User talk:TFOWR/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
	Archive 1	Archive 2

Gaelic

I except the wording in its present form HOWEVER Gaelic is an old language. Hardly any one speaks it and it is dyeing out. This makes my statement perfectly CORECT. just because i am tired of wikipedia being incorrect and people from nowhere who declare they know more than other people because they have account where they decree what it right and wrong. Just make shoer that EVERYTHING you wright is correct down to the letter and then you have a right to criticize summon else how Actually knows more than one language and can actually speak it.END of argument.Alekey81.132.81.191 (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this is apropos of what? I edit quite a few articles where Gaelic is relevant... Wikipedia is based around verifiability, so the problem you identify tends to be less of an issue than you might expect. Incidentally, I tend to discount arguments that rely on CAPITALS to make their point ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agread whit what you right and your still a arse about it. Have you sean this because he is talking about you [[1]] Alekey81.132.81.191 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm being an "arse" about it because I don't know what article you're talking about - sorry! The YouTube link won't load for me at the moment, I guess when it does I'll learn who "he" is, why he'd be talking about me, and what all of this is about! (Or... hint... you could just put me out of misery and tell me what this is about?) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: seen the YouTube video of "me". I wish I knew what article it is you're talking about, because you're clearly very upset. If I've offended you enough to draw comparisons with Hitler, then I apologise, but I really can't imagine a Gaelic-related article where things get that heated. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Paolo Nutini

I'm pleased your attempt at getting the Paolo Nutini "Sunny Side Up" page closed was a failure. It's a good album. Just 'cause you don't like it doesn't mean there shouldn't be a page for it. Good day. Paul237 14:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

At the time you nominated it, there was already ample information about the album. Take iTunes for example. You could pre-order it on there weeks ago and it had the tracklisting and cover art on there. I'm just saying to please research things thoroughly before you blindly nominate them for deletion. Thank you. Paul237 21:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It just smacks of wanting to difficult and meddle. Plus you were proven wrong, so surely that's evidence enough. Cheers. Paul237 22:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

I'm just saying in this case you were wrong, and I feel you should apologise for that. I'm not even a Paolo Nutini fan; stop assuming I am. I merely went there to find out a bit more about the album and was rather alarmed to see it had been nominated for deletion. Pages should only be nominated for deletion when they're clearly inaccurate or don't follow the Wiki guidelines. You clearly knew nothing about the album (if you had, you would have left the page alone, as you'd have realised that official details had already been released by then). So if anyone's being over zealous it's you, mate. And I can see from this page that this is far from the first time you've riled people up with inaccurate actions on this site. Cheers. Paul237 23:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Oh well. It's clear we're not going to agree on this. I stand by my original point, but we're just going round in circles. Discussion over. You can delete this section now, since it's just between us two and I doubt anyone else cares. Cheers.Paul237 00:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It'll get archived at some point; I don't delete threads because I believe in transparency. Even historic threads are available in the archives above. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

On the wannabe admin guy

I've been a bit nicer, given a neutral- for trying!Willski72 (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. Best RfA ever! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Its nice to see that hardly anyone takes it seriously!Willski72 (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:This flag once was red/27RFAreason

User:This flag once was red/27RFAreason, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:This flag once was red/27RFAreason and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:This flag once was red/27RFAreason during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. Alas, my first deleted article! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Thank you

I was tempted to remove his latest reversion myself, but although I view him as a vandal others may disagree and object to my fourth revert. O Fenian (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(No problem. Bizarre behaviour, I'll try and keep an eye out for it in future. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

I think one of these may be more useful than a trout in Mr Taz's case.. O Fenian (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Your "consensus"

Well as I told to Bosonic dressing, maybe you should read consensus. The WikiProject Geography or WikiProject Countries can't change all maps without consent with WikiProject Africa, South America, North America for example, and these ones with the Countries' talk pages. Can you tell me what kind of behaviour are you accusing me here, there are not a consensus version on a number of articles, your posted is not a general consensus, those all general changes must be approved before by all WikiProjects. --TownDown ^{How's it going?} 22:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied - my concern is about two parties edit warring, not about consensus. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

Well, maybe you and Bosonic dressing think that can change all maps without approval, don't forget that there's not a general consensus, your multiple messages in many articles are not a general consensus or just one consensus to changes all maps in all continents in all countries and almost all English Wikipedia just because your messages without approval by multiples users registered in their WikiProjects.--TownDown ^{How's it going?} 23:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. I don't think I should change anything without consensus, and indeed I haven't. You're confusing two issues - your edit warring, and my attempts to gather consensus for a future change. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

Users like Bosonic dressing think so, if you're currently trying to gather consensus for an entirely different map, then you shouldn't say "pre-existing consensus", prove that multiple pre-existing consensus, because remember that Bosonic dressing changed South American maps, African maps, European maps and it needs a multiple consensus approved not "trying to gather consensus" as you said. --TownDown ^{How's it going?} 23:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. You still seem to be confusing two separate issues. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

Please, tell me where's it that Pre-existing consensus to change all maps in all continents in all countries. --TownDown ^{How's it going?} 23:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. It isn't, but that shouldn't (and didn't) stop you from changing the maps. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

Can you tell me where's it that global consensus to change all the maps?, where's it?, where's it?.--TownDown ^{How's it going?} 00:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. Strawman. I didn't change "all the maps", and I don't believe that there was a "global consensus" to do so. You changed many maps, so you'd be better placed to answer the question, anyway. And really, there's no need to have the same conversation in two separate places - pick one and stick to it. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Where's it? the consensus that you're saying?, if it allows to change the maps (because the blocked user changed European or African maps), that means "global", because every Country, every Continent have their own Consensus, and if you said The pre-existing consensus was for the existing maps, that means "general", "global". --TownDown ^{How's it going?} 00:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

Macedonia

Please note that the manual of style you quoted (which I originally authored!) has been abandoned and has no authoritative status now. There are discussions ongoing about what to do to replace it, but in the meantime the "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" name is deprecated. Generally we use only "Macedonia" where it is unambiguous that it refers to the country, as it does in the EU context. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. New system much better - thanks! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 09:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

In case you haven't seen it yet, we've now started a renewed centralised discussion, at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia (for this item, the sub-page: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/international organisations). Your input will be highly welcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. Thanks - I'll drop by! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

On the wannabe admin guy

I've been a bit nicer, given a neutral- for trying!Willski72 (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. Best RfA ever! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Its nice to see that hardly anyone takes it seriously!Willski72 (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:This flag once was red/27RFAreason

User:This flag once was red/27RFAreason, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:This flag once was red/27RFAreason and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:This flag once was red/27RFAreason during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. Alas, my first deleted article! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Thank you

I was tempted to remove his latest reversion myself, but although I view him as a vandal others may disagree and object to my fourth revert. O Fenian (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(No problem. Bizarre behaviour, I'll try and keep an eye out for it in future. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

I think one of these may be more useful than a trout in Mr Taz's case.. O Fenian (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Your "consensus"

Well as I told to Bosonic dressing, maybe you should read consensus. The WikiProject Geography or WikiProject Countries can't change all maps without consent with WikiProject Africa, South America, North America for example, and these ones with the Countries' talk pages. Can you tell me what kind of behaviour are you accusing me here, there are not a consensus version on a number of articles, your posted is not a general consensus, those all general changes must be approved before by all WikiProjects. --TownDown ^{How's it going?} 22:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied - my concern is about two parties edit warring, not about consensus. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

Well, maybe you and Bosonic dressing think that can change all maps without approval, don't forget that there's not a general consensus, your multiple messages in many articles are not a general consensus or just one consensus to changes all maps in all continents in all countries and almost all English Wikipedia just because your messages without approval by multiples users registered in their WikiProjects.--TownDown ^{How's it going?} 23:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. I don't think I should change anything without consensus, and indeed I haven't. You're confusing two issues - your edit warring, and my attempts to gather consensus for a future change. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

Users like Bosonic dressing think so, if you're currently trying to gather consensus for an entirely different map, then you shouldn't say "pre-existing consensus", prove that multiple pre-existing consensus, because remember that Bosonic dressing changed South American maps, African maps, European maps and it needs a multiple consensus approved not "trying to gather consensus" as you said. --TownDown ^{How's it going?} 23:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. You still seem to be confusing two separate issues. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

Please, tell me where's it that Pre-existing consensus to change all maps in all continents in all countries. --TownDown ^{How's it going?} 23:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. It isn't, but that shouldn't (and didn't) stop you from changing the maps. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

Can you tell me where's it that global consensus to change all the maps?, where's it?, where's it?.--TownDown ^{How's it going?} 00:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. Strawman. I didn't change "all the maps", and I don't believe that there was a "global consensus" to do so. You changed many maps, so you'd be better placed to answer the question, anyway. And really, there's no need to have the same conversation in two separate places - pick one and stick to it. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Where's it? the consensus that you're saying?, if it allows to change the maps (because the blocked user changed European or African maps), that means "global", because every Country, every Continent have their own Consensus, and if you said The pre-existing consensus was for the existing maps, that means "general", "global". --TownDown ^{How's it going?} 00:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

Macedonia

Please note that the manual of style you quoted (which I originally authored!) has been abandoned and has no authoritative status now. There are discussions ongoing about what to do to replace it, but in the meantime the "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" name is deprecated. Generally we use only "Macedonia" where it is unambiguous that it refers to the country, as it does in the EU context. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. New system much better - thanks! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 09:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

In case you haven't seen it yet, we've now started a renewed centralised discussion, at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia (for this item, the sub-page: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/international organisations). Your input will be highly welcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. Thanks - I'll drop by! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

Music of Scotland and Andrew Macpherson?

Over the past day both you and I have tidied up the poorly linked manner in which the name of Andrew Macpherson was added to the article. I'm now thinking it should be a deletion rather than an improvement? The name was added by a single-use non-reg user and Googling isn't really turning up a notable singer of that name. I thought I'd check in case you'd heard of such a singer. AllyD (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. No objection! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

Oops! I must have glazed over at the Macphersons beind added by non-reg users. Thanks for pointing that out. Now reinstated the Gordon. AllyD (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. No problem! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

RE: Maps of Asia/South America

Hey there. The short answer: yes -- it would be great to have SVG global maps for all the continents that are similar to those used at Europe. (Similar maps, which could serve as templates, can be found for Asia and South America at Japan and Brazil, respectively.) I have some graphics proficiency, but no time! As for the map at Antarctica, I totally agree: I was embroiled in a fight to retain the prior map, but withdrew after it became clear that other commentators wanted their way and preferred the horrid blue map. I hope this helps. Thanks! Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Thanks! We may also want to have ones made, a la Americas, for Eurasia. As well, thank you for 're-starting' the discussion regarding the 'polar' maps: I cannot see why a similar justification is being used to preclude the inclusion of an Antarctic map more like Europe's. Obstructionist? Bosonic dressing (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. Oops! There were a few others I'd missed, too. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

Hey there. First of all, thanks for weighing in. I hope that's over with it ... .:)
I'm glad to hear that Antarctica may be on board; rendering the continent in blue seems odd, but I'm not resistant to that. As for the Arctic, I think lands above the Arctic Circle should be rendered in green (or dark blue?), while areas north of the 10°C isotherm and the Arctic Ocean (with specific limits, per the IHO) can be rendered in varying lighter shades of blue.
As for the 'super' landmasses, we can experiment: perhaps a variant of the map on the UN flag can be used (an azimuthal projection focused on the North Pole, though southerly forms are heavily distorted)? I could try to create some of the maps, but time is not in abundance. Thoughts? Thanks! Bosonic dressing (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. Sounds good. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

Sounds good. As for rendering the various territories/landmasses, one projection may not fit all but should in most. Small countries (e.g., Vatican City) may also be a challenge, which could be pinpointed atop and off to the side of the main globe with a circle (e.g., see Netherlands) and/or highlighted with an inset. Thoughts? Bosonic dressing (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. Not really considering countries at this stage. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

OK: baby steps for now. :) Bosonic dressing (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, in light of tortuous discussions here, I intend on placing this image (based on the map for Brazil) as the new locator map there tomorrow. I'm still trying to produce SVGs of same that are economical in size. Thoughts? Bosonic dressing (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. Happy with that, but keep the other editors onside! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

The SVG awaits. Aside from the scope of green, the only substantial difference with the Brazil map is that the graticle is 'under' the land. Thoughts? Nonetheless, I will proceed as above. Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. Nice work! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

I've since created one for Asia (using China's map as a base) and also one (anew) for Antarctica. Thoughts? 14:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Image:Location Asia.svg

Hi there. Thanks. Actually, the near polar aspect was intentional (i.e., not centred on the South Pole, but at 80 S), intended to convey the continent's southerly nature (with north being ('up'); I planned to do the reverse for the Arctic. I could move it even closer to the pole (85 S). Otherwise, to me, the map seems little different from its predecessor, with little/no sense of ... direction. Thoughts? Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

TY. Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

x factor placements

Of ocurse we should change the 'safe' to being their placement in the votes! we can add something to the key saying that a green background means the contestant is safe 92.3.174.44 (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

can I get Consensus from YOU? My idea is helpful and is absolutely relevent. Of ocurse we should note the position in the voting without having the look at those jumbled percentages ourselves! It's stupid how I haven't gained consensus since of course they are safe if they're not in the btm 2!... Look at the american idol charts.. They don't put safe they have a key which says a white box means safe and so if they know a vote placement (season 6 top 9 week) they can put it in. 92.3.174.44 (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

yes i know what consensus is but do I have your backing... I have presented relevent and correct arguments. 92.3.174.44 (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

Replace a comment that I placed in the wrong place. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles

A second RfC has been started on sourcing for Eurovision articles, you can view it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles. This RfC is critical as it will help determine how current and future Eurovision articles are sourced, and as much participation as possible is needed for a consensus to develop. You are being notified as you are listed as an active user of Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision, and hence the results of this RfC could have a large impact on the articles you edit. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Damn, you're fast :)

We both hit the undo button on the Eurovision Song Contest change with the unexplained deletion (which also messed up the HTML) but you were just too fast for me again!AlexandrDmitri (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh! My internet goes up to 11 ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Enthusiastic about Nimbley6

"Nimbley6 enthusiast" is an understatement...I tend to think of you as Nimbley6's Javert! (In a good way, of course.) ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

United Arab Emirates

Hi User:This flag once was red, can you me put an eytomology section in the UAE article. I'm having trouble doing it. Do you know, or know anybody that can help me. You see, i've been working very hard for a week now, drastically imprving the article, and creating and adding new sections, images, templates. And i would really like to improve the quality of that article, and bring it up to the standards of an FA class article. --MoHasanie (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. Pointer to relevant WikiProject. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Well ok thanks. It would be great to make the UAE article GA class. Do you think there can be more improvement done to the article? I've tried my best, and i'm now in the process of updating the information in the economy, and health sections. And also adding more info to the literature and arts section. But thanks anyways. Do you know any users on wikipedia who could help me with an eytomology section? --MoHasanie (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, as you did mention that you were considering to reasessing the UAE article, i don't think that one is ready, however i would really like the Emirates Airline article to be reassesed. I requested one about a month ago, but nobody replied. --MoHasanie (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah i think its worth reassesment, because everything is well refrenced, and meets most of the criteria for a FA article. --MoHasanie (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Name change

