User talk:TParis/Archive 9

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel_66, AustralianRupert, and Nick-D look at ships, soldiers, and railways Op-ed: Nick-D on navigating the FA and A-Class review processes

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 Nick-D (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A response on my talk page was archived, so here's a summarized version

Hello TParis. It appears that you misinterpreted my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of golf courses in Canada (over 14 months ago) due to simple matters regarding punctuation. Perhaps if I'd used a period after the word "keep", rather than an ndash, the comment would have been clearer to you. Notice how I started the sentence after the ndash with a capital letter, denoting that it was the beginning of a stand-alone sentence. Here's my entire comment there, "Keep – Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article is appropriate, as the article has an organized focus and is not, per Wikipedia directory guidelines, like 'Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics'. The article can also serve to promote the creation of new articles for notable golf courses." The capitalization of the first word following the ndash indicates that this is the beginning of a sentence, rather than an extension of the first word in the comment. In other words, the phrase following the word "keep" wasn't the rationale. Rather, the notion that the topic and article had a discriminate focus was the rationale. Perhaps I could have worded it differently and more succinctly, such as "this topic does not qualify for deletion under WP:NOTDIR." I admit that wording the beginning of the sentence as "Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article is appropriate..." was ambiguous and could have been worded much clearer. Also, in the comment, the policy page was referred to as "guidelines," but this was a simple typographical oversight made within the context of a fleeting AfD comment. (WP:NOT is a policy page).

At any rate, this was over 14 months ago, and rest assured, I have complete understanding of WP:NOT. Just to reiterate, here's the intro section of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, an English Wikipedia policy page.

"Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building and using a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not."

It's a policy page that delineates what Wikipedia is not. Many examples are present there regarding what Wikipedia is not, and the page covers matters regarding style and format, content and community. I have full comprehension of this page's content, purposes and its applications, in entirety. Hopefully this clarifies matters for you. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you'd quit quoting policies to me unless you have a reason to suspect I am unaware of what they say. There is no confusion on punctuation, I am entirely in agreement with you on what the intended message was. However, I disagree on whether it is an appropriate keep rationale and I addressed it with you 14 months ago. I am also in strong disagreement with you over whether you can accept constructive criticism without trying to prove you are right. You are unable to improve because you lack the ability to understand folks you perceive as an opponent.

I just don't think you and I are going to come to an agreement. You're unable to change your mind and I'm not willing to continue trying. We've done a fairly good job of not crossing paths in 14 months, except for the occasional AfD and your RfA, I think we should continue. I clearly see value in your contributions to Wikipedia, I even support your role in ARS now that the canvassing ordeal has been mostly put to rest, so I think we should continue as polite acquaintances. Have a good day.--v/r - TP 23:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello TParis. Just trying to clarify my comprehension of WP:NOT, per your comments at my recent RfA. Actually I'm receptive to constructive criticism, I'm not trying to prove "being right," and I don't perceive you as an opponent whatsoever. I intend on running for adminship sometime in the future, so it's natural to address matters now.

Sometimes articles are incorrectly nominated for deletion under WP:NOT when they actually don't qualify for deletion under WP:NOT parameters. For example, a list article (such as List of golf courses in Canada above) simply did not qualify for deletion under WP:NOTDIR as the nominator based the deletion rationale upon. The nomination was in error, and my !vote at the time was simply intended to point this error out. In the future, I can simply reword, such as "this article does not qualify for deletion under WP:NOTDIR criteria." This would have much clearer, and I also realize that it wasn't necessary to counter the nomination with criteria #1 of WP:NOTDIR; it was a guess since the nominator wasn't specific to which criteria of WP:NOTDIR they were basing the nomination upon. Also, I've improved significantly in my AfD contributions since that time. Perhaps you could suggest how you would word such an !vote to counter this type of faulty nomination?

