User talk:TParis/Archive 6

Request for deletion

Hi, when ever you log in.. kindly delete this [1] revision from my user page I got in turn for reverting vandalism on yours. It is highly derogatory abusive content in Hindi-Urdu. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I missed this one. [2]... same. Some Indian IP editor you blocked apparently. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

And now I have a series of it.... all unambiguous abuses [3]. Sorry for the inconvenience. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Haters gonna hate.--v/r - TP 21:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Right! Thanks alot. Cheers. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

ilovethebeach.com

Dear Paris

You recently deleted one of my pages lovethebeach.com I would like to know why and if possible make the necessary edite to have it reenstated also I tried to see it on my user page but it is not there if you blanked it may you please put it back?

Paulmcanders (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The page was deleted because it was completely promotional, see WP:SPAM. Also, it's not your page, see WP:OWN.--v/r - TP 03:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Paris

If it came out as promotional that was not my intention my intention was to have it explain a website that invades people's privacy. I would to speak with you to make the necessary changes to have it reenstated. Will you help me with this? One problem that I am having is that it was blanked and now I can't seem to find it my you please undo this for me?

Paulmcanders (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Before I am willing to restore it, I need you to show me independent reliable sources that support the notability of the website.--v/r - TP 00:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In order for any page to exist on Wikipedia, it must be established that the subject is notable. In the case of the above website, the guidelines are written at WP:WEB. It does not matter whether the site is being advertised or not, these notability guidelines are almost always followed. Also, the old version of your page had problems with weasel wording (WP:WEASEL; "infamous voyeur pornographic site") - Wikipedia's neutrality policies (WP:NPOV) forbid us to insert our opinion of something, even if the opinion seems obvious . Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind if I restore and move the article back to their user space? It was there for awhile before. It has gone through a very convoluted path to being deleted, userfied, republished, AfD/CSD, moved, and CSDed yet again. I told Paulmcanders that I would ask you about userfying the article once again, but also warned him that the notability issues must be addressed before publishing yet again (see the many messages I left them on their talk page). I will userfy it if you and RHaworth agree to userfication. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I don't mind my actions being reversed. I'd just hate to see Wikipedia used for free advertising.--v/r - TP 03:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

StephenBuxton beat me to the restore. Thank you for the consideration. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for returning my e-mail so quickly. I would like to apologize if my article looked like a conflict of interest it was never my intention. I tried to make it look neutral as possible. When you say a conflict of interest do you mean to promoted to viewing of the site or promote it's deletion? As for notability I tried my best to find eligible sources and listed all the links of the page. It was never sought out by a news organization for me to list as a reference but it has attained notability in the pornographic as well as the internet world. I sited reviews from more than one website to prove that it is well noted and sites like Alexis to show it as an extremely large web traffic involving thousands of users. You have to see that the site has pictures and videos of women from the entire planet! United States, Spain, France. The site has a large network that is so much bigger than I can explain but it does clearly show that it has large database with frequent updates proving that it has a staff of several dozen people. As I sited on the page all these references including reviews to show notability because it is the longest serving site for voyeur pornography in the world! That was the point I was trying to make and that is why it should be on this encyclopedia. Also if administrators don't like something I would like there help to make things better because this public encyclopedia. No one helped me write this and when some sees something they don't like that can't simply delete it because I worked very hard on this project for it to be deleted so many times without anyone making the proper adjustments to fit the criteria. Remember that notability does not necessarily require fame so most of the material I provided on the page fits the criteria but if you need more sources I will send them to you.

So please help me with this article I will be forever grateful.

Paulmcanders (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

India-Pakistan-Afghanistan

Given all the nationalist idiocy going on here, please help me come up with a proposal that we can put forth to WP:AN for a general sanctions on the area. I'm not sure how much it will do (many of the current editors are very good at going exactly as far as the rules will allow them), but it's pretty common sense and will surely pass community scrutiny. I have a page at User:Magog the Ogre/Indo-Iran, but it's kind of old, and it has a lot of unsupported assertions that I might not be able to say at WP:AN, so feel free to edit the heck out of it. Then we can sign it together (as one post! is that possible?). Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you include me in this? JCAla (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Everyone will be included. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You do. What exactly do you base "nationalist idiocy" on with regards to me? JCAla (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

@Magog, I'm really disappointed it has had to come to this. I've tried to encourage everyone to work together for the big nice "GA" circle for each of our user pages. I'll see what I can do but I've got studying right now, working on a website for a client, and working on the UTRS tool with User:Hersfold and User:DeltaQuad so I'm struggling for time. I mean, geeze, I haven't played Battlefield 3 in a week. I'm going to start going through withdrawls soon. But I'll give it a shot.--v/r - TP 20:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm such a nationalist I do stuff like this Support removal of misrepresented content which reflects badly on Muslims And of course then I go and do something like this [4] Yep, I'm a badman all right. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW Tom, I had been rewriting that bloody article, [5][6] Quite a large chunk of editing there, funny thing about those edits of course is TG did not revert them, I wonder why? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing in my recent editing justifying Magog's proposal. His characterization on User:Magog the Ogre/Indo-Iran is a blatant lie especially considering this, this or this, - and once again I am not Indian. I guarantee you, Magog, you will be put under scrutiny yourself if you proceed with that kind of hounding behavior. Get over it that someone (me) dared to question your actions. JCAla (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• If ya'all think this is the place to argue, you're wrong. Apparently ya'all arn't familiar with talk page etiquette and Magog has indulged you all previously. However, it is impolite to cross-talk on someone else's talk page. You'll note how infrequently I engaged on Magog's talk page and when I did I tried to direct it at Magog himself. Please, if you have something to say to me, my talk page is open. Magog came here to address something to me, you've noted your objections. There isn't any reason to go back and forth here.--v/r - TP 20:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Taliban

Re above, your absolutely right and I apologize to you both. Re Taliban, I was doing a little light reading today and found a perfect source for the ideology section. International history of the twentieth century and beyond (A good read, highly recommended) With this as a starting point I feel I can rewrite that entire section. [7] Is were you will see any progress. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As your probably know, I'm not an expert or well read on Pakistan or the Taliban. I have my opinion from what I read in the news and what I hear from other folks I am around but I'm not in a position to judge the accuracy of what you write. That said, I am always willing to give it a read (learn something) and weigh in on whether I think it's NPOV or not based on the sources so let me know if I can be of any help.--v/r - TP 21:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thanks for all your help with UTRS over the past several weeks! I think the tool is really incredible, and there's no way it would have gotten done without your help. Thanks a thousand times over! Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ;) It' actually been really fun and I've learned a lot.--v/r - TP 13:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Calypto Design Systems

Hi TParis,

I was wondering if you would be willing to talk to me about your recent deletion of Calypto Design Systems' page. Calypto is referred to in numerous articles throughout wikipedia yet does not have it's own company page. I was in the midst of creating one and then you deleted it before I was even done. Please let me know why you feel Calypto having its own designated article page is wrong. Thank you!

19:58, 3 February 2012 TParis (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Calypto Design Systems" ‎ (G8: Talk page of a deleted page) 19:58, 3 February 2012 TParis (talk | contribs) deleted "Calypto Design Systems" ‎ (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathildegold (talk • contribs)

I've no problem restoring it, just do me a quick favor and show me a couple of independent reliable sources that talk about the company. If you want, I can put it in your userspace so you won't be bothered anymore while you develop it.--v/r - TP 22:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Diffs?

About your addition "On Indians in Afghanistan, reverted five edits because he disputed one", I disputed all those edits (and had explained previously on talk - and still dispute them). I think you're going without a context here. And objecting synthesis of sources is not lawyering I guess? There are contradicting sources... see talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hey how about this one? [8] Were he reverts out 30 odd academic references based on an RFC which was about something totally different. Or his section [9] were he argues that an Op-Ed is good for statements of fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• This one is a hoot [10] He wish to use a Pakistani denial of support for terrorists to deny the US called the ISI a terrorist group? He even wanted to attribute it to Mike Mullen till after a while the BLP implication sank in. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

My comments were not addressed to you. And the sourced content was removed for WP:NPOV purposes. I don't even see you getting a consensus for that still. And I did not attribute that content to Mullen rather added his accusation as an example (and I explained it to you). It is funny how you repeatedly attribute stuff to me which is explained clearly to you on the same talk page. Can you stop barging into user talk discussions? --lTopGunl (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"ISI is accused by U.S. authorities like Adm. Mike Mullen, for giving aid to the terrorists who attacked the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan and being as dangerous as those organizations invovled." Who wrote those words? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Read the next comments with clarification on the talk page discussion. Don't spill it here. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

@TopGun - I'll review the talk page for context. @Darkness Shines - I'm sure Magog or I will have plenty of diffs on you as well. I just felt it would be more fair and less biased if I start with my "battleground buddy" first.--v/r - TP 16:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

@TP, I will reserve my comment about what I think about this effort by Magog (in which you now got involved) for later. But I suggest to you that you only include diffs (in which you perceive something was wrong) from after the time any of us was last blocked for a supposed/alleged "offense". As you might be aware, none is "charged" for the same thing twice in modern jurisdiction. What I am saying is, don't come up with all the same old stories. Either there is something recent, or there is not. Do you agree with me here? JCAla (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with JCAla given that why a user has been previously blocked is mentioned or any other activities prior to the block(s) that the user was not blocked for. But anyway, this is for general sanctions... shouldn't this be bent on the issues with the disputes? --lTopGunl (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a misconception about what Magog's effort is. He's not seeking to send you to trial about the same offense twice. He's trying to get community involvement and tightening of policy around articles about this geographic region to make editing more collaborative. These diffs he and I are collecting are to demonstrate that there are strong feelings and opinions about the subjects; not to get ya'all banned. That's my understanding. See what Magog wrote at the bottom of User:Magog_the_Ogre/Indo-Iran. He's not asking for any specific sanction against any particular one of you. However, I would like to point out that the impossible has been achieved: you two actually agree on something ;)--v/r - TP 18:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sanctions working already, wow Darkness Shines (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Magog is proposing community sanctions hand-picking and singling out editors. As the others will speak for themselves and as I have not been stalking all their contributions, speaking for me, there is nothing in my recent editing which would justify his proposal. More specific, what Magog wrote about me on that page - word for word - is untrue. Although I appreciate the joke in your last sentence, it unfortunately shows that you missed several things which make a complete farce of Magog's allegations against me. See this, this or this. One of the arbitrators (Jehochman) had proposed the creation of a noticeboard which could address and solve issues if and when they arise with regards to the topic. We all had agreed to that. Whatever happened to that plan, only Magog knows. Thank you. JCAla (talk)

Was just about to link the same pages JCAla did above. There actually have been agreements. There are issues with the users but the dispute is (not counting my disputes with DS here) based generally on itself. The noticeboard would be a better idea than general sanctions I guess but I'm not against them either. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Speaking of diffs, is it against the rules to say this in an edit summary Non controversial sentence structure adjustment when it so obviously is [11] Darkness Shines (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? How many times do you want to use 'however'? --lTopGunl (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hold up guys, no back and forth here. I dont mind if I'm involved in the conversation, but please don't spend an hour talking to each other on my talk page when I'm asleep. Anyway, if all three of you give me your word as adults that you can avoid personal attacks, and by this I mean you police yourselves, then I will speak to Magog about trying this noticeboard idea before asking for sanctions. However, I will expect no quid pro quo behaviors. Poor behavior by another isn't a reason to engage. I'll also expect no whining about it either. Sometimes you just have to suck it up. Have you noticed how very little I object when something is said about me on anyone's talk page? JCAla and Darkness Shines, you two have said some things about me I don't appreciate; but how often did I retaliate. TopGun, that definitely goes for you. No more retaliation. Suck it up. If you can all do that and 'take the higher road' than I will talk to Magog.--v/r - TP 16:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Most personal attacks come on me, if that is what sanctions include I fully support them (not that I havn't let them go without even mentioning anywhere at all many many times). --lTopGunl (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Good morning then Tom (unless you were napping? What time is it in Texas?) I can give my word that I will bite my tongue in future. I know I tend to be, snappy :o) But will stop for the sake of go along to get along. BTW is it a copyvio to use a direct quote from a source is it is in blockquotes? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are to comment on above, that is the wrong question, the right one would be "is it a copyvio to copy paste a sentence from source into a direct block quote which is not a direct quotation without attribution to the source inline".[12]. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You're question is coming off aggressively TopGun. And your comment above doesn't give me much faith. The point of my comment was 'Police yourself' and not others. Take the high road. Just worry about your own behavior and not the behavior of others. You are your own boss. You are not anyone else' mommy. Can you do that for me? If so, I'm willing to talk to Magog. Show me you can handled yourself. Do not let others control you. If you get upset at any little snappy comment you see, you are letting other people control you. I'm not going to stick my neck out there and ask for another chance from Magog unless you can hold your tounge better and quit pointing fingers.--v/r - TP 17:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A copy-paste is a copy-paste wont be using euphemism for that. I'm certain my question referred to content and not to a user, while confrontations on me are the other way round. I don't like pointing fingers, and I ignore the minor attacks most of the time, only report when they are persistent (or have been persistent). I can surely take responsibility for my behavior... even ignore others', but don't expect me to ignore the persistent ones. This is what I mean [13] (this was not a stand alone..see Magog's talk page). --lTopGunl (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

At some point you're going to have to accept that this is not a one sided confrontation. Your editing and communcation styles are confrontational. You are going to have to forgive others for past transgressions if you intend to edit collaboratively. I suggest you just start by telling Darkness Shines that you'd like to start over and work more collaboratively and drop everything from before that point and then proceed foreward with abundance of WP:AGF.--v/r - TP 17:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

TP, as I wrote at the arbitration, I think these issues should be decided upon at ANI or other respective noticeboards. Another possibility is the proposal made by Jehochman of setting up that specific board. As you can see above, I didn't retaliate to the "nationalistic idiocy" comment either although I am far from being anywhere close to a nationalist. JCAla (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think ANI is getting tired of the same names popping up again and again.--v/r - TP 18:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but then they know already who is popping up, doing what and who isn't and many administrators can share the responsibility. Jehochman's proposal presents a valid alternative. The proposal of community sanctions and singling out of editors (in some cases with simply untrue allegations), however, is purely punitive. The sanctions proposed do exactly nothing to prevent disturbances. Magog's proposal of permanent 1RR makes no sense as editors haven't been reverting all too much anyway (in my case I don't even know when was the last time that I reverted more than once). When some editors reverted too often, they got blocked for a period of time as every other editor does. The second proposal isn't even fully formulated. What is it? That people need to apply to policy? That is a given, isn't it. So, what is the purpose of that proposal other than singling out editors for partly dubious reasons? Not to speak of the fact that this new proposal is completely circumventing Jehochman's proposal everyone had agreed to. JCAla (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

So what are you getting at? I said if you guys can behave, I'll talk to Magog about going with Jehochman's proposal instead.--v/r - TP 20:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I am getting at either letting ANI or relevant noticeboards address such issues or Jehochman's proposal being far better for solving this problem. JCAla (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi mister Paris

Thank you very much for arranging the article on "Jaume Cañellas Galindo" in "User:Samen54". We fixed some erroneous references and you're all ready for you to retrieve it. We hope your tests prove successful. With our best wishes. --Winterfree2000 (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of PatientOS

Hi! I think your decision to delete the PatientOS article was a bit hasted. It seems you have only read the Keep and Delete comments here, but most of them were issued when the article had fewer references. Please consult the last version of the PatientOS article and its references which I have tried to assess against Wikipedia's notability guides in this comment. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumol (talk • contribs) 10:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you still fell short. Refs 1 and 2 are very trivial mentions. Ref 3 has a substantial paragraph about PatientOS and would count toward notability. Ref 4 has several mentions, but again all trivial. In fact, ref 4 says of PatientOS "none of these are traditional hostpital legacy vendors, and most are names with which many hostpital I.T. people are not familar." That's pretty damning evidence of the lack of notability of this product. I believe the AFD concluded correctly.--v/r - TP 14:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift answer. However, I think you are being inconsistent in regards to ref 2. First you said On the subject of the Wiki, I'm convinced that if it truly is a Wiki of experts, then WP:RSN might make an exception for it. However, no effort has been done yet to take the source there. I strongly suggest that any WP:DRV do their homework and take that Wiki to WP:RSN first. and now you say it a very trivial mention. I think it qualifies as a reliable source, especially in the light of WP:NSOFT which says it is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software, if significance can be shown. And I don't think it is only a trivial mentions as the section dedicated to PatientOS represents a significant proportion of their notes on open-source EMR options.

As for ref 4, I'm not trying to assess PatientOS is notable in the larger field of commerical EMR (which would make it familiar to hospital IT people). What I'm trying to establish is that PatientOS is notable in the (much smaller) field of open source EMR, which that book helps to establish. It has more than several mentions, [..] all trivial as the matrix at page 386 shows it has been tested against +40 criteria by the authors themselves in addition to benchmarking it against the MSP EHR Selector, which also a suite of +700 tests. Dumol (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Your assessment is incorrect and the entire AFD has tried to explain it to you. What I said was that you should take it the Wiki to RSN. That doesn't make the mention in the source any less trivial. Even if it were a reliable source, the mention is barely more than a mention and a few key features. More of an advertising blerp than anything. As far as ref four, it is still trivial and the point is to establish notability for an encyclopedia. This product does not meet Wikipedia's threshold. May I ask what your connection to the product is?--v/r - TP 18:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

My only connection with PatientOS is my masters thesis on the subject of free software EMR, I have said that twice already in the deletion discussion. Only one person in that whole thread actually demonstrated some knowledge in this particular field, he gave the article a Keep vote and he has also expressed regrets about this awkward situation in my talk page after your final decision. It is regrettable that notability in the field of open-source EMR is being established by people that know practically nothing about this. The cherry-on-top is that the final decision is taken by someone who repeatedly misspells hospital in his native language. Sorry for venting, it is that frustrating...