So what's the story? --Snowded ^TALK 05:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh, when I looked at my contribs and saw that I had sent a message to someone named TFOWR my first thought was, "oh shit, did I accidentally post on some random person's talkpage instead of the one I meant?" rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've added a note to my userpage, and I'll be keeping my signature the same for the time-being, but I do anticipate some confusion ;-) This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Just a suggestion why not use both? ie TFOWR (This flag once was red), acutally i really should od that he he but my username not changed jsut my signature--Andy (talk - contrib) 15:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Now that's a sensible suggestion - you mean something like... TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC) ;-)

I thought it might be a cunning plan to disguise yourself so that Nimbyn would not see you coming.--Snowded ^TALK 16:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh! Touch wood, but it's been fairly quiet on that front for the last few days. Surprised the little field fiend hasn't been busier this weekend... Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed the moniker abbreviation. Jolly good show. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Next up is a new and more refined signature... but I'll let the new username sink in first. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Dalton Simm Rumors

The problem was (and note I said "was") that if the goal was to prevent expliceit rumors from being propigated by mentining them in the notes... then why revert notes about some specific rumors and not others? As yiu wrote , the sentence is pretty neutral now and considering both Dalton and Simm are mentioned in the article itself now (it used to be a rumor that they were in the serial at all)... I'm fine with the article the way it is.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. Executive summary: we need to be as explicit as possible to prevent people being, well, explicit ;-) This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2009 Christmas specials (Doctor Who)‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. magnius (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No vandalism.. just making a point... people seemed perfectly happy with propigating the false rumor about David Morrissey in the notes and frankly... wikipedia shouldn't be used for this sort of thing either way. Ironically...back when we had the "Mister Saxon = Master No. Six" rumor it was clear in retrospect that people in the know were really annoyed by the unintentional anogram and reacted as such in their edits. It's as though people are only pretending to squash rumors but they're perfectly happy letting false ones get out there... like wikipedia is a game or something. Personally... I like either removing the sentence entirely or leaving it the way you have it now. Otherwise, how many explciceit rumors should we mention? I heard one about John Simm playing the great pumpkin from Charlie Brown in the new specials.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(Various replies. Looks like we've got agreement - neither of us want to be too explicit with rumours, but it's worth putting some rumours in HTML comments to prevent other editors adding them to the article. (And Patrick Troughton was the best Doctor!) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

Please reply

Please reply to the question I asked you a few days ago (see above, after your exchange with Truthkeeper88). Thanks.Tvor65 (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

Thanks

For making that edit. When you mentioned "tps" on my talk page, I was trying to work out who you were and if I'd seen you before...until I read your userpage. ;) Congratulations on the username change. Acalamari 02:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem! I was going to keep the old signature to avoid confusion, but thought the new one would bridge the gap - I guess it's not as obvious as I'd thought! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the signature is fine. It's just that I read your comment in the "diff" part rather than scrolling down and reading it there. ;) Acalamari 16:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

IBDP

Hi TFOWR. Well, in many respects you have a point that if peace pervades the curriculum. Maybe I was a bit hasty.

However, I looked at the document and couldn't find where the IB had signed with UNESCO to agree to anything (although it clearly has aims that run in parallel to UNO). Furthermore, the quote is slightly out of context as the subject of the sentence is schools. Furthermore, I believe that the source is quite outdated now. The document is 8 years old and Ian Hill is no longer Director General. As far as I know the peace studies syllabus is no longer run.

The IB currently state that, "The aim of all IB programmes is to develop internationally minded people who, recognizing their common humanity and shared guardianship of the planet, help to create a better and more peaceful world."

I would find it difficult to justify putting this in every programme area (PYP, MYP and DP) but would find it acceptable on the IBO pages.

What do you think? --Candy (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied, and this is also relevant. Basically agreeing! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

Adding an image

Hi TFOWR -- I have a very different question. I'm copyediting The Naked Brothers Band (TV Series) -- a preteenage TV show. The editor I'm helping is wondering about uploading an image of the boys in the show, and I know nothing about images, only wordsmithing. Have you worked on any articles about living people and if so do you know the rules governing the use of images. Feel free to reply on my user page as we're already having the discussion here. Cheers.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. Screenshots? TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

Talk:Rex Harrison

I saw this note and recognized the IP as belonging to the range that was related to the range of IPs for User:HarveyCarter. I also note the content returned was first added by the now blocked User:GranvilleHouston who was related to User:JohnRedwood. This seems to imply that Granville/Redwood must likely be HarveyCarter? LaVidaLoca (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. Looks likely. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

Eventually all socks tip their hand, given enough time. LaVidaLoca (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Thanks for the acknowledgment. Forgot to let you know I'd replied. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to steer to middle ground. Normally I'd provide enough help as needed, but the accusations of edits I haven't performed, and orders to perform certain tasks asap are irritating. Now, I'm going to take refuge in Coronet Peak because the article needs rescue. It's cool there, and has a nice winter webcam. (btw -- WP:GAME is very much in evidence over at IB DP.) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Far away, and cool. But for now I'll keep two windows open with an eye on IB DP. Just noted the comment below. Don't hesitate to ask for help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't this look nice & cool? Will be offline for some time.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme

We could use another opinion, if you have some time. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(Belated reply - sorry! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

Replied Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Have look at this. Does it warrant a warning? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

RepliedTruthkeeper88 (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am confident this was a deliberate attempted outing and I would like to report her. I've seen this editor posting personal information about people on various websites and I can assure you this was no slip. How should I proceed if I want to report this editor? Tvor65 (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Missed this earlier; I've replied on your talkpage. Sorry for not replying sooner. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL! "I've seen this editor posting personal information about people on various websites..."~Tvor65 You mean the ones you stalk me on? Way to go, I knew you'd slip up somewhere. ObserverNY (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Request Advice

Hi, TFOWR. I've been following the editing of the IB Diploma Programme article. You, Ewen, and Truthkeeper88 all seem to be very even-keeled editors, so I wanted to ask you if I could take up a bit of your time. If you're not available, then I can ask Ewen or Truthkeeper88 instead.

I've been editing the IB Group 5 (Mathematics) article over the last day or so. It had long seemed to me to be organized rather illogically, so I more or less completely reorganized and updated the entire article. I figured, hey, be bold! (There's still much more to be done, of course.)

Here's where I need some advice: I've also provided the first set of badly needed citations, but this is the first time I've entered citations on Wikipedia. I looked up a bunch of information in the Help files and tried to use that as a model, but I'm not sure if I've really done it correctly. Would you mind taking a moment to look at the page and let me know if you think it's okay? I posted additional remarks about my citations on the Talk page, which may help clarify how/why I've done certain things. I'm not asking you to spend your time making any changes; just point me in the right direction if I've screwed it up. I don't want to go through and provide the remaining references only to later determine that I've done them all wrong! Thanks for your time. CinchBug (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, no, what you've written makes perfect sense! I'll follow the link and see if I can set up everything that way. If I understand correctly, it would retain much of the simplicity that using "Ibid" provides, while eliminating the potential problem of having the reference chain broken. Anyway, thanks a lot for your help! And don't let the WP:BATTLE issue on the IB DP page get you down--you're definitely helping to keep things as cordial and reasonable as possible. Thanks again! CinchBug (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi TFOWR. Just lo let you know I was probably about as down as you as being part of the IBDP page. I had already made a request for advice from an impartial editor earlier this morning. --> I posted this on the Admins page. maybe I should have told you or placed it in IBDP talk- but I didn't want the poor impartial editor to have their own page turned into the Somme! --Candy (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, TFOWR - just wanted to let you know that I also had enough of ONY's behavior and has reported it to the administrators below the message you posted.Tvor65 (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(Oops edit conflict) repost - Aye. Let's hope so. BTW. Where does your username come from?

And a new bit after TVOR's post: Let's not lose sight of the fact that ONY is new to Wikipedia and despite any civility issues and lack of experience in protocols ONY has made some good edits. - --Candy (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi TFOWR - I want you to know that I appreciate your attempts at neutrality throughout this whole thing. I find it interesting that Candy and Tvor65 are in here trying to "lobby" you to take their side. But I also want you to know that Candy, and LaMome are leaving messages on my talk page which are, well, to put it mildly, not very nice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ObserverNY#Three-revert_rule I have respected your request for DR, I have not made edits since that time, yet both of these editors are coming onto my talk page with accusations and threats. Interestingly, Candy actually acknowledges that I have made some good edits, here, to you, to attempt to appear neutral. He/she has never made such a statement on the IBDP discussion page. Just so you have both sides of the story. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

On Slowing down

Request opinion from you whether working on references on IB DP is acceptable, or shall I disengage entirely? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me - it was one of the issues-in-need-of-fixing identified at WP:AN, so I'd say go for it! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noted that. But then trepidation bit me. So, I'll go on clean up patrol.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox for IB DP?

Do you know how to set up a sandbox for an article in progress, and do you know whether that's a typical protocol? I feel a little as though I'm in center court with too many balls coming too fast and want a practise court. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I like this idea, too. CinchBug | Talk 18:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Only way I know is as a user sandbox, say User:Truthkeeper88/IB Sandbox. No reason why more than one editor can't work on it - I've worked in other editors' sandboxes before (I was invited! Honest!) I'd be happy to set up a sandbox under my userspacem if you want to keep yours clean...? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that's fine, I'll set one up and invite participation. Have to be offline for a little while, but will get it done soon. Thanks for the input.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar I award this random acts of kindness Barnstar to TFOWR for being very helpful to new wikipedians, without being asked to.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! All part of the service ;-) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 00:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear! CinchBug | Talk 09:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Already Gone (Kelly Clarkson song)

The reason this page is redirected to main article and not deleted or left in tact is the song is not a single yet, and it is unknown if it will be a notible single worthy of it's own article under wikipedia guidelines. The article has been recreated numerous times since the single was still just a rumor. Wikipedia adminsitrators have been protecting several Kelly Clarkson articles due to vandalism, miuse of wikipedia, deliberate factual errors, and other such vandalism due to this single (actually happens with every single and album she releases, Clarkson fans are very high strung). I didn't want you to think your AFD template was removed for the wrong reasons. Moving the aritcle serves no purpose until there is need for an article, and simply wanted to let you know the reasoning for it as you seem to be one of the more productive editors on here Alankc (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Aye, I thought I was being particularly charitable letting that stub escape a swift punt to AfD ;-) (I'd !voted delete in a prior AfD). I'm happy with the action you took - I tend not to be over-protective of my tags ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 00:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

hahaha.. I've learned redirects (espcailly protected redirects) serve more of a purpose, deleting articles jsut leave4s them open to recreation and we go through it all over again Alankc (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet another request

TFOWR, I'm sorry to bother you again, but I looked through the help files a bit and wasn't able to find an answer to this question: Now that I've provied citations for all statements (except one, perhaps--it's the last two sentences in the article, which I might just remove until I can find a more widely-verifiable reference) in the IB Group 5 (Mathematics) article, what do I need to do to get someone to reconsider the box at the top of the article that says,

"This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

I'm pretty sure that I shouldn't be the one to remove it (I'm not sure if it's even possible for me to do so). Is there a central clearing-house at WP for this kind of thing?

Thanks again! I appreciate it. CinchBug | Talk 13:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's possible and OK for you to move it - it makes no sense now, anyway, as you've clearly added references. One possibility might be to replace it with a {{Refimprove}}-tag, to indicate that there are references, but that the article would benefit from having more. Whatever option you might take, you should always leave an edit summary detailing what you've done and why. In the meantime, I'll drop by and remove the tag. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

...and I've removed the tag - the article is superbly referenced! Good work! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! And thanks also for the compliment! Regards, CinchBug | Talk 13:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I might add that I'm clearly a dolt--I don't know how many times I looked at that editing screen, but I never once noticed the {{unreferenced}} tag at the top! ~sigh~ Well, now I know... CinchBug | Talk 13:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Easily done - stuff like that quickly becomes "background noise" and gets ignored! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

IBDP history / Group 3 history

TFOWR, I'm having a discussion with ObserverNY about the IBDP "History" section and also about an addition she made to the IB_Group_3_subjects article. (Edit: This discussion is taking place on my Talk page, bottom section.) Would you mind checking it out and weighing in? I appreciate it. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 14:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

They seem to be two separate issues (despite the Group 3 edit being to the "History SL & HL" section? I've only really looked at the Group 3 edit - I'd suggest this should possibly be moved to the IBDP article, as it seems to specific for the Group 3 article. Having said that, I don't know how important the Fordham Institute is (and I've not read the source, yet).

Could you and ObserverNY do a couple of things for me? Could you...

1. Clarify what the issue is with IBDP history? I gather this is about the history of the IBDP, rather than the teaching of history - is that correct?
2. My current career is in IT, but a long time ago my first degree was a history degree, but in the UK - and I'd imagine history in the UK is different to the US. It sounds as if US history is very important to history teaching in the US - is that correct? (What I'm getting at is: it sounds as if the Fordham Institutes complaint is that by teaching the History of the Americas, Group 3 history lacks detail on the USA. I'm trying to assess whether that's a valid complaint). To put that in context, I studied US, Japanese and Russian history (and comparatively little UK or European history) at a UK university (I didn't do history A-level, so I have a slight gap in my knowledge of UK history teaching ;-) )

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

TFOWR, yes, that's correct, they are different issues.

Regarding the "History of the IBDP" section in the IBDP article, ObserverNY asked me about my opinion about how/if it should be edited. I'm of the opinion that it is very difficult to come up with a truly objective account of history, since POV is easily included, even if the writer doesn't intend to do so. I would guess that this section will end up being rather contentious and will be heavily edited by many parties. I'm personally inclined not to contribute to this section.

Regarding the Group 3 subjects page, yes, I agree with you. And you're mostly right about the Fordham study--it was designed to determine whether or not several AP and IB courses constituted a "gold standard" for US high school courses. Two of the courses they looked at were AP US History and IB World History SL (they didn't do a full study of the HL course). WRT the IB World History SL course, the authors concluded that there was too little US history in the course (and in the History of the Americas (HOA) option in the HL course). Interestingly, they still gave the AP US History and IB World History SL the same overall grades of B-, though they didn't award a grade to the HOA option for HL since they apparently didn't do as much detailed analysis of that course.

There is some controversy about the report, since one of the people who reviewed the math courses objected to some of the conclusions and his opinions were oddly left out of the final report. I'll see if I can find a reference to this for you.

Personally, I'm not impressed with the report, neither with how they treated the AP courses nor the IB courses. But it is the only detailed study/comparison of AP and IB courses that I'm aware of.

Does that help? Regards, CinchBug | Talk 15:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello TFOWR and Cinchbug,

Now Cinchbug, I gave you my word that I would not tinker with your fine edits to the IBDP subject section. I have not. However, nothing is to prevent me from adding a helpful citation to the HL & SL page, specific to the IB History category. Have I "picked and choosed" from the Fordham report a statement which negatively portrays IB History of the Americas? Perhaps. But as you yourself admit, it is one of the only independent reports out there. I too, find the report extremely flawed, non-peer reviewed and even fraudulent considering the committee's changing of Dr. Klein's math grades in favor of IB. If anyone wishes to expand on other areas of the Fordham Report, that's fine with me. I just thought I'd throw it out there in the mass of IB articles that appear in Wikipedia.