My intention is not to bother you, so I will keep this brief. Also, I'm no longer a member of the Article Rescue Squadron; I resigned on November 8, 2012, in part to simplify my presence on Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I suppose in the future, I'd suggest avoiding saying "Per WP:NOT, the article is appropriate." At most, you can use WP:NOT to say that the article is not not appropriate. Yes, the double negative is intentional and I avoided "not inappropriate" on purpose. WP:NOT cannot make an article appropriate, so all you can really do is say that WP:NOT doesn't apply to the article and therefore is not a valid deletion rationale. But it's not a valid keep rationale either. You need something else for that.--v/r - TP 00:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights, which are appreciated. Simply pointing out the faulty nature of the nomination would have quite likely sufficed, perhaps as a comment rather than an !vote. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

An item recently deleted speedily

A slur that it may be – and indeed it also is – but the name was basically the historical legal term for, well, Roman Catholics, in the "Protestant Lands", especially before the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. Even the very word was written into numerous laws. It "might" had been relevant, in, say, in the context of, e.g., the article for Colonel Blood. I shall however respect the deletion nevertheless, and no personal attack was ever intended. -- KC9TV 00:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I read a bit about what a papist is. I don't see the purpose in having a category redirect. It seems to me to be labeling a group of people; which I and others feel is an attack. If I am to assume good faith in your intentions, then my suggestion to you would be that it is better to address the topic in an article instead of a redirected category.--v/r - TP 00:50, 30 November 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.

--Go Phightins! 03:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Real Life Barnstar
	You know why. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit Count Tool

When I started using this tool I set some preferences. Now I can't see how I can alter them. Can you help please? --Greenmaven (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

With the exception of the opt in, the tool has no preferences.--v/r - TP 22:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

can anyone see the list of most frequently edited articles? Or is it only visible to me? --Greenmaven (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If it's visible to you, then it's visible to everyone. Toolserver tools don't know who you are. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 16:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I see some people's edit count includes a list of 'most edited articles' and some don't. How can I fix mine so that my most edited articles and talk pages are not shown? I am concerned because I have begun anti-vandalism work, and have had my user page vandalised 3 times in 3 days. I don't want articles I have done a lot of work on open to being targeted. Your help would be appreciated. --Greenmaven (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You turn it off by deleting the opt in. I took care of it for you.--v/r - TP 19:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be a nuisance: Can I get the monthly counts but not the 'top edited pages'? I see the two opt-in messages but am cautious about messing it up again. --Greenmaven (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No, they are tied together. Sorry.--v/r - TP 19:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Would it bother anyone if I opt in and out occasionally to get a snapshot of where I am up to? --Greenmaven (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would. It makes no difference to the script. Keep in mind, there are other tools such as pages created that do not have an optin/out feature and which can still be used against you. And if they are your highest edited pages, other folks could just check your contributions. You're really not preventing anything.--v/r - TP 19:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I will think about it. You have been most helpful. Thank you --Greenmaven (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit counter glitch

Interesting situation here. It seems the tool has no idea how to handle Translations. Just wanted to let you know. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The graph part you mean? I see, I'll check it out.--v/r - TP 18:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Unhappy

Whatever the reason you felt compelled to re-delete the N8VEM page, I am incredibly unhappy. It, along with the P112 page were incredibly useful documents for hundreds of vintage computer users. I just want to say, thanks to you, I will most certainly never donate to wikimedia and will encourage everyone I know to do the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.215.174 (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I hate to be a jerk here, but what point are you trying to make? Wikipedia is not your personal web page. Go pay for your own hosting if you want "incredibly useful documents for hundreds of vintage computer users." Wikipedia deletes articles all the time and unfortunately we lose donations because of it. However, if we kept all the junk on here that gets added every day, the donations couldn't afford the servers we'd need. So please, keep your donation. In fact, use it to buy your own server somewhere. In the meantime, your unhappiness most certainly isn't persuading me to review the article so I don't even see the purpose in leaving me a message. Maybe if you had taken the time to understand what Wikipedia really is, rather than the misconception that you can drop all your junk here, then you might understand better why it was deleted. But instead you felt the need to jump straight to sharing your displeasure. Feel free to spread it to all of your friends. Also spread to them about how much of a jerk I am despite your rude message. Encourage them all ya want. Have a good day.--v/r - TP 14:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