As for RSN, you were the only one who mentioned this new-to-me Wikipedian acronym when closing the discussion. I would argue that as per WP:NSOFT that is not required as it is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software, if significance can be shown. And for Nyaya Health, PatientOS was unarguably the most significant open-source EMR, this is shown not only from their notes in the wiki where they said they chose it for their tests but also from a later [document] that says Our clinical forms are downloadable from http://nyayahealth.pbwiki.com/Clinical_Records. We have customized the open-source PatientOS software (http://www.patientos.org/) for the electronic medical record that we are starting to use at both at the Sanfe Bagar Clinic and at the Bayalpata hospital.

I have repeatedly said in that discussion that it could be the case that the whole field of open-source healthcare is not notable enough for Wikipedia. However, I am not a deletionist, so I would advise against removing the already existing tens of articles on this topic. And as long as there is a place for open-source EMR in Wikipedia, PatientOS is notable enough to be mentioned, even though it is a relatively new entry into the field and not much talked about on the Internet. There are enough reliable sources to show its notability in the field of open-source EMR. Dumol (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You said: "It is regrettable that notability in the field of open-source EMR is being established by people that know practically nothing about this." My response is: "It is regrettable that folks don't understand what Wikipedia is and assume because our guidelines say something is 'unnotable' it is assumed we mean 'unimportant.'" As for my spelling, I tend to get ahead of myself when I write and I misspell easy words. It's not that I can't spell. I've never claimed to be in a profession that involves equisite composition. Wikipedia is not the place to get the word out about this software. We don't publish original thought. All of our content must come from reliable sources that have already reported on a topic. You were unable to show evidence of this. Perhaps in a few years, the software will gain more notability in hospitals and gain more attention by the media, journals, or authors. Until then, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Please don't blame your failure to understand what Wikipedia is on our failure to understand how important this software is. We get it, it's an important peice of software and is used in "over 5000 hospitals". You need sources that say that.

I'm not an expert on this software, but I'm an expert on Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. I've explained to you what you need for this subject. You as the expert on this product have not meet the requirements as explained. What more do you want or expect? We've afforded you every opportunity.--v/r - TP 21:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be forced to point this again, but I'm not sure you understand even the most basic arguments from the beginning of the deletion discussion. It was not me who brought in the discussion the over 5000 hospitals claim. I have actually said there is no free software suite 'used in 5000 hospitals worldwide'. Do you realize that requiring such a high entry barrier for open-source healthcare software actually means removing the entire list of such packages from Wikipedia? And if you do, as an expert on Wikipedia's guidelines, why don't you just delete that list and the tens of articles linked there? Yeah, I think that would be truly foolish but I dare you follow the notability guidelines as explained by you and your fellow deletionists... And why do you raise the problem of original thought when there is absolutely no original research in my article of PatientOS? Have you actually read those two paragraphs? Thank you for the attention, I realize there is no hope in pursuing this further with you. I don't question your good intentions but you are way too superficial. Dumol (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "You should delete that too" is not taken as a valid argument on Wikipedia.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right, it is not an argument for adding yet another open-source EMR in Wikipedia. My point was that requiring such a high entry barrier would be an argument for removing that whole list of articles. However, I believe that would be against the spirit of Wikipedia. Dumol (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly do you get "deletionist"? Have you edited with any other account before this one?--v/r - TP 22:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not a native English speaker and I don't think I get your first question. As for editing with another account, this account is the only one I have used in the past 7 years or so in Wikipedia. After accusing me of a hidden agenda, am I being accused of sock-puppeting now? Have you ever considered that after someone exposes obvious flaws in your arguments (like attributing to me the over 5000 hospitals claim and raising the false problem of original thought in the PatientOS article in your last comment), you should actually address that and explain yourself or apologize if you realize you have mistaken? Dumol (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, what I'm curious about is how someone with only 85 or so edits is familar with wikipedia-centric terms such as "deletionist" and "sock puppetry".--v/r - TP 16:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep it up man... That's the spirit! Hit me with one more gratuitous accusation and do not bother with all the distortions and false allegations you have already said. The problem is now that I have learned too much about how Wikipedia works. A few days ago I was pretty much oblivious in regards to Wikipedia's notability guides (as any person can quickly deduce from the short history of the PatientOS article, the associated talk page and the deletion discussion) and now I know more that I should? Yeah, something is very fishy with that... Dude, get a brain! Dumol (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think we're done here. Feel free to continue on to WP:DRV, you won't find any more help here.--v/r - TP 23:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Any luck on general sanctions?

If you want, we can tone down the language for specific users and only give a few diffs to support it. This isn't an ArbCom case after all. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been meaning to talk to you. TopGun, JCAla, and Darkness Shines have all requested to try out Jehochman's noticeboard idea. Given their unity toward this idea, I think it's worth a try before general sanctions. What do you think about proposing such a noticeboard on WPAN instead?--v/r - TP 21:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Only if we make the noticeboard say, "if you continue to accuse people of the other side of bad faith, you will be blocked." It seems like all they do is accuse each other of bad faith and try to get each other blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. "This noticeboard is for content disputes, not conduct disputes."--v/r - TP 02:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Notify?

Regarding this topic ban, shouldn't you actually notify the user? —danhash (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, you're right. I got caught up in reading something else. I get sidetracked easily.--v/r - TP 17:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Advice needed

Tom, I think you are a fair and open minded guy, I suppose Magog is also but he seems pissed at me :o) I would like your advice, once again TG has edit warred unsourced content into an article, I am at a loss over what can be done. Is it best just to leave him to it? I do not want another block over this guys actions, but the fact that he just keeps doing this is insane, why does nobody tell him to stop? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

DS - I'm having a hard time trying to find the right way to say this, so I'll just say it procedurally. The steps to dispute resolutions are so:

1. Discuss with the user
2. Invite a third party for a neutral opinion
3. Discuss the issue on a relevant noticeboard (ANEW, NPOV, ANI, 3O)
4. Try an WP:RFC
5. Take the issue to dispute resolution
6. Ask for WP:MEDCAB (Requires voluntary participation by both sides)
7. Start an WP:RFC/U
8. WP:ARBCOM

I think you know what I'm trying to say without taking a position here. Determine what levels you've tried, and elevate to the next level.--v/r - TP 18:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, I discovered a new notice board which I hope will do the job. [14] I never knew it existed ) I have no wish to drop anyone in the poop, nor get anyone blocked so I'll hope for the best on the notice board, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

On another note, have you considered apologizing to Magog for being the huge pains in the butt that you, JCAla, and TopGun have been ;) Maybe you guys can open a new dialogue on better terms. Just saying.--v/r - TP 02:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hatting

Hi TParis, would you mind looking again at where you hatted the Fae RFC? Currently you've left four lines unhatted at the beginning that names certain editors such as myself. Would you mind revisiting it to include the bit which lists us in your hatted section. Thanks ϢereSpielChequers 23:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually didn't miss them, they were added after the hat. I've fixed it.--v/r - TP 23:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I just figure I should let you know: [15]. By the way, I heartily agree with you about the hatting. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

TP, your hatting wasn't honest. In your hatting statment, you gave your own, pejorative opinion of what it contained. In order to equally rebut your opinion, I have summarize what is contained within the hat. Now, perhaps you could place a more neutral, true title to the hat, such, "Discussion hatted because I don't agree with what it contains and I'm an admin." If not, then I suggest you discontinue trying to win your argument with me, because both of us have equal claim to what we believe to be the truth. Cla68 (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You'll be hard pressed to prove I have any sort of bias in this matter. I'm as honest as it gets. My opinion is that you've engaged in personal attacks. As you surely know, you have no rights here except the right to leave. I suggest you discontinue trying to reinsert the material. I'm acting in an unbiased administrative capacity only here.--v/r - TP 00:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You took a side and gave an opinion. You're previously uninvolved, but you aren't neutral. Did you read every single one of the diffs contained in that section? Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, every single one; even the long ones. Also, please read WP:INVOLVED: "...an administrator who has interacted with an ...topic area purely in an administrative role...is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that...topic area". Having acted in an administrative capacity does not make me involved or on a "side". I don't take sides.--v/r - TP 00:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You took a side in your hatting summary. Talk pages are for editors to give an opinion. I gave mine, then you hatted my opinion to hide it and gave your opinion as to why, and gave your authority as an admin as justification for your right to do so. You said that me saying that those editors had engaged in personal attacks was itself a personal attack. Thus, we're making the same argument. You go one step further and say that your argument wins because you are a "neutral" admin. Cla68 (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, you can take the issue to WP:AN or WP:ANI if you wish to try to find a consensus that I was wrong. Having an opinion doesn't constitute a 'side'. I'm sure my editing history has known I don't align to 'sides'. I say what I think and do what I think is right and I work with others despite their 'sides'.--v/r - TP 00:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The two "sides" here are me and you. You disagree with me and I disagree with you. The difference is that you use your assumed perogative as an admin to impose your will on me. I can say on a talk page if I think someone has violated WP:NPA. I can summarize what is contained inside a hatted discussion. What you do from there is up to you, but if you are bound and determined to win your side of the argument, then you are the one who can win by utilizing that "block account" feature, while telling yourself that you are doing so as a neutral admin. Cla68 (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, you must not understand WP:INVOLVED. I do not become involved by enforcing WP:NPA. If you disagree, you are welcome to ask WP:AN. There are no sides between me and you. There is you, and there is WP:NPA. It's not a personal argument between us, and it won't be despite your attempts to get me to make it one. I've not threatened to block you, I specifically said I did not intend to. Again, feel free to seek wider review at WP:AN.--v/r - TP 00:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

TParis, this is getting really stupid - he's done it again, in bold this time. [16] Could you please deal with this once and for all? I don't appreciate this individual making false claims. Prioryman (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth Cla, I took the case to ANI because your edits did not represent NPA/Civil violations and were in fact incivil with the attempt to still conversation. I asked for an admin to review the edits and two did. Both concurred that your thread failed to contain NPA/Civil violations. You are more than welcome to try to take this to ANI, but it is pretty much an open and shut case... if this does go to ANI please let me know.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 01:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks TParis, Good call, and my apologies for not spotting that those lines had been added later. ϢereSpielChequers 00:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good call. Cla68 has a habit of collecting diffs of people disagreeing with him and his pals and presenting them falsely as "personal attacks". Your comment that it was intended to chill discussion and intimidate others was spot on, IMO. That's how it goes. The follow-up badgering is standard practice too, I'm afraid. Prioryman (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

IF that is the case, you might want to find examples of it. If it's not, then this can similarly be construed as a personal attack.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 01:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

He has done it to me previously. I'm not going to trawl over the ashes of a year-old incident - I have better things to do with my life. Prioryman (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd recommend just striking your comments until you're ready to back them up with diffs.--v/r - TP 01:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine, stricken. I'm not going to waste my time on the likes of him. Prioryman (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably the best approach, while I don't doubt that it's true, without difs, it is hard to tell him that he's engaged in NPA without admonishing you as well.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, ad hominem tactics are used way too often in Wikipedia by editors in lazy, dishonest attempts to win debates. My sister worked at a car rental place and said that it was true that those businesses are notorious for rude customers. Her agency fixed it using a simple approach...they put big mirrors behind the customer service desk. The level of rudeness dramatically dropped. People just can't be rude when they are looking at themselves in the mirror. Cla68 (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Guess what? Cla68 has reposted his accusations yet again [17]. He's daring you to block him. Prioryman (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi dear Tom Paris

Can you reverse the deletion of the article "Jaume Cañellas Galindo" ? Thank you very much and best wishes. --Samen54 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I got es:User:Miss Manzana to review it and they've confirmed your sources are strong so I've restored the article.--v/r - TP 02:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

TP, please take a few minutes to reconsider your revival of the Galindo article. Miss Manzana notwithstanding, the article has exactly the same problems as before: (1) Even if all the claims in the article are true, there's little or no evidence of notability, and (2) the references are, with few or no exceptions, blogposts, primary sources, and sources not supporting the article's text. A great deal of time has been wasted combatting an extensive sockpuppetry campaign [18] [19] to support this article, and by reviving it you risk repeating that waste. I'd appreciate hearing from you (I'll be watching here) after you've had a chance to look into the matter. EEng (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

EEng - I actually spoke with a fluent Spanish speaker from Spain (an es-wikipedia sysop) who identified the sources as a major Catalonian newspaper. Why is it that she says the sourcing is strong and you say they are blogposts and primary?--v/r - TP 13:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say they were all blogposts and primary, I said that each was, with ew or no exceptions, a blogpost, primary sources (like the picture of the subject's Save the Children ID card) or (even if considered a RS) non-supportive of the text -- and I will add now, certainly non-supportive of notability. Three or maybe four are indeed RS, the rest being online magazines without bylines, an article by the subject himself, a petition signed by the subject and scores of others, and so on. But arguendo, let's say all the article's claims are both true and supported by RS. Then where's the notability? In the meantime, I've deleted most of the "Written works", which are nothing but on-demand printings of Wikipedia articles, for crying out loud (see e.g. "Product Description) at [20]) EEng (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

PROTECTION from systematic attacks. Please, do not be fooled Mr. Paris, there are systematic attacks the character on Wikipedia, honest nonsense (Own a vandalism in bad faith). This is an example: "BLP applies to AfD discussions also--see my comment at [21]. I am going to assume it is an honest mistake, but you should be more careful.DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)". Attacks mainly promoted by this user Catalan, who do not understand:Xtv(Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?)). --Winterfree2000 (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

We have verified that has been Attacked with untruths and slander by a group of Catalan separatists who managed to cast doubt and delete the character. The reasons "alleged" for deletion no longer exist. Anyone, with good will, can be easily checked.--Samen54 (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much to regain the article "Jaume Cañellas Galindo" ( We just ask that protects you from new meaningless attacks ). You are righteous, with a true word honor, upright and generous. We support you on Wikipedia. Our best and most sincere wishes for you and your family. --Samen54 (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong link

Are you sure that the ANI diff you posted at User talk:Tomcloyd is correct? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That's embarrassing, thanks for the heads up.--v/r - TP 13:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

You have been mentioned by a busy-body who increasingly favors The Day The Earth Stood Still (original Rennie version)-style civility-enforcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 11:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Actually, I spent six years in construction with my Dad, so I do know how to handle a 2 x 4 quite well ;).--v/r - TP 13:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, SG is retiring. This is a place where women can have "bitch" inserted into their names with impunity.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well strong opinated women do often get labeled as such. People just need to realize that intelligence isnt limited to men.--v/r - TP 22:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Surturz/AdminWatch

User:Surturz/AdminWatch, a page you are mentioned on, 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:Surturz/AdminWatch (2nd nomination). Toddst1 (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thank you for all the work you're doing to take over soxred's tools! GoingBatty (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reviving the edit counter! CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 06:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

More praise for bringing back the X! counter

	The Editcountitis Placating Barnstar
	Thank you for bringing back up the X! counter tool, man. That's some sweet shit you got there. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

Thanks for reviving the edit counter. Ramesh Ramaiah ^talk 15:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Hello, TParis. You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help improve Wikipedia articles considered by others as based upon notable topics. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in joining, I'll just continue to watch from the outside. Thanks for the offer.--v/r - TP 18:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Critical thought regarding the project, such as you have provided, should hopefully ultimately improve the WikiProject. I'm cognizant of your criticisms of the project; but they can be used as constructive criticism to improve the project, and hence, Wikipedia itself. Anyway, the offer still stands for future consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be bluntly honest. One of the biggest drawbacks to the idea of joining ARS is having more involvement with you. I cannot stand your wikilawyering, you constantly misunderstand and misinterpret policy and then you spam it over 10 WikiProjects and Wikipedia space pages. I strongly suggest you find a mentor. I'm willing to let things go if you show serious improvememt in 'clue'. It is what it is, but that's why I'm not throwing my hat in.--v/r - TP 22:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Syntax

Let me add my voice in thanks for bring back X!'s edit counter. Would you happen to know the source and/or URL syntax used to get the machine-readable edit count results used at RfA pages such as this one? If it was with X!'s counter, will it still work? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've always highlighted the entire page, Ctrl-C, Ctrl-P, and wrap it in the <pre></pre> tags to do the edit stats pages but if there is another page then it might take me awhile to find it. X had a lot of code in his home directory and I'm still trying to discover what it all does.--v/r - TP 20:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry to bother you. (I thought that it might be as simple as adding something like "&machread=1" to the URL, like you can do with http://toolserver.org/~River/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=TransporterMan&dbname=enwiki_p.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll look more into the source tonight when I get home; it might be that easy.--v/r - TP 20:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	For a neutral support, message in a box. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks!--v/r - TP 17:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Close question

Hi TParis. Quick question about your close of this thread the other day. I actually didn't see a lot of support there keeping the indef in place; I think two people had opposed the ban but supported a continued block, but perhaps I missed some? Anyway, I was hoping to get your thoughts on that, because I'm trying to figure out a way to get him editing again. He would like to return, but the ban=no/block=yes close leaves me a little confused as to how to approach that. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What I meant to say was that although no community ban was supported, neither was there opposition to the block either and a few folks actually said an indef block instead of a ban was appropriate. A lot, and I mean a lot, of folks have said that if Rlevse were to partake in the CCI to go through all of his articles and look for copyright violations or close paraphrasing, then they could see an unblock with scrutiny. If I were working with him trying to find a compromise with the community, I'd start with that. Perhaps also a 6 month ban on autoreviewer right as well. I doubt Rlevse would gain much from mentoring as he already understands how Wikipedia works, but perhaps if there were several editors who volunteered to do spot-checks on his new articles and significant content contributions, that might also be helpful. You might also ask Raul and Sandy (although she might be gone by now) what they'd accept because they are likely to be the most vocal opponents of an unblock.--v/r - TP 20:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps! I appreciate the clarification. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

X!'s edit counter

Thanks for the acquisition of X! 's edit counter Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

.