As to the History section of the IBDP article, I think it should be considered a work in progress. I have attempted to contribute some well-cited facts. I added a section for the IB Mission Statement. I've seen mention of a number of IBDP editors receiving some sort of admonishment from Admin and I'm guessing a number are gun-shy to re-enter the arena. Anyone who honestly seeks to collaborate and create a fair and balanced representation of IB's history for the article shouldn't be afraid of the truth. I try never to bite first... but I will bite back when provoked. ObserverNY (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, there are some additional comments about this that I made earlier. I don't know if you've had a chance to see them or not. Originally they were on my Talk page, but I've moved them to Talk:IB_Group_3_subjects, per Truthkeeper88's suggestion. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 16:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Question Why does IB offer Islamic History as one of its Subject 3 courses? Isn't Islam a religion? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/islam Is there an IB Christian History course? An IB Jewish History course? ObserverNY (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Aye, I wondered that too. I understand "Islamic History" as a topic, but noting that "History" includes "Islamic History" is odd, as it would be if we noted that "History" includes "European History". Islamic History is an interesting topic, and much wider in focus than Islam-as-a-religion, because it includes topics as diverse as chemistry, algebra, architecture etc (it was Islamic scholars who brought universities to Europe, for example, and first studied the chemical synthesis (?) of alcohol). Back on topic, unless there's a good reason - and I'm off to query it now! - I'd suggest we remove it. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why they gave it that name, but it is the name of a course in Group 3. See [2]. Maybe they're trying to offer a course that would be attractive to some Muslim international schools? I don't know. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 16:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I may have found an answer to this question. See Talk:IB_Group_3_subjects. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 17:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

TFOWR, I think I may take a day off from these articles. The tone on the Talk pages seems to be getting unpleasant. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 14:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Understood, and enjoy your rest! I had pretty much decided to do much the same - I sometimes feel as if I can't open my mouth without putting my foot in it. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Rise Against

Rather than getting into an edit war with the IPs, then giving up, adding a citation needed tag and leaving someone else do the work, it would have been a lot easier to find out if there was any substance to the IPs claims over chart position. It didn't take me long to find a source that supports the peak position of 25. Cheers! Nouse4aname (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You're assuming that I didn't check? The IPs were using a couple of differing positions - 28 and 25 - and the source used Billboard (I didn't check Billboard itself; in hindsight I probably should have done but allmusic tends to accurately track Billboard and the other sources I googled either matched alltunes or were out of date). Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Group 3 - Islamic History

Hello Josephine ;-)

So have you taken a couple of tranquilizers and a nice walk on the beach? Not used to "loud" Noo Yawkas, eh? There, there, my bark is louder than my bite. I didn't mean to scare you, you seem like an awfully nice chap. If you get a minute, please take a look at the discrepancy regarding the number of Group 3 subjects note I added to the page. Thanks! ObserverNY (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Heh, just posted on the talk page! It's my fault (take a look at a section or two before your new one). I'm fixing it now. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Some kind of agreement.

Could you have a look at the exact links to match the comments?? (Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Will do! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 21:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow..good one..Could you please have a look at my archives..they are repeated ..and I tried to remove them but they insist on being there...(Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Heh! I suspect I'm the wrong person to ask - I set up archiving only fairly recently, and I suspect it worked once and then broke. I'll have a look though - it's incentive to get mine fixed ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I just need to delete the repeated files..(Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Dammit, that won't help me fix my problem ;-)

I think the answer is simply to delete the pages - use {{db-g7|rationale=This is an empty, redundant archive that was created in error.}} to request deletion (add it to the top of each archive to be deleted), and an admin should come along and do the actual deletion. Worst case scenario is they'll tell you I'm an idiot and explain the correct procedure ;-)

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats sound good, where do I add it? I'll try now...(Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

This one looks good - I'd just replicate that through all the duplicated archives. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Done them all thanks a lot.. for your help..lets see what the speedy delete guys do...who do we know doing speedys?? (Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, they got speedyd and the bot removed all traces. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Some kind of agreement.

Could you have a look at the exact links to match the comments?? (Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Will do! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 21:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow..good one..Could you please have a look at my archives..they are repeated ..and I tried to remove them but they insist on being there...(Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Heh! I suspect I'm the wrong person to ask - I set up archiving only fairly recently, and I suspect it worked once and then broke. I'll have a look though - it's incentive to get mine fixed ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I just need to delete the repeated files..(Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Dammit, that won't help me fix my problem ;-)

I think the answer is simply to delete the pages - use {{db-g7|rationale=This is an empty, redundant archive that was created in error.}} to request deletion (add it to the top of each archive to be deleted), and an admin should come along and do the actual deletion. Worst case scenario is they'll tell you I'm an idiot and explain the correct procedure ;-)

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats sound good, where do I add it? I'll try now...(Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

This one looks good - I'd just replicate that through all the duplicated archives. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Done them all thanks a lot.. for your help..lets see what the speedy delete guys do...who do we know doing speedys?? (Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, they got speedyd and the bot removed all traces. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

cites

long lists of cites always look bad, what we need is as few cites as possible to support the comments. And.. the first section has none at all.. perhaps there weren't any ...but at least we need to remove the excessive ones..keep the best..the bbc..or whichever are really strong cites in support of the comments...sorry.... (Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Nope, I copied all the previous ones over, and there weren't any in the first section. The "References" section has a few extra cites, presumably from earlier in the talk page, so it's not quite as bad as it looks. Some of the claims have been combined, so whereas before one sentence had two claims with two cites each, now the claims have been combined and have four cites. I agree that that's excessive. Many of the cites are from the BBC, I doubt there'll be controversy over keeping BBC cites and removing others. We should also select the best cites, and limit it to one per cite. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Good, the first section doesn't really require cites as it it referenced throughout the article. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Thaks TFOWR, now if you have a little more time and a little more inclination, when the article is opened up again, together we could sort out the small issues with the articles good assessment..which have been posted. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

Hey, good day dude, what do you say shall we have a look at those little issues on the reassesment? Perhaps this evening? There needs a little copy editing .. it was mentioned that the one line sentences need reforming into paragraphs..?(Off2riorob (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

Not sure I'll necessarily have time today (I only logged in for a quick catch-up, and have been here longer than I'd planned ;-) ). Maybe tomorrow? I should be about all day - afternoon and evening certainly. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I'll have a look later today to see what it needed. Enjoy yourself, best regards(Off2riorob (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

Copyright in Assessment

Just a head's up, LaMome's log in faux pas has revealed to me that she is posting from the same island as me. There are only 5 IB schools on the entire island, and it is entirely possible that she is a teacher in my very district. I have actively lobbied against IB on my little island, and there is a very good chance she knows exactly who I am. She is targeting my edits with malice. I want you to keep an open mind to the edits I have made and try and seek a neutral balance between us. More tranquilizers? ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Uh, to be honest, I think there's a fair bet I know exactly who you are (based on information you've provided - though I have no intention of making public my guess). Having said that, I don't know you in real life - your little island is one pond away from me! I hope LaMome will edit without consideration to who you might be, and I hope you'll do likewise. I'll monitor both sets of edits; if I see anything untoward I'll raise it with Uncle G or, failing that, at WP:AN. By and large I think edits recently have been fairly neutral, but I've not be paying close attention.

I tend to avoid tranquilizers - I'm trying to adopt a more meditative approach to problem solving!

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Om. ;-)

Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

On the IB DP talk page, you mentioned "in the past IBO retained copyright" and noted a citation was missing. Just looking for that citation and an explanation of the statement. Thought I might find clarification here and I think I just did. As much as ONY may be a legend in her own mind, I have never met her and have never heard of her until she outed herself. The fact that she researched my IP, came to that conclusion and found the need to comment on it is creepy to say the least and bordering on harassment, as you have alluded to above. I hope you will keep an eye on the situation. Please get Uncle G involved. If you don't, I will. Thanks La mome (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

LaMomeFor Pete's sake, stop being such a tattletale. Since you only revealed yourself to be an IB teacher AFTER you went and got me banned, I thought maybe you'd share which IB school you were at. That's it. Not your name. That's not outing. Nor is it harassment.

http://en.utrace.de/ is a free IP address locator and lots of fun. Nothing creepy about it at all, especially when dealing with an "international" topic, I find it interesting to see what country people come from. For example, I was reading something on one of the Wiki pages and this one individual who only signed with an IP address came from Turkey. Now, I've never been to Turkey, nor do I know anyone from Turkey, but knowing the person wasn't American put their comments in a better perspective.

TFOWR appears to be a very neutral and reasonable individual which is why I appreciate his presence in the article. Same goes for Cinchbug You and Tvor65 seemed to think it was ok to run around to everybody else's talk pages complaining about me. It's very easy to cast the first stone. You attempted to bait me with snarky after snarky reply yesterday. Please try and play nice instead of running to Uncle G with every imagined offence you conjure up. ObserverNY (talk) 11:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(General reply, not addressed particularly to ONY)

Using an IP locator is fine; publishing the results is much more of a grey area. For example, a hypothetical article on Cyprus might be the subject of a heated debate between Greek and Turkish editors. One editor ("A") inadvertently posts while not logged in, realises their error, logs in, and re-signs their post. In the meantime another editor ("B") checks A's IP address and realises they are, say, Turkish. Knowing this is fine; publishing it may not be. If editor A proudly states on their userpage, say, that they're Turkish then B can report that A is Turkish. If A has never mentioned that they are Turkish then B should not comment on their findings - even though editors C, D, and E have all also run an IP search. This applies whether editor B is Greek, Turkish, or none of the above. Incidentally, if anyone does ever post while not logged in, and wishes to hide their IP address, I believe WP:OVERSIGHT provides a mechanism to do this. I have used Oversight in the past (when a young editor posted their age and contact details on their userpage) but I've never used it to remove my IP address (which I have accidentally revealed once or twice), so I'm no expert here.

I watchlist most of the IB articles (not all, I'd guess, as I added a few I'd missed fairly recently) and I watchlist the user talk pages of everyone (I think) participating in IB discussions. Only reason I mention that is to avoid duplicating requests across multiple pages - if you ask me a question on an article's talk page I'll see normally see it (if I don't, do feel free to nudge me! I do sometimes miss messages when there are lots in a short space of time).

On the subject of Uncle G, I suspect he (?) watchlists a fair few of the IB articles, and our talk pages too, but would prefer it if we worked problems out ourselves. I will contact Uncle G (as can any of you, of course) if things start to spiral out of control and Uncle G hasn't stepped in already, but I'd much prefer it - and I think we'd all much prefer it - if that could be avoided.

If you check my userpage you may notice that I have political views that are some way outside the norm. I'd guess that my views are the polar opposite of some editors in this conversation; however, we seem to get along and work constructively together. I'd suggest that having differing views on the IBO is no reason to not get along as fellow editors - indeed, I'd go further and suggest that - by and large - we have all been getting along better recently. I hope that that will continue, and that we improve our relations further.

Small print: apologies to Cypriots, Greeks, and Turks: I used that example solely to follow on from ONY's mention of Turkey ;-)

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, TFOWR

Regarding IBO's past wording of its copyright clause - I'm sure the source has long since been removed from the web. As I stated on the IBDP page, IBO monitors forums and stories on the web and regularly changes its own website and documents as damage control. I believe such was the case when the issue of IB student intellectual property reared its head. In any event, I do not feel there is any need to insert the information regarding "absolute property" into the article as it is not the current policy. TFOWR's use of the word did seemed to imply that he was aware of the former policy, nothing more. Or so it seems to me. ObserverNY (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Nope, no awareness - just taking it on trust that that was the former policy. (It's WP:OR, but it does seem to me quite likely that that's exactly what would have happened - they retained all copyright purely because it made their lives easier, and then adopted a more considered approach once the public relations implications became obvious. A case of "Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" - I tend to see large organisations as being daft rather than bad, though "daft" can be as bad as, well, "bad" in its effects...) ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Am I correct in concluding then that neither of you has proof that IB used to retain copyright, just speculation on ONY's part and TFOWR trusting that ONY's statement is true because IB is daft? 12:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC) La mome (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That's correct - that's why I added the {{cn}} () tag when we first discussed it, and is why I refer to WP:OR (original research) above. If we were to add the claim to the article it would need to be sourced. As it is, I think the incident is overblown, and not notable enough for the article, so I view it as moot. If consensus was to add it, however, I would want decent sources for the claim. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the issue is moot, as I stated above, I see no need to include it in the article. I happen to find this back and forth with TFOWR on the topic enjoyable in addition to not clogging up the TALK page on the IBDP article by having it here. He is quite free to say, "ONY! I do not want to discuss this subject any further!" Or, he is free to share his thoughts. He is also free to assume "good faith" that what I have relayed is truthful, even though the evidence to support my statement may no longer exist on the Internet.

That said ... LOL! Maybe when I was 25, I would have agreed with your "kind" assumption that organizations operate out of stupidity or laziness. In the case of THIS "rigorous, internationally-minded" organization that not only deals exclusively in intellectual property but which is also located in Switzerland (known for having the strictest intellectual property laws in the world), I don't find that explanation entirely plausible. However, IBO's revision to its policy does show a good faith effort to improve relations, whatever its original intent was. ObserverNY (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well, my thinking is that the IBO didn't intend to profit directly from students' work - simply to use the work as material for teachers and students. I could be wrong, however - I've been wrong before ;-) I'm slightly sceptical as to whether it would be possible to "monetize" high school students' work - unlike, say, the work of university research students. Again, I could be wrong - and if anyone was going to make HS students' work profitable it would be an organisation like the IBO... hmmm, food for thought! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You must be a good capitalist at heart because I was thinking more in terms of "propagandize" than "monetize". But then, those two usually go hand in hand, do they not?  ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Heh, too much time spent avoiding good socialist articles and trying to be scrupulously fair on evil capitalists' articles ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Badda bing! Heh! ObserverNY (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Straw poll on reliable sources for Eurovision articles

The second RfC on sourcing for Eurovision articles has now being running for several weeks, you can view it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles. In order to help gauge the spread of opinion and draw conclusions from this discussion a straw poll has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Straw poll. All project members are encouraged to read the RfC thoroughly and then cast their votes as they see fit. Rationales are still encouraged in the main discussion area above the poll, and participants can add appropriate new sources or options to the poll as they wish. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Question (okay, 3 questions)

What happens if an editor pesters or harasses another editor on their talk page and the talk page editor decides they are sick and tired of the annoying editor and doesn't wish to engage in any further discussion with that person? Is non-response a violation? Also, isn't it the talk page editor's right to delete whatever they want from their own talk page? Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

There's a help desk discussion about a similar issue right now ;-)

In summary:

• You can remove any post to your talk page without replying - it's considered that so doing indicates that you have read and acknowledged the post.
• If you remove a post, and the original editor re-posts it, I believe that reposting is considered disruptive - but, as always, assume good faith - they may simply be unaware of this. Of course, once they've been made aware they have no excuse for ignoring it. If they do, I'd suggest this venue for dealing with it.

Apologies for not replying sooner; I've been trying to take a break from Wikipedia at least once a week or so ;-)

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No prob, thanks. As long as I'm not violating any policies by not replying and deleting. Turn the other cheek, right? You missed the kegger, should've taken a swim across the pond. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Good article.