And we have a winner! He prize goes to TParis.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 15:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, 24.31.*, the user below, Arjant, took a much more polite approach and I'm helping him to fix that article. He didn't feel the need to go bash Wikipedia and I.--v/r - TP 16:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Rewrote PrimeFaces article

Hi, I finally came around to rewrite the PrimeFaces article at User:Arjant/PrimeFaces. I hope it's a bit better now. Can you take a look? Feedback will be appreciated. Thanks! Arjant (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't look today, working on a requirements doc for a client's new website. I took a quick glance though and the release history isn't really something we cover per WP:NOT. I'll look more tomorrow.--v/r - TP 16:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions about "Pages created" tool and about "Top namespace edits" tool

Hello!

First of all, thank you very much for all your tools, they are very useful for me. I would like to know if the "Pages created" tool can also show created subpages, and if yes what is the parameter to add in the url? Also, I would like to know if the "Top namespace edits" works on other languages or other wikis than English Wikipedia. Thank you very much! You can answer me on my French wiki's talk page if you can because I check this one more often than the English one. Jeriby (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, nothing new? Cheers^^ Jeriby (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont believe it can, but I'll try to remember to look.--v/r - TP 03:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Your Uncivil Pro-Nike POV Pushing...

Anyone who watched much college football this year knew that Civil War outcome before it happened. Beavs sucked so hard for so long that a winning season and a bowl from a program that doesn't have players shuttling to and from jail for bar fights and burglaries suits just fine. So how are the Duckies doing in the Pac-12 Championship game today?!?! (What, you mean they got beat by Phil Knight's other team?!?!?!?) Carrite (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

At least our loss against Stanford came be attributed to a single shitty kicker. It's too bad the Huskies beat you though, I was looking forward to killing that winning streak. Next time I am in Oregon, we should meet up for coffee. I have family in Albany. =D--v/r - TP 17:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Like  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. I'm in the phone book or drop me an email at MutantPop@aol.com. Best, —Tim /// 06:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Favorites

Hallo TP, I came across your User talk page, when I read some Edit Counter Page has been removed. I found your user page clearly structured and was impressed by your toolbox. Now here comes my question. I would like to create my personal favorites list for wikipedia articles I use frequently. Do you know a smart way for it ? How I could use Shortcuts ? Kind regards from Germany --[*W∞M*] easy 12:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean? I just create a box and link to what I need.--v/r - TP 03:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TParis. You have new messages at Francophonie&Androphilie's talk page.
Message added 23:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Question regarding your Oppose in RfA of LuK3

You stated correctly that the article mentioned was "not a person, company, animal, organization, or web content. So CSD A7 doesn't apply". LuK3's end result seems to me correct in that the article's topic does indicate importance, so shouldn't be tagged as not indicating importance. The topic of Maritime Safety Information is a set of ideas that exists beyond web content. In looking through the CSD criteria for articles, I see no category to place a similar kind of topic that has questionable importance. If you saw an article like the one in question that you thought deserved to be deleted based on lack of indication of importance, which tag would you place on it (presuming you didn't have the power to delete it directly)? Just curious, Guðsþegn (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The WP:PROD or WP:AFD tags. Some articles just do not qualify for CSD. CSD is a set of rules for indisputable deletions based on a consensus that certain things do not need a full discussion to determine. They are specific in nature. Although Luk3 is correct in technicality, he's wrong in principal. What if the article didn't bring up search results? He should've seen the much larger misuse of the tag. As an admin that focuses in CSD myself, I see about a 65%-35% proper/invalid ratio in tagging. I often have to decline CSDs because an article doesn't qualify. Sysops must know these things.--v/r - TP 03:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

