that crushing disappoint for me, was enough for them.

Bobbie Johnson of the guardian.co.uk is right, of course in his article "Wikipedia approaches its limits", its only a matter of time before you see me gone for good, voluntarily or otherwise. You have gods blessing, after all.

If some positive aspects can be dredged from this ANI, it is this:

1. I learned a few new ways editors demean other editors viewpoints. Facepalm, "Are you for real? How can you possibly think that's in any way appropriate?" We are, after all, erect cows, with a herd mentality, editors will read these comments and will get the idea in their mind that my comments are absurd, and not to be taken seriously. Say it enough repetitively, and most editors will start to believe it.
2. Also I love the reappearing, "Okip is a constant problem and we need to resolve this right away" theme. Clever but not a novel theme on wikipedia.
3. And finally, the forest being ignored for the trees. Once again I write some comments which are not very flattering about wikkipedia's inequality and they are largely ignored, again. This is only to be expected, many of those editors, after all have god on their side. Inequalities don't matter much when you are on the top, looking down.

This is becoming TLDR, even for me to read.

Let me re-read this posting. Yep, nothing serious which could be used against me later. I am sure there is some mock outrage which could be dredged from my words here, but I am very used to this opus morandi too.[4]I swear there was someone bringing up my edit history in the ANI, about how I didn't have enough article/main space edits, which is another fine example of bringing up irrelevant bullshit, which does me no harm, it only weakens the argument against me.

Please no "we only have the best interest of wikipedia in mind" responses. Okip 23:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Okip. Just a quick reply for now as there's somewhere I have to be.

The editnotice uses {{REVISIONUSER}}, it displays your username when you're editing, and mine when I'm editing. It isn't intended to imply that you're attention seeking, as it's not aimed at you specifically; it points at whoever's editing the page. Just a way of getting people to read the bit about talkbacks (I really, really, don't like them!)

I think the ANI close was a sensible one. It had drifted far from the canvassing issue and was turning into a RFC/U Lite™.

I've seen you mention inequality on WP a few times, and it is an interesting question which I will think about some more. But not now.

Re this ↓, no problem, make yourself at home but try and keep the place tidy while I'm out.   pablo_hablo. 06:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

oh, thats good, made me nervous, but got my attention, as was the intention. Have a great day, itching like crazy on arms and legs because of really bad reaction to medication. Okip 12:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I had not noticed {{REVISIONUSER}}, before. You see that it could be used to offer specific users their own editnotice for your talk page. That could be neet. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It had crossed my mind that it could be combined with conditional expressions for that personal browsing experience, but I couldn't be arsed. I found it because I was looking for something similar to Uncyclopedia's {{USERLINK}}, overused over there, (rightly) disabled over here. It displays the username of whoever's viewing, rather than editing, the page.^{example (read on toward the bottom of the page)}  pablo_hablo. (sometime on the 7th)

Dear Mr. Merridew

Pablo, I invited Jack Merridew over for a bit to chat, hope you don't mind.

Mr. Merridew, RE: Merridew's law, nice theory, I like it. I respect giving you credit where credit is due. Please fight more copyright/fair use arguments, I liked fervently supporting you and Lar's position much more than being of the opposing view.

Your personal photograph was a welcome change in the arbcom ruling, and I have to admit, it warmed my heart a bit.

I figure if JzG and Durova can grudgingly learn to respect each other, and even defend each other, there is hope for us. (I read somewhere in JzG's comments that they were once very much at odds, many of their views seem opposing)

And Jack Merridew, if Rootology can became an admin, I have to grudgingly acknowledge that there is even hope for your aspirations. Lets stay civil and maybe I will give you a weak support in a year or two, instead of approaching it like Kww's RFA. Okip 23:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Curious

Hi. More out of curiosity than anything else, I was just wondering what the benefit of putting the space in is. I can't see that it makes a difference whichever way it's done. Cheers, Steve ^T • C 10:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

it kind of doesn't, but may do in the future; current specs for markup language are to have a space in self-closing tags, so <references />, <hr />, <br /> etc.
Excellent article, by the way.   pablo_hablo. 12:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

(later) the answer above may be incomplete or incorrect, I've found some discussions that indicate it may be a backward- rather than forward-compatibility issue. I think it makes the code more legible, but that's obviously a personal preference. I will ask someone who knows a lot more about code (and its history).   pablo_hablo. 12:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It is current best practice to include the space. The trailing slash is flat-out required on wiki-tags such as <reference /> and <ref name="fanboi-net" /> and the space does increase legibility. XHTML requires the trailing slash on all empty elements^cite and setting it off with a space is recommended^cite for maximal backwards compatibility with HTML user agents.