Help...Talk:Gordon_Brown#GA_Reassessment Twice as easy? (Off2riorob (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

Aye! Apologies about yesterday - I got side-tracked by real-life. I'm back now! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 09:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Good morning, (at least where I am). I archived the talk page yesterday and if you look there Talk:Gordon_Brown you' ll see the report. I started last night attempting to remove bullet points and remove single lines and get them into paragraphs, have a look and see what you think. After I have been moving things around it probaby could use a little copy editing.There are a couple of points I am unsure how to correct.. like..

• Make sure all footnotes follow punctuation...easily doable, anyone can do with peer reviewer tool ......?

and ...

• Please make all images compliant with WP:ALT.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 1:54 am, 11 July 2009, last Saturday (5 days ago) (UTC+1)
• Still not compliant.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 3:19 am, Today (UTC+1)
• Both the disambiguation checker and the links checker above are showing new problems. I would like to say that at whatever time I approve retention of the quality rating that the links were taken care of. Thus, I would like someone to fix the new problems that have popped up.

Can you enlighten me on any of this? (Off2riorob (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC))

Not yet, but I'll look into it and let you know. I've used "tools" in the past (the "web cite" tool - you give it an article name and it turns raw URLs into proper citations) so if "peer reviewer tool" works like that it should be straightforward. "WP:ALT" I can guess at (for accessibility all images should specify an "alt" attribute, not sure how to do this on-wiki, but I'll find out).

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once wasred} 09:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and good morning to you, too! I'm on "UTC+1" (British Summer Time, we call it - and I'm guessing you are too?) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 09:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict, I'm in the midlands. ..Aye, no pressure, no problem. I am gonna be out most of the day and back later this evening. So perhaps later today, regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC))

I'll see if I can get at least some ot done by then, to make up for Monday and Tuesday's slackness ;-) (Glasgow, incidentally, for me - family in the West Country, too, though I'm a Kiwi. My mum was English). Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 09:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

We are all a little bit related! From New zealand to Glasgow..very nice. Have a look at my flame thrower attack last night. [[3]] (Off2riorob (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, I'm not sure if you were working on the pics but I have taken one out in an effort to spread them out as he was still not enthused about them. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC))

Three pics or four pics, I don't think it really matters. Put it back if you think you can spread them out evenly and relevant to the text. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC))

No problem - I'd noticed one disappeared while I was working on it. One less picture made my life easier ;-) The WP:ALT text should be finished now - I simply went through the images and added an "|alt=blah blah" bit to each image. The only one not done is the infobox portrait - I followed the instructions at Template:Infobox's documentation but without any success. I've listed the issue on the talk page. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

About your comment

Just wanted to let you know that I did not appreciate you referring to my inserting Bunnell's reference on the IB page as "shabby". Did you really think I was aware that the author was an IB teacher and "sneaked" the reference in anyway? So much for "assuming good faith", I suppose. I assure you that I had no clue of his affiliation with an IB school and just relied on the fact that this was a scholarly article by an education researcher that was published in a peer-reviewed journal, all of which is true. I guess the journal's editors and reviewers did not perceive his affiliation with an IB school as a COI.Tvor65 (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did think that you'd be mindful of the sensitivity of the situation and check the reference first. That said, I am sorry I used the term "shabby" - it was a heat-of-the-moment remark, based in part because I felt I'd been let down.

The journal's editors and reviewers will have different criteria for assessing COI, just as Wikipedia has different criteria depending on the context - see my comments about the suitability of Schafely under various circumstances, for example. Bunnell would be fine as a reference for certain claims - just not a contentious issue like this one.

Once again I am sorry for the "shabby" remark.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I am glad we cleared this up ;-) Tvor65 (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

TFOWR - I'm sorry I repeated your phrase, however I felt it was entirely appropriate. You may buy this Sarah Bernhardt "I didn't know, did you really think?" act, but I don't. Tvor65 got caught in a nasty edit play and has reacted by playing the "innocent victim". Tvor65 is no innocent victim. ObserverNY (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Here is a bit of advice for you, ONY: don't judge people based on how you would behave. Be polite and assume good faith.Tvor65 (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Tvor65 - Please see my advice to you on the IB talk page and learn to practice what you preach. Accusing me of causing you to have to work late and rallying other editors against me is hardly "polite" or "good faith". ObserverNY (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Ahem! There are two better venues for this. Thankyouverymuch! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, you are correct! Very sorry. (It's just that your living room is so much more stylish and comfortable. ;-)) ObserverNY (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

• You are both, or course, very welcome here - it's just that discussions that don't involve me are probably better held elsewhere! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I normally would not do this but since ONY made yet another unfair comment about me, I felt compelled to respond here. I chose not to continue, though, because it is your talk page and ignored her next remark.Tvor65 (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Time to leave

Uncle G told me to apologize to ONY; now considers my comments sarcastic. It's time for me to bow out. Thought you should know, as the snapping brought him (?) to the page/s. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I can't see the edit where Uncle G considers your comments sarcastic, though I've only had a quick scan (I did see the note about apologising, and your apology etc) - could you post the diff?

I hope you won't bow out from Wikipedia altogether, and I hope you'll reconsider bowing out from the IB pages in particular - though by all means take some R&R! IB is stressful - more stressful than it should be. Editors like you are needed to set the tone, and I suspect Uncle G holds you and me (and Ewen - who I hope will reappear!) to a higher standard than less experienced/more partisan editors for that very reason (in the same way, "ordinary" editors hold admins like Uncle G to a higher standard because they are, by definition, supposed to be experienced, neutral etc).

Maybe consider avoiding the talk pages altogether? You've done superb work of referencing and citing, and I'd hope that that could continue. Failing that, simply avoid responding to the "slings and arrows" - I'm bad at that, and working on it, so it's a case here of "do as I say, not as I do" ;-)

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Here 3rd paragraph. Tried leaving the talk page and was accused of editing w/out discussion. So talk & apologize or no talk & apologize. Either way, not a good option. As you, am working on another article just finishing GA review and going for FA, so will focus on that and the many other articles I have in rescue stage. Btw -- had a peek at Gordon Brown. Nice looking article! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Got it - it's possible you're reading too much into that, it may have been directed at LaMome, for example. I wouldn't take it personally, though, even if Uncle G was directing it at you - it struck me as general advice rather than a criticism.

I take your point about "just editing" - you're probably right that that's not really an option here. Maybe try posting to the talk page, then stepping back - "here's my proposed edit, do with it what you will"?

Oh, and thanks for Gordon Brown - I've really done very little, mostly just WP:ALT-text for the images, and a spot of copy-editing! All credit goes to the regular GB editors.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper88, I concur with TFOWR and encourage you to continue contributing to the IB articles, although I certainly understand why you may want to leave. I hope that a little time away from these articles will help change your mind, since you've made overwhelmingly positive contributions to the IB articles and we continue to need your assistance. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 17:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - Uncle G came back in and clarified that he was referring to LaMome's comments, not yours. I posted that I didn't interpret your comments as sarcastic. Please don't leave. ObserverNY (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Curious source

Hi TFOWR,

I was cruising the web trying to find some background info on a couple of the more obscure IB Director Generals and I came across this document: http://www.acei-hkm.org.hk/Doc/IB%20Background.ppt This is the ACEI website (minus the -hkm): http://acei.org/ If you scan through the power point, can you guess which Funder in the 60's and 70's caught my eye? Okay, I can't wait for you to guess.....The Shah of Iran for $100,000 US! How legitimate do you think this source is? ObserverNY (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, I haven't looked at the link you posted yet so I can't speak to the legitimacy of the source. Of course, as I'm sure you know, the US was allied with the Shah in the 70's and opposed the Iranian Revolution (and subsequent rule of Ayatollah Khomeini). Nonetheless, that is interesting information. Good research! Regards, CinchBug | Talk 20:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Unwatching

Just so you know, I've unwatched you. If necessary (or just to say hello!) ping me. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Good Article reassesment Brown

Cool. I did a bit more , thanks for your help..we are close.. but no cigar.. lets give it a final push tomorrow and the next day and get tony to let us know what else is needed. It's a lot better and when he says it is a good article we can enjoy. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC))

comment from Tony...

Are we getting close? (off2riorob)

You still have to fix the location of the refs, the last alt text, and the renewed disamb problems.--TonyTheTiger

(Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC))

I've posted on the WP:ALT talk page, with a note that I'd try and fix the infobox so I can add the last alt text - it's protected but I figure if I can fix it in a sandbox, some kindly admin will move the fix into the real infobox that bit quicker! I won't be doing that tonight - I had a look and there's way too much code to wade through. Likewise for the remaining stuff - I'll pick up tomorrow after my first coffee!

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha, love it. way...tooo much code. Close.. how will we celebrate? I can't wait...that Tony is a tiger. tomorrow. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

It's the main pic, yea? It is likely more easy than we think, i'll try to ask a trusted user about it tomorrow, best regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Good day to you. I have dropped a note on User_talk:Quadell page, he is good with pictures. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Cool - I'm fighting with a broken PC right now, so I'm not able to look at the infobox stuff right now, but I'll be dropping in and out as I get dragged back to the laptop to check stuff (i.e. I'm supposed to be looking up desktop hardware fixes, but instead I'm instinctively checking Wikipedia ;-)

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If your online, do you know exactly what he means by...You still have to fix the location of the refs? (Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Not certain, but it's possible he means that "References" should come before "Notes". I'd check with Tony though. Only reason I think this is that the "References" section looks like a bibliography, and the "Notes" section looks like citations cross-referenced against the bibliography - it's a neat way to do it, but whenever I've seen it done the biblio section comes first. I could be way off, though. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have done that, is there still an issue with the main picture? (Off2riorob (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Aye - it needs alt text for the portrait image and also, apparently, for the signature (not sure what to say about a signature...)

Over at WP:ALT an editor has a fix lined up, and has added a {{Editprotected}} to the relevant infobox asking that an admin apply the fix. Once that's done I'll add in the alt text.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I think that is the only thing left, if you get chance would you please read the whole thing and let me know what you think. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Looks good - I did a few (minor) copy-edits - mostly stuff like full-stops on the wrong side of a cite - but other than that I reckon get Tony to give it a whirl! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks mate, I will drop him a note. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Alright mate? I hope so, I was looking at you posts and saw that the Gordon Brown pics are sorted and the signature is not yet fixed, what a job, and only for GA. Lets talk tomorrow, but thanks for all your support. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC))

Aye, not too bad! Not sure how much time I'll have tomorrow, I still haven't sorted out the misbehaving PC (and the replacement parts are due tomorrow...) but should have time to catch up. I'm in two minds about the signature - Tony seems OK as it is, and I kind of think it's worth pursuing, but not in Gordon Brown but instead at the infobox level - i.e. instead of having an alt field for the signature just have a generic alt text for all signatures. But I digress...! Let's catch up tomorrow! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, tomorrow. If tony is happy lets celebrate. Get that PC under control and we'll talk then. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC))

The end game (Brown)

Good day to you. I am unsure if there is anything left to do? Do you know of anything? (Off2riorob (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

Nothing that I'm aware of. The last things Tony mentioned were the alt text (done, barring the signature, but he seems happy with that) and copy-editing (done, Tony seems happy).

If Tony's about it might be worth seeing if he's happy enough to sign off on it. Failing that, I guess we just watch edits like hawks in case they spoil the article ;-)

Off topic, but how did you get on on commons with the Blair picture?

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on the help page, I had a look and couldn't see the change...very funny..lemon indeed ..a very creative piece of vandelism.If we think it is ready I will leave a note on Tony's page now...I like the work and perhaps I will ask tony for another political one to work on. It should be easier next time.(Off2riorob (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

I have left him a note, so lets see. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

Well done, you too. Good. good, good. Thank you for joining in. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

Just a thought, to finish up we should archive the GA review page and get the note removed from the top of the Gordon Brown page were is says the article is under reassesment. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

And..What about working the Tony Blair article to a GA status? That would be a good work, and we could get one of them stars. The blair article is still well trafic-ed and was messed around and used as a coatrack a lot, now it is quiet. What do you say? Yes? No pressure, no stress. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

Aye, I'd be up to that, time-permitting.

Back to GB, I'll check the page and see if there's anything I can do or if it needs a FA reviewer like Tony.

For the record, you and Tom B (and Tony) did far more to GB than me; I merely swooped in at the last minute to do some fairly minor tidy-up tasks. I'll happily take any credit I can blag, though!

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 09:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

JLS (band)

I'd stay away from that article for a day. I've been bitten before on UK chart updates, and it leads to edit-warring. The UK charts get published Sunday morning in physical form, and the online versions get updated on Monday. Since it hit number 4 on a Europe-wide chart, the chances are actually pretty good that it went number one in the only country that cares about the group at all. It'll get set back to a number one position by someone within minutes. We'll know tomorrow how it actually did, and can correct it or cite it then.—Kww(talk) 15:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, understood. I've encountered similar issues in the past, where editors have apparently seen (or heard) the chart results, but can't cite them - and as you say, it's worth the grief. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

JLS (band)

I'd stay away from that article for a day. I've been bitten before on UK chart updates, and it leads to edit-warring. The UK charts get published Sunday morning in physical form, and the online versions get updated on Monday. Since it hit number 4 on a Europe-wide chart, the chances are actually pretty good that it went number one in the only country that cares about the group at all. It'll get set back to a number one position by someone within minutes. We'll know tomorrow how it actually did, and can correct it or cite it then.—Kww(talk) 15:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, understood. I've encountered similar issues in the past, where editors have apparently seen (or heard) the chart results, but can't cite them - and as you say, it's worth the grief. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

IB Research

Hi TFOWR,

Can you find any info on these two guys? Gérard Reynaud - (1977-83) & Roger Peel - (1983-98) It seems a bit odd that since they span 21 combined years of leadership of IBO that there doesn't appear to be any verifiable info on the web about them. Of course, my Google skills are not the best, maybe you can help. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I'll give it a shot! (Incidentally, apologies for any edit-conflicts at IB recently - I was doing something I hate when I see other editors doing it - making a lot of minor edits. Easiest way to do what I was doing, though (copy-editing sections)). Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, both kind of pre-date the WWW, I wonder if that's the problem? The web really started towards the end of Peel's term. I'm surprised I can't find anything recent for either of them, though. The best I've found so far is this: a Roger Peel seems to work for the (UK) "Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference". Nothing to confirm it's the same one, but might be worth following up with a spot of digging. I'll keep looking... Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm (again) - maybe, maybe not. Had a couple of headmaster jobs prior to HMC - would that cover 1998 to present? Can you be a headmaster and also DG of the IB? I'll keep digging... Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Curious, is it not? No worry about the minor edits, I'm still learning about proper referencing and appreciate any improvements you make to my attempts. I think I've gotten a little bit better, yes? Anyway, the fact that both the MYP and PYP were launched under Peel's tenure just makes me very curious as to his background. Was this guy a professor? A lawyer? A revolutionary? A monk? hehehehe... Reynaud appears to have been a scientist, there was another Reynaud who opposed the Communist party, but I have no idea if they are related. But being the suspicious sort, it just strikes me as very odd that there is SO much information on Peterson, Walker and Beard (and I searched long and hard for specifics on Blackman) but nothing (especially from ibo) on these two. ObserverNY (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I focussed more on Peel that Reynaud, but I did find a few EU Reynauds - which might be worth exploring: France+EU is often (at least historically) Christian Democrat (and anti-communist). I've got side-tracked elsewhere, but I'll keep hunting...! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Pssst - what do you make of that "anonymous" request for the 3rd Opinion? LOL! It wasn't me, I swear on my dear departed mother-in-law's grave! ObserverNY (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Oh, it was me! It's not really meant to be a secret amongst the IB editors - it's just protocol for WP:3O requests - so that anyone providing an opinion isn't biased for or against the person who requested it! I could have mentioned that on the IB talk page, but felt it best to stick with third-opinion protocol. It's not a complete secret - the third-opinion folk can always check the history - but it helps them follow their procedures.