'Deleted edits' in the Edit Count

Do these only include reversions? What if you reverted your own edits? Do these get counted? --Greenmaven (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Deleted edits are edits that are no longer visible because of the delete or oversight functions. Reverts count as normal edits.--v/r - TP 13:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain "the delete or oversight functions" a bit more fully, or point me to a WP page? --Greenmaven (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:DELETE and WP:OVERSIGHT give the best explanations. But delete and oversight are operations on MediaWiki (the software that powers Wikipedia) that remove edits and/or article from being publicly accessible by normal users or IPs. The articles and histories are no longer accessible. Reverting doesn't do that. Reverting changes the current version of the article, but the old version is still available in the article history. So the edit is not a "deleted" edit.--v/r - TP 21:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

BEGGING FOR YOUR HELP

Hi! TParis!!! nice to meet you! mi name is cheposo, from the spanish Wikipedia, from Dominican Republic. I have a cuestion. I created several pages, most of them are translations from the English Wikipedia. My list only records 48 pages created. but i created more than 48!! is there a problem with the Sorexd93 tools? is there bug or something? please i need your help. having a list of the articles i created has helped me to work better on the spanish wikipedia.

thank you very much and I hope you can read this message Cheposo (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

talk page on Spanish wikipedia

Spanish Wikipedia has a 2 week replication lag. Results are 2 weeks old.--v/r - TP 15:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

RfA questions

Hey TParis, I just saw your questions at my RfA and will get to them as soon as I get off work, which will be tonight at around 7 or 8 EST. Hope you understand. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:26, 3 December 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.

Talkback

Hello, TParis. You have new messages at User_talk:Guðsþegn/Academy.
Message added 19:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Get your thoughts on a Wikipedia Service Academy to coordinate admin prep. Guðsþegn (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't see (from ani)

I closed it the way I did because it had gone to RSN and the majority of the discussion applied to the RFC as it was at RFN. [1] Since the arguments were rather light at the RFC, the comments and back and forth at RSN were more substantial. Its also the reason I didn't close by sending it back to RSN. It more then the RFC itself that I took into account, besides the policies of course.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw that, later of course, but my take from RSN seems to be different. I've actually got a concern that I can't describe because if I'm wrong then it's a personal attack but I don't have the diffs to support it. If you want to discuss it by email, we can, but I think there is more going on here.--v/r - TP 16:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Very well, my email is chrisgualtieri@gmail.com I will reply later tonight. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Deleted page

I actually meant to request deletion of User:Grsz11/List of Indiana University of Pennsylvania buildings, and did not realize that I put a deletion tag on the page in the article space. Would you be able to restore the article and delete the page in my userspace? Grsz 11 18:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't realized it redirected. Grsz 11 21:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

AfD of that 24/7 Techies or whatever it was called

TP, would you mind if I modified your closing summary from speedy CSD G11 to "speedily deleted" CSD G11 so the AfD Stats tool will be able to read it? Go Phightins! 04:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That's fine with me.--v/r - TP 15:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Toolserver Edit Summary calculator feature request

For the first two stats listed[2], it would be helpful to show 2 digits of precision after the decimal point, and the actual counts in parentheses (with summaries/missing summaries). Example:

Edit summary for all major edits: 100.00% (11230/0)

Edit summary for all minor edits: 100.00% (112/0)

Cheers, Lexein (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Gangnam Style by country