Escalation by Cla68

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Cla68 now posting "warnings" to editors - I suspect you will have a view on this. Prioryman (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A new admin is going to have to take over from here. I'd strongly recommend the new admin throw WP:AGF out the window since apparently WP:AN feels that a sysop should not attempt lesser methods of adjusting behavior before going straight to a block. So, just instruct the new admin to throw down a series of escalating blocks until they reach indef. *sigh* But honestly, yeah, you'll need to find a new sysop to address the issue from here.--v/r - TP 15:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No hard feelings TParis. This issue is bigger than you, me, Prioryman, or any other individual editor or admin. It amazes me that ad hominem arguments have become such an accepted part of Wikipedia debate discourse that many people don't see them as violations of WP:NPA. The use of logical fallacies, in general, has just gotten out-of-control. Time to try to put a damper on it. Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

None on my end either, I'm more frustrated by the response because I thought not going straight to a block was more appropriate and I dislike that someone suggested that was more appropriate. In any case, I noticed you liked runing marathons. I was going to say something yesterday but thought you might not appriciate how casually I tend to move past things (a few other folks think I'm trolling when I engage with them after a block), but I'm considering starting to train for a half marathon with some folks in my office. I can run a solid 4 miles ( in about an hour) and I havent really tried anything further than that, but these two guys I work with just did a marathon and are getting ready for another and invited me to join them. I could definitely use the exercise, I'm trying to lose about 30 lbs, and I find it relaxing. Do you run for the competition or just to run?--v/r - TP 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I run for the exercise and the runner's high. If I ran for competition, my 5k times would need to be about five minutes faster than they currently are. Four miles at 15 minutes each is a fine start for starting a full marathon preparation program. I won't give you any advice, however, on a marathon training program, as I'm sure your friends have plenty due to their recent experience. How many times a week do you run? Cla68 (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the runners' topic in Quora, which I belong to under my real name, has a lot of good advice on different kinds of training programs and tips for runners with different goals. Cla68 (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I run 3 times a week but only for short distances up to 2 miles. I can run a mile is about 7:30 but then I slow down and my mile and a half is 12:30. I can do two miles in about 20 miles and three miles comes up somewhere around 35-40 minutes. I can usually maintain this pace, it's a jog, for the rest of the run.--v/r - TP 13:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. I would suggest trying to increase your distance so that your runs last at least 25-30 minutes each session. By keeping your heart rate in the "cardio zone" for that long you should start seeing a noticeable improvement in your speed. For a marathon program, however, as you're probably aware, distance training usually becomes a priority over speed. Anyway, whichever community you live in or near should have some kind of running website that lists all the road races taking place in your area. You might consider participating in a few 5Ks and/or 10Ks if you haven't already. Good luck! Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi dear Tom Paris

Can you reverse the deletion of the article "Jaume Cañellas Galindo" ? Thank you very much and best wishes. --Samen54 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I got es:User:Miss Manzana to review it and they've confirmed your sources are strong so I've restored the article.--v/r - TP 02:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

TP, please take a few minutes to reconsider your revival of the Galindo article. Miss Manzana notwithstanding, the article has exactly the same problems as before: (1) Even if all the claims in the article are true, there's little or no evidence of notability, and (2) the references are, with few or no exceptions, blogposts, primary sources, and sources not supporting the article's text. A great deal of time has been wasted combatting an extensive sockpuppetry campaign [22] [23] to support this article, and by reviving it you risk repeating that waste. I'd appreciate hearing from you (I'll be watching here) after you've had a chance to look into the matter. EEng (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

EEng - I actually spoke with a fluent Spanish speaker from Spain (an es-wikipedia sysop) who identified the sources as a major Catalonian newspaper. Why is it that she says the sourcing is strong and you say they are blogposts and primary?--v/r - TP 13:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say they were all blogposts and primary, I said that each was, with ew or no exceptions, a blogpost, primary sources (like the picture of the subject's Save the Children ID card) or (even if considered a RS) non-supportive of the text -- and I will add now, certainly non-supportive of notability. Three or maybe four are indeed RS, the rest being online magazines without bylines, an article by the subject himself, a petition signed by the subject and scores of others, and so on. But arguendo, let's say all the article's claims are both true and supported by RS. Then where's the notability? In the meantime, I've deleted most of the "Written works", which are nothing but on-demand printings of Wikipedia articles, for crying out loud (see e.g. "Product Description) at [24]) EEng (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope you will pardon my unarchiving of this thread. You answered my request with a query, which I addressed. I now invite you, again, to give substantive reconsideration, via your own review of the matter, to your action in undeleting. One needn't speak Spanish (I don't) to see that even if all claims in the article are true, there's nothing like notability under en-WP guidelines. (Other WP's have different standards, as you no doubt know, which makes it inappropriate for you to have deferred to someone not an admin here on en.) As seen below the SPAs are turning out again in quantity and, quite bluntly, you most of all should take the lead in fixing this -- unless you can point out the notability I've missed. EEng (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

PROTECTION from systematic attacks. Please, do not be fooled Mr. Paris, there are systematic attacks the character on Wikipedia, honest nonsense (Own a vandalism in bad faith). This is an example: "BLP applies to AfD discussions also--see my comment at [25]. I am going to assume it is an honest mistake, but you should be more careful.DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)". Attacks mainly promoted by this user Catalan, who do not understand:Xtv(Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?)). --Winterfree2000 (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

We have verified that has been Attacked with untruths and slander by a group of Catalan separatists who managed to cast doubt and delete the character. The reasons "alleged" for deletion no longer exist. Anyone, with good will, can be easily checked.--Samen54 (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much to regain the article "Jaume Cañellas Galindo" ( We just ask that protects you from new meaningless attacks ). You are righteous, with a true word honor, upright and generous. We support you on Wikipedia. Our best and most sincere wishes for you and your family. --Samen54 (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm fairly certain User:Samen54 and User:Winterfree2000 are sockpuppets of one another, possibly of another editor who has had a vested interest in this article. The latest tactic has been inappropriate assessment of the article by both of these editors. Given that sockpuppetry has been a significant concern in the existence of this article and that these editors have the same pattern of style, language, etc., as the previous sockpuppets, I am concerned. I'm not certain and don't have the time to investigate this further right now, but I'd appreciate another admin's set of eyes on this. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

@ EEng: I don't mind at all that you unarchived it. As far as notability goes, if it is true that the sources are from a reliable media source, then the subject passes WP:GNG; a notability guideline. @Kinu: I don't mind if you want to reassess it, I've no doubt they are either socks or meatpuppets, but I did have the sources reviewed by an es.wiki sysop who is familar with en.wiki notability and reliable sources guidelines: User:Miss Manzana.--v/r - TP 10:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"If it is true that the sources are from a reliable media source, then the subject passes GNG"??? Are you kidding? Quite frankly if that's your understanding of GNG then you're not ready to be an admin. I've asked you twice to base your action, if only retrospectively, on your own review of the article and its sources, instead of relying on someone else. Since you're the one who's re-started this circus, could you please do that now, at long last? Or at the very least, you might ask Miss Manazna to explain what qualifies the subject as notable. And please notify give a link here to wherever the article lands at DRV. EEng (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

What part of "topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" doesn't make sense to you?--v/r - TP 01:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

After being deleted in an AfD debate, I assume a new discussion has to be hold to readmit an article, or at least we should continue debating this AfD. I find astonishing that the opinion of a single user who didn't take part of the AfD can change completely an AfD process. Well, I'm sysop in ca.wiki, native Catalan and Spanish speaker, and I'm familiar with en.wiki notability and reliable sources guidelines, and I say NO, this article does not pass WP:GNG. Not every person who appears in a newspaper is notable. It must have "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (I'm quoting WP:GNG), and this is not the case. Reading the sources, you don't find significant coverage anywhere. Did you realize, for example, that the alleged written work was just a print-on-demand collections of Wikipedia articles? Hilarious way to expand an article! Wishes.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 17:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, well I'm bring it over to DRV later today and let them evaluate it.--v/r - TP 17:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

DRV

The DRV is located at: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Jaume_Ca.C3.B1ellas_Galindo--v/r - TP 01:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Soxred93 tools

Regarding project space for Soxred93's tools, you might place them on http://toolserver.org/~nlwikibots . This is an account maintained by several users and doesn't risk becoming expired. You can contact them at nlwikibots AT toolserver.org or ask the users who maintain it Erwin, Akoopal and Multichill on their Dutch Wikipedia userpages (don't worry about asking in English, most Dutch people speak English). I hope you can put them on a project page as these are widely used tools. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 20:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually looking at getting an English Wikipedia equivalent. Something like ~tools.--v/r - TP 21:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be a great idea. But remember the tools are used by users on many Wikipedia projects, not only enwp or nlwp. Good luck with it! S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 21:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to let anyone on the project who wants access, I just think we'd be better off with a clean home for the tools. But if it doesnt work out, I'll look at nlwikibots.--v/r - TP 21:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I accidentally adapted the toolserver tools along with SoxBot's code in the process of getting the bots operational. I guess I will also place them on my page as a backup in case TParis retires and lets toolserver expire or something happens with the tools, an active copy will still be retained to avoid this from happening again.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 21:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Just started reading about these issues today so please forgive me if I've misunderstood something, but Wikimedia Labs might be a good place to host this code and run the bot from. We'd also be happy to store bot code in the Wikimedia source code repository as a Git project (we're switching to Git soon; summary at this blog entry). You can ask Coren about their experience with moving the Coren bot to Labs; I believe it's been moved and now happily lives in Wikimedia Labs.

Also, you might want to know about some upcoming MediaWiki & Wikimedia developers' events, where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, extending functionality with JavaScript, the new Lua templating system, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing. Best wishes! Sumanah (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hey again. I see you're still dealing with that Taliban crew— I'm quite impressed, I would've bailed long ago. But I happened to notice this, and thought it's a great idea (and unfortunately necessary). I'd be happy to help you and Magog out if you need any diffs of tendentious editing. Regards, Nightw 18:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you ... what a pleasure ... This guy was an involved party at the Taliban discussion, judging the supposed competence or lack thereof of other editors, hardly qualifies for any such task. What a timing to bring this back up, now that issues are being resolved in a different manner and by different very capable administrators. JCAla (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I was not impressed by Darkness Shines and TopGun's latest block, but I think we're still skirting below the sanctions like, thanks for the offer. JCAla: involved editors may ask for sanctions on other editors and help put diffs together. Uninvolved editors are needed to close discussions and use administrative tools.--v/r - TP 19:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

So you haven't yet decided whether the request will actually be made? Nightw 22:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well it's Magog's request but I'm behind him if he pushes it forward. Magog would be completely justified no matter what the trio would come here and say. However, they've all said several times they want to try to work out the content issues without getting personnal. I've yet to see extensive long-term committment to this, but they're trying.--v/r - TP 22:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That's good. I'd support it too since these three seem to just be examples. It's a contentious area to edit in, and it's surely seen more than its fair share of POV-pushers. Nightw 00:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless you can come up with any recent "evidence", I strongly advise you to stop terming my editing. JCAla (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

JCAla, evidence of poor behavior in the topic area does not have to be recent. The evidence can cover a longer term and only recent diffs are needed to prove it is still ongoing. At least in the case of Darkness Shines and TopGun; this is true. Previous blocks do not wipe the slate clean as blocks are preventative, not punative. If a collection of diffs were to stretch back to last November, that would sufficiently cover the topic area and all editors in it to prove that it is a contentious area and topic sanctions are needed. Have you read Wikipedia:DIGWUREN? These are the kind of sanctions we're talking about.--v/r - TP 13:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If something isn't ongoing, any actions such as the ones proposed would be purely punative and inappropriate - besides sending a very wrong message. I gave Wikipedia:DIGWUREN a look and that case isn't really applicable since it includes things such as alleged hacking, etc., another story. JCAla (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear TParis,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and

Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's

Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we

teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community,

and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what

you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community

[[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_82#Learn_to_be_a_Wikipedia_Administrator_-

_New_class_at_MSU|HERE]], where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my

students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training,

motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one

of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of

communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)

• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will

never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.

• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an

interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.

• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics

review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have

been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak

with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I

will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your

name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be

more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I've already added my name to the list, so feel free to contact me by email or IRC when you are ready.--v/r - TP 22:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation

Please review "Listing of Schools offering D.B.A. degrees." This section was unilaterally removed from the article's main body without discussion where it had been for years. Individual making deletion refuses to even allow list to be in talk section. I feel that the list should be returned to the article's main body or at least be available in the Talk section. I don't want to start and edit war. Please mediate and advise.

Talk:Doctor_of_Business_Administration

--A. Poinçot (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, stick around for a minute.--v/r - TP 00:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. First off, good job on you to seek mediation rather than edit war over the content. Unfortunately, User:ElKevbo is quite right that our talk page guidelines do specify that talk pages are for discussing about the article, not the subject of the article. And the list really doesn't belong on the article itself. If you seek a third party to publish it, it still likely will be denied publication on the article unless the source is a reliable source. I strongly suggest that you just drop the issue. What you want just isn't in line with what Wikipedia wants and that's what we call a conflict of interest. Sorry it's not the answer you were hoping for, but I hope I've clarified why.--v/r - TP 00:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to review the issue and to offer your option. It's appreciated. --A. Poinçot (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

XSS vulnerability in one of your tools

Hi. One of your tools has an XSS vulnerability. It isn't properly sanitizing its output. Example URL: <http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name=%3Ca+href%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fgoogle.com%22%3Eit+shouldn%27t+be+possible+for+me+to+insert+arbitrary+html+here%3C%2Fa%3E&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia>. Please fix this as soon as possible. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Stripping out every "/" is a bit strange. You should just truncate, if anything.

Fixed.--v/r - TP 02:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Concerning X!'s tools, if you ever have a minute to check why http://toolserver.org/~tparis/rangecontribs/ doesn't work I'd appreciate it. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 22:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.--v/r - TP 02:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Also the links to the other tools still link to soxred93. That should be fixed quickly too.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,560,198) 23:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pie

There's always common ground with pie!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely!--v/r - TP 14:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

User:X!'s Stuff.

I could take over the edit counter or SoxBot. I've also been working on getting them from X!. What do you think?—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 22:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

 Question: Have you been in contact with User:X! yet?—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 23:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't mind if you want to take over either.--v/r - TP 23:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've planning on creating tools hence my account and I'm in the process of writing a few bots that can potentially help RfX's. So TallyBot, SoxBot, and toolserver would be a great addition.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 23:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, well I just copied over all of X's scripts in his public_html folder and I'm trying to work on figuring out how his edit counter works so if you need any of his source code, he's already given me the go ahead to copy everything.--v/r - TP 23:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That will help but, wouldn't it be easier for him to give us the password to his account and and move the data over. Bots too. Wouldn't it be easier for use to give the account passwords to the bots and then change the usernames to them?—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 00:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Might be easier, but I don't think Wikipedia or toolserver would like that idea much. For the account, the CC-BY-SA 3.0 would require one owner of an account, that'd be X. For the toolserver, I don't think they'd like the idea at all either. However, if you create a new bot account with X's source code, I am sure the 'crats would speedy-approve the account.--v/r - TP 00:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Not even transferring ownership of it? Oh boy. Well then, could you provide me the links to the toolserver code as well as SoxBot and TallyBot?—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 01:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have an account? It's not all available on SVN.--v/r - TP 01:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a toolserver account, google account, and this account. Is there something else I need?—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 01:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah, just point over at X's folder on toolserver. All the code is there. I'm still going through it all myself so I can't point you to specifically what you want.--v/r - TP 01:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 01:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I just got his edit counter working here--v/r - TP 01:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reviving the edit counter! I and many others appreciate it very much. —Soap— 01:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Me too --Northernhenge (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Good job. Now for the rest. I'll create a backup to avoid such incidents in the future. We also have to fix the links to this counter as well. I'll start off with the RfA.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 01:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I am restructuring the code to have SoxBot operate under Cyberbot I. I hope to be done in a few days.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 10:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Counter is not working. What's going on?—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 20:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be working for me. What error are you getting?--v/r - TP 20:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's working now. What about the other tools like article blamer and so forth? Are you taking care of them?

P.S. Where are you getting his toolserver codes from?—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 20:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I copied them right from his home folder to mine. I'm working on the others, but I'm out pulling weeds in the yard today. I've been meaning to do some chores around the house for the last couple of weeks but the new unblock tool has kept me too busy to do it so I'm taking this weekend to get some work done. Once the sun goes down, I'll look at getting more tools working.--v/r - TP 20:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime, I will continue readapting his bot code to try and get them going and approved as quickly as possible. Updating the RfX Table and Tally is starting to become a bother to me. At least everyone has their stats though.