Sorry about the James Bond approach!

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

TFOWR, your usage of the word "keen" in this context was a bit of a giveaway. That's a relatively uncommon usage in the Colonies. ;) Regards, CinchBug | Talk 16:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Ssssh! They'll never know it was me! I'll deny everything! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol! CinchBug | Talk 16:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No apology necessary, you "suave" thang. LOL! ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

oversight

I sent them 2 emails as follows:

My friend's IP address is posted in two places because I forgot to log in. As a result, another user did a search http://en.utrace.de/ and posted the information on my talk page “La mome” and another editor’s talkpage “TFOWR.” I would like that information removed and the user “ObserverNY” banned for harassment and outing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TFOWR#Copyright_in_Assessment

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIB_Diploma_Programme&diff=301234337&oldid=301232380

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:La_mome

Thank you,

“La mome”

I also included the IP address in the email--obviously I won't do that here, but I think you can figure out from the history where it is.

I am sure that ObserverNY will not be banned, since s/he has already gotten several warnings. It seems to me that some people have free reign and do what ever they want and others get chastised for sarcasm. What really concerns me is that the IP address is floating around in cyberspace for other cyberstalkers to use as they see fit.

That said, at the very least, I would appreciate it if you could remove that information from your talk page history and from the IB page, if possible. I've already removed it from your talk page, but not the history, in case you didn't notice.

Thank you La mome (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I'll email oversight and push them. I saw you remove the edit in question from here; I can't remove it from my history - oversight will need to do that. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have not gotten "several warnings", the only official "warning" was the 24 hour ban for 3RR which was initiated by LaMome. Please stop attacking my character to other editors, LaMome. ObserverNY (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Also just for the record, both of you should know by now that I'm always scrupulously neutral in these matters. The request to oversight will consist of specific diffs, and a request that they be oversighted (and nothing else will be mentioned). I'd very much doubt that oversight would do anything other than remove the edits. If either of you want more done, you'll need to pursue it yourselves - I can, of course, give you advice on resolving disuptes (but my first advice is - relax more). Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

TFOWR - Om ;-) Hey, I'm not the one on a rampage to see another editor banned. I believe in working out differences in a reasonable manner. It's probably the reason I've managed to stay married for 33 years, short spats, hash it out, forgive and forget and move on. Makes life a lot more pleasant. Now off to practice my archery! ObserverNY (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict)

TFOWR--I am sure enabling my "email this user" would facilitate things for you, but I removed that feature from my preferences for obvious reasons (see above comment to clarify). I'll say "aye" to the four and be very appreciative of your help.

ObserverNY--You have several "unoffical" warnings about outing editors on your talk page, that you have not yet deleted. I am not attacking your character, I am stating the facts.

La mome (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll run with the four, then. For future reference, if you don't want to enable your email feature, but are happy for me to know your email address, you can email me (using the "email this user" thingy). Ping me here, first, though, as I'll disable my "email this user" thing as you don't need it (I tend to keep it off to avoid spam, more than anything else).

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Please rest assured that I have no interest in e-mailing anyone as I have enough trouble keeping up with the comments being made about me on talk pages all over Wikipedia! Conversation between editors does not constitute "several warnings" and LaMome's attempt to now redefine such conversation as "unofficial warnings" and "fact" is disingenuous at best. What I DID delete were LaMome's harrassing comments to me which I have the right to do on my own talk page. The "unofficial warnings" LaMome is referring to also included nice comments that the contributing editors stated they didn't want to see me banned and complimented my edits. ObserverNY (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict)

Thanks so much. If you don't mind, I am not going to go the "ping" route. I'll keep the discussions on talk pages.

I am having a nice cup of tea right now and am in fact very relaxed. Sure, I am willing to forgive and forget if someone apologized for the attempted outing and less than welcoming attitude.

Cheers La mome (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Email sent. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Five bullseyes, allright! Sure, I'm willing to apologize for what LaMome perceives as an "attempted outing" if she apologizes for her prolific attacks against me and my contributions to the IB articles. ObserverNY (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

• Here's my take on this. For many of us, we got off to a bad start. Ewen and me started badly with ONY, for example. Ewen was an inspiration to me, and showed that it was possible to start over, and draw a line under our history. I hope that's apparent in how I've behaved recently. For other editors (ONY and LaMome, for example) there is still "bad blood" - but it's based on past events, not recent editing. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that your recent editing together has been really productive. So... is there any chance both of you could agree to draw a line under the past and judge each other on what happens in the future? ("yes" or "no", please - no essays on how the other editor did or said or believes this or that!) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

TFOWR - I do believe in Wiki talk that would be called a WP:Truce, yes? Yes to LaMome if she agrees, but no such resolution with Tvor65 to date. ObserverNY (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Excellent! (One thing at a time - though I will be pushing for something similar with Tvor65 in time). LaMome, how about it? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I also proposed the WP:truce on Uncle G's talk page to both. ObserverNY (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Sure, I am a reasonable person and really despise all the drama. Love this idea-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout We missed starting by one day, but it's never too late to leave the drama for your mamma. Shall we post the truce and the dramaout links on the IB talk pages?

La mome (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Links I'll leave up to you two, I'm just happy you've shaken hands! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions about patrolling for vandalism and patrolling new pages

Does patrolling new pages simply involve patrolling new pages and adding whichever templates may be required? Have you ever gone on new page patrol? Does an editor need privileges to go on vandalism patrol? Now I have to watchlist you again! And yes, I'm busy, but sometimes mindless computer tasks are welcome Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, if you'd asked I could have replied on your talk page - I'm replying here since you're watching but in future, if it helps...

Anyway - new page patrol, I don't know. I don't think you need any privileges, but you would need to be familiar with the categories that articles should belong in.

Vandalism - now that is something I'm familiar with! No privileges necessary, just keep WP:VAND handy, and Special:RecentChanges. Click on RecentChanges, check the diff for the top article, and if it's vandalism then undo the vandalism, go to the vandal's talk page, and issue a warning from the list at WP:VAND. If the vandal hasn't been warned in the last 24 hours then start with a level 1 warning; otherwise just increment. If they've already received a final (level 4) warning then head over to WP:AIV and report them. (If the diff you checked isn't vandalism, then click on RecentChanges again - focus on the most recent change each time, because usually previous changes will have been dealt with by the time you get to them).

Once you're more familiar with warning vandals you can tailor it to the situation: I often start with a higher warning if the vandalism is blatant hate speech, for example.

I suppose I should warn you that vandals may visit your talk page; in practice this has rarely happened to me, but it's something to be aware of.

Good luck!

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. NPP is a little complicated because of the categories and all the many stub templates. I'll have a look at the Special:RecentChanges log. Mostly I copyedit, but at times that's overwhelming because there is so much to be rewritten and sourced on Wikipedia(which is why it's not so hard to step away from IB drama). Anyway, cheers!! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Update

I have removed all of my contributions to the IB article. It now stands as a POV ghost. ObserverNY (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Let me revise that, HelloAnny re-added and re-organized, I reserve the right to withhold comment on how it looks now. Tvor65 and Truthkeeper are happy so I guess that's all that matters. Let's see how long it takes before they start loading up the article with "praise" for IB. ObserverNY (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

re:Sock tagging

No problem. Honestly, if it's an obvious sock, then don't worry about the "pristine" red page  :-) I tag it on the User Page so that when the "suspected sockpuppets of _____" category is clicked, then all of the accounts listed are "User:" and not "User Talk:". But that's just me being anal=retentive. - eo (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Nowt wrong with being AR! Thanks for the explanation - to be honest, most of the socks I tag are WP:DUCKy, so I'll take your advice and go straight for the userpage. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

still no news, deletions from oversight

Hey TFOWR,

Unfortunately, the IP address still appears on the history of the talk page of the IBDP article. Since you've archived your talk page, I can't find it here. (Not placing blame on you, just stating a fact---that I can't find it---doesn't mean it is or is not there). It is odd that they haven't responded, isn't it?

Thanks for looking into it for me. I don't know what else to do at this point.

La mome (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sizing images?

This is a techie question: do you know how to preserve image size & formatting across browsers? Sorry, the question may not be clear, but if you reply on my userpage, I'll clarify so the others who raised the issue can read as well. Thanks as usual. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Added {{clear}}. Much better. All it needed was a small fix! Thanks for your help. Btw -- am basically gone for the next few days, just so you know. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have a moment, will you wander over to my sandbox and have a look at how the missions are formatting? I don't like how the text is wrapping under the image (as I see it) when I add more text, and need a second opinion. This time I won't tell you I'll be gone, and maybe I'll finally find myself away from the computer! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. The reviewer suggested the section be created w/ church image + prose, so that's what I'm trying to achieve. I'll realign once the main editor decides to have all left alignments or alternating left/right. My monitor (1600 x 1000) shows only San Javier w/ wraparound text. Anyway, this is a tricky bit of work, and I think we'll have three editors on it in a few days, but before I hand it over I wanted another set of eyes. Thanks again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Help with adding information.

Hello again long time no speak, Im contacting you in the hope that you can add some information to the Sandi Thom page please,specifically her discography.. " The Best of Sandi Thom" album has been released today (27/07/09) and i dont want to mess up the page attempting to add the information. It hasnt charted at all but this info can be added if the situation changes. Thanks in advance SL (Skinnylizzy (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

Well, don't add the album to the discography until it has charted and/or has its own article. Other than that, you can certainly mention the new album in the main body of the article. I'll try and add something later today, if you haven't already. Cheers! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding to your user page

Hi! Thought you needed a post since Cluebot is eating your userpage. Seriously though, you might want to check your archives, because when Cluebot ate my page it didn't go to archives and I had to revert to an old version in history to find everything. That is, if you want things to be found! Btw -- I snapped tonight over at International Baccalaureate and at Harlan Hanson talkpages. That's what I get for finally getting a few days away! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! Aye, my archiving is not set up correctly - I delayed setting it up until I had some spare time, and now don't have the time to fix it... I'll need to trawl through my history at some point once I get things working...

I can't believe you'd snap! I've only just logged on, but I'll swing by. I'm not convinced of my ability to solve problems right now, so I make no promises in that regard ;-)

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the archive destination has to be set in the mark-up in the talkpage template, but I used a different template w/out CluebotII because the conversations disappeared altogether and I needed some of the posts for copy editing. As for IB, no need to waste your time. Some problems are unsolvable. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I suspect when I find the time I'll just steal your archiving code ;-) I've had a quick catch-up on the main IB talk page, and couldn't see where you snapped - but I'm beginning to feel like a voyeur, so I'll leave it for now and thank my stars that I missed it! Hope you've recovered now, anyway! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Take the template. It's very simple & has no archiving mark-up. I'll archive manually when necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP

Please note that BLP applies just as much on talk pages as it does on articles. Attacks posed as questions are not "cite needed" material. I have once again removed what is alleged to be sockpuppet readdition from talk:Gordon Brown. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

... Noting, of course, that you sensibly removed it in the first place. There wasn't really any need to compromise there on the third readdition. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Aye, I should have removed it the second time, but a (third-party) editor had re-added it in order to reply to it. In hindsight I should have nudged them to remove the sock's comment and their reply, neatly avoiding the subsequent pandering to HarveyCarter's latest IP sock puppet. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of putting the section back since it is pretty well known that Brown is believed to be autistic. (RobMacLachlan (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

Fancy taking this one to SPI? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly do! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflicts!!

Yep, time consuming, irritating, annoying, etc. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, in real-life I look at systems that are affected by this, and I've spent today largely talking about ways to avoid conflicts. I suspect for the time being it'll remain a fact of life on Wikipedia, however...! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a time when I was in charge of what we called "change control" !! Ha, controlling iterations is not easy!! Wikipedia is good because all the iterations are available to access. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which somehow managed to save before finishing the edit summary. Sorry to bother you when you're busy. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologise - if I'm truly busy I'll simply ignore you 'til later ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi TFOWR - you don't need to look to yesterday at LaMome's edits, merely this afternoon's talk page at IBDP and the edits to the Reception section in both articles to see that she not only sought to divide the discussion, but went ahead and made changes that were not agreed to when Cinchbug in particular, had called for civility and agreement before changes were made to the section. LaMome recklessly disregarded this request. You think that's good faith? I don't. Cinchbug even asked her to weigh in and that's when she jumped to the other article. I can't believe you still don't recognize the tag team divide, delete and conquer attack mode of Tvor65 and LaMome. Then you and Truthkeeper claim "confusion", or "frustration" or "ooo, the conflict is too much to bear!" Try taking an honest look at who starts the conflicts! ObserverNY (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Hi ONY

A large part of the problem is that much of the time you appear to starting the conflicts (I'm not saying that you are, simply that when everyone else is appearing to work collegially, you can come across as quite abrasive and confrontational).

Another part of the problem, and the reason I claimed confusion, was because I couldn't see anything wrong with the edits you identified - that's why I asked you to specify the precise edits, and the nature of those precise edits, that you found to be in bad faith ("WP:GAMING"). Quite a lot of the time you seem to assume that everyone else will see what you see - really, that's not the case at all: it will really help if you're very precise with complaints - specify the exact edit(s), and explain what the problem is with the edit(s). Think of it as explaining a graffiti problem to a police officer with bad eyesight who's unfamiliar with English ;-) You need to point out exactly where the graffiti is, and why it's bad. See WP:DIFF for how to specify individual edits, and remember that non-involved editors won't necessarily see why an individual edit is "bad" without an explanation (ideally citing policy).

Quick cheat-sheet for WP:DIFF: I click on the "contributions" of an editor, then check the "diff" links of recent edits until I find the edit I'm interested in. I copy the "URL" of that diff. Repeat until you have all the diffs you need.