For html embedded in wikitext, such as <br>, the closing slash and any space is optional, as MediaWiki will currently generate them if they are omitted. At some point (I'd say about a year), MediaWiki will be generating HTML5 for typical user agents and html5 doesn't necessarily require either the closing slash or the space; it will, however, have an xhtml mode that will maintain all of the XML syntax rules for well-formedness.^cite I expect we'll be sticking to the XML syntax as most standards-aware developers prefer the robustness that this entails.

I always include the space and the trailing slash, as well as other good practices such as properly quoting attributes, as a matter of readability and consistency. It also serves to educate others by example. Whitespace generally does not hurt and does aid in reading markup. This is why I prefer to arrange citations on multiple lines. Folks who prefer to scrunch things all up are often doing so because they're using a small display and the default preferences in the "editing" tab; try setting "Size of editing window" to at least "80×40" and check "Widen the edit box to fill the entire screen". For a lot of edits, I use an external editor and a much larger window.

For updates on where wiki-things are going, it helps to read techblog.wikimedia.org once in a while. In the name of usability, things will move further away from code; this is, really, what wiki markup is; html for dummies.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Pablo and Jack. That's very interesting stuff. I've seen editors' doing this before, but didn't think anything of it, other than it must be a tidiness/legibility preference. I hadn't considered it could be a compatibility issue. Three years on Wikipedia; I should have checked earlier. :-) On that second-to-last aside, Jack, regarding your preference for arranging citations on multiple lines, I'm a template scruncher myself. Not because of having small display (I write major edits in an external program too), but because I'm so used to wikitext by now that I read it as part of a sentence and perceive almost unconsciously how it will appear on the page. When I'm copy-editing, maintaining that flow as I parse the text is a definite boon. Thanks again for the detailed replies. All the best, Steve ^T • C 19:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, Steve, pleased to meet you. A lot of it is really about legibility, as it's a pretty rare browser that would stumble over a missing space, these days. The HTML Compatibility Guidelines were written years ago and most likely had quite antiquated browsers in mind. One sort of niche user agent that are notorious for lagging behind are screen readers, so there's an accessibility aspect. I've lived for years in far-off undeveloped countries and a lot of the world has really poor connections and for-shite computers. Anyone's supposed to be able to edit, but everyone's also supposed to be able to read this this site.

For simple templates, like {{fact}}, I keep things inline, but for the more verbose ones, such as citations, I put them in a vertical arrangement; this diff has an example near the top of how I tend to format those. I can read them inline, of course, but such formatting makes things readable for others. Did you follow the techblog link? The current top post is about "Template folding". Seems people are intimidated by too much code in their edit box. Would you invoke {{Infobox settlement}} all scrunched on one line (prolly not;). Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Steve, did you know that you can store named references within the {{reflist}} template and call them from there? This has the benefit of making text-heavy articles easier to read in edit mode, as all that appears in the text is the call <ref name="foo" />
This is particularly useful for references where the URL is very long like the first one in this list.   pablo_hablo. 07:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Wife selling article

Please see [5] GlooscapSinclair (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but if you are going to leave messages like this on multiple editors' talk pages, you need to make sure that you have notified everyone involved in the discussion. Otherwise it looks like canvassing   pablo_hablo. 16:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Something (possibly) unconnected with anything

Instead of making accusations, why aren't you working on keeping good editors here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.135.36.1 (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You will have to provide a little more context, I have no idea what you're talking about.   pablo_hablo. 21:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Something else again

Special:Contributions/94.4.38.124 I agree the style is familiar. However there is little point in blocking this IP address as it is one of many that a Sky account will provide (you can look up the provider with a whois (http://whois.domaintools.com/ or similar). If you spot repeated edits via socks on that page, let me know and I'll block IP and new user edits to the article. -- PBS (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Your Post ...

O Noes! the free-roaming tumbleweed of wild accusation (salsolus bollocksensis) is marooned on the fence of proof (obstaculum shitorgetoffpottus)

I am working on a formal investigation; the evidence may not convince you yet, but it's also incomplete at the moment. I'll refrain from "baiting" or being "snarky", though, since finally some attention is being given to the situation. You can post on my talk page anytime, incidentally, and I won't remove it, I guarantee you. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I am delighted to hear it, and look forward to the results of your investigations.
I tend to leave messages on my talk page also, though this is not everybody's choice: as far as deleting talk page messages goes, this and this are instructive.   pablo_hablo. 08:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I know you're allowed to erase stuff on your talk page, and that it's not against policy. I personally think it's quite lame, though, and I'd rather defend myself than erase any allegation against me; bring 'em on, I say. Cheers, and thanks... :> Doc9871 (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

popcorn and ale to be served ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

breath not to be held, and watch out for the tumbleweeds ...   pablo_hablo. 19:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I inhaled — how else am I supposed to know who I am? ;) Jack Merridew 19:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

... guess that means you're not Bill Clinton, either ...