Hello, this is regarding the article Gangnam Style by country. I believe that you made the decision to merge the article in good faith, but unfortunately I do not believe there ever was consensus for a merge (just 2 votes?), and my reasons for keeping the article were not even opposed (or even addressed) by the other users. I am strongly against a merge as per WP:SIZERULE, I have been contributing to that article in good faith for quite some time and I would have continued to do so had it not been nominated for deletion so I would appreciate if you would be more specific about your reason for merging it. To be clear, most users voting for delete couldn't even agree on the reason to delete it, so I dont understand what you mean by "doesn't quite justify a content fork per the opinions below". Whose opinion are you referring to? -A1candidate (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I read through this discussion and I have to agree with TParis, here. It isn't just that there were two merge votes but that the overall discussion meets the merge suggestion as not being notable for a content fork. I read that much from the first delete suggestion and the fact that even one keep votes seem to see it as trivial.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this just illustrates my point clearly - that there is no clear reason to delete it. Since Gangnam Style is very notable, it is only logical that Gangnam Style by country is notable. As I have said earlier (and which if you were to read the discussion again nobody ever bothered to read/address/oppose my reasoning) - This phenomenon passes the WP:10 year test and will be remembered for K-pop's (Korean pop) breakthrough in the US music market. Article should not be merged to Gangnam Style (almost 200 kB) as per WP:SIZERULE. Gangnam Style phenomenon has already been deleted and the main article is supposed to be a summary its too long to be merged together (even if you were to remove all trivial content) -A1candidate (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It isn't being deleted. A merge is simply moving the article to another space with a redirect. All of the history remains as well as the content (although with a merge there is always a chance that it may be edited down a bit).--Amadscientist (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Article should not be merged to Gangnam Style (almost 200 kB) as per WP:SIZERULE. Gangnam Style phenomenon has already been deleted and the main article is supposed to be a summary its too long to be merged together (even if you were to remove all trivial content) -A1candidate (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is only a guideline and as the page states: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." It also states that the size is in reference to readable prose only. Besides that, there is a great deal of room to reduce the size of the Gangnam Style article. I fully support Tparis' decision to merge based on the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length, please be more specific on which parts/sections you believe should be removed (whether for supposedly trivial, irrelevant content or otherwise) -A1candidate (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You may discuss such subjects on the article's talkpage. You seem to be contradicting yourself at this point. If articles are not reduced just for size...why would you care if it is lenghtened? I think we've taken up enough space on TParis' talkpage.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

My point is clear: There is no need for content reduction if the article wasn't merged in the first place. And there's no such thing as hogging up talkpages, I just want answers thats all. -A1candidate (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There are better subtopics of Gangam Style that can be split than this. You were very active on the AFD but your opinion didn't sway the consensus. There were only three !votes to keep the article, and six for it's removal. I read that as 6 people for removing the article and 5 people for keeping the content. The discussion supported keeping the content because there were sources, but there was nothing that justified this as it's own topic. I'm going to have to stand by this close.--v/r - TP 22:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortuantely those users voting for delete have provided unspecific reasons. I know this is a very unpopular song created by an Anti-American singer, but I would have expected users to provide more specific reasons instead of repeatedly pointing out recentism (which I tried explaining why it isn't yet nobody cared to read what I wrote). -A1candidate (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see any reference to any of that in the AFD and that's quite a leap of bad faith to think that it played a part in anyone's opinion.--v/r - TP 22:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

My point is that users cannot simply ignore another user's argument without even bothering to address it. If you were to look at an article-related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effects of Gangnam Style, everyone voted Merge, but no single soul even cared to give a reason, nor did anyone cared enough to oppose my reason for keeping, similar to this article's discussion -A1candidate (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake......--Amadscientist (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, I would have been glad if you gave me a logical reason for deletion that actually took into consideration the text I wrote, but such an unconstructive comment like yours did nothing to steer the discussion in the right direction -A1candidate (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

That's why they call it a discussion. I vocalised my astonishment at your accusations of editors. You just took it upon yourself to delete a post of another editor on this Admin/editors talkpage. What you feel was unconstructive, I felt was weel deserved surprise at what you wrote. As I said, it is innapropriate to delete posts made by another editor on someone else's talkpage.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake -A1candidate (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

RfB?

Hello TParis, I'm AutomaticStrikeout (I'm sure you've seen me around, but we don't interact often). I'm just leaving you a note to ask if you are interested in running for cratship. I'm not offering a nomination, just wondering if you are interested. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I've certainly considered it, and it's a compliment to have it suggested, but I think I've been a bit of a controversial admin lately and I'm not sure I'd stand a decent chance when folks like The Blade get turned down. Besides, with the exception of RFA, I don't spend a lot of time in 'crat related areas such as renames and bots. Thanks though.--v/r - TP 00:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the quick reply. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Your assistance please

You recently deleted the article on Samuel Risley, as WP:CSD#A7. Could you please point me to where the deletion of this article was discussed? Geo Swan (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Zoominfo has an extensive excerpt from Usque ad mare: a history of the Canadian Coast Guard...