The conflict is too much to bear - because it's entirely avoidable. You need to stop rising to the bait, and Tvor65 needs to stop rising to the bait. One of the common "solutions" at, say, WP:ANI is to "topic-ban" disruptive editors. I can see a situation arising where admins who haven't looked too closely at the situation decide that a topic-ban for you and Tvor65 is desirable - which, from my perspective, will result in one less pro-IB editor and zero anti-IB editors. I don't regard that a desirable solution, but I can see admins thinking that it's preferable to endless conflict and disruption.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

IB Diploma Programme sources

Just so you know replied here at bottom of the thread. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Aye, saw that, thanks! Your reply made sense - I think we're all on the same page, really. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Just noted your post about the funding and UNESCO. I worded it as is, (although haven't checked history to see what's happened to the wording) because Unesco funded the IB start up project with $10,000 over four years. The Ford Foundation funded with two grants, one for $300,000 and another (can't remember the amount but more than Unesco), so in my view if only one funding agency is mentioned it should be Ford. The 20th Century Foundation grant was $75,000, again more than Unesco. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

My thinking was more that UNESCO is significant because it still has some involvement, and is notable (the lay-reader is likely to have heard of it ;-) ... it's just thinking aloud, though - nothing scientific about my preferences, and I certainly won't object if the current version is kept - or even if additional donors are added. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree Unesco gets the nod for notability; and although not as notable, Ford's involvement is also worthy. I think we're on the same page here, too. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No rest for the weary

Sorry, but I'm back. Where do the warning templates live? Specifically the 3r templates? Am doing five things at once, and can't find them, but really have had enough! (Post either here or on my page.) I'll be gone for awhile, taking care of the other four things I'm doing, but will check in later. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the best answer is "dotted around all over the place" ;-)

The 3RR one is at Template:Uw-3rr - it has instructions for use there (3 options) so I won't repeat it, but it's pretty straightforward.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 21:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Opinion please

Hi! My daily check in with you! Need your opinion here about this before it spirals too far. Of course if you're busy, please ignore. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Was it just one long paragraph before? I'd prefer a table to one long paragraph, but my ideal would be short sections for each country with pseudo-headings (headings that don't appear in the TOC). The table has a lot of white-space in the left-hand side, which is why I'd prefer pseudo-sections, but I can see why a table would be preferable to an ugly long load of text.

Not busy, just trying to have a quiet day ;-)

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It was exactly as you describe before: short sections for each country (but not pseudo-headings). Having just spent a lot of time converting table to prose, I'm not sure what to say. Clearly some work went into this which shouldn't be summarily discounted. Anyway, feel free to stay away. Quiet days are nice! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Having read some of the talk page debate, it does seem that creating a new article for recognition would (a) be extremely useful, and (b) neatly solve the current "crisis".

I'm also unsure why there is any drama - ONY WP:BOLDly converted prose to a table, which may not be ideal but is reasonable. A prior discussion might have been nice, but is by no means mandatory. I'd be annoyed if ONY behaved like this towards Tvor65, and I'm equally annoyed that Tvor65 is behaving like this towards ONY now. Anyway... they both know what I think about dramah-mongering (and the inevitable consequences), and it seems to make not the slightest bit of difference.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've stepped away for a few minutes, so haven't been keeping up. I've reformatted what ONY (as you said WP:BOLDly created here. It's sortable by country, etc., and could be the basis for a separate namespace page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the formatting, though I'm unconvinced about the sortable-ness of it - the only column (at present) for which sorting makes sense if "Country", and that's already sorted. Were you thinking of adding more columns? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I stole the mark-up from the mission tables. The first column sorts (big deal, but...) and the second column scrolls from country to country (again, not necessary!), and exactly the reasons the tables had to be converted to prose. No, hadn't considered a third column, but anything is possible! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

TK, not to butt-in, but I don't understand what you mean by scrolling. I can't get that to work properly, apparently. Regards, • CinchBug • 19:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, moving this to the IB talkpage. I removed the "scrolling" option. Apologies to TFOWR!! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologise, you're both more than welcome here! (If the conversation had gone on for a while without me, then I'd have nudged you onward). Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You've done your job for the day! I've moved it to the IB sandbox which is where we should be discussing this. Btw -- have been wondering whether we should set ClueBot loose over on the IB talk pages? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think ClueBot is an excellent idea, from a dramah-avoidance perspective. I think it's only a matter of time before someone manually archives something, and someone else takes umbrage. ClueBot is a nice, easy-to-understand proposition - and we can discuss it beforehand, and agree on a time (45 days?) so no-one gets any nasty surprises.

That said - I still haven't beat ClueBot into shape on my talk page, so I'm maybe not the expert on archiving I am currently pretending to be ;-)

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think ClueBot is a good idea, too. Hadn't thought of that... Regards, • CinchBug • 20:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to interject here but since my name was mentioned... I did not and don't have any intention to cause any drama, believe me - I have loads of work and much better things to do. But if you followed the discussion a little closer, you would see what actually happened. ONY had this big idea that Reception must come before the "boring" recognition part which to her was like "a table" (I think you know why she wants to move Reception but I will not speculate). I said it's not a table and that I think Reception should remain where it was, after the Recognition. So ONY converted the Recognition to a table and then said that now we need to move Reception up so that it is not separated by a table. Well, to me the table looks even uglier than the text we had before, and I think CB and LaMome don't care for it either, and neither does TK, but everyone sort of reluctantly agreed to leave it as is, just as we left the Reception section as is, to avoid another drama. Which is fine with me, as long as we have some sort of consensus. I wonder if the same would happen if I made a "bold change" without discussion, though.Tvor65 (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't intend to cause drama, just as I'm sure ONY doesn't intend to cause drama, but the fact is that the pair of you do seem to clash far too much, and don't seem to be improving.

Think about what you've written above, as an example - "if you followed the discussion a little closer, you would see what actually happened" - this is exactly the kind of comment that both of you make about each other much of the time, and it demonstrates a lack of good faith. I get exactly the same kind of presumptive comments from ONY - have a look above for an example. I honestly don't understand how either of you think comments like that are going to achieve anything other than alienating other editors.

Both of you react abrasively to the other's edits. You could have ignored ONY's table, you could have posted quietly on ONY's talk page, you could even have posted more diplomatically on the article's talk page. But it seems that both of you prefer a confrontational approach, which is increasingly inappropriate.

I believe if you had made a WP:BOLD edit without discussion it's likely all hell would have broken loose, and I would have been having this discussion with "another editor" instead.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my phrase if you followed the discussion a little closer, you would see what actually happened was not presumptive at all - it was just a suggestion that perhaps you did not see the sequence of events, and thought I just randomly decided to comment about ONY's table edit to spite her, or something. That was not the case, and that's all I was trying to convey. But I guess I was wasting my time. Oh well.

I suppose it is easy to naively blame me for what is happening but the fact of the matter is, I was gone from Wikipedia for almost two weeks, and ONY's behavior escalated several times during that period, without any "help" from me. I can do this again, and it will not make a slightest difference. The only reason I am still around is that I can't stand to see some of edits being made. But maybe I should try to care less.Tvor65 (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's really difficult for all but the most amenable editors to interpret if you followed the discussion a little closer, you would see what actually happened as meaning anything other than "[you] didn't follow the discussion closely enough, and didn't see what actually happened". This is what I mean by "abrasive" - I'm sure you didn't mean to imply what I inferred, but I also believe most editors would infer exactly what I did.

I'm not "naively blam[ing]" (another turn of phrase that could have been better considered, by the way) you for what is happening: I'm saying that your editing frequently (not always, not solely) serves to inflame the situation. You can either take that as constructive criticism and develop as an editor, or you can ignore it. My concern is that if you and ONY continue to treat this as a WP:BATTLE one or both of you will be blocked or topic-banned - and I don't, believe it or not, want either of you to stop editing the IB articles. I simply want you to collaborate better.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm entirely at fault for starting this conversation and for pulling in everyone else. Won't do it again. Might have to go so far as to dewatchlist this page for a while. Apologies to everyone involved. Btw -- I've posted on the IB DP talkpage & in the future I'll keep the discussion there. Sorry TFOWR for interrupting your time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

TK, it most certainly isn't your fault. In fact, it was your efforts with the recognition table that helped calm things down a bit. Regards, • CinchBug • 23:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, TFOWR, you are really naive. Sorry for wasting your time. I sure regret wasting mine. Tvor65 (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Knowledge

Stop in attacking me.Check the articles that i've just controlled.I'm in a right posistion.151.60.117.41 (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EU 100%. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

May be you didn't understand what i wrote.151.60.117.41 (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Mate, I don't understand most things you write. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked some articles(you can see the articles that i checked) in english Wikipedia.No more words.151.60.117.41 (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. These are your edits; all you seem to be doing is trolling my talk page - you've made no recent edits to other articles (in fact, this IP has made no edits to articles at all). And what does "no more words" mean? That you're going to respect your block, or something else? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No time to lose if you don't understand.That's all.151.60.117.41 (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, so presumably you'll be making no more posts here (or anywhere, for that matter). Any further trolling here, and I'll simply revert your posts. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

RSS Feeds

Thanks for welcoming me, I only created a account for a few very minor edits I did last week. Since then I have spent quite abit of time browsing thorugh Wikipedia. RSS feeds would be a fantastic way of receiving updates to articles of current events as this site seems to be updated quicker than most news sites. I honestly don't know where I would start if I were to edit anything you people seem to be doing a great job. Thanks again:)--Zthatin (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh! Be very careful - that's more or less how I started! A few innocent IP edits here and there, then I thought I'd create an article, and before I knew it I had an account and far too many edits behind me! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Support

Good day to you TFOWR. Many thanks for your encouragement during my forced holiday, I am really grateful for that. I will be going slowly for a little while, finding my feet, so to speak. Right now I don't feel like starting anything major. Very best regards to you. (Off2riorob (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC))

No worries, and welcome back! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 09:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Damn !!

lol i was looking at the -> list underneath each option thinking that was redirect too lol. It was mentioned in debate some time ago because someone created their own article for "republic of Ireland" like you were suggesting. They went further and actually moved all the articles against the rules. Anyway following the vote if F loses, its going to have to be confirmed before the move takes place along with other things like how to refer to Ireland in text. The moves aint allowed to take place till those things are sorted, and im sure considering the number of votes for option F so far alot of opposition will be made to the idea that ROI isnt a redirect. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries! I, uh, remember the Republic of Ireland issue - I got caught up in quite badly. Slightly ironically, as I suspect my !vote is pretty similar to how the editor in question will eventually !vote... Anyway, the idea of a different article at ROI should probably wait until the polls close! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yiwentang

Hi, semi-noob admin question: What exactly is the purpose of the SPI request in the case of Yiwentang? Personally, I think it's so obvious I probably would have blocked the lot of them without bothering to file a request, especially since he's already been blocked for a year for sockpuppeting and legal threats. Is it just so we have rock-solid evidence to justify a further block? --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much, aye! I didn't request a checkuser, because I think the case is fairly WP:DUCKish (i.e. blatant), so all I'm really hoping for is for an admin to say "yup, socks!" and either block them all or send me to WP:ANI to request blocks (my past experience with WP:ANI is that they want editors to have been to WP:SPI first). Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I see now. I spent some time reading the instructions and see that I can indeed close that SPI and block them. I was muddying checkuser requests with SPI, but I see that a checkuser is not necessary here. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not my place to say, since I'm not an admin and have no experience here, but - how involved are you? If you've posted on WebHamster's talk page, say, it might be best to let the SPI play out. If not, then please close+block, by all means! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ruslik0 concurs, and I see you've blocked - many thanks! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for filing the case. I did comment on WebHamster's block, but that may be the only time I've posted to his page and I haven't ever interacted with him that I can recall. It was that block that led me to start looking at Yiwentang's contributions. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A little work!

Hi mate, if you have perhaps a little time tonight or tomorrow there is some small work ready to do to the David Cameron article, we did brown so it would be rude not to. It's here...Talk:David_Cameron#Check_links. I did the check links on him and there are one or two errors that I have commented on and User:Sam Blacketer has replied to, I want to basically follow his ideas. There is a small rewrite of a section and some swapping of cites (I am not used yet to cite books and pages of magazines) I you'd like to help ..have a look. I'm off line till later this evening. Regards (Off2riorob (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC))

No worries, I'll take a look later (I actually have DC watchlisted already - I'm non-partisan when it comes to the party-leaders). Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Off to copy edit

First, thanks for your help on the Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos. It passed GA.
I've been asked to copy edit another GA nominated article, so I'll be doing that with the limited wiki time I have these days. Why am I telling you this? To let you know that I'll be off the IB series for a while, so won't be keeping much of an eye over there. In effect I'm passing my involvement back to you, or to Ewen if he ever returns! The archiving is set up, so they're in good shape as far as that issue is concerned. Cheers! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries - glad to help wherever I can! I'll try and keep an eye on the IB articles; it's been quiet of late, but I guess that's mostly down to protection. Good work with the archiving, by the way - barnstar richly deserved! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization of Initialisms

Please weigh in on the capitalization issue in IBDP WP:Manual of Style (capital letters). Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Photo upload by another user

Hi User:TFOWR,
User:Arttwin uploaded a picture under my instructions and their is no plagiarism, which is good, but it could be copyright infringement.
Could you check out the DVD cover for the article Recovered: Journeys Through the Autism Spectrum and Back to see if its fine?
Thanx!
ATC ^{. Talk} 21:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nimbley?

Special:Contributions/Florenceandthemachinedoohaa. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, maybe not; similar interests, but judging by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coming Up Easy he seems more clueless. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Blimey, I take a week off and the little blighter pops up again! Definitely Nimbley; the clueless whining on the AfD is a give-away: Nimbley suffers from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Anyway, well spotted! It looks like the latest sock has been blocked. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Men to the moon / People to the moon

You may recall I asked for your assistance with an astronaut Stuart Roosa page a while ago, with an anonymous individual who amended "people" to "men" (much as you experienced with the Neil Armstrong page). That ended in a gracious compromise for that one page.

Now, it seems, someone (the same person?) is messing with the pages for many more Apollo astronauts:

Currently:

Fred Haise

Alfred Worden

Charles Duke

and the other week:

Jack Swigert

Ken Mattingly

Ronald Evans

I am not particularly opposed to their amendment, but it does make the sentence twice as long needlessly. Plus the poster's explanation that it "reflects the times" the people flew doeesn't seem to have any bearing on the accuracy of a 2009 web page. And now, they are getting a little rude when their anonymous, unexplained edits are undone, saying "You don't own Wikipedia."

Might I therefore ask that you semi-protect the above pages for a little while until they grow bored and move on? Thanks so much once again!! SpaceHistory101 (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Following the advice of another editor, I have also raised the subject at WT:SPACE, if that is helpful. Thank you. SpaceHistory101 (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You there?

Hi
Hmm, you seem to be offline currently. Can you confirm my Nimbley-detector hit, if you got the time?
Cheers, Amalthea 22:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it got blatant enough, so he was blocked&reverted. No need to break your wikibreak for it. :) Cheers, Amalthea 08:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted! In theory, I'm not on a wikibreak... in practice I'm side-tracked in real-life right now! Normal service should resume shortly...

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear. Both the real-life sidetracking and the being back soon. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 13:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

I seemed to have blocked you by mistake. I've removed it and I apologize. Just letting you know. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no worries! I saw the "you are evil and can't edit this page"-warning, but by the time I'd recovered from shock you'd unblocked me! Thanks for the apology, and no harm done! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Awwww, I want a "you are evil and can't edit this page" banner! It would give me such a giggle! LOL! How ya doin Josephine? Life's good? ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Busy! Got caught unawares by some work-related commitments which have prevented me spending much time online. All good, though, and I feel somewhat refreshed having had an extended "holiday" ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Just checking in

Hi! Glad to hear you're alive & well. I was getting worried that you'd left wikipedia. Looking forward to having you back! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I'll post a "retired" tag or similar if I ever decide to go that far! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Though you got caught up in real life or went on holiday, but hoped it wasn't anything serious. Anyway, glad to have you back. Now I have another person to bother mercilessly!! Actually, have been wondering how to become a rollbacker, and wanted to ask you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Aha, rollback! In my case, some kindly admin asked me if I'd find it useful, and granted me rollback when I replied in the affirmative. However... you could go straight to the source: Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests.