... ... NO! that would mean … Hillary. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

for fixing this. The tool used to work to fill all of that in. Then my browser crashed and I had to reboot. I appreciate it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Technology's a fine thing, until it doesn't work.   pablo_hablo. 20:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:A Nobody

Your comment of "Hasn't scrambled e-mail password." in this edit summary makes no sense. If A Nobody emailed Dream Focus‎ off-wiki and asked him to blank User talk:A Nobody because he scrambled his password and can no longer login to blank it himself then let Dream Focus‎ blank it. All this silly edit warring [6] is doing nothing but filling people's watchlists (including mine). --Tothwolf (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A Nobody knows what he needs to do. Despite that we have the needless triangulations of "Dream Focus says that A Nobody asked that blah blah blah". You're correct on one point though, it's not worth space in anyone's watchlist.   pablo_hablo. 23:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering the comments I just read on User talk:Dream Focus (permalink) I'm beginning to understand why A Nobody gave up on Wikipedia and left in the first place. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Health reasons I believe.   pablo_hablo. 08:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally

I now notice that the e-mail option on A Nobody's account is gone. Therefore he cannot be e-mailed by the MediaWiki software about delivery of the Signpost and other newsletters.

However, in order to remove the e-mail option he would have had to log in, so clearly his scrambled password was not quite as scrambled as he had thought. There is absolutely no reason for Dream Focus or any other proxy editor to remove content from his talkpage.   pablo_hablo. 18:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I noted that as well. Did you actually verify that e-mail was enabled before? I've never had a desire to e-mail him, so I didn't check.—Kww(talk) 18:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it was, although I've never e-mailed him either. My recall may be influenced by the fact that I know he's in regular e-mail contact with a number of editors and, as I understand it, he would need to have 'enable e-mail from other users' checked in order to receive spam about his newsletters (which is how this latest kerfuffle started).   pablo_hablo. 18:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Disabling email from other users does not preclude requesting a new password be sent. This is all par for the course. And I have emailed him, so it was enabled (circa '08, dunno about last month). Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Always best to have documentary evidence. So far as I can tell no log is kept that would allow anyone to prove that he has logged in after claiming to have lost his password.—Kww(talk) 20:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you weren't following Today's events.—Kww(talk) 21:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, I had spotted that.   pablo_hablo. 22:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems an appropriate section heading to post under ;)

• m:User talk:Rlevse#Permanent lack of access to accounts on Wikipedia
  a farewell from a nobody, who posted it to all the en:arbs over there.

Happy editing and tanks 4 all teh fish, Jack Merridew 07:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What an extremely confusing message. It defies attempts to get a definite view of what he'll be doing in the future.   pablo_hablo. 09:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

huh? I never realised you were a sock of Risker's:

• m:User talk:Risker#Permanent lack of access to accounts on Wikipedia

or is it the other way round? Cheers, User talk:Thomas Jerome Newton 11:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't joke, such comments are taken as evidence in some circles. pablo 11:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've made a bunch of such minor edits with the accounts I still recall the passwords of, to confirm things. I should go make an acknowledging edit there, too. A lot of this was from when I was being CU'd. I had forgotten that p/w. You recognize the name? I'm looking to recast those old account user pages as I did on Commons; ex: Commons:User:Davenbelle. Cheers, User talk:Wayang kulit 11:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

← I had to look it up, been a long time since I read that book, and I don't think I've seen the film (seems like I should have done, but I don't recall it at all).   pablo_hablo. 12:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Long time for me, too; movie's good, too, certainly word having. See also: Wayang kulit. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Z.

Forget about it/her. You won't get thru unless you agree 99.9% with her. Let her go and work out her grief by herself as she showed that she likes to be the "victim". There is no sense in trying to help such people unless you're part of her close family. Just my honest 2 cents but of course, you need to make up your own mind.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