If you take a look at the excerpt you will see Risley is described as the most senior maritime inspector in Canada, and as a reformer. Geo Swan (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The article wasn't about that person. The article was about a Californian wine blogger born in Pennsylvania. It also contained a single negative sentence that wasn't sourced. It was originally tagged G10, but I felt the attacking sentence could've been removed. However, without that sentence, the article still fell ill of A7. If you want to write an article on the Canadian of the same name, feel free.--v/r - TP 00:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• That is odd. I recall looking up the original Samuel Risley, around the time I started the article on Samuel Risley (icebreaker). I recall starting a stub, circa 2005, when article standards were much looser. The odd thing is, that if I hadn't worked on that stub, Samuel Risley wouldn't be on my watchlist.

So, could you please take another look at the article's contribution history, and, if I did make any contribution to the article at all, userify its entire history to User:Geo Swan/userified/2012-12/Samuel Risley?

Since standards are higher now, than 2005, if I don't think an article can be written that meets the standards of 2013, I will place a {{db-u1}} on it. Geo Swan (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There are five total edits to the article: four by User:Toddsmithactor who created it and one by User:TheLongTone who tagged it as CSD G10. None were made by you and there is nothing that would show it was moved to anything like the incubator at any point if there was an earlier article. I see you worked on CCGS_Samuel_Risley, and it holds a red link to this article, is there any chance you watchlisted the red link when you created this article back in 2005? You're welcome to have another admin double check that I'm not lying.--v/r - TP 15:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing tag at Neoconservatism

TParis, you added a close paraphrasing template tag at Neoconservatism. Could you just leave an attendant explanation of why it was added on the talk page so it can be addressed. Much appreciated. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I see you had already done so a few days before I started being active on the page. Apologies for the oversight. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Np.--v/r - TP 19:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar

		The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Olive Branch
		You have a lot of patience. Thanks for the work dealing with the cycling issue (on AN/I). Amadscientist (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Any way to get our content back after deletion?

Our page (auburn alumni association) has been deleted. We need the content that was there so we can put it back online. Also, I don't think we should have been taken down as we had sources cited and facts stated correctly. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alumweb (talk • contribs) 22:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The article had zero citations or sources. The last revision before redirect can be seen here.--v/r - TP 01:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Hello TParis: Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy holiday season! Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

LOL!

Please tell me no one has made those usernames! But I got a huge laugh! Brightened by dim evening. Thanks for that!--Amadscientist (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

From the Puppy

Happy Holidays from the Puppy! May the coming year lead you to wherever you wish to go. -- KillerChihuahua 17:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks man

You have been the only one who has been fair to me, I wish I knew how to give you a barnstar. Hope you get promoted to Bureaucrat or something. It seems you are an admin to lead, not just to block people senselessly. Big ups. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Simon Harley on British battleships and Nick-D on the French Resistance Interview: Five editors discuss some less-represented areas of military history Op-ed: Ian Rose looks back on 2012

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 Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Translate X!'s Edit Counter

Hi! I'm very interested in translation of X!'s Edit Counter to Ukrainian. Please, help me!

https://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/ - that's it! Thanks! ;-) --Nickispeaki (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

cyberpower is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

As one of my wikifriends, I would like to wish you a Merry Christmas. I hope you had a great one.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 01:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Hope you, your family and friends have a safe holiday season.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Well done. Far better than irritable me could've done. Black Kite (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, let's see if it lasts.--v/r - TP 23:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll assume you saw my e-mail (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Admin steps over the line...

"If you remove the cites I am afraid I will have to kill you." Hardly sounds like something that, even as a joke, an admin should be saying on the WP:RS noticeboard. [3] by User talk:JzG.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

abdirahman hassan samireh

samireh est un informaticien djiboutien nee a ali sabieh le 