I don't know how much time I'll be able to spend on Wikipedia in the near future - it's likely that I'll be active at weekends but invisible during the week. Feel free to bother me mercilessly, however - just be aware that my replies may be delayed ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you around, TFOWR. I've been doing recent page patrol and vandal-fighting lately, and was also thinking about asking for rollback privileges--I can't keep up with all the people who use Twinkle and Huggle! I was considering, if I were awarded rollback, downloading and using Huggle. Regards, • CinchBug • 19:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem if you don't get back to me! So, what to do about a page such as this that has multiple posts of vandalism -- I'm afraid I've botched the undoing, but it needs to go back to the pre-vandalised version. Generally isn't this the reason for rollback privileges? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

TK, yep, that's the big feature that makes rollback so nice to have. Someone else vandalized the page after you left, and a user armed with rollback (and Huggle) reverted to your version. But, since you don't have rollback yet, there were a couple of vandalism edits that weren't caught when you used "undo." I just went back and fixed the page, but I had to use some Old School editing tools: namely, I went back to the last unvandalized version, opend and copied the entire page, and then went back to the most recent version where I pasted in the old non-vandalized content. I've had to do that several times while on patrol, but it's painfully slow... Rollback would make it a lot faster--and, once you have rollback, then you can use Huggle, which can automatically add an appropriate warning on the vandal's talk page (based on the level of warnings already issued there) and even automatically submit a vandalism report at WP:AIV. Regards, • CinchBug • 01:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Best place to get the rollback user right is at WP:PERM. You should typically have a couple of vandalism reversions in your contributions since rollback is (almost) exclusively for undoing vandalism, not for undoing constructive edits or good-faithed edits that warrant an edit summary.
Even without rollback, you can undo a string of vandalistic edits by going to the page history, clicking on the timestamp of the last good revision, editing editing this old revision, and saving it. All of that is much easier done with WP:NAVPOP, which gives you a "revert" link on each of those timestamps that will revert to that revision.
Oh, and it's not an award, it's just a tool.
Cheers, Amalthea 09:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and correction, Amalthea. TK and TFOWR, sorry I butted in on your conversation--I didn't mean to interrupt you. I'll be taking off and unwatching, thanks. • CinchBug • 14:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologise - you're always welcome here! Sorry I didn't reply sooner; I did see you post here yesterday but had to log-off shortly after. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no worries. I just felt like I was intruding--as if I'd walked by your table in a restaurant, overheard you talking, and sat down to join the conversation. ;) But I suppose unwatching was overkill and rather silly.

By the way, I requested rollback yesterday and was approved--it's amazing how simple and fast that tool is! Of course, I still can't quite keep up with the Huggle users...have you ever tried Huggle or any other vandal-fighting program? Also, I personally don't have--and can confidently say that I never will have--any interest in ever requesting "the mop," but I was wondering if you had considered it. I think you'd be pretty good at it and I'm sure many people around here would agree. Regards, • CinchBug • 22:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Rollback is great - my only problem with it is the discipline needed to check that it's clear vandalism I'm rolling back - there have been a few times I've had to rollback myself after rolling back possible good-faith edits.

The mop? Aye and no - I don't think I have enough article-creation experience - if you think about what I've done with the IB articles, for example, you guys have all done sterling work while I've voiced opinions but not done much else. In other areas I can contribute more, but (and this is my second reason for avoiding the mop) right now my time seems hugely limited (hence my very delayed reply!) Once real life settles down and I can spend some evening time on Wikipedia I hope to get back into featured article work, and maybe consider an RfA at some future point.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I've decided not to apply for rollback privileges -- too many vandals & plenty of people on vandalism patrol. And sometimes I do have to ponder an edit deciding whether or not it's vandalism. The obvious ones are easy but get mopped up pretty quickly. Looking forward to your RfA! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Need help adding alt text

Hi. Thanks for the congrats on the barnstar! Was wondering if you could explain how, or even go ahead and add alt text to the info box image at The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie as per the FAC request. Thanks. Btw -- good to have you back! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look now! I added alt text to an article undergoing FA-review fairly recently, so I can't plead ignorance ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! This is something I should learn because it's now required. Anyway, if you need text, I think something simple like the The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie would be fine. The primary editor is watching my talk page, so it's best to reply there. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be OK for a caption, but alt text is intended for accessibility, e.g. for vision impaired readers, so alt text needs to be hugely descriptive - I've done it now, take a look at what I've added to see what I mean. Stuff like "a young boy wearing a red headband and holding drumsticks" - it seems excessive, but I guess it's useful! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, very speedy indeed!! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Brief note

Greetings, TFOWR. You probably don't need to be told this, but referring to the living subjects of articles in this manner in edit summaries is really uncalled for and can't improve the editing climate on controversial articles. Sincerely,  Skomorokh  19:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(Blushes) Apparently I do need to be reminded... sorry. You're quite right, and I'll be more careful in future. Thanks for the friendly reminder. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries, sorry to get all civility police on you and keep up the good work. Cheers,  Skomorokh  19:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop the Islamification of Europe

The recent edits which you put into the article are clearly bias in favour of violent communist militias IMO. For the following reasons;

• 1) you removedthe fact that John Denham is left wing. He is a member of the Labour Party, a social democrat party and he is personally from Trot roots. His comments needs to be put in context, regarding his position on the Christian people of England.
• 2) you removed the fact that the UAF is ran and founded by the Socialist Workers Party, the largest Trotskyite organisation in the United Kingdom. It is not simply a random organisation against "fascism" out of the goodness of its heart, as the reds would like to ambigiously present for purposes of propaganda in the media.
• 3) you changed the wording of the people who were throwing bricks, bottles and firecackers at the police, so that it looks to the casual reader that it may have been this organisation. When it fact it was only Islamists, Studes and Communists who did all the object throwing and violent clashing with police, as the BBC video clearly shows. SIOE did not clash at all, they stood around and then called the protest off. This is very sneaky and quite naughty. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• By all means mention that Denham is in the Labour Party - indeed, my edit didn't remove that fact. I'm unsure what you mean about the "Christian people of Britain" or how Denham's beliefs - current or historical - affect Christians;
• The UAF was not founded by the SWP - it was founded by the SWP and other organisations - it's unclear to me why you find it necessary to single out the SWP, and it's unclear to me why the SWP is relevant to this article;
• I changed the wording because you made it appear that the UAF were the instigators;
• In all cases I checked the links you provided and found that you were reading too much into those sources. For example, the BBC source you referenced did not say that it was Muslims and the far-left attacking the police - it merely said demonstrators;
• In all cases I left clear edit summaries - you could have checked those, rather than getting me to repeat same here.
• If you believe I've been "sneaky" or "naughty" by all means raise it at ANI - I've certainly commented on your edits there, so it's only fair.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Here is a solid reference regarding the position of the people who were violently attacking the police; [4] Islamic groups riot with police in Harrow], the London Daily News.
• UAF was founded primarily by the Socialist Workers Party, along with a racial left-wing organisation and some corrupt unions. It obviously needs to mention that these are rev-left. The SWP are the main driving force, UAF's most active organiser Weyman Bennett is a member of the SWP. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• No it's not - it states "Anti-Islamic groups organised peaceful protests outside of the new super-mosque which has a minaret over 300ft high, only to be confronted by masked Muslims." No mention of the Muslims attacking police, and no mention of anyone other than Muslims.
• Re: the UAF - then why mention only the SWP? Why mention the founding organisations at all? You clearly seem to believe it's relevant, and I'm not necessarily opposed to that, it's just that I can't for the life of me see why yet. "The left tend to be anti-fascist" is hardly a major surprise.

If you do find a reference I have no objection to the claim being added - my problem is with the slap-dash sourcing that smacks of WP:OR and WP:POV.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I presume you're being facetious, the article in the paper is called Islamic groups riot with police in Harrow. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. "Riot with" does not equate to "attack". State what the source states; don't apply your own interpretation. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 00:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I think you are both POV pushing! Shall we try and settle everything on the talk page? I have sent this to DYK so it is going to be on the main page - meaning it would be nice to avoid massive edit wars.  Francium12  11:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion, though I'd encourage you to assume good faith (and maybe check my edits to the article - I've reverted opposing WP:POVs). Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Susan Boyle's Album

The ref reads "The first single off Susan Boyle's debut album is a somewhat unexpected choice." I guess you're blind ;-) Dale 15:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ooops! Didn't see the date - I'll remove it. Sorry, Dale 15:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied - all cool! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

message

hey - here: [5] ObserverNY (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Saw it, thanks! I'm flattered - I think!

There are a number of issues here:

• how to deal with the IP reported, and I believe that WP:ANI isn't the place to do it since the matters not urgent, and it would be better handled at WP:WQA (for any civility issues) and WP:AN3 (for any edit warring).
• whether WP:ANI should deal with it, regardless - my view is: probably, but it clearly wasn't, so steering the reporter to the correct venue was A Good Thing.
• I suspect some of the pilers-on didn't realise I wasn't an admin, and thought I was fobbing the reporter off, rather than dealing with the matter - in hindsight I do tend to assume that people know I'm not an admin, and it's probably worth flagging that I'm at WP:ANI.
• Swearing for fun and profit - WP:CENSOR and WP:CIVIL aren't mutually exclusive - swearing is OK (policy-wise), but swearing at other editors isn't.

Anyway, good to see you again! How's life at IB? I'm snowed under usually, so my time on Wikipedia still tends to be sporadic.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure glad I didn't swear AT anybody. If I knew swearing for fun was permissible, well godammit! ;-)

I'm not editing at IB anymore. A couple of comments just to try and keep them honest, but I don't have the energy to fight for an edit. I've got bigger fish to fry. I met so many cool, smart people yesterday. Many took my card, they want to know what this IB thing is all about. None had even heard of it. I have never been so scared for my country as I am today. I'm scared for my children, my unborn grandchildren. I need to be able to die knowing that I stood up for truth, liberty and what is right. I wish you well, cyber friend across the pond. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

User Talk Pages

Hi, Just a quick note to check something with you if I may. I've had 2 users via another talk page Talk:List_of_channels_on_Virgin_TV basically throwing instructions on how my user page and talk page should be operated. Are there set instructions on how a user should set out their own profile and talk pages? I was under the impression that a user could layout their profile to their own personal taste. They also quote to saying that I should not archive items on my personal talk page. Is this true? Should archiving only be done on official articles and not on personal talk pages? I value your opinion on this. I have contacted the same message to User:Camaron and User:Grk1011 for their valid opinion on this matter. One of the users in question has posted an outrageous and personal attack against my personal nature. User Talk:Jasmeet 181#List of Virgin Media Channels even had the cheek to post the following remark about myself in saying "At some point the villagers won't listen to the boy who cried wolf, I suggest that you learn the moral quickly." Surely this breaches all codes of conduct as set out in Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:AGF not to mention a breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. What action if any, would you suggest I take? Thank you in advance (Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

Hello, TFOWR. You have new messages at Pr3st0n's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No what we said is you should not be archiving thing just basically qafter someone leaves you a message, we never said hwo you should operstet it only that you do not own it but have to follow policies. you also should not be looking for ways to get yourself out of the fact you have been abusive it works two ways.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Andrew, you're probably better off posting that here - I'm not sure Pr3st0n necessarily has my talk page watch-listed.

Regardless, it's usually regarded that (a) users can remove messages whenever they want (even as soon as they receive them), and (b) that by removing a message they indicate that they've received and read it.

(Personally I leave messages up until they get automagically archived - which in my case, since archiving is broken, means they disappear forever... note to self - must fix archiving...)

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I will croos post it ina second :) i agree there nothign wrong with it but the user is delete message that they do nto liek so they do not need to listen to arguement against what they are saying they have been editing post made by myself and the other user if what source we provide to prove them wrong doesnt suit them to remove it and change tihng to the way they like it. tthey are claiming we are not being civil but the fact is there vandlism our messages but we are still trying to engage and sort out the problem they say there is and ak for sources and what they provide does not state what they are stating.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It might be better, then, just to discuss on the articles' talk pages? If there's consensus on an article's talk page then editors should follow it. Sometimes user talk pages are more trouble than they're worth ;-)

Using article talk pages is better for future editors, too - it makes it easier to follow the history of an article, rather than having to track down who edited it and looking at their talk pages.

I tend to use user talk pages for urgent stuff - stuff like "you did this, why?" - but for building consensus I'd tend to use article talk pages.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That is what we have been doing hence why they are complaing about that to, but they are not willign ot accept there wrong so we have just keep reverting and informing them they are.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like it's time for dispute resolution? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ot probally iwllhave to go there, but the point is the person provide sources to back up there claim but there source acutally saiddifferent they jsut misudnerstood it, we have provide number of source that prove there wrong i think it more down to they dnt want to admit they where wrong, but with someoen else comment they seem to be accepting they where so maybe we can get it resolved soon--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution could be just the answer - it doesn't have to be the "big and heavy" approach that it sounds like it might be! I used to (and hope to again, when I have the time) help out offering third opinions - these wouldn't help here, because they're only for disputes involving exactly two editors, but there are similar venues at WP:DR that might be worth trying.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

UDINDENT

Well i have now suggested it int he talk page of the article hopefully everyone will agree to it then we cna take it forward anf get it resolved finally :)--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

Go read what it says. "Talk pages Talk pages are used to make decisions about article contents. Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed ("oversighted") if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc). New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources. Repeated questionable claims with biographies of living persons issues not based on new evidence can generally be immediately deleted with a reference to where in the archive the prior consensus was reached."

The rumor is well sourced and even Glenn Beck has had his lawyers go after the site that posted it. As such do not remove it from the Talk page, and in fact it should have a small mention since GB has sued the site even though it was marked a pardoy. --Marlin1975 (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for assuming I hadn't read it. The rumour as posted on the talk page was unsourced, not "well sourced" as you claim.

It might also help to check the discussion I'm having with the editor who added it - someone who's more than happy to collaborate to reach a solution that complies with policy.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Nicely put

[6] KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 00:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Lurking on my talkpage

Not a problem at all. In fact, ATC and I need help with the concept of alt text so thanks for the help. Lurking doesn't bother me a bit. You've had a busy day! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Too busy! Heading offline in about 5 minutes for some rest - haven't been this busy on Wikipedia in several weeks or even months!

You both seem to be doing fine with the alt text - I suspect most articles' images have none, let alone well-thought-out alt text, so good work!