PS: "It" refers to the issue, not her, just so there is no misunderstanding from her as I'm not talking about Steven King.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right. I was going to suggest that as Z was on a 2-week break from mainspace she might want to use that time to actually dig up diffs for the various insults that she keeps mentioning "bitch" and "cunt" aren't appropriate ways to refer to other editors (whether or not they claim to be female).   pablo_hablo. 08:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That swearing idiot was nothing more than a vandal (and a possible sock, most likely that IP that was blocked for two weeks after several warnings from several editors after I brought it to MLauba's attention). When one editor is called names s/he has to take steps by his/her own and not expect other editors to act on her behalf. Z. is trying to do this for a long time and even trying to connect editors in good standing to those that vandal. That is just the tip of the iceberg. Could I give you diffs for her behavior? Of course I could (and if you ask me I'll do so) but Z., for month by now, is promising diffs with the excuse that she has to learn the "how to do" despite getting plenty of help from involved and uninvolved editors. Gosh, she even got a step by step instruction by "her favorite MoMK editor", the "only one being on her side" or better said, the only one she she's on her POV side. She'll run into trouble as soon as her block expires, wanna bet? There is no calming down from her side. As an example, I recently got a thank you from her (which was quite stunning for me to take serious at the time) but it didn't lasted long. It lasted till I made an edit to the page in question (and no, I didn't reverse her edit) to get the same old crap (excuse my French) as usual. The same old that everyone gets who "steps on her POV". In my opinion, unfortunately there is no "cure", no chance of her changing even a bit. She'll go on with her legal threats and else. Won't bother to pile it up here. You don't believe me that it is that bad? Check out her edit history (and don't forget her previous accounts. If in doubt, ask me about whatever you'd like. Unlike her, I don't make accusations I can't back up. Well, now you kinda should know how I and other editors who have to deal with her feel. Sorry for dumping all this on you but I had a really bad day in real live and here you are, getting the whole mud thrown at you. My honest apologies for that, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. No, please don't dig up diffs, I tried to suggest something she could do about the insults, and I don't think you, or I, or anyone else has any obligation to do anything else.
Hope you have a better day.  pablo_hablo. 08:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

trivia

So, is your user ID a semi-subtle reference to Pablo "Cruz"? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hell no. Your deductive powers must have omitted to take a left turn at Albuquerque.   pablo_hablo. 20:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It could be though, yes? [X = cross = cruz] :)

You're right, I failed to make that turn at the El Izquierdo Truck Stop. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Could have been, but wasn't. A friend and I were once drinking 'Dos Equis' beers and, staring at the label he said "Does it mean ... two horses?". A reasonable question were it not for the two giant red Xs printed on the label.   pablo_hablo. 21:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Close thread?

Hi, Pablo. Could you consider closing this ANI thread as multiple users have suggested? I'm beginning to feel a bit intimidated the wrath of a few people insisting that I'm harassing them, despite the fact that I'm just not, and there appears to be a consensus of the fact.

I picked you as a random admin who commented in the discussion; if you think that you should be recused from closing it, perhaps you could commission someone neutral to do so? Thanks, ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 21:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

While I think it could have been closed a while ago, (and probably should have) I'm not an admin, sorry!   pablo_hablo. 21:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha, sorry! ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 21:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I've attempted to kickstart the process, we'll see what happens. I can see that it's annoying for you, but there's no substance to those accusations.   pablo_hablo. 21:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

MoMK

As a contributor at the MoMK article and/or talk page, please take a look at the new draft and the draft's talkpage and voice your opinion. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll try and get a solid chunk of time to go through it.   pablo_hablo. 00:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Philip

If you nominate obscure killer Philip Markoff, I will strongly consider supporting it. Philip is an obscure BLP1E violation who already has a Murder of -- article. In my opinion, there are conflicting rules on Amanda Knox but the reasons for Philip are clearer. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that it's a BLP violation, nominate away. But despite what may be contained in any other article, I cannot see what there is to hang an independent Knox article on at the moment. Nor has anyone suggested what there might be.   pablo_hablo. 21:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Kercher

Hi Pablo,

Chemical analysis revealed slight footprints in the flat, which prosecutors said matched the feet of Knox[41] and Sollecito.[citation needed] Both admitted to having been in the flat the day after the murder, and claimed that this was when they stepped in the blood.[citation needed] Knox's DNA was found mixed with Kercher's blood in the footprints and elsewhere in the apartment.[42]

Since they're always called luminol-footprints, I didn't see, why it should be called "chemical substance" here.

I miss a reference here where Amanda and Raffaele are saying, they stepped in blood, I've never read that before. Without any reference, why is this a fact here?. Also, forensic analyst Stefanioni testified, she didn't test the footprints for blood, which I consider an important information. I'm sure I could find a reference for it, this is a known and undisputed fact though. There was defenitely no blood found in the footprints, like I said, they weren't even tested for blood. There was blood mixed with Knox's DNA found in other places, not in the footprints though …

So I think I was nearer to the truth with my version … —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aruu (talk • contribs) 20:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well Luminol is certainly a chemical used to reveal blood. Do we know that the Italian police refer to it by that name? Do we know that this is what was used in this case?
This article attracts quite a lot of attention from people who have their own ideas about "the truth"; all facts, even "known and undisputed" ones, need solid references.   pablo_hablo. 20:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the footprints are called "luminol footprints" in literally every article you'll find about this case, so I thaught it adds to clarity if people are reading about it here as well …

Facts … you know, there were so many things written in this case which were totally false, so the mere reference to an article mostly doesn't even help in this case, because all the articles, they will contradict each other as well.