Oh and don't forget to adjust the links to the tools. They're still linked to soxred93.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 21:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your work. We are very sad on Hungarian Wikipedia that X! has retired and his account has expired, and we hope that Soxred93's other tools also will be available soon. Samat (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

They are, the links simply haven't been updated in the tools. When you click on a link, you have to replace soxred93 with tparis in the URL to get it to appear.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 10:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, you are right. (I have still found some minor problems, for example Access denied for user 'tparis'@'%.toolserver.org' to database 'u_soxred93'.) Samat (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I havent found a whole lot of time this week to work on the tools. I'm considering starting up a toolserver project for the tools so more folks can have access to it. Trying to get X!'s ok.--v/r - TP 10:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been working with X!'s google repository and started adapting the toolserver code. I may beat him to the punch but we'll just wait and see. :)—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 11:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping these tools up! Swarm ^X 15:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I second that! — Quibus (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A third applaud from me. :-) These tools are great motivators in keeping up the good work, as well as valuable analysing tools.--Paracel63 (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Jaume Cañellas Galindo

Hey TParis, I just closed this DRV, which you opened a few days ago. You were unclear about what you expected DRV to do, and as best as I can tell you were asking for an evaluation of the subject's notability and the reliability of the article's sources. That's pretty much exactly what AfD is for. You listed three editors who, it seems, want the article to be deleted. Well, if that's the case, they should open an AfD and make their arguments there. They'll probably get more participants in a discussion there, anyway. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I was looking for a review of my undeletion; but fair enough.--v/r - TP 23:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, I'd be shocked if anyone found anything procedurally wrong with your undeletion, but nevertheless I'll undo my close and offer an opinion instead. Thanks for explaining, A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah, you and DGG both feel an AFD is more appropriate and you're probably right.--v/r - TP 02:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

What would be right would be, as I've urged two or three times now, for you to review the "new" article yourself instead of relying on someone else. As the one who undeleted, you are the only person in a position to prevent repeat of the wasteful circus we've already been through twice, by reversing your action. I believe it's not too late for you to reverse yourself, to the relief of several of your fellow editors, not to mention to the enhancement of your reputation for admitting your own mistake. Now for the last time: will you, or won't you, address yourself to the substance of the article, and explicitly confirm or reverse your action? I'm sorry to seem so strident, but three times I've asked you and three times you've simply deflected the request. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] So please, will you do that now and save us all the trouble of AfD? EEng (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You're getting tedious. I obviously reviewed them prior to contacting User:Miss Manzana. That was one of the first things I did when the two users proposed recreating the article. My reputation is fine, I have plenty of experiences where I've been proven wrong and reversed a decision. You've yet to show me that you've taken any sort of review yourself and have resorted to a blanket "they're all blogs or primary". Please, if your are so insistant, go source by source and explain why each one does not contribute toward WP:GNG. Otherwise, take it to AFD.--v/r - TP 21:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That you've reversed yourself after being "proven" wrong is nothing to crow about. More praiseworthy would be to address reasonable concerns expressed by multiple editors, without waiting for those concerns to rise to the level of "proof".

Why don't I go source by source?

• Because I and other editors already did that in the context of the two AfDs on the old version. You would know this since you closed the second AfD. (Only you and other admins have access to the old version, however).
• Because you had, naturally, already done that yourself on the new version before undeleting. You therefore know of one or two qualifying source or sources, and could save all of us a lot of trouble by just pointing to same.
• At least that's what one would presume an admin would have done -- familiar as he certainly is with WP:BURDEN -- especially when there's been such a history [31] [32] of socking here -- and most especially since the two new requestors were obviously, even at the time they contacted you, just more spawn from the same sockfarm [33] [34].
• Oh wait... except that you twice explicitly said that you were relying on someone else, and even after my repeated requests never, never just said, "Well, I did review it."
• Oh wait... except now you say you did, after all, review back at the beginning.
• Oh wait... except you still aren't just pointing to a qualifying source. Oh well.

So yes, as you say, tedious. I guess we're off to AfD again after all. Perhaps you could join us there to help fight off the sockpuppets.

EEng (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No, the AFD did not do a thorough investigation of the sources. The AFD was closed based on consensus and an assumption of good faith that the sources were indeed investigated. Now I'm asking for direct evidence of this investigation. Either do it, renominate at AFD, or drop the stick. The rest of your argument is getting dangerously close to becoming personal, including your earlier comments about whether I am fit to be an admin. Either do the work or find something else to do.--v/r - TP 23:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• You're still ignoring WP:BURDEN
• I did not say you are not "fit" to be an admin. I said that your mis-statement of GNG suggests that you are not ready to be an admin. Your subsequent behavior reinforces my opinion.
• Your shifting story about whether you did or didn't review the sources before undeleting doesn't hang together. (For those interested, here's a link to our prior discussion [35] -- be sure to look for the second section headed "Hi dear Tom Paris.)
• You're right about the stick -- I'd be wasting your time and mine engaging you further on this.

EEng (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you even read WP:BURDEN? "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." - Done, see references. "You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it" - Show me they arn't reliable and it can be removed. There has been no shifting. The sources are available to you. There isn't any point in your replying unless it contains an investigation of each source. Short of that, I'm just going to ignore you on forward. Goodbye.--v/r - TP 19:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

For your consideration: republish page "Astrid Chevallier".

Hello Mr. TParis, I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to my re-publishing task. But thanks to you, I was able to re-research and re-format the "Astrid Chevallier" page, as promised. Everything is documented -- mostly towards external references -- and please review my links to make sure they conform with the current Wikipedia nomenclature. If they don't, please instruct me how to make them do, your previous instructions have been really helpful. It's been a challenging project but I think it was worth it, for she is an inspiring figure, at least to me. Thanks again for your consideration, and I hope you will republish my work soon. Best regards, Susan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidesign9 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to join the link where you put the page for me to work on it: User:Wikidesign9/Astrid Chevallier Please let me know if it works for you. Thanks, Susan Wikidesign9 (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC) (talk)

Requesting a nomination for RfA

I'm an editor who has made over 4000 edits to Wikipedia. I think that I'm ready to become an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I will admit to certain edits that were not constructive (my first days on the English Wikipedia) and some edits were incorrect, but unintentional. I am a rollbacker on Wikipedia, and this is my second request since April 19, 2011. My first request was declined because I was not ready (with a total of 800 edits and most of which were from userspace). --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 03:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Great to see you again. You've created more articles than me, but their quality gives me slight concern about how familiar you are with Wikipedia's content policies, and I'd like to see you more into dispute resolution processes like the edit warring noticeboard. It would also be good to see more even edit/month rates (most of your edits are concentrated in the past few months). Other than that and the fact that most !voters also look for more edits in the article namespace that aren't all vandalism reversions, I think you have it.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I dont have the time to go through your edits right now, but later today I certainly will. You're right at the edge of what's commonly accepted and declined with 4000 edits. It will make a difference seeing how many are to mainspace and how many are automated edits. When I get the chance, I'll review it. Then there will be a question of experience in policy; so I'll be sure to check for signs of your understanding of the ones that most commonly come up at RfA. Check back here this evening or tomorrow for a full review.--v/r - TP 14:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Good morning. I've done a thorough review of your last 2000 contributions and BLUF: I just can't nominate you at this time. I'll explain why. Of your 4000 edits, about 1000 are automated (using Twinkle). I saw quite a few of them, around 300-400, were removing red links. Our policy on red links is that red links can exist and actually promote article creation if the subject of the red link is likely to be notable. I saw some in there about professional wrestlers that could be notable. Not a huge issue, but it was noticed. I also noticed on File:WWE_Wrestlemania_21.jpg, a file you uploaded, the resolution actually seems quite large. Because this is the cover of a videogame, it's copyrighted and we're using it under a fair use license. The resolution should be no larger than what is needed to adequately demonstrate the subject but well below what can be used to financially damage the copyright holder. The resolution it's at could be used to create fake covers. I'd suggest about half that size.

I then looked at your page creations. This BLP, Laban Jackson, concerns me because there is only one reference. Our notability guidelines and our BLP policy requires multiple references for living people. Then I looked at Netgear WNA3100: again, our notability guidelines requires multiple sources and one of these are primary. I looked at Lake Jennings and I had concerns with the tone of the article and, again, the lack of mutliple significant third party sources. I think bodies of water are generally considered notable, but you should try to see if third party sources are available and adjust the picknicking and fishing sections to use an encyclopedic tone rather than a brochure.

The issues above demonstrate a lack of experience with WP:BLP, WP:GNG, and WP:MOS. I wouldn't be overly concerned about this if I saw some activity in administrative areas. However, I saw very little in the way of reports to WP:RFPP, and I couldn't see any activity in administrative areas such as WP:CSD, WP:AIV, WP:PROD, WP:UAA, WP:PERM, WP:AN, WP:ANI, ect. I saw a little bit of participation at WP:AFD. You do good content maintenance work and image work but I just don't see a need or experience in administrative areas. I'm sorry, I know you were hoping for a better answer but I hope this short review saves you a week at WP:RFA.

Going forward from here, if you feel you want to help in an administrative way, I'd suggest getting involved clerking some admin areas. WP:SPI, WP:UAA, WP:PERM, and WP:AIV can all benefit from clerking. You can also work in dispute resolution, perhaps the dispute resolution noticeboard to get some experience handling user disputes. Try also getting more involved in deletion discussions. Participating in AFD will sharpen your knowledge of notability guidelines and deletion guidelines too. Good luck.--v/r - TP 14:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Editcounter missing

Hi, I just tried to use my editcounter on it.wiki, but the system tells me it is not existing, and that you are managing it as an administrator. Could you please help me to heve it back? Thanks a lot.--Ferdinando Scala (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Hello. It appears the server is unable to call from it.wikipedia. Since TParis simply copied the source code to his server area, issues with the database has been discovered. The code needs a minor overhaul to get the tools with the new server location. This is probably why it.Wikipedia is not working right now. This user however is also very busy.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 518,459,570) 13:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Not working? Hmm, I'll take a look. I'm still learning how all of this new code works, but I'll get back to you soon.--v/r - TP 13:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Well TParis, some of the toolserver code is found on the Google Repository and it may be malfunctioning because the tools are still running off of X!'s repository. That code needs to reworked to have the stuff work properly.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 518,509,992) 18:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Taliban

The RFC ended about three weeks ago, it is now in limbo at [36] requests for closure. Do you know any uninvolved admin which will close it out? Waiting nearly two months just to try and get some content into an article is ridiculous. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Ironholds has a good record of closing contentious RFCs. You might ask him.--v/r - TP 02:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Campaign for "santorum" neologism RFC close request

Hi TParis. You volunteered to close Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism#RfC - Should spreadingsantorum.com be hyperlinked within the article body and/or "External Links"? at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Campaign for "santorum" neologism RFC close request. I have started a new subsection at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Triumvirate for the closing admins to discuss the close. Thank you for volunteering for this difficult task. I wish you the best of luck. Cunard (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, TParis. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

AshLin (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TParis. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard.
Message added 18:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

mabdul 18:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

My objections

Hi - please note my objections to the full protection situation and and the unanswered questions at User talk:Timotheus Canens#offer to close - Youreallycan 01:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you considered starting a section on the article's talk page to discuss our discussion? Also, are you sure you're not on the edge of your voluntary topic 'avoidance' of BLPs and LGBT issues?--v/r - TP 01:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussing the closure of this RFC seems worthy of my inclusion imo. If you object I will ask at ANI for verification. Youreallycan 01:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

And that's fine, but the location of the discussion doesn't have to be in the same place. If you open a section on the article talk page, I'll add a link to it at the top of the Tri(sp?) page for quick reference.--v/r - TP 01:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I am voluntarily avoiding the article talkpage. Youreallycan 02:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh, well I could suggest the subpage of a subpage but you might be better off just avoiding the topic altogether. It's likely to cause more drama in the future. Less stress for you, less stress for everyone.--v/r - TP 02:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Its not stress, but the unanswered questions do need responses - User_talk:Timotheus_Canens#offer_to_close - Youreallycan 02:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Well the community did say in his RFA that they trust his knowledge of policies and judgement to weigh consensus. That's essentially what an RFA is. Are you concerned about contentious RFCs in particular?--v/r - TP 02:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

your claim

Hi - you claim I have "a voluntary topic 'avoidance' of BLPs and LGBT issues?" - Please point to the diff of this - Youreallycan 02:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I wasn't involved in any of that. I'm not trying to enforce anything on you, I asked you if this was in the realm of things you promised to avoid. Read it in full context. It's voluntary, you go right ahead and police yourself. All I've said is that if this is related to what you said you'd avoid that you make sure you really are doing what you said you'd do. You know whatever it is you agreed to and until I'm threatening to enforce something on you, I don't see a reason for me to go diff-hunting.--v/r - TP 02:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering...

Why is it that no one has closed the RfC at Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism? The close request was nearly unanimous, and that was Feb 17. Are you and the other volunteers working on it? B^e——C_ritical 05:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I found this purely by chance, so I guess you're working on it (: B^e——C_ritical 05:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for taking on the santorum article close. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick note

Hello. I noticed your comment at Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism. Please see Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism#Short message from the admin that protected the page. for why it would not be appropriate for me to unprotect the page, despite being the admin that originally protected it. CIreland (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I saw User_talk:CIreland#.22santorum.22_and_protection on your talk page. My concern was whether the only reason for protection was the external link or if there was other edit warring going on. I know there are more than one contentious discussions taking place on that article and I didn't want to assume the one we closed was the cause of all edit warring. After reading that section, it appears your reason for the full protection was about the external link so I restored the previous semi-protection. Thanks for your honesty about yourself; your actions reflect greatly on the entire admin corp.--v/r - TP 18:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

X!'s tools

Thanks for resurrecting X!'s tools, I've been using them again. I mentioned them at AN when NuclearWarfare was asking about one of the tools. An editor noted the the hyperlinks at the top of each tool page still link to the old ~soxred93 URLs. Any chance you could fix those if it's not too much work? Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I can, it's just a slow process right now because I am busy with paid work for clients (not WP editing) and also I have to edit using the vi interface which is kind of a pain in the ass. I'm looking to install SVN or Github.--v/r - TP 20:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I hear you – it's hard to live on what Wikipedia pays us . I'd say skip SVN and go with Github as it seems to have a lot of momentum right now. I've been using Hg (Mercurial), but now I wish I'd chosen Git a few years back. Too much crap to learn and things seem to change ever more quickly. Mojoworker (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation would happily offer you both Wikimedia Labs space and hosting in our Git repositories if you'd like, for work having to do with Wikipedia -- just come into #mediawiki sometime (Freenode IRC) and ask, or contact me. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 17:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get with you soon to scout out the WML soon. I'm not sure setting up github on TS would be that much harder than copying it all over to WML and then updating all the on-wiki links, but I'd like to know what the environment is over there since some other stuff of mine might be moving over there.--v/r - TP 17:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the links.--v/r - TP 03:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Darkness2005

I have to say I don't appreciate the sock accusations made here. I am nothing to do with Darkness 2005. You mentioned them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#User:Darkness2005

I know this was made back in december however I have only just become aware of it

I can prove I am nothing to do with this user first off please review this SPI here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wiki-11233/Archive#10_April_2011 and seconds please review Darkness2005 previous ukblock discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Darkness2005#I.27m_sorry_for_vandalizing.2Fcontributing_so_many_articles_without_using_the_edit_summary.