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 00:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope

Even a cursory glance at US biog articles shows that it is (and I quote) "usual" to dab "American" to United States. Have a wee look at French biog articles too (yepp, they are dablinked to France). If that is not enough, have a look at Italian ones and German ones and Swiss ones and... etc etc etc. You will soon see the pattern, and it is absolutely NOT the pattern you describe as "usual". Yours, --Mais oui! (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm easy - I based that on past edits I've seen, and a quick look at the "what links here" of Scottish People and English People (e.g. Charlie Chaplin, Gerald Gardner). If US biogs handle if differently then I'm happy to have "American" link to "USA" - I'm simply not very familiar with editing American subjects (with the exception of Ferguson; I blame the Scottish connection). Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 21:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"If US biogs handle if differently" -> perhaps you ought to have familiarised yourself with what "usual" Wikipedia practice is before citing it in an Edit summary? Don't base your sweeping statements on "edits you have seen", but rather have a dispassionate look at where biog articles dablink words like "Australian", "Japanese" or "Scottish" etc etc etc. You will find that what you describe in an Edit summary as "usual" is actually unusual. Be honest: take a totally random sample. Cheers. --Mais oui! (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"Usual" practice in Scottish articles (and English articles, and Welsh articles, ...) is to link to Scottish people (English people, etc ...), as a cursory glance through Scottish biogs (English biogs etc) will show. Indeed, the second example from the relevant MOS page is an example of linking "English" to English people (the first example uses Britain/UK). It's unclear what Australia and Japan have to do with this; Ferguson is Scottish. Uniformity doesn't exist across this area, and many smaller nations don't have "People of..." articles, or there is a consensus to link to the Country instead for whatever reason. I linked "American" to the "People of..." article because I thought you were concerned about consistency; to be honest, right now I don't know what your concern is. If you want "American" to link to the main US article, be my guest. I'm a great deal more indifferent than you might imagine. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Peace

		The Barnstar of Peace
		I'm awarding you with this Barnstar of Peace, in recognition of your help in trying to resolve an on-going dispute, to bring together peace within the Wikipedia Community Pr3st0n (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on the nice barnstar! Well deserved. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you both! I'll be adding to my collection shortly! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

(...and done! Thanks again, Pr3st0n! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC))

You're very welcome - a barnstar that is truly well deserved. Just looked at your collection, and looks like you're a very peaceful person ;) I need to work harder to get some stars - looking a bit lonely with 2 lol. (Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC))

Alt text

Hey geezer, I am trying to add that alt text to the infobox image on Bob Marley and it is not yet working, I would like to learn how to add the html code like this do I create a template like that? I think that is how to do it, but then where do you add it? at commons? There is a GA reassessment going on there if you want to join in, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Done! Looks like you were on the right track - I couldn't remember how to do it so I checked the template - it was "Img_alt".

I don't have much spare time at the moment, so can't help out, but best of luck - and don't hesitate to shout for advice/help - I am dropping in periodically!

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool, take it easy, respect. Off2riorob (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Archives

You may not have realized it, but this talk page has two different archives: User talk:TFOWR/Archive 1, which hasn't been updated since May 2009, and User talk:TFOWR/Archives/1, which ClueBot III is currently adding to. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd kind of realised it (which is to say, I thought it was far more broken than you seem to suggest!) I've been waiting for the enthusiasm to fight with ClueBot III to build up to a sufficient level; since archiving *is* working I guess my enthusiasm is growing - all I need to do is rejig it slightly!

Thanks! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wondering

Hi! Last night as I archived my talk page conversations I realized you've not been around much lately. So, in case you check in, just wanted to put something on your talkpage to let you know some editors remember who you are! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Very kind of you! I've been floating around today, first time in a couple of weeks! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good to see you haven't given up altogether! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Aye, as am I, though I've not been active lately either. Rather busy with work and such, I'm afraid. Still, it's good to see that both of you are up and about. Regards, • CinchBug • 21:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Maps of Europe and Asia

Thanks for correcting my misplaced response to the nonsense going on over the maps. I knew you were agreeing with me, but I was trying to edit and you had commented before I got a chance to save the page! I try to be accurate... :P Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 23:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries! That was ever so slightly surreal, I thought ;-) After I'd commented I realised that it crossed over into Europe, too - where I spotted a fellow editor responsible for the offending map(s)! Small world...! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD compromise

Hey, having looked at the comments on the AfD, I've proposed a compromise...no idea if I can actually do it, but I followed WP:IAR and just went ahead and did it anyways. Would love to hear your feedback. Frmatt (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Done! I'm finding this ... interesting, in part because I'm finding it difficult to articulate my concerns. In part I think a contentious title like this may do better if it has a strong foundation in more general articles. I'm also not convinced the early hostility towards the article's creator was helpful, but they seem big enough to shrug that off and engage with genuine concerns.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 21:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sohar

You don't have to assume anything. Since there is no such thing as "Gulf" (which Gulf are you talking about?) and the name of that gulf is Persian Gulf, it's CRYSTAL CLEAR that the correct name should be used, which is Persian Gulf. I don't like when people distort this well-documented name!

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

--84.23.140.26 (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's abundantly clear from the context that "The Gulf" refers to "Arabian Gulf" / "Persian Gulf". The Gulf is commonly referred to as the Persian Gulf outside the Arab States; within the Arab States "Arabian Gulf" is far more usual. Since there is no need to disambiguate Gulf is fine, and changing it to Persian Gulf is disruptive. Particularly when you misquote a news source to make your point. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you're concerned that a reader may not know which Gulf the article is discussing you can always link to an explanatory article: Gulf. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I have reverted back to the way it was before because it is 100% permitted to use brackets within quotes to clarify a point. No need to discuss the obvious with you. The fact is that most people are not familiar with this fabricated name that you are talking about. Therefore, it has to be addressed by typing the correct name. If you don't like using the correct name, too bad for you. By the way, I am not breaching any rules. Being honest and truthful is what Wikipedia is about.--84.23.140.26 (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Link to policy, please.

I have no problem using either name, depending on the context, or neither name when "Gulf" is perfectly sufficient (or, indeed, what was stated in the original source). I do, however, have a problem with disruptive editing - which is what trawling Arab articles to replace "Gulf" with "Persian Gulf" is.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Aston Merrygold

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Aston Merrygold. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aston Merrygold. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Still there?

Hi,
long time no see, I hope you're alright, and are enjoying your wikibreak. :)
Cheers, and here's hoping you'll be back sooner or later, Amalthea 10:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - November and December 2009

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by xenobot 14:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - January and February 2010

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by xenobot 14:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - January and February 2010

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by xenobot 14:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - January and February 2010

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by xenobot 14:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Return of a certain Sock puppet

Around a year ago you advised me about a sock puppet editor ; I suspect this user has returned under the alias User:Holywood56 - and has just copied and pasted information from some websites about completely non-notable Garbage promotional compilations, a free live EP and so on. Do you think its the same person?

A reminder of the message you left me last year - Re: This edit, I strongly believe that the edits you undid were sock edits by an indefinitely blocked editor, User:Nimbley6. Nimbley6 has a fascination with all things Scottish, and used to target Scotland until it was semi-protected on a more or less permanent basis. Since then Nimbley6 has gone after Scottish musicians and other Scottish topics. His targets vary, but Garbage and Shirley Manson are recurring favourites - although they did seem to have fallen out of favour recently; unfortunately it looks like he has "rediscovered" them. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I've posted deletion notices at five of the pages this person has made: Re-Cycled, Live Edition, All About Garbage, The Story So Far ... (which is a FAKE release) and Garbage: Sampler - am I doing this correctly? I also notice that the same person has a fascination with re-adding "It's All Over but the Crying" to the Garbage template, when it never saw a single release and therefore isn't notable enough.Breakinguptheguy (talk) 05:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back!

I was happily surprised to see your page active on my watchlist when I checked in this afternoon. Nice to see you around again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thankyewberrymuch! It's good to be back! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Same here! Cheers, Amalthea 18:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, TFOWR! Your talk page come up on my watchlist and I saw that you were the one who had edited it, so I thought I'd drop by and say, "Howdy and welcome back!" Talk to you later! • CinchBug • 23:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Just popping by to say welcome back, very glad to see you again. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi CinchBug! Hi Spitfire! Thanks for the warm welcomes! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

...for rv vandalism to my user page, and welcome back!  Chzz  ►  21:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Good to be back! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Good one!

[12] Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 13:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheers! I shouldn't have used rollback; I null-reverted myself (page remains at your edit) to clarify why I was reverting the IP. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

About Egypt

what do you mean?[13]."not convinced by this edit"...
[14]- Do you think I wrote a nonsense?.Sentinel R (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

It was because you changed a link to an article about religion in Egypt so that the link was now described as being about religious violence in Egypt. I couldn't see why you'd done that - because you didn't leave an WP:Edit summary. If you have a reason for the edit, re-do it - but leave an edit summary so that other editors can understand why you made the change. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a sectarian violence In Egypt. I think that people coming to this page about Egypt - will be interesting to know about this fact. It is clear,the article, that I created recently, and it needs to be finalized. But this is not critical. As regards the edit summary - in fact, you can seen in the history of where I added this section. Do you think that it was not done correctly? which section you propose?.Sentinel R (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but the article section was about the general topic of religion, and the article linked to was also mostly about the general topic. If there was a section within Egypt about sectarian violence then that could be linked to the sectarian violence section of the Religion in Egypt article.

The WP:Edit summary is the text you can add when you make an edit - it helps other editors understand why you made a particular edit.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just had a look at Glasgow's article and it does a similar thing to what you (I think) want to do? It might be an idea to keep the current "Main article:" link to the Religion in Egypt article, and add another "See also:" link, like in the Glasgow article - this second link pointing to the sectarian violence section of the Religion in Egypt article? What do you think?

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"and add another See also: link, like in the Glasgow article - this second link pointing to the sectarian violence section of the Religion in Egypt article? What do you think?" - This is good idea.I think that the compromise reached.Regards.Sentinel R (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I think it's important that there should be a clear link to the main article - but a "See also" link would be useful too. Glad we reached a good compromise! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and good work! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

User talk:TFOWR/Archive 0 → User talk:TFOWR/Archive 1 — I've used two different archiving approaches, and ended up with "Archives/Archive 1" and "Archive 1" as two separate pages. I've moved the latter to "Archive 2" (and reset my archiving counter); I've moved "Archives/Archive 1" to "Archive 0" but will need help to move it to it's correct location (User talk:TFOWR/Archive 1) over the redirects I appear to have created along the way. TFOWR^propaganda 15:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Here be dragons

OK, I'll 'fess up... me and archiving, we really do not get along. I think we're getting on better these days, but who can tell... anyway, what follows are posts made to the talk page during the dark days when archiving was horribly, borribly broken. I've copy-n-pasted it from "the wrong archives" to here, with no claim that it's going to be in chronological order... You have been warned!

The Barnstar of Good Humor

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Your lightheartedness at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creative (song) is truly inpirational. Here, take a star! :] FingersOnRoids 01:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. Thank you very much! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

Minor request

Hello! When reverting test edits such as this, please don't refer to them as "vandalism." In most cases, someone simply saying "hi" (or something similar) lacks malicious intent. Thanks! —David Levy 12:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(Replied - noted, won't 'appen again! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

For your effort.

Reward for your endless fight against User:Nimbley6's sockpuppets. It is exhausting, isn't it. Kindest regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I live in hope that the sock puppeteer will - eventually - get the message. It is exhausting, but taking some time off and coming back to discover a whole load of Nimbley6 edits reverted and the latest sock blocked more than makes up for it ;-)

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 01:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

A Moment Like This (talk · contribs)? You know him better. Amalthea 13:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it's obvious, I blocked him. Thanks, Amalthea 13:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Already on it - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nimbley6 (post-ec: Thanks for blocking, I'll note that at SPI)! Also nominating the sock's latest creation, Category:Michelle McManus songs, for deletion - it contains two songs (and an album?!), and I can't see it being any use now or in the future - it's just an excuse for Nimbley6 to wiki-fiddle by adding cats to articles. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes ... is it time to make his ban official, so that this stuff can be rid of more cleanly? He already is effectively banned, but with a clear show of hands at WP:AN I'd be happier. Amalthea 13:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly be up for that. I did start to ask that question at ANI a few weeks ago, but got side-tracked by the suggestion that I should probably be at SPI (I had been listing each new sock directly at ANI, and was feeling a bit embarassed about having a never-ending list...!) Would you care to do the honours? I'd certainly not be shy in coming forward, but I'd be equally happy to chime in once you've initiated the discussion. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You certainly did well to spot anything wrong with the edits of 'A Moment Like This'. Occuli (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of them were relatively easy; I'd seen the same edits before and checked them previously. This is the real problem with this sock puppeteer - in amongst the bad edits are some good edits, and it's easy for people familiar with the sock to miss the good ones, and it's easy for people unfamiliar with the sock to miss the bad ones. Fortunately the two sets usually cancel each other out - as they did with Category:Michelle McManus songs (thanks for your help there, by the way!) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's even unnecessary, reading Wikipedia:BAN#Community ban? I avoid banning discussions like the plague, so I can't give much info beyond what's written in policy. Little harm it making it explicit though. It would probably make more sense if you write the statement, if you don't mind, since you are the resident expert (and they at ANI know it) while I only have had peripheral contact with this case (I just knee-jerk when I read "McManus" and either "Opal" or "Undid edit by This flag ..."). Amalthea 14:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that's my reading too - for intents and purposes, Nimbley6 is banned already. I still think it's worth making it official: I'll draw up a proposal today and post it at AN later - this will give us carte blanche to undo all edits, which I reckon will serve to deny the little troll any visibility from its edits. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Formal ban requested. Apologies for not notifying you all individually, I'm using the "say no to spam" excuse ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion now over. Thanks to all who participated. Hopefully a ban will make life slightly easier. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Liz II of the UK

Hiya TFOWR. I wonder if I'll ever get tax rebates from all those 'royal' trips to Canada. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it - they're essential costs of being head of state, just like duck houses and moats are essential costs for being an MP ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Monarchy is a hypocracy to democracy. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't argue there - except as far as I don't believe I live in a democracy. Where I live the oligarchy elect the Lord Provost behind closed doors - 15 people to elect the leader of a city of millions. I'm ashamed to say I once participated in that process... Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

please

go to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=purge#Legal_threat.... and look at the history... I have friends that joined me, and I did really sue, or atleast started on a TV show HA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.34.130 (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC) YOU CAN"T STOP MEEEEEEEE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.34.130 (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! I'd be happier if you went to a really expensive lawyer, though - I find that wasting spending huge loads of money can be a valuable part of the educational process.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'm fascinated to know what the US Congress has to do with Wikipedia - so do pop back to let me know when your TV show is on and what channel!

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Tiller

		The Barnstar of Peace
		Thanks for your welcome injections of level-headedness on George Tiller. The Wednesday Island (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(Replied. Thank you! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

Axmann8 impostors

No, it's not Liebman's style. However, he gave us an IP address in WP:ANI, assuming it's not yet another impostor, so that could be useful in tracking down the puppetmaster. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Domer

You have stated twice on ANI and Sarek's talk page that it was a good block could you enlighten me how it is all I see is an editor asking for a diff and getting blocked. BigDunc^Talk 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. Domer had been repeatedly asked to take the discussion to the relevant venue, yet persisted in arguing the toss at Talk:Republic of Ireland. In my view Domer had long past the threshold of being disruptive, long before Sarek blocked Domer.

It's particularly frustrating as I think the basis of Domer's complaint is sound, but today's activities did nothing to advance the argument, and plenty to squander good faith.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And he asked for the diff which prohibits the use of the talk page and got blocked how can that be correct? thanks. BigDunc^Talk 21:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

After all the disruptive editing earlier, a block was long overdue. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)