Here however is my reference for the fooprints, it's an article by Steve Moore, a retired FBI-Agent;

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI6.html

excerpt:

These footprints, however, were detected with luminol. Recapping, now; after luminol detection, a forensic investigator then……

1. Tests for blood (after all, that’s what you’re looking for), and

2. Tests for DNA. (If it IS blood, you want to know whose it is).

Patrizia Stafanoni of the Polizia Scientifica, who perpetrated this debacle, instead tested only for DNA. Only for DNA? You are looking for blood and you get a hit that could be blood or any of a dozen different substances, including bleach, and you don’t test to see if you hit the jackpot? It begs the question of incompetence or intent. Regardless, the DNA testing showed that whatever the substance was; Meredith’s DNA was not in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aruu (talk • contribs) 20:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This is best discussed on the talkpage of the article itself.   pablo_hablo. 12:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI discussion about User talk:Zlykinskyja

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hello, Pablo X. I have notified you since your username appears in the context of the complaint. SuperMarioMan 20:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.   pablo_hablo. 15:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Halle Berry

Oh the pain!

• WP:ANI#obstruction of ref clean-up

fyi, since you commented in the thread concerning this ;) Jack Merridew 20:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Reversions reasons given by Gimme*.* have to be some of the lamest gubbins I have ever seen.  pablo 08:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Something's fishy; I'm currently thinking about the idea of a compromised account. See [7] and [8]; sure, the first sample is small, but that says two very different locations. and 789? Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC) then teh edit summary has me in fits of laughter...

odd, but a small sample as you say; could be insomnia, for example.  pablo 11:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I posted it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamiecocopops. And changed ↓↓ to {{clear}}, as templates are good, as need saying at ANI... Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

←I believe this needs to go to an rfc or similar; the advice on wp:cite is so wooly and outdated as to be clearly open to pointy and owny behaviour. And moar impoartant - messy text.

There's two issues; use of citation templates and use of list-style refs.

I don't know all the specific benefits of citation templates (apart from separating style from content which is always good) but list-style refs seem like a series of no-brainers to me;

• a named reference can be reused within an article therefore it should be best practice to name references
• a named reference can be called from anywhere in an article therefore it should be best practice to group them together; easier to find and maintain if they are within the {{reflist}} section
• Text is far, far, easier to read and edit if it simply contains the likes of <ref name="someref" /> rather than the actual text of the reference, which can be extensive, particularly where there is a quotation within.

Next step? RFC or talk on wp:cite or both?  pablo 10:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Larkin 25

Please stop editing the article I am about to merge the 'larkin With Toads' article into it, having been preparing it. Please check your edits in about 10 minutes time, after the merger. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Carry on.  pablo 09:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm done now, I think the copy that I pulled out to work on was just after Steve Quinn's 09:14 (Other cultural trails and educational activities) section deletion edit. I hadn't noticed you were editing until I was about to submit my redirect of the 'larkin with Toads' article, luckily I checked before I did it, as I tend to work with each article open on seperate tabs. :) Richard Harvey (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. You may know this but there's an {{inuse}} template which is handy if you need a bit of solo time with an article.  pablo 09:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I do now. :) Thanks! Richard Harvey (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Found another one for your SPA-list

• Sunshinelover (talk · contribs) - first edit 02.07.2010, first edit at MoMK 12.08.2010 ---TMCk (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, JSL5871 is indeff blocked since September 9 [9].TMCk (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I spotted that one today, thanks!  pablo 19:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick hint before I have to leave. Jonathancjudd (talk · contribs) should be added too to keep it even. A Spa is a Spa.TMCk (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, however I was looking at the more recent registrations, who turned up more or less en bloc. Which is why Zylkinska (which is probably not how it's spelt) doesn't feature. Not really sure the list serves any great purpose any more though. pablo 20:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Pablo

You have a message here, please help ---> Fusion is the future (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to leave me a message, here is the place to do it. I am not much interested in a message that points me to another location to read another message.  pablo 12:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ain't and amn't

Would you look into the naming dispute here? -- Evertype·✆ 08:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Michael, I completely missed this message. The solution thrashed out seems a good one though.  pablo 14:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Engin again