I am annoyed I keep getting implicated with this user. Its upsetting really. What happened was this user was attempting to get me blocked because I reverted and reported a lot of his socks. What I can't understand is why no one cleans up the talk page to prevent me from getting falsely accused again. Please especially look at the edit by Amalthea 21:02, 14 April 2011 on the unblock discussion. Of course if your intentions where not to accuse me I apologize but it gets very upsetting when most of my edits here are good and not been reverted and things like this come up (Ruth-2013 (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC))

No one has accused you of socking, what I said was this edit was suspicious. It obviously wasn't enough to ask for a checkuser or a SPI. Darkness2005 was blocked for their own socking.--v/r - TP 12:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Soxred93's tools

Hello, dear admin! . Please help why some tools of Soxred93 not working. Some of them are working very well but for some of them i got "user's account expired" what is this? Why not the account is expired for other tools (that working) by the same person/user? TariButtar (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of his tools did actually expire and I am still in the process of bringing them back up on my account. Which specific one are you trying to access?--v/r - TP 14:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Actually, TPairs, the links in your copy are still linking to soxred93 and not you. That needs to be changed. I am working on a copy of Toolserver tools myself to see if I can to work a little better than yours do. As soon as I have Cyberbots I - X ready to replace SoxBots I - X, I will create a backup up of toolserver.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 519,515,714) 21:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Which specific tool do you see this on? I've updated about 12 of them last night to reflect the new links so if you know a specific one which still has the old link, please give it.--v/r - TP 21:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't gone through your toolserver with in the last 24h. I've been busy working on mine and trying to get the bots running. I will be running them on Willow since Nightshade seems to having issues. If I see a link I will certainly let you know.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 519,518,924) 21:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't seem to download X!'s Cron. Could you possibly assist me? I'm just about ready to give the bot a test run before I send for approval.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 519,552,382) 00:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you give me a file name/path?--v/r - TP 00:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I see crontab.before_nightshade_reinstall, .crontab, and .crontab2. I would assume the second one is the current one but I can't download it. I always get 3 Permission Denied. It's in soxred93's folder.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 519,555,016) 01:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I got it.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 519,556,475) 01:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, well I found it. If you want it, send me an email and I'll send you the file.--v/r - TP 02:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I am having trouble setting up Cron. I add the tasks and then save, and all I get is no changes ave been made to cronie. What could I be doing wrong? Where do I need to save?—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 519,699,058) 19:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a linux expert, you should probably ask in the #wikimedia-toolserver channel on IRC.--v/r - TP 20:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The Rhythm Divine

The Rhythm Divine is a weekly music program in ABC Radio National. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JieGW (talk • contribs) 04:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool?--v/r - TP 04:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Xadrez

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
</ref> HistóriaBig text Onde surgiu o xadrez? Seria impossível afirmar com certeza a origem do xadrez, mas conta-se que na Índia, no século VI, um sábio denominado Sissa apresentou ao monarca da época um jogo cujo nome era chaturanga e que com o passar dos anos foi expandido pelos paises da Europa até chegar ao nome e movimentos de hoje. Esse jogo que ele apresentou foi através de um concurso promovido pelo rei que por ser muito generoso oferecia o direito de pedir o que quisesse à custa do jogo mais interessante, com objetivo de distraí-lo, pois tinha perdido seu filho em combate há pouco tempo. Mas deixou bem claro: não queria qualquer jogo. Desejava algo lógico que não dependesse de sorte para ganhar, mas sim de raciocínio. Foi então que o brâmane Sissa encantou o rei, apresentando e explicando o nome das peças, seus movimentos e o que cada uma representava no reino onde viviam. Após toda a explicação e de terem, inclusive, jogado uma partida, o rei agraciado com o sábio lhe perguntou o que queria em troca do tão criativa invenção. - Nada quero - respondeu Sissa demonstrando além de muita sabedoria bastante humildade. Entretanto, depois de insistentes pedidos o sábio disse que não queria ouro, palácio, nem terras, deixando bem claro que o objetivo dele era deixar o rei satisfeito e que somente a alegria transmitida era seu pagamento, mas visto que o nobre rei sentia-se ofendido em não recompensá-lo, Sissa respondeu que queria seu pagamento em grãos de trigo. Explicou que os grãos de trigo deviam ser colocados sobre o tabuleiro de xadrez (que tem 64 casas), sendo que na primeira seria posto 1 grão, na segunda 2, na terceira 4, 8, 16, e assim dobrando sucessivamente... A principio o rei e todos que estavam à sua volta riram dizendo ser ridículo o pedido dele e que estava desperdiçando a concessão dada. O sábio reafimou sua decisão e continuou insistindo no pedido, até que o rei ordenou para que um de seus empregados trouxesse alguns sacos de trigo para que pudesse pagar os serviços oferecidos por Sissa. Foi então que começou a distribuição dos grãos. Porém, quando estavam chegando nas trinta e duas casas do tabuleiro concluíram após alguns cálculos que se juntasse todo o trigo do mundo não daria para pagá-lo e precisaria de toda produção de trigo da época na Índia cultivada por mais de 60.000 anos, sendo que o total corresponderia a 2.305 montanhas (o número exato é 18.446.744.073.709.551.616 grãos)! Diante disso, surpreso, o rei não soube diferenciar o que foi mais inteligente: o jogo ou o pedido que o sábio fez? Naturalmente, Sissa já sabia que seria impossível pagá-lo daquela maneira e liberou o rei de cumprir seu pedido! Conta ainda a lenda que o rei, percebendo a grande sabedoria de Sissa, pediu com insistência para que ele permanecesse trabalhando como primeiro ministro e pudesse com seus conhecimentos aconselhá-lo, beneficiando o povo e auxiliando estrategicamente na segurança de seu reino... Definição O xadrez é apontado como o jogo mais intelectual dos praticados no mundo, graças ao seu aspecto artístico, científico e competitivo. É um jogo que se assemelha à guerra, onde um exército luta contra outro dispondo do mesmo número de elementos no início da partida. O tabuleiro representa o campo de batalha e as peças são de aparência e movimentos diferentes, sendo elas rei, dama (ou rainha), torre, bispo, cavalo e peão, cada peça representando em seus movimentos uma figura de antigamente. Regras e noções elementares Elementos do jogo de xadrez Tabuleiro: o jogo é disputado em um tabuleiro de 64 casas (8x8) de cores alternadas. O tabuleiro se divide em casas, colunas, fileiras e diagonais. Casa - menor parte do tabuleiro, sendo em seu total 64. Colunas - conjunto de casas dispostas em uma mesma linha vertical. Fileiras - conjunto de casas dispostas em uma mesma horizontal. Diagonais - conjunto de casas da mesma cor em direção inclinada. Ao todo são 26 diagonais, sendo a menor duas casas e a maior oito. Objetivo do jogo Antigamente, ou até hoje em alguns países, o rei é a figura mais importante. Como o propósito do invento era proporcionar alegria ao rei, não poderia ser diferente: seu objetivo único é a morte do rei adversário! Isso se dá através de uma jogada que se generalizou chamar de xeque-mate (do persa "shah mat", que significa rei morto), representando uma posição em que o monarca não pode ser defendido. Movimento das peças Rei - Já que o objetivo do jogo é prendê-lo, não seria coerente ele ficar movimentando com freqüência. Por isso seus movimentos são tão limitados. Por ele ser o rei, tem o livre-arbítrio de mover para todos os lados, com a seguinte limitação: apenas de uma em uma casa de cada vez. Dama - Também conhecida pelos amadores por rainha, é a peça mais poderosa do jogo de xadrez. Por ter um raio de ação muito grande, com ela você pode mover nas horizontais, verticais ou diagonais, semelhante aos movimentos do rei, com a diferença de poder mover quantas casas desejar! Dica: a dama tem os mesmos movimentos da torre e bispo em uma só peça. Torre - Antigamente era usada como arma de guerra. Subiam nela soldados armados para poder observar com segurança quando houvesse aproximação de tropas inimigas. Essas torres eram móveis, porém muito pesadas, tendo que ser movimentadas somente em linha reta, pois possuía rodas que poderiam ser quebradas se empurrada em diagonal, além da facilidade de tombá-la. Por tudo isso a torre anda somente pelas horizontais e verticais quantas casa tiver à disposição. Bispo - Representa a religião do reino. Alguns historiadores contam que antigamente ao invés de bispo, curiosamente, essa figura era representada no "jogo dos reis" através do elefante, que na Índia é sagrado e aclamado com veneração religiosa. Obs: no jogo de xadrez existem dois bispos no início de cada partida, um fica na casa branca (mais clara) e o outro na casa preta (mais escura); podendo cada um andar quantas casa dispuser, contando que não saia da diagonal de sua cor e não utilize duas diagonais em um só movimento. Dica: os bispos fazem o movimento contrário ao das torres. Cavalo - Representa os cavaleiros do rei, que conseqüentemente eram os mais bem treinados soldados da guarda real. O cavalo anda somente em "L" de quatro casas. Contando a casa em que está como 1, a seguinte 2, a outra como 3, forma-se uma reta e então é só virar para a direita ou esquerda completando a 4ª casa e automaticamente o lance estará completo. Dica: o cavalo é a única peça que salta sobre as outras. Peão - O peão nada mais é que um soldado do rei. Tendo por objetivo a promoção e a defesa de seu superior. O peão movimenta-se de uma em uma casa sempre para frente, sendo que se estiver em sua casa inicial poderá andar duas casas de uma só vez.Dica: o peão é a única peça que captura de maneira diferente da qual se move, ou seja, anda para frente, mas captura na diagonal no raio de uma casa. Pronto, agora que já sabemos todos os movimentos das peças, vamos para a colocação inicial do tabuleiro e das peças. O tabuleiro e as peças Dica: o tabuleiro de xadrez não pode ser colocado de qualquer maneira. A regra diz o seguinte: a casa de cor branca (a mais clara) deve ficar sempre do lado direito. Você que está aprendendo, agora vamos montar as peças no tabuleiro. Utilizando a primeira fileira do tabuleiro, faça o seguinte: 1º passo - Pegue as duas torres de mesma cor e coloque uma em cada canto do tabuleiro. 2º passo - Pegue os dois cavalos de mesma cor e coloque um do lado de uma torre e o outro da outra torre. 3º passo - Pegue os dois bispos de mesma cor e coloque uma do lado de um cavalo e o outro do outro cavalo. 4º passo - Agora que sobrarm duas casas, é fácil. Se a dama for de cor branca ficará na casa branca e se for de cor preta ficará na casa preta. 5º passo - Já o rei, será colocado na casa que sobrar dessa fileira. 6º e último passo - Os peões visam a defesa das peças maiores, portanto existe em maior quantidade sendo que cada um fica na frente de cada peça, completando a segunda fileira do tabuleiro. Xeque e xeque-mate Pronto, agora que já conhece todos movimentos precisa fixar bem o objetivo do jogo. Xeque: é quando o rei encontra-se ameaçado, mas existe a possibilidade de defender-se. Existem três opções para defender o rei no caso de xeque. São elas: Xeque-mate: é quando o rei está ameaçado e não existe nenhuma das três defesas acima. Ocasionando o término da partida! Movimentos excepcionais Promoção: é quando o peão atinge a 8ª horizontal, visto que ele não pode voltar e cumpriu seu objetivo que era chegar ao fim da linha (conhecendo, invadindo, atacando e mapeando o território inimigo!), então ele automaticamente será promovido a outra peça para poder voltar. A peça a ser escolhida fica a seu critério: dama, torre, bispo ou cavalo. Roque : é um movimento combinado de rei e torre, que vale por uma só jogada que tem por objetivo a segurança do rei e uma maior mobilidade para a torre pelas colunas centrais. Quando não se pode fazer o roque: 1. Se já tiver movimentado o rei ou a torre do lado em que deseja fazer o roque. 2. Se tiver em xeque ou for ficar depois de completar o movimento "roque". 3. Se passar com o rei por casa atacada no momento do movimento. En passant: acontece quando um peão está na 5ª casa e o peão adversário em sua casa inicial. Quando este avançar duas casas e ficar ao lado dará a oportunidade ao adversário de tomar este peão, como se ele tivesse caminhado apenas uma. Tente acompanhar pelo exemplo do diagrama ao lado: Observe que o peão branco encontra- se na 5ª casa. O peão que estava na casa inicial andou duas. Então o condutor das brancas optou em tomar "en passant". Nesse caso pode tomar o peão como se ele tivesse caminhado apenas uma. Dica: esse movimento pode ser feito por qualquer dos peões, mas é somente válido no instante do lance. Afogamento Esse tipo de posição que requer bastante atenção em virtude de seu aparecimento com freqüência em partidas de iniciantes, gerando dúvida comum sobre situação. Afogamento é aquela posição que o rei não está em xeque e não tem casa para mover ou qualquer outro movimento possível para fazer. Quando esse fato acontece de não ter nenhum movimento possível, sendo a vez de jogar, a partida é declarada empatada. Veja esses dois exemplos: Observe que em ambos os casos o rei preto não tem lugar para mover, mas não está obrigado a jogar, pois não se encontra em xeque. O interessante é que as pretas têm a vez de jogar, mas não têm nenhuma jogada possível para fazer, empatando a partida por "afogamento". Agora que já conhece as regras básicas do jogo de xadrez, o que esta esperando para começar a praticar?! Fonte: www.tabuleirodexadrez.com.br/aprenda-a-jogar-xadrez.htmEm cache

--Isabellerdml10 (talk) 20:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool legend about the origins of chess. Thanks.--v/r - TP 20:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Clima e Agricultura na Microrregião de Irecê – BA

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nos últimos meses, os baixos índices pluviométricos registrados na microrregião de Irecê – BA vem trazendo consequências socioeconômicas diversas. Se tratando de uma região predominantemente agrícola, onde a prática da agricultura de sequeiro possui suma importância na economia local, essa “ação” climática, não muito comum ao longo dos tempos, trouxe prejuízos incalculáveis aos mais de 350 mil habitantes desse território com o atraso anormal do período chuvoso. Caminhamos para o início de março e o pluviômetro da estação meteorológica de Irecê marca até o momento meros 174,5 mm de chuva nos últimos 90 dias. Fenômeno um tanto quanto preocupante, levando em consideração que os meses de dezembro, janeiro, fevereiro e março possuem as maiores médias pluviométricas registradas. As chuvas da microrregião de Irecê advêm do chamado Sistema Equatorial Continental Amazônico, gerado em uma zona de alta pressão que se forma sobre o interior da floresta amazônica no verão. Nessa época, esta área se associa a uma intensa atividade convectiva, constituindo grande fonte de umidade para o desenvolvimento do sistema denominado de Massa de Ar equatorial Continental que atua na região de Irecê entre o final da primavera ao início do outono. No entanto, é notável uma mudança no período das chuvas na última década. Os camponeses costumavam realizar seus plantios já nos meses de outubro e novembro com a chegada das primeiras chuvas, colhendo seus produtos entre janeiro e fevereiro. Ato que não vem mais acontecendo com frequência, já que é perceptível uma maior irregularidade do período chuvoso, que oscila a cada ano, apresentando uma sazonalidade entre os meses de outubro a abril. Essa periodicidade desigual traz consequências diretas para o agricultor, principalmente os pequenos trabalhadores rurais, que são a maioria na região. Esses têm dificuldades de se adaptar ao “novo” período de chuvas, isso acompanhado de heranças passadas trazidas por projetos agrícolas mal executados, que fizeram modificar o ecossistema local. Consequências como lixiviação dos solos, aumento de pragas, acréscimo na média da temperatura, são fatos que em conjunto com a “indefinição” do período chuvoso da região fazem com que aumente as dificuldades dos camponeses em se manter no campo. A agricultura irrigada é outra atividade vulnerável. Em uma região do semiárido nordestino alocada sob uma bacia sedimentar que possui considerável quantidade de água subterrânea armazenada no aqüífero cárstico prevalecente, essa prática se apresenta em constante ascensão. Contudo, por conta do desmatamento desenfreado, essencialmente nas décadas de 1970 e 1980, com o pró-feijão, os lençóis freáticos existentes perderam uma substancial aliada para sua recarga. A partir da década seguinte se deu início a perfuração descontrolada de poços tubulares, desencadeando de vez o processo de carga-recarga do aqüífero, trazendo consigo a aceleração de fenômenos cársticos, como o desabamento de cavernas no município de Lapão, ocasionando tremores, rachaduras no solo e danos materiais e econômicos em alguns bairros da cidade. A agricultura irrigada em regiões semiáridas aparentemente inóspitas como a microrregião de Irecê, emerge como um “substituto ideal” para prática da agricultura de sequeiro. Com a ideia de ter uma produção rápida, com água em abundância e retorno financeiro garantido, os agricultores investem em massa na perfuração de poços tubulares em suas propriedades. Essa sendo a principal justificativa para o desenvolvimento desenfreado dessa prática agrícola, que se prende ao macabro modelo agrícola brasileiro, ficando a mercê do uso de fertilizantes químicos e agrotóxicos, em meio a um ecossistema em amplo desequilíbrio. Tornando os cultivos caros, insaudáveis e de comércio impraticável em épocas de preços baixos como é de praxe acontecer. Naturalmente o clima semiárido prevalece na microrregião essencialmente por duas questões. Por esta se localizar a partir do sopé das escarpas ocidentais da Chapada Diamantina, obstáculo que impede a chegada de uma maior umidade do Oceano Atlântico à região e por estar em uma área final de um dos percursos da Massa Equatorial Continental, sendo contemplada com nebulosidades pouco elevadas, durante curtos períodos anuais. Além dessas causas, o clima da região polarizada pela cidade de Irecê pode ser vítima do desmatamento da Amazônia, devido a diminuição da umidade transferida pela floresta (já que é da floresta que surge a Massa de Ar Equatorial Continental); o aumento da temperatura do globo, que pode ser a principal causa das mudanças climáticas globais; e até mesmo a transferência de um período glacial para uma era mais quente. São perceptíveis alguns danos socioambientais nas últimas décadas (2000 – 2010) inerentes ao clima e as práticas agrícolas, como uma maior irregularidade das chuvas entre outubro e abril, variando demasiadamente entre alguns anos e consequentemente a continuidade do êxodo rural. Ademais, outros problemas também ligados ao clima atualmente na região podem trazer drásticos problemas à população, como o risco de ocorrer um colapso no Sistema de Abastecimento de Água Integrado de Irecê - SAAI que atende cerca de 330 mil habitantes atualmente. Devido a diminuição imódica do volume da Barragem de Mirorós, reservatório responsável por atender o SAAI. Para se ter um maior embasamento sobre as mudanças climáticas ocorridas na região é necessário que haja um maior número de pesquisas. No entanto, isso só será possível, a princípio, com a reativação e construção de estações meteorológicas distribuídas pela microrregião. Assim, em um futuro próximo, poderemos ter uma concretude maior na formulação de políticas públicas voltadas a práticas agrícolas locais, que vem perdendo espaço na economia baiana ao longo das últimas décadas.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Baianoufpb (talk • contribs) 21:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, I love hearing about rain.--v/r - TP 23:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Revision deletion - offensive edit summary