Could you tell me what the source is for File:Atilla Engin Copenhagen Jazz Conservatory Students As Cultural Ambassador.jpg? It was scanned from a magazine by the looks of it, presumably the copyright holder who has released it is the magazine's publisher. And yet you are listed as the author, which seems odd.  pablo_hablo. 09:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• This is OTRS request. I threw an e-mail to the user. Waiting for reply and what to do. --taysin (message) 12:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Has permission to OTRS. Read permission to enter the ticket number 2010092610004699 has a permissions-tr. Do not have permission required to wait a bit (permissions-tr to permissions-commons) --taysin (message) 14:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AfD and mergers

You may be interested in WP:AfD and mergers or the list of relevant discussions at WT:AfD and mergers#Discussions. Flatscan (talk) 04:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I am. There's a lot to chew on there!  pablo 20:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, Friend of Jack Merridew

Jack insinuated that it might be of value for us to introduce ourselves to each other. I'm Sven Manugard, pleased to meet you. By the way, I love your collection of quotes. You might wish to wander over to User:Sven Manguard/Fun and Interesting for my collection of odd and humorous content. Finally, I'd really love to hear the story behind "This user has somehow managed to accuse himself of vandalism." If you care to share, I'd happily oblige to listen. Cheers, Sven Manguard _Talk 18:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well hello. Cheers, I'll have a look at your collection. The vandalism thing was basically inept use of Twinkle; I reverted a vandal,^diff realised I had to go back further to find a good edit, reverted self as a vandalism edit,^diff finally got it right.^diff  pablo 22:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Well considering that I've seen someone block himself, and read the wall of shame that listed admins that deleted the main page, and read Jimbo Wales' block log, so none of this is nearly as bad. Besides, I'm pretty sure I've done the same thing to myself that you illustrated above. Sven Manguard _Talk 23:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Viola (trawler)

Nice article! The infobox could be improved by forcing line breaks at each change of name and owner. Adding flags and port of registry where known (use correct flag for time period!) and Code Letters if these are known. RV Belgica (1884) and SS Empire Conyngham will give you an idea of what I mean, note change of flag in the latter example! Mjroots (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - those articles pointed me at the searchable Lloyd's register, but sadly I can only access this between 1930 and 1945 so I'm still no wiser about later ports of registry (apart from observing that she was registered in Buenos Aires as "Dias") or official number, code letters etc.  pablo 21:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I've marked here where I think she was re-registered, possibly anyway, and as you can see, 1930-45 isn't much help!  pablo 00:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

PET Project

I was curious to see what WP had on this term, only to find it redirected to something totally off-topic.

Typing "pet project" or "Pet project" into the search box activates this redirect.

Should something be done about the redirect?

The Transhumanist    21:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting, maybe it should!  pablo 22:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool trick

How did you do that page notice thing at the top of the edit page?

The Transhumanist    21:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If you create a page at User talk:The Transhumanist/Editnotice it will appear when anyone edits the page.  pablo 22:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Just tried it with yours (copy/paste). Interesting. Another new feature. They keep sneaking up on me. Hard to keep up with them all. I really like the new search engine features though. Discovered them a few days ago. Sad part is, they added those over 9 months ago. See Help:Searching#Search engine features. Very powerful, even has boolean support. I've been using google for this, but they now automatically block multiple uses of "allintitle:" The Transhumanist    22:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the search features have been beefed up, good to know.  pablo 22:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Not just beefed. You can also specify most searches in the form of links, which makes them even more powerful. Before, you could use external links with Google search URLs in them, but now Google blocks those. But with internal links, you can read and edit the links much easier. They really come in handy for surveying many subjects. All you have to do is copy/paste the links and change the subject names, or take a list of subject links, and add the search code to each of them using WikEd's search/replace feature. Then you can load all the searches into separate tabs using Linky. The Transhumanist    22:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are some examples of search links:

• Special:Search/intitle:"Hockey"
• Special:Search/intitle:"Ice hockey"
• Special:Search/intitle:"Ice hockey" -team -championships -Paralympics -Olympics

I can't get it to acknowledge parentheses, to remove the titles with "(ice hockey)" at the end of the title. Like all those names like this: Steve Smith (ice hockey).

The Transhumanist    22:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Recurring problem

I've been working on the outline project since 2005 (before they were called "outlines").

Something that happens every so often, is that somebody who doesn't understand outlines comes along and tries to destroy them and the project. I've had to defend the project against many such individuals over the years.

You mentioned that you didn't understand outlines. I'm very interested in understanding this un-understanding, so that the outlines can be improved to alleviate this problem.

So, I'd like to ask you some questions, if you don't mind, that is...

Here's the first one:

What is it about outlines that you don't understand?

The Transhumanist    22:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that I didn't understand outlines. What I said was

I neither understand nor share your enthusiasm for "Outlines"

which is quite a different thing.  pablo 22:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the enthusiasm comes from envisioning their potential (they are parseable), with software enhancements (via javascript, etc.), from using outliners myself for so many years. We have enough outlines that it comprises a system of outlines, worthy of vigorously testing outline viewing and processing enhancements on, but I'm too busy maintaining the outlines to pull away to develop the software. Catch 22.  :(

The Transhumanist    23:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

So outlines are a solution looking for a problem, perhaps.  pablo 23:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Normal service will be resumed ...

{{adminhelp}} I am currently caught up in an autoblock with no access to e-mail either. Is there any way of obtaining an exemption?  pablo 15:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The autoblock finder doesn't show one for you: what message do you get when you try to edit? JohnCD (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I too have failed to find any evidence of a block affecting this account. Check if you can edit now, and if not then follow JohnCD's suggestion of quoting the exact message you get, and restore the {{adminhelp}} tag. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I can edit now, but am on a different IP so I assume it has been lifted or revoked. Thanks. But the other IP is a shared proxy (work) so this may happen again. Will IP block exemption ensure that this doesn't happen again? The other IP range I edit from is shared by thousands of users, at least one of whom is a vandal, and I prefer this not to happen again.  pablo 20:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

and another one

{{adminhelp}} See above; I am autoblocked again. Autoblock exemption would be nice.  pablo 09:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see no evidence of an autoblock - could you please paste the exact message you receive? Then we can look into it more. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to paste the IP here, I've e-mailed you, and the blocking admin. However I am unable to read e-mail replies so please answer here.  pablo 10:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've received your email, and am looking into it now... -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've checked the log but although I can find the actual block referred to, I can't see the autoblock for the IP you gave me. However, I am going to make you IP Block exempt - let me know if there are still problems. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks Steve, I'll let you know.  pablo 11:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

MMN ANI notification

He did notify him, it just wound up in a previous ANI section. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers - I'd missed that.  pablo 21:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Pearl and the Puppets

According to their myspace it is a band (like Selena Gomez & the Scene). This band should not be moved since Katie has no solo career. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 08:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur, I think I had confumbled your edits whith another editor's.  pablo 08:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Atilla Engin

Hey Pablo, remember working on that article? Check the recent history for shits and giggles. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh lordy. Thanks, I'll keep an eye on it. pablo 09:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

later Oh lordy³. I really do not know what is the best thing to do here; and I note that it's not just Engin. pablo 22:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Pablo, in the section on my talk page about the article, a Turkish/German editor, Gemalmaz, left me a note, expressing some dissatisfaction with what has happened to the article: "Fusion ist Future hat sich in die Sache gemischt und sehr viele Probleme sind aufgetaucht." They pointed me to the German wiki. Now, that article has problems of its own (my correspondent is the main editor), esp. in terms of NPOV language, and it does suffer from some excessive detail, but there is also material there worth looking into and incorporating. Please have a looksee and tell me what you think.

I'm spending way more time on this than I wanted, but I guess it's all for the best--and I really appreciate your helping out; I can't tell you how pleased I was to see your notes on the talk page, since I hadn't looked at the article since August, when I ran into it by chance and corresponded with Gemalmaz. Now, they are a rather unexperienced editor but they have lots of good will, and before Fusion got involved, it really wasn't that bad. I'll get back to it, soon, but in the meantime I thought I'd let you know what Gemalmaz told me, and how much I value your input. Later, Drmies (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No time at the moment, but briefly - I saw the German article a while ago, and pointed Fusion ITF at it as an example of a saner, more logical layout.^diff Like most of my comments and suggestions on the talkpage it did no good, apart from help get me accused of ageism, "racial profiling" and sundry other crimes. I will have another look later. I now know more about Engin than I ever wanted to. pablo 16:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You know, maybe it's really good music. It better be! At any rate, we can feel good about increasing or improving the coverage of what I think is an underdeveloped area on the English wiki--Turkish culture. Take care, Drmies (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, but right now I don't want to listen to it (although I am a fan of both Niels-Henning Pedersen, and Zakir Hussain, who both had mentions in various versions of the article). Actually the Turkish article (I read German a bit but Turkish not at all) looks to have a decent layout too. I wonder why Fusion...etc does not write in their native language, whatever that might be. pablo 20:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirect pages

Just an FYI, remember the # in front of the word REDIRECT when redirecting pages. I fixed all the ones that were improperly formatted. Cheers!! jsfouche ☽☾Talk 22:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - some bad pasting on my part. (Come to think of it, bad copying; the pasting was excellent) pablo 22:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL!!! jsfouche ☽☾Talk 22:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

inre Hidalgo: La historia jamás contada

  removed{{talkback}} message.