Hi TParis, I was wondering if you would consider deleting this revision due to the offensive edit summary. Cheers a13ean (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You're right, it's been taken care of.--v/r - TP 02:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response! Cheers a13ean (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

X!'s Edit Counter

Hi, you maintain the script from X!'s Edit Counter. If i want to check my edits (on nl-wiki), i get the message 'Sorry, but in order to save resources for the Toolserver, a bot has automatically killed this query for being longer than 60 seconds.' Is there a way i can see my edits without getting this notice or do you know any other good counter? Thanks, Goudsbloem (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll see if I can fix it. Can you upload a screeenshot to photobucket and send me an email with the links?--v/r - TP 13:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll have seen this also before, but it's not a permanent problem. Just reload the page and than it should work. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 00:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Article blamer

Hi TParis. Thank you for taking over X!'s tools. I tried using the Article blamer to find the string "review the events of this specific incident" in the history of Costa Concordia disaster, but got an error: "Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 134217728 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 88090 bytes) in /home/tparis/Peachy/Includes/Wiki.php on line 575". Would you look into this? Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

K, looking.--v/r - TP 23:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be fixed now.--v/r - TP 00:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thank you! Goodvac (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

TPbot

It appears you got it working before I did. However Cyberbot I is just about ready to completely replace SoxBot. I have been working on it for the past month. Could you perhaps tell me what files you modified and in what way to help me get rid of the bug. My bot keeps hanging after initializiing Peachy.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 520,134,535) 00:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you create a .cfg file for your bot?--v/r - TP 00:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Shoot. No wonder. I forgot to load the configuration folders. Facepalm. Thanks so much. :)—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 520,135,513) 00:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm only going to be running the rfx report, the rfx talley, the admins and the crat stats. I recommend you check to make sure no one else is running any other tasks too, you don't wanna have bot wars.--v/r - TP 00:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my bot is going to run everything SoxBot did including what yours does now.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 520,136,156) 00:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you're going to have bot wars if you do that. Some folks took over the tasks already.--v/r - TP 00:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, Tally, RfX, Graph, Adminstats, and several edits, cratstats aren't used yet. My bot is set up exactly like SoxBot which means individual tasks can be shut down.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 520,137,116) 00:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Cyberbot I

There was a config file for Peachy that I oversaw. It was the main reason why my bot hung up. The config file was still set up for SoxBot and so I accidentally ran SoxBot off of my toolserver. Cyberbot I seems to be functioning now and so I have now shut it down pending approval.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 520,222,605) 14:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you find it on Google or SVN? Just need to know so we can get X to remove it.--v/r - TP 14:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Responding with e-Mail. I can tell you this, it wasn't on Google, SVN or GITHUB.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 520,223,270) 14:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

ARS Rfc help

Currently I have a draft of an Rfc on the Article Rescue Squadron in my userspace. There is a short time limit on this and I would like any input you can offer as soon as possible.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I wish I had the time to read it, I'm actually working right now. But my initial impression is that you're making a bad mistake. I'll be the first to say that ARS does some shaddy stuff. But overall, and despite some of the people involved, ARS does good work and is beneficial to Wikipedia. Even their participation in deletion discussions has often been helpful. And I'm hopful they received the message about canvassing; not just because the rescue template was deleted but because of all of the discussion surrounding it that laid out to them that the community will not tolerate it. If you want to do this the right way, you need to target specific editors who have misbehaved and your evidence needs to be more comprehensive. I think the way you're going about this is going to WP:BOOMERRANG on you. I'd suggest a more careful and targetting approach. Just my two cents.--v/r - TP 16:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

My intention is to provide evidence on North since he is the worst offender, but I do not think stopping that one editor will change much. Another editor will take his place without fail. However, you do have a point that this is currently a bit too broad and that is similar to what another editor raised concerns about.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

On a further note, I think the ARS could do good work, but in many ways this focus on getting involved in deletion discussions prevents such work. From my perspective canvassing is not just a problem of people trying to skew the discussion towards one result, but inhibiting natural discussion to achieve the best results. When partisanship takes hold of a dispute, the issue becomes distorted and the best solution is lost in the crossfire. Seems idyllic to me for anyone to think the ARS will ever be free of editors like North, but one can minimize the damage such editors can do to the project by making ARS a less favorable tool for them.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I kinda agree with TParis... I personally wouldn't single any one person out as that opens the door to the boomerang aspect. I would focus more on the issues at hand... canvassing/vote stacking/etc. You can use specific examples from a specific user, but if you make it about said user, then it becomes about users and not issues. It then raises the need to have people certify against that user. And the response would be to start having views put into place about you. If you keep it issue focused on the more egregious problems, you might avoid the boomerang. But if you open the door to singling out users, do not be surprised if a number of views don't target you.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess you are right... TParis and I have radically different views on the RfC afterall.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're radically different. I understand your point of view and I guess what we can agree on is that whichever way TDA goes about it, he should make sure that he has substantive and accurate evidence and a clear intended outcome that is construtive.--v/r - TP 00:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Some more information has been added. I still have some more to add, but wondering what you think of it now.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• If North is the worst offender, perhaps it should be an RfC/U in the first place. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• It's unclear exactly what the RFC is going after. You mention ARS a lot but focus on NA1K a lot. If I were you, I'd take either Balloonman's advice or mine but not both. Balloonman's advice is probably better because it's easier to prove, less controversial, and more direct. If you are going to take that approach and target NA1K poor behavior, I strongly suggest you go view the diffs I provided at the ANI thread that initiated the Rescue TfD. I gave a lot of strong diffs of poor rationales by NA1K. I like your other rationales, but you'll need more and stronger diffs proving poor AFD !votes. They !vote a lot and you'll need substantial evidence documenting this or you'll be accused of picking and choosing (cherry picking) data that meets your expected outcome.--v/r - TP 23:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

After your advice I have taken steps to focus it on ARS and the canvassing issue. I also tried to rework the desired outcomes section to better illustrate the options so that it doesn't seem like there is only severe restrictions or the status-quo.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Adminstats

For taking over updating the adminstats functionality of Soxbot  An optimist on the run! 19:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but it has yet to be approved ;) We'll see; there is another bot vying for the distinct privillage. --v/r - TP 19:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

What does "v/r" mean?

Hi. I notice that on your user page - & when signing? - you put 'v/r' in front of the 'TP'.

What does the v/r mean, please? Has anybody asked before? Trafford09 (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it actually gets asked a lot. It means "Very Respectfully."--v/r - TP 20:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I see, thanks. I'm not surprised you've been asked that, often. I wonder if it may be helpful to your many readers if you put it in full, or gave an explanation as to its meaning? Just a thought. Anyway, happy editing. Trafford09 (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You're probably right, but I like it short-hand. I might just add it to my edit notice for this page.--v/r - TP 01:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

RFC Posted

Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Adoption_of_new_unblock_appeals_tool Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Perfect!--v/r - TP 21:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

Tom, I notice you use the same bot as I for archiving, I tried to speed mine up to one day and think I broke it, could you fix it for me please Darkness Shines (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I couldnt figure out what was wrong, so I copied/pasted my archive code on there to see if it helps.--v/r - TP 13:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Autoedit counting tool

The automated edit counter doesn't seem to work for me. Apparently the user who created it is no longer active.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

ok, I know whats wrong. ill fix it later when i get to my hotel. on the road right now.--v/r - TP 23:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.--v/r - TP 16:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Desysop request

Hey TParis, I've fulfilled your request to desysop this account. Have a good break and let us know when you're back so we can re-install the extra buttons. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm running a virus scan now and tomorrow I'll change all of my passwords.--v/r - TP 05:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

How did a user vote? rfap

http://toolserver.org/~tparis/rfap/index.php?name=Kudpung&rfa=on reports "Invalid user!" Josh Parris 12:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

ok probobly cant check it out until tomorrow, i qm on a trip.--v/r - TP 12:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Ping Josh Parris 00:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed--v/r - TP 01:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you! Josh Parris 05:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to Berlin hackathon, and possible sponsorship

TParis, would you be interested in coming to the Berlin Wikimedia hackathon, June 1-3 2012? I can offer some travel subsidy. Please reply on my talk page on mediawiki.org if you're interested, or email me at sumanahwikimedia.org. Thanks! Best, Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 02:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

ARS RfC

I have done some reworking on the draft and would like to know what you think. This is probably done I think, but I want to know if you have any last minute suggestions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit counter vs Unicode

Howdy TP. There's a long-standing Unicode-parsing bug in http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php that I could never get X! to fix; would you care to take a stab at it? The "edit count" link at the bottom of Special:Contributions/とある白い猫, for example, should display his edit count, but instead it just gives an error message. 28bytes (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you know what exact charset it should be in? It'd be easy to fix with iconv() if you could tell me that; it'd save me a ton of time.--v/r - TP 17:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you point me to a list of choices? I'd assumed all WP usernames are unicode/utf-8 but I'm not really familiar with PHP. 28bytes (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Character_encoding#Common_character_encodings. UTF-8 is a very common one, but the one PHP uses is configured in the php.ini. I may be mixing servers here, but if I recall correctly, it's not set to default to UTF-8. It's a bit complicated because I'll have to first urldecode the string from the querystring, then detect that encoding, and then convert to whatever the databases uses. I'll play around with it and see if I can figure it out, I just wasn't sure if you knew what it needed offhand.--v/r - TP 17:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I can't be more helpful there. I just assumed that Mediawiki used the same encoding for all of the links in the box at the bottom of the Special:Contributions page. 28bytes (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, however..

I'm a little 'disheartened' at your closing debate comment - regarding this. I can freely admit that I didn't "drop" conversations - however, the nominator knows that AfDing an article there will always be some sort of debate and because a lot of my effort and time went into creating this article into what it is today, off course I'm not going to just drop things, and let my edits be critisized. I'm not taking ownership of the article or anything, I'm just very passionate at what I do on it, and to have editors not address the issues upfront, and simply AfD it, thinking they will have it deleted, I did not think that was appropriate to do.

Barring that, I'm glad this is over and done with, not only has it been a disruption to my own editing, but others, and frankly, although it shouldn't be, it does question me as to whether or not I should even bother continuing with the project, considering my edits seem to be problematic.

Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, just one last thing, could you please explain further to me, as what you mean by: "No prejudice to an immediate renomination with less WP:BATTLEGROUND." ~ I'm unfamiliar with the use of the word 'prejudice' in this sentence. Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 09:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Generally when AFDs close as no consensus and is immediate renominated, there is an immediate rush of "keep, the last AFD just closed". "No prejudice" in this sense should tell any participants in a new discussion that there was a 'mistrial' of sorts and that the previous AFD should not result in a procedural keep of a new AFD.--v/r - TP 17:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Question about your closure of Aziz Shavershian

It makes it impossible for a closing sysop to determine the general consensus rather than the insistent demand of one or two editors. No prejudice to an immediate renomination with less WP:BATTLEGROUND. v/r - TP 01:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Most people participating said keep. You can ignore the back and forth squabbles and just focus on the fact that most felt the sources were enough to prove notability. Skip over the post of those two editors if you don't feel like reading all of what they had to say. And what is this nonsense about an immediate renomination? Why would you actually encourage that? It just means everyone who participated would have to show up again and make the same argument. Dream Focus 11:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

If there had only been badgering on the delete side, I would've done that. But MStar was badgering too and I couldn't ignore that. Badgering discourages participation and so it's impossible to know how many people would've participated and how that discussion would've gone had they said their peace and not beat up anyone who disagreed.--v/r - TP 17:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

People are always argue at AFD. You can't just ignore everything and encourage a do-over because you believe some might not join in do to the length of the arguments. Most people just ignore the long text and post what they were going to anyway. Dream Focus 01:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the nominator and a delete !voter badgering creates a hostile environment not conducive to a good discussion to develop consensus.--v/r - TP 01:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've got to say, I can see where Dream Focus is coming from here. If I were MelbourneStar, and an article I had that much effort into was put up for deletion and then every keep vote was being attacked, I'd probably start commenting on them. He's a much newer editor that Ryulong and emulating him would be fairly natural. There was clearly a majority believing the article should be kept, and there was more participation there than I see in most AfDs, many of which end up relisted. I'm not saying there was a consensus to keep, but I find the idea that votes were excessively stifled to the point that there were no helpful ones to be wrong. It then follows that an immediate renomniation is inappropriate. An article about an internet celeb is always going to spark a lot of debate - I think there was a clear an reasonable result here. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Out of the folks that turned out. But my experience from watching WP:DRN and other places with heated discussion is that it deters participation when there is badgering. WP:RFA is about the only badgering immune place on Wikipedia because of the level of experience most participants have. The question is not what the result was, the question is what the result could have been had the badgering not happened. It's a matter of gaming the system and turning it into a battleground to deter resistance to your will.--v/r - TP 13:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Here is the RfC. Would you be willing to certify it?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't. I had a conversation with User:MichaelQSchmidt about two months ago and he told me about all of the good ideas he wanted to try to push to improve ARS and I promised I'd not cause trouble for him for six months to give him some breathing room to do it. Although I would like to see NA1K and his disruptiveness finally off the project (or mentored). Do me a favor though, before that gets posted, and be sure you are not throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. If you are going to do this, you'll want to make sure your complaint is clearly justified. Opponents to the RFC (or RFC/U) will targets the weak points, the weak arguments. I'm saying this because I think you should sit on this RFC for a little while and make sure this is what you really want to do. I caution you. I know now seems like the perfect opportunity because there is strong consensus against the ARS's activities right now but you don't want to let that encourage you to start something that isn't well thought out. I'm saying this with an abundance of concern for you.--v/r - TP 17:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I certified it based upon the discussion at AN a few weeks ago. My suggestion would be for MQS and you to contribute to the discussion and to share his vision of what he wants to see get done. Can he sell it to the community and then get the RFC to push his ideas through? As for him sitting back, he was facing a full topic ban until discussion at WP:AN suggested an RfC... thus the AN report was closed by me with the provision that he get the RfC started or be topic banned.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I do remember that, I would just hate to see the wrath of the community turn a legitimate concern entirely into an issue about TDA.--v/r - TP 17:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree... I hope it doesn't. While I haven't looked into the issue in any depth on my own (and am unfamiliar with current ARS practices), I feel like he raises legit concerns---one's which mirror my expereriences from years ago. But we shall see. I'm going to hold off on my own !voting until I see more evidence either way... and even then I might try to take more of a moderator role than a participant one.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I do like TDA's desired outcome; very constructive, civil, and good-will inspired.--v/r - TP 18:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TParis. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 13:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 522,119,207) 13:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 13:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy

Hi, I made a comment about a recent AfD close that you performed and now feel uncomfortable with its placement. I really should have probably raised the issue here. Anyway, you can see it here. I am not going to start self-reverting all over the place but I do belatedly recognise that I have probably done things incorrectly and I hope that you can accept my apologies for that mistake. Best. - Sitush (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thats fine, I just reverted my close. I've been involved with TopGun and Darkness Shines in other discussions so it's probably improper for me to close it anyway. I was just trying to knock out some of the AFD backlog. If you want an explanation how I came to 'no consensus' still, just let me know and I'll reread the discussion.--v/r - TP 03:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that it is getting to the point where the majority of regular contributors have had some sort of involvement with DS and TG. I am among those but pretty much backed off when the ownership issues became obvious, although I regret doing so because quite a few of the contested articles are highly skewed. In any event, I am grateful for your revert and we'll see what happens next.

You'll have more experience of this sort of thing than me and so probably the next closer will reach the same decision. I am curious about what I may have missed that gave rise to the decision but don't particularly want to put you into a corner and have you thinking that there is some sort of vindictive motive on my part, given that I !voted in that discussion. - Sitush (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's alright. Later on today I'll go through it again and explain my rationale. I'm used to it, I close AFDs a lot. I just can't recall what exactly went through my head the first time I read it because I do so many at one time.--v/r - TP 13:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

In all your time on Wikipedia, it is unlikely that you have ever have caused as much angst as me. There have been moments - of fair frequency - when it has felt as if an entire population of 1.2 bn have had me in their sights, for actions here but aimed at me both from within and without. I balls things up quite frequently but, hey, to err is human etc & I like to think that I get the application of consensus etc right at least most of the time. Your hit rate will be far higher than mine. And, yes, understanding the viewpoint of someone else is always A Good Thing, even if I disagree with that viewpoint. I play devil's advocate quite a lot! - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: Academically Acceptable

Hi. I wondered if you'd please review your closure at Articles for deletion/Academically Acceptable. Academically Acceptable redirecting to Texas Education Agency accountability ratings system#Academically Acceptable does make some sense. However, it sets a precedent that someone may do the same for Academically acceptable. Per my policy-based !vote, the term could be considered a generic dictionary definition (certainly without the capitalisation): Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL shows plenty of non-Texas refs. What do you think? -- Trevj (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If there is another article the search term should point to, we can just create a disambig.--v/r - TP 13:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. What seems to be a similar grading system in the UK (Ofsted#Current system of inspection) uses the terms Outstanding, Good, Satisfactory and Inadequate. As generic terms, these don't warrant encyclopedic entries connected to their use in ratings systems, etc. (cf. Outstanding, Good, Satisfactory, Inadequate) It's worth noting that there are no entries for Exemplary, Recognized, Academically Unacceptable or Not Rated: Other (other headings at Texas Education Agency accountability ratings system) - while Not Rated is a redirect to an unrelated topic, although arguably shouldn't exist either, per WP:NOTDICT. For the immediate issue here, maybe WP:WPDAB could be contacted for comment. In light of this explanation, would you please consider revising your redirect closure? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I won't dispute any of that, but haven't you heard that Wikipedia:Redirects_are_cheap? Search terms don't hurt the encyclopedia and the history has been deleted.--v/r - TP 17:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it's still a generic term. There are currently 3 articles linking to the term (Alief Hastings High School, Alief Elsik High School and Alief Taylor High School) but it's not inconceivable that someone may link to the term from a school in another state. Then readers will end up at an inappropriate article. I guess it could be turned into a dab page as you suggest. -- Trevj (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TParis. You have new messages at Reaper Eternal's talk page.
Message added 16:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

What happened here?

Am I missing something, or did you just close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blacktree Software as redirect and then deleted the page instead?! Alzarian16 (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. I must have closed it before the script finished.--v/r - TP 22:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Toolserver

Do you know how to make those shortcut folders like X! had with the sf folders? I would like to make some for convenience purposes so I can work a little quicker through the server.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 522,387,153) 22:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I don't. Google "linux shortcuts"--v/r - TP 22:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, thanks anyways.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 522,389,304) 22:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

JCAla

I've had enough of this user; I gave him a break for a while because he'd asked me to enter the dispute, and I didn't want to begrudge him that. Not to mention that he has a very good point about TopGun's POV pushing. But I'm done with that. It's bad enough that he parades about telling anyone who will listen how much of a poor admin I am (funny how most neutral editors or admins who enters the dispute and comes to a decision, he accuses of having an agenda, despite the fact that we live on the other side of the globe and don't give the tiniest of shits about their stupid border and ethnic rivalries). I'm more concerned with the fact that he does basically nothing on Wikipedia other than complain and stir the pot of controversy; even when he does make edits, they are so blatantly bad that even Darkness shines calls him on it (no diff at the moment; but it's there somewhere). If he brought up legitimate controversies, it would be fine with me; but he doesn't: instead, he is the living definition of a double standard, carrying the WP:TRUTH banner as high as anyone at WP:GS ever could hope to.

I ask for your help in crafting a solution to get him the hell off the back of the community, who has spent far more time dealing with him than in other constructive activities. That he corrects some of the POV-pushing by TopGun is of no concern to me; the harm outweighs the benefit. And people who don't carry the truth banner like it's their job can do that far better than he can. If that means we have to seek a general sanction for South Asia ethnic disputes (apart from the caste dispute that already exists), that is fine with me. If it means we file an RFC on JCAla, all the better (although his ability for introspection is shot, so it will do no good, just as my criticism here or anywhere else has done no good). If we go to ANI with diffs about his disruptive behavior, then we're in for a party (I may not be able to put it together, given how much I'm working these days).

Let me know of your decision. If it takes you more than 48 hours to respond, please drop me a talkback notice. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont have much recent interaction with JCAla and I just dont have any time to go diff hunting. I'd be willing to certify an RFC/U but I just can't carry the load myself. I am sure Top Gun could throw lots of diffs out but his credibility about this isn't that good. I don't really know what else to do until one of us can put more attention to it.--v/r - TP 22:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No talking behind your back

Hi TParis, User:BusterD asked me to give my views on the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WeVideo, which I did on my talkpage. If you think I am misrepresenting your point of view there, (or if you think I am wrong) just me know. Cheers, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There were two other case specific points that went through my head during that AFD - but you hit the general AFD closing thought pattern right on the head. I've no objections to what you said.--v/r - TP 12:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought the close was just fine, but didn't fully understand one editor's rationale. BTW, I've suggested the page creator in this procedure apply to you for userfication. If requested, I hope this can be granted. Subject may well get the RS it needs after the event concludes. BusterD (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, if he wants it I've no problem userfying.--v/r - TP 13:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit Counter

Hello, I know that the edit counter is now unter that URL. But if I try to see edits of German wikipedia I can only see "de.wikipedia.org ist kein korrektes Wiki" (de.wikipedia.org is no correct wiki). Can anyone help me? Yours amargeddon6 ^{air mail ✈} GermanWikipedia 19:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. It does the same thing for the English version. I tried to run X's Edit Counter on myself today and it came up with "en.wikipedia.org is not a valid wiki". Aside from that being a rather humorous statement, I'm not sure what's going on. Thanks, GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Toolserver has been having issues for a couple of days. If it doesn't resolve itself in a day or so, let me know again and I'll give you a status update.--v/r - TP 20:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems toolserver is fixed now.--v/r - TP 02:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It's working for me. Thanks! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge

A merge doesn't require deletion, merely a redirect. And, it would appear that several even made that clear in the discussion. Please revert your self on this. - jc37 01:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Context would be wonderful. A merge doesn't only not require deletion, a merge requires that a deletion did not happen. Now, if you want something out of me, just say it.--v/r - TP 01:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

My apologies I did not add a link, because it was what you were in the middle of doing when I posted here. I am, of course, talking about: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thelma Harper (2nd nomination). - jc37 01:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ohh ok, well there was stronger consensus to delete. Although a significant number of folks did suggest merging, there wasn't a consensus for it. Although if it's what you really want to do, I'm not opposed to IAR/Supervoting a merge in favor of a list article.--v/r - TP 01:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your characterisation of the discussion (not that that matters at this point : )

I just went through and looked at the comments (not just bolded ones);; there seem to be more people asking "merge" than "delete", though maybe I missed something.

But regardless, nod, please revert the deletions, and I'll work on merging to the list page. - jc37 02:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I counted just to make sure. I think you're miss-counting the "Keep X and X, delete the rest" !votes because they have bolded keep.--v/r - TP 02:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm right and you're wrong. no wait, I'm right and you're wrong, no wait... lol

I noticed your edit summary where you mentioned something about attitude. (with a negtive implication). No negative attitude here, merely was a request. And since you were willing to do that...  : )

But sure, if you like, I'll do a run-down of the discussion. Give me a sec or so. - jc37 02:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The way it came off, when I first read it, was like I should know what your talking about. It came off a bit arrogant. But then you explained it as I was in the middle of deleting those articles so you assumed I'd know you meant that AFD.--v/r - TP 02:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries : ) - jc37 02:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, not going for incredible depth here, or even trying to read between the lines. And also ignoring comments regarding Eunice and Thelma for the purpose of counting the rest.

Keep

• User:Dennisthe2
• User:Dream Focus
• User:DGG - keep probably as merged

Delete

• User:TenPoundHammer
• User:SummerPhD
• User:Jay32183
• User:Sgeureka (merge but delete)
• User:Niteshift36
• User: Yaksar - oppose a merge if not sourced

Merge

• User:Jclemens
• User:CrazyLegsKC - initially said delete or merge, but later changed to redirect.
• User:DGG - keep probably as merged
• User:Starblind
• User:Jc37
• User:28bytes
• User:BusterD

Only seemed to express opinion on keeping Thelma and/or Eunice

• User:Milowent
• User:CallawayRox
• User:Paul Erik

Hope this helps. - jc37 02:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I counted the ones in the "Only seemed to express opinion on keeping Thelma and/or Eunice" category as delete others.--v/r - TP 03:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I counted those as "no opinion on the others".

And I suppose we could call the "keeps" as "keep, don't delete", but I was trying to not read deeper : ) - jc37 03:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I clearly stated Keep two, redirect others. I specifically didn't want a merge, and disparaged all the unsourced character space as excessive detail. I shouldn't speak for 28bytes, but that editor also bolded keep two and redirect the rest. I'm not reading consensus for a merge in the above, given the assertions made. On re-reading the procedure, yes I do see the consensus for merge. Sorry. BusterD (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we're all satisfied now?--v/r - TP 04:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Nod, though please fix link in your close : ) - jc37 06:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.--v/r - TP 13:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

2011 Angolan Air Force crash

While handling orphaned talk pages, I ran across this article. You closed the AfD as a redirect, but deleted the article and redirected the talk page. So I'm not really sure what you meant to do. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.--v/r - TP 13:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

List of countries by Nobel laureates

On the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by Nobel laureates, you closed the debate as keep. However, as far as I can see (unless WP suddenly became a democracy... which would surprise me), the result was no consensus. And in that case, shouldn't we respect the choice of the editor who created the article (Pristino). May I suggest that you verify the only point that those who want to keep this article made : a notability based entirely on a page of the website of the BBC that doesn't even say what we can read in the article. Anyway, the creator of this article has said himself very clearly that it is an OR. Should we keep OR on WP? I don't want the work of Pristino to be deleted, just to go back to his userspace until it reached (if it ever does) the threshold of notability. Eleventh1 (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the 'no consensus'. There is consensus that this article meets WP:GNG and WP:LISTN per the BBC Source and the book source. As far as the article creator goes, if I were to have closed as delete I would've restored to his userspace. But he doesn't own the article, he released it irrevocably under the Wikipedia's license. Sounds harsh when said, but it is what it is and the article was kept.--v/r - TP 13:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Matt Papa

Hello TParis, I think you made a mistake because he is in fact notable because his album Your Kingdon Come chart on Billboard's charts of Christian Albums and Heatseekers. Just follow the link, because it must be reinstated immediately.HotHat (talk) 05:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Restored. Generally when article has a WP:PROD, all you have to do is remove it sometime during it's seven days. If it gets deleted, you can request it be undeleted at WP:REFUND.--v/r - TP 14:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Blockedtext

While you're editing it, would you mind changing the sentence "Editing by $7 has been disabled by $1 for the following reason(s):" to "Editing by $7 has been blocked (disabled) by $1 for the following reason(s):"? That bolding is optional.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Done--v/r - TP 01:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

FLC-Report

Do you know if FLC-Report was taken over by anybody? As far as I can tell it was still an active task in SoxBot.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont know for sure. I considered doing it but you said you were going to do most of X's tasks and I didnt want to take too much on at once. If you're going to do it, I think there is also some kind of Feature Picture thing that needs to be done also.--v/r - TP 20:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually that was a personal task. So never mind.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Cyberbot I shows a list of tasks that it can do. Since you know more about who took over what, your help would be appreciated.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 02:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

On your enwp list, I think #5 and #6 are the only ones no longer getting done.--v/r - TP 02:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You mean bad images and current events? Current events is taken over by User:28bot.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 02:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I know bad images might be taken over by Anomiebot but I was asked to consider having TPBot do it. You might get with Anomie if I'm right.--v/r - TP 02:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What I'm doing now is going to bed. Spent almost the entire day reorganizing SoxBot code and then constructing the userpage for Cyberbot I and setting the run pages which do respond if you change them.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Simple approved for trial of 50 edits.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 14:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It appears Anomie didn't take over the task so I guess I can take over the task. I am waiting for a response from Anomie before I submit a BRFA for the task.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 18:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Anomie isn't responding or doesn't want to respond. In either case, I have left a message for Anomie stating that I will initiate a BRFA to take over {{badimage}} task. If you have any objections, please let me know now.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: User:Nicoleharbin

Re your message: I have a difficult time believing that they didn't know. The account name, editing history, domain has all of the classic signs of a spammer. Read the deleted revision of their talk page. So I would say no, don't unblock, but if you really think they are sincere, then you can unblock them. You might want to have a CU see what other spam accounts are lurking behind their IP address/range. If you want to know what indicators I mean, I'd be happy to explain it by email, but not on wiki. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Reyour message: No, I don't have an UTRS account. I sent you an email. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I strongly urge that no unblock of the user take place, that is a clear Commission Breakthrough spam link, there are no conceivable reasons to place it on Wikipedia besides monetary gain thru the Commission Breakthrough program.Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Strangely it's supposed to be already globally blacklisted, will have to look into this. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I declined it. I'm unfamilar with Commission Breakthrough.--v/r - TP 12:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maren Knudsen

You recently closed the above deletion discussion as delete, however there was three articles included in that particular AfD & I was wondering why you didn't delete the other two articles (if the result was delete all) nor did you remove the AfD templates (if the result was keep for the other two). ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I completely didn't see them. Even after you sent me back there it took me a minute to find them. Hang on.--v/r - TP 02:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I read through the discussion and I feel like the commenters also didn't realize there were two other articles. No one mentions them and many people talk as if there is only one article up for AFD. So I'm going to decline deleting them in favor of their own AFD.--v/r - TP 02:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I would have to agree the discussion is solely focused around one article, anyway thanks for fixing it. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

GUJARAT HISTORY

GUJARAT IS BEST STATE IN WORLD. AND ITS FINE AND ALL TYPE OF PEOPLE LIVE IN GUJARAT. GUJARAT IS PIECE OF SLIENT AND ITS VERY SLIENT STATE. IN GUJARAT MORE FAMOUS PEOPLE BORN. AS MAHATMA GANDHI, SARDSAR VALLABHAI , SAHID BHAGAT SINGH, VIR SAVARKAR, AS ALL TYPE OF FREEDOM FIGHTER IN

Yay for Gujarat.--v/r - TP 02:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit counter not updating

The replag on en is currently over a day, causing the edit counter to not update. I'd appreciate you taking a look at that when you have the time. Thanks. 786b6364 (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Replag cannot be controlled. The fault is the wikipedia servers as their resources are being used a lot and it's slowing down database replications.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 08:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what Cyberpower said. I can't control the replag, sorry.--v/r - TP 12:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks anyway. 786b6364 (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Database login not ported

http://toolserver.org/~tparis/editsummary/index.php?name=Josh%20Parris&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia shows "Access denied for user 'tparis'@'%.toolserver.org' to database 'u_soxred93'" 110.174.86.241 (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)}@TParis:Aren't you supposed to connect to u_tparis?—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 11:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. There is an additional stats database and I keep forgetting to comment it out. Done.--v/r - TP 12:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

 confirmed—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 13:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I couldn't find a "Barnstar of Patience" so this will have to do. Kudos for enduring constant "are we there yet"s without snapping. 28bytes (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think I came very close to snapping several times.--v/r - TP 21:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Tool working?

Hello. Is this tool running properly? To date, I've actually created 43 articles and it just records 38...--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)There's a replag of over 48 hours right now so information displayed is 2 days behind.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 00:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've created 49 articles to date, and the tool still shows only 38. The last article it shows was created a week ago...--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's first wait until the replag clears before we dispute this issue.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 13:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Jetstreamer is probably right. He started Kariba Airport on 21 March 2012‎, and still does not show. I have noticed the same. So the tool is probably on vacation. History2007 (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a huge schema update to the replication databases right now so database replication has a huge lag of literally a week. 21 March 2012 doesn't even make me blink when trying to imaging whether or not it could be affected by this.--v/r - TP 21:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For putting up with me and still being nice. —cyberpower ChatOnline 00:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

autoedits

I know you only overtook X!'s tools e.g. the automated edti counter, but would you try to add the AFC helper tool? See some unsuccessfuly examples at [37] a sccessful submission is not included at the moment, but you will likely see some at WP:AFC/recent (which should is - deacto - only changed by the script). Regards, mabdul 22:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the AFC helper tool?--v/r - TP 23:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For solving the malfunction of my script. —cyberpower ChatLimited Access 10:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-cy (Wales)

I've included your adminstats template on my User page: here. Will it work IW? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry it won't. It's enwiki only. I'd be happy to give you the source if you want t run your own bot on that Wiki.--v/r - TP 15:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)You would need toolserver and the entire Peachy folder that controls the login and edits to Wikipedia. I'm not trying to appear as a control freak, but I will be happy to implement it for that wikipedia for you. Just give me a hollor on my page if you want me to do it for you.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Whaw, great! Can you please go ahead? I've never ran a bot, but I'll give it a go. I have no python however; so please make life as simple as possible! Diolch. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Well so much for it being easy. There appears to be some database issues when trying to connect to cywiki_p. I know it's supposed to connect to sql-s3-rr to cywiki_p. I made a modified script to specifically handle cy.wikipedia do to the different language used there. For some reason when executing
$uid = $db->select( 'user', 'user_id', array( 'user_name' => $rawuser ));, it hangs up. Do you think you could help me out with this issue?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I havent taken a look, but I wouldnt be surprised if you are having encoding issues. Do some sample selects on the database and check the encoding.--v/r - TP 00:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, whatever the reason, I won't be able to take a look at until tomorrow. I am exhausted. Install a new 7 ton force motor on our logsplitter and it wasn't the easiest thing to do. Not to mention I converted our snow blower back into a lawn mower. I'm disabling the task for now to prevent any possible corrupt edit from being made.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you like me to give you the script? I can send it to you through e-Mail. My computer is having serious issues so I am having difficulty working on the script. I am even having issues typing this message.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 12:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Everything I try won't work. I am good at programming but I rarely ever used databases like this so I am little clueless. Perhaps you could help me. I only need to get the database to work.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 10:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to email it though I'm not sure when I'll have time to look and I dont quite understand what your trying to do anyway.--v/r - TP 21:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, TParis. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Take your time there's no rush. I haven't been able to get to it myself that much as well but your help is appreciated.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Add 'echo $rawuser;' after line 24 "function process ($rawuser) {" and check the output. I think your getting a bad response from "preg_match("/(Sgwrs )?Defnyddiwr:([^\/]*)/i", $name, $m);"--v/r - TP 01:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Forget that, I found the error. Delete line 42. " echo "uid = $uid\n\n";" is causing your error.--v/r - TP 02:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? I've been doing code mods and it was that echo command that was causing problems? I feel like an idiot. I'm embarrassed. Thanks a lot.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 10:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Through thick and thin, through snowploughs and log-splitters - both of you got there in the end. The Welsh word for excellent is Bendigedig! An in case you can't pronounce it, here's a barn-star for perseverance:

Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For you help to the Welsh Wikipedia! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit counter: Top edited pages

First of all a big "Thank you" for overtaking X!'s edit counter. A user of de.wikipedia detected a bug with the top edited pages. See [38] It says that de:0 was edited 36 times, but this is wrong. It should be de:2009. So I think that there is some problem with a conversion from numbers to strings or something like that. I hope you can fix it. --Schnark (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont understand. One article was not edited 36 times and what does that have to do with the other?--v/r - TP 21:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

When you look at the list, you will see that the edit counter claims, that Schniggendiller edited the article de:0 36 times. This is not true, he edited it only one time. Instead, he edited the article de:2009 36 times, but this article is not listed. So for some reason the edit counter shows the wrong article there. I hope that I expressed the matter now more clearly. --Schnark (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll look into it.--v/r - TP 21:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For volunteering to help out with my script and fixing the problem. —cyberpower ChatLimited Access 10:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Aziz Shavershian

Hi TParis. A couple of weeks ago, you closed an AfD as No Consensus, with no prejudice to an immediate renomination, with less battleground. I believe a number of editors disputed your close, including myself. Well, the renomination has happened, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aziz Shavershian (2nd nomination) - and Ryulong wrote a longer rationale "so [he does] not feel the need to flood the page with comments". Since I would have closed the first nomination differently (it looked like a clear keep to me - but I'm involved!), and I also have commented in this nomination I feel my hands are rather tied but I was wondering if you could have a look at this second nomination, assess whether any action should be taken and perhaps do something? Thank you. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As you correctly point out, my close was questioned and contentious. I think I should stay away from this one. I'm sorry. I would say that there is significantly less battleground, though, but I would have preferred that Ryulong is battling with himself (interally) trying not to let the impulse to respond control him and losing. He needs to step back at this point. It's obvious the discussion is going to close as keep and this is a case of WP:STICK. Whether he is right or wrong in truth, the community feels he is wrong and it'll do him no good to continue fighting them.--v/r - TP 21:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I'll have a word with Ryulong and see if it makes any difference. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey TParis. Again I come to you on the same subject! More for your advice this time. I don't spend much time at AfD, so I'm not 100% certain of the procedures there - especially with regard to closing. Ryulong has withdrawn his nomination, and closed the AfD. There was at least one good faith vote for deletion, and many substantive keep votes. His comment that he "may in the future decide to revisit this" really does imply that he's trying to avoid a keep close, which goes against WP:WITHDRAWN. As an uninvolved pair of eyes, am I right in thinking that, and should that close be overturned? (I'm not asking you to do it, if you want to stay away, but more for an opinion as someone who's more familiar with AfD) Worm^TT · (talk) 07:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Why the hell can't you people take a white flag when you see one?—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You might notice this was an hour or so ago, when I first logged on - I asked the opinion of an editor I respect. Since then, I saw the DRV, and the conversation on MelbourneStar's page - which I commented on. I appreciate that you are happy to drop it, but you were not the only person voting delete, and the keeps were very detailed. When you hint that you will be looking at this again in the future it's hardly a white flag. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

When consensus changes, I will be back on the article. Until then, consider it off of my radar.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You are upset you couldn't delete it now, so you are planning on bringing it back later on. You hope by withdrawing what would've been an obvious keep, then in the future people can't say it ended as keep. Your statement shows that. You also removed large amounts of text after you closed it. But you can't withdraw since someone else has voted keep, I have undone your closure, as well as the large removal of text from the AFD. Dream Focus 11:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

What the hell is your problem? I withdrew the nomination. Why the hell was that not enough?—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

@Ryulong: I haven't seen the AfD or DRV, but what you've offered isn't a white flag. It's a white flag with an angry red blotch on the edge. Withdrawing is one thing, saying you plan to do it again in the future is another. It implies you plan to wait until no one is looking (ABF). I think you should revert your own withdrawl, leave a comment that you do withdraw, and then wait for someone uninvolved to come by. This AFD likely would close as keep which would make a future AFD tougher for you and it appears like you are trying to game the system; whether true or not, that is the perception. @Worm: I think you've hit the nail on the head.--v/r - TP 20:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It was forcibly reopened by Dream Focus and reclosed by someone else.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Help us develop better software!

Thanks to all of you for commenting on the NOINDEX RfC :). It's always great to be able to field questions like these to the community; it's genuinely the highlight of my work! The NOINDEX idea sprung from our New Page Triage discussion; we're developing a new patrolling interface for new articles, and we want your input like never before :). So if you haven't already seen it, please go there, take a look at the screenshots and mockups and ideas, and add any comments or suggestions you might have to the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Tool not working for 'Articles created'?

It seems to have stopped counting article created. At least, for me.-The Gnome (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I know, nothing I can do about it. See Wikipedia:VPT#Toolserver_replication_lag.--v/r - TP 16:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Image deletion

I just wanted to request that an admin delete this image that I uploaded. You're the only admin I've encountered thus far. Thanks in advance :D BallistaBuffalo (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Done.--v/r - TP 02:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Adminstats

Hi - what's the situation with updating the Adminstats templates at the moment? TPBot doesn't seem to have touched these for the last couple of weeks.  An optimist on the run! 11:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ignore that - I assume it's due to the toolserver lag referred to above.  An optimist on the run! 11:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes the database is lagging right now. Once the replag clears, TPBot should operate again.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 14:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup, that is it. I ran the script manually just a few days ago to ensure it's still operating but just not receiving the updates due to the lag.--v/r - TP 01:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The lag is clearing. I estimate it should be gone within 24 hours.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, TParis. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I replied.--v/r - TP 14:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello TParis. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ducks

He is evading his block using 76.195.85.118 and 75.21.107.248. WP:DUCK applies. Von Restorff (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks mate. He continues with 76.195.87.205 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS). Von Restorff (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. 76.195.88.197 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS). Von Restorff (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of 'The 30 Years War'

You closed the deletion review for The 30 Years War without comment as to Thomas Erak's and Andrew Forsman's individual notability (I was the IP who posted the Andrew Forsman interviews in an attempt to establish his notability). Could you please look over this again and/or provide an explanation as to why the article was deleted? 2birds1stone (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

My job is to summarize the discussion, not comment on its individual merits. Overall, you didn't establish the notability of the two musicians outside of this band.--v/r - TP 13:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

Just wishing my friends a Happy Easter.—cyberpower ^{Happy Easter}_Online 14:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Eligibility

No comment on the rest of this sorry business, but Barts1a did vote in the last ArbCom election. 28bytes (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yea, but if you check the Special:SecurePoll/list/240, he's struck out for some reason.--v/r - TP 13:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently he changed his vote a few times. The final vote of his is not struck. 28bytes (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll check that. I wasn't aware of what the strike meant was why I left that comment. I'll go look for a final vote.--v/r - TP 13:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be taking only one portion of the caveats and marking editors "eligible to certify", without considering the rest. Good standing and Neutral:

Good standing

• At least 1,000 edits in mainspace
• At least 10 article edits per month during the preceding 3 months
• No (unoverturned) blocks within the last year
• No ArbCom restrictions within the last year; whether issued by the Committee itself or under a discretionary sanction provision.
• No involuntarily de-sysopped admins
• No record of abusive sockpuppetry
• Was eligible to vote in the most recent elections to the Arbitration Committee

Neutral

• Not from an editor who has been warned by me within the last year
• Not from an editor who has been active in articles closely related to where I have been issuing ArbCom discretionary sanctions
• Not from an editor who has been engaged in an editing dispute with me within the last year

Without even going into too much depth, there are obviously 4 of the 6 ineligible. Dave Dial (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually thoroughly checked all criteria. The good standing were easy, there were edit counters and logs to check that criteria. As far as neutral, I checked editor histories and talk pages, Courcelles' talk page history, and to see where the editors had major overlaps. I could not see anything that disqualified any editors. What have you found? It took me hours to do my check.--v/r - TP 13:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I took the caveat of "Not from an editor who has been warned by me within the last year" and "Not from an editor who has been active in articles closely related to where I have been issuing ArbCom discretionary sanctions" ruled out John, who was admonished by ArbCom in the very case concerning Malleus. You can also put both Silver and Pesky as being heavily involved on that case. I took these restrictions from Bart, although I am not positive they fit, as being a violation of this caveat: "No ArbCom restrictions within the last year; whether issued by the Committee itself or under a discretionary sanction provision". Dave Dial (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I think I misunderstood "closely related". I took that line to mean that the editor was under restrictions and so I checked WP:RESTRICTIONS.--v/r - TP 13:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reivewed User:Courcelles/Recall again and I think I'm right on this. There are two items that involve Arbcom. 1) "No ArbCom restrictions within the last year; whether issued by the Committee itself or under a discretionary sanction provision." None of these editors are under a restriction or discretionary sanction. John was admonished, but that is a warning and not a restriction. 2) "Not from an editor who has been active in articles closely related to where I have been issuing ArbCom discretionary sanctions." That these editors took part in the Arbcom case does not qualify for this one. This is directly tied to an article and specifically an article where Courcelles has issues discretionary sanctions. I don't see that they qualify. As I said, I checked their history and Courcelles would've had to leave a warning on their talk page had this been the case. So although I see your point, I think they are eligible.--v/r - TP 14:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I've not replied sooner, I had some rl matters to attend to. Nonetheless, I disagree with your conclusion. Although I can technically see your point, I am more of a "We hold these truths to be self evident" reader of this, and most of those editors do not fit the definition of neutral, imo. By common sense or the recall dictate. I would expect an editor to not be involved in the case in any way, and see the block to be so bad it deserves a recall, in order for this to be valid. I don't think any reasonable person can honestly say that's the case here. Dave Dial (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, one could say that only involved editors would even know about the recall or block, to have seen it on either Courcelles or MF's talk page. Maybe a solution to this would be notify more people about the recall petition et al. I had thought about posting it on Jimbo's page, but as I am one of the certifiers it could be construed as canvassing, even if I tried to describe the situation in a neutral fashion.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 16:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sure, I couldn't agree with you more. However, if I were to subjectively apply my opinion on to the intentions of the criteria rather than work with the letter of the criteria, don't you think it'd add more drama (from either side depending on what I did) to an already dramatic event? It's practical to say 'this is what it says' to keep the drama low. Courcelles created his definition of neutral and he was quite specific. I'm willing to pull discretion when appropriate, but I think in this case John's involvement is obvious (and Balloonman determined enough to call in discretion) but not the other two.--v/r - TP 16:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you feel comfortable adding a note/link regarding this to a high-profile area, for example AN, or Jimbo's page, to attract more uninvolved opinions, as I do not think this action by myself would be seen as constructive/would be seen as canvassing, but you are a well-respected uninvolved admin. :) --Gilderien Talk|Contribs 17:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll look at past recalls (as few as they are) and how they were handled to find precedent.--v/r - TP 17:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Gilderien, that would be completely inappropriate and unfair. It is impossible to "canvass neutrally" here because there is no provision for "oppose the recall" opinions. Let's say you were to bring this to the attention of 50 uninvolved people and 2 of them think the recall is a good idea and the other 48 think it's a terrible idea; well, the 2 people would tip the balance towards their preference and the views of the other 48 would have no effect. Surely you can see how wrong that is. 28bytes (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I can certainly understand that. Oh well, looks like more Wiki-dramaz for the time being. Oh, and put me down as a "Fuck no" in any recall vote that might be initiated because of this absurd "petition", I probably don't have that page watchlisted. Dave Dial (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

In the end it doesn't matter what any of you think. This is a voluntary process. If six people plus a replacement nominator step forward, then it will be up to Courcelles to determine if he feels that any of them are not neutral per his criteria. IMO, I tend to agree with TP. Being involved in the case as a presenter (for or against) doesn't make one inelligible. But parsing that out will ultimately rest on Courcelles' shoulders. Let's see if the other supporters come out and endorse it... and then let Courcelles decide. But based upon his initial posting, I suspect that he's going to be fairly liberal in interpretation of his guidelines. E.g. his initial post relative this discussion indicated that, his words said one thing, but he meant another thing, but that he'll honor his words. I suspect that he'll revisit his recall criteria when this is all said and done. But it is ultimately up to Courcelles to decide, recall is purely voluntary.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Please undo closure

Given five (and a sixth editor was about to certify), the closure isn't reasonable -- it's either going to get reverted or someone else will initiate and six editors will certify. Nobody Ent 13:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see this, but was going to ask you the same thing when I saw this. They didn't add their name to the list, but obviously supported the recall. Sorry for bothering you.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 13:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. Other proceedings which are not closed when nominators withdraw include Arbcom requests, RFAs, RFCs, AFDs, and MFDs. In fact, I'm not sure of a single proceeding which does close when the nominator withdraws except for mediations. Could you point one out to me, please, given that you write "any other proposal that gets withdrawn by the nominator gets closed (except Arbcom proceedings once accepted)."? Hipocrite (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

RFAs, AFDs, and MFDs close when the nominator withdraws. I mentioned Arbcom requests specifically because once they are accepted then they proceed. As far as RFCs, or RFC/Us and those more closely resemble this, I wasn't positive but as they take two certifiers, if one backs out then yes, it'd close. And a nominator is a certifier in an RFC/U. I will check Nortonius' eligibility and respond.--v/r - TP 13:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong. AFD's are not closed on nominator withdrawal, nor are MFD's or RFA's. Do you want me to find you examples? I'm happy to do so, but if you are wrong and force me to find examples, I want you to resign your precious tools for six months. Hipocrite (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, do fuck off. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't one of the civility police be around soon to block you? Hipocrite (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

One presumes so. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, relax. Hipocrite is wrong and we all know it, but no reason to get upset. Let him run his circles until he tires himself out. Hipocrite, I can show you two examples for every one you show me; especially in AFD.--v/r - TP 14:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

If an AFD has strong support and the nominator withdraws you believe it is a speedy keep? Do be clear. Hipocrite (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There are of course cases where it doesn't happen. But the nominator holds a lot of sway when closing AFDs and they often close early when the nominator withdraws. In this case, there is no such thing as an "uncertifier". If this were an AFD, it'd be leaning keep.--v/r - TP 14:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hipocrite is correct. Please see WP:SK which states a speedy closure is appropriate when "The nominator withdraws the nomination [...] and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." (emphasis original) Also, as far as I'm aware, when closing an AfD the nominator's opinion should not have more "sway" than anyone else's. Jenks24 (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

AFDs are often closed in this way. As far as the nominator having more sway, when considering consensus on the strength of the argument if a nominator is swayed to the other side it is demonstration that the argument is stronger on the keep side.--v/r - TP 14:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure what you mean; yes, AfDs are often closed when the nominator withdraws, but are they often closed when the nominator withdraws and there are still valid delete votes? If so, that's news to me. Again AFAIK, a nominator being being convinced to change his/her position should not be a stronger factor in assessing the consensus than any other participant changing their opinion. Jenks24 (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a small handful, nothing of important note but it took me all of five minutes to gather these: [39],[40],[41],[42]. More can be found just by going through a list at [43].--v/r - TP 14:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

On another note: Is this relevant anymore? It's been reopened for other reasons.--v/r - TP 14:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Aside from being further evidence that you are uninformed about the requirements of an administrator at this encyclopedia, unwilling to acknowledge error and are willing to let blatant incivility slide when it's done by people you like? Yeah, it's only relevant as a difflink. Hipocrite (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The 'fuck off' comment? I'm not going to get into disputes with editors related to this that might involve me and prevent me from effectively being a neutral uninvolved admin. If it's directly related to the recall, and not cross chat on my talk page, then I'll step in. Feel free to address the incident on ANI. As far as your first comment, my recall criteria is available.--v/r - TP 14:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the "fuck off," comment. You let it slide. It's still sliding. You now want me to go to ANI to get the standard "chin up, since you're not a pretend female on the internet you can take a fuck off." Hipocrite (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you read what I said? "I'm not going to get into disputes with editors related to this that might involve me and prevent me from effectively being a neutral uninvolved admin." Are you going to argue with anyone who tries to stay uninvolved until you can manage to involve them?--v/r - TP 15:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I read every word you wrote. Firstly, blocking someone for showing up out of nowhere and telling me to "fuck off," is hardly involvement. Further, the correct action in the event you think action is necessary but can't take it is not to tell the aggrieved party (that would be me, the one being told to fuck off) to go deal with it themselves, but rather to ask someone else to deal with the emergent situation on your talk page. Still further, you still haven't told him that "fuck off," was totally inappropriate and not to be repeated - is that because you think it's ok to tell me to "fuck off?" Hipocrite (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you see where I said, "Alright, relax. Hipocrite is wrong and we all know it, but no reason to get upset." I acknowledged it was inappropriate. I think we've argued this enough. Do something about it, or let it go. You're not incapable of handling your own disputes, we all know you are vocal and strongly opinionated enough to defend yourself.--v/r - TP 15:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, mea culpa. But funny how the group who claim Malleus is witch-hunted are on a witch-hunt themselves. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm against the recall but that closure seemed odd. 5 editors certified within 12 hours, so it stands to reason one more would probably come along in the remaining 36 hours. Plus it seems like any of the certifiers would've stepped up to replace the nominator, and probably will start a new petition now. On the other hand, it also doesn't seem like the recall will achieve broad consensus, but I think those who are for it will insist on going through the process anyway. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:53, 9 Apr 2012 (UTC)