Outlines MfD

I haven't !voted or otherwise expressed an opinion on the deletion proposal one way or another, so I'm perplexed as to how your !vote is "per Cybercobra". --Cybercobra (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

So you haven't, I hastily confused your comment with the one above. Sorry. pablo 21:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Fail

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please try and be civil on the Murder of Meredith Kurcher article discussion page. You have been repeatedly rude, insulting and have distorted other people's views. You make comments with no content merely to spew your vitriol on others. I would appreciate it if you stop and remove your latest comment from the article discussion page and instead talk about it either here or on my page.63.209.178.11 (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please try and stick to comments about the article itself (and the putative Amanda Knox article, of course) instead of casting aspersions on other editors, as you did there, and continue to do here. pablo 22:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that I disagree with your view of events. I came in and made an observation/comment, and you attacked me with sarcasm and deliberately distorted my views. I responded in a similar tone (without the lack of dishonesty) but tried to make substantive comments as well to get the discussion back on track. You maintained beligerence.

With others, as well, I generally match their tone (assuming it is not a tone which violates WP ploicy on civility) but try to get the conversation back on course.

Your latest addition to that article did nothing but insult me despite the fact that I have repeatedly made and cogent arguments and have fairly addressed others' arguments. This despite the fact that almost no one has followed up on my critiques of their arguments.63.209.178.11 (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that your editing is, in general, 'without a lack of dishonesty'. I would prefer that you discuss the possibilities of an Amanda Knox article back on the talk page whence you came however, where you can find other editors who may wish to reply to you. pablo 22:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Touche. Shame on me for the unsuccessful attempt of the triple negative.63.209.178.11 (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Holy cow. I make an honest observation on a website and you repeatedly attack me. I continue to have civil and substantive conversations after you leave, but you re-insert yourself into the conversation for the sole purpose of insulting me. And you call me a troll?!? You are more dishonest than I originally thought.

I try to take your insults offline so that disruptions to the the article discussion are minimized, and you rename my comments on your board to further insult me. You are a bigger jerk than I originally thought.63.209.178.11 (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thanks!

Thank you

I am the IP from the Kercher talk page. I wanted to thank you for your gracious not on my talk page. I will endeavor to be more civil myself.LedRush (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and have a happy end-of-year celebration period. pablo 07:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Well...

Nothing to see here. Dedicated readers can find clues in this discussion.

nothing to see here
the tumbleweed rolls along
straight into a fence

Silk purse from Sow's ear...

Charm School

You and I as lovers
Were nothing but a farce
Trying to make a silk purse
Out of a sow's arse

Elvis Costello

In view of our recent dicsussion, HERE is an example of what one experienced editor felt was "junk" enough to nominate for deletion... little content... no sourcing... and pretty much a useless stub. But I am not one to take present state as representative of potential state... and so, after finding the sources the nomintor alluded to in his nomination... and more besides... I was able to use the sorry stub as the base for building a decent little start article that is now in no danger of being deleted. Could I have opined for deletion due to poor efforts on the part of its author? Sure. Could I have opined a delete because no one else improved the article? Sure. Could I have then started entirely from scratch? Sure... but then I'd have an recreation title that was negatively flagged as recreation of deleted content... and/or have to go to DRV and argue for allowing the recreated and improved article to remain... had it been deleted as junk and had I somehow decided to write an article on a film of which I had never before heard. What is worisome in the above example, is that the nominator DID properly tag it for concerns... tags which might through regular editing have led to the article being improved over time and with community effort... but only 2 minutes after so tagging, he changed his mind, decided it as unsalvable, deleted his tags, and nominated it for deletion. While yes, there is much that may be unsalvable... proactive efforts to recognize and address fixable issues in building an encyclopedia is entirely as WP:IMPROVEIT encourages. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I know the work that you do, and no argument with it; improvement is improvement. No matter how many times 'AfD is not cleanup' gets quoted, it quite often is exactly that – AfD tags elicit a response that cleanup tags don't. It would be nice if more people patrolled the categories that cleanup tags generate. YOTEL has recently been 'rescued' despite not being at AfD, for instance. pablo 09:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice job. Now I have to give thoughts to a humorous WP:Send the junk to wikia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It's got to happen, and I'm kicking some ideas around (slowly) here, feel free to use that as a sandbox if you want. In the common speech of rough northeners such as myself it's usually a sow's arse (see Elvis quote above right).
Also there is another useful saying - "you can't polish a turd". With the best will in the world some articles are ill-conceived or just plain worthless. pablo 01:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Silk Purse Award

		Silk Purse Award
		I am both pleased and honored to present you with the Silk Purse Award in appreciation for your assistance with improvements to the Banana powder article, essentially changing what was seen as a sow's ear, and helping to make it into a terrific silk purse. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

My contribution there was minimal, but thanks anyway! pablo 08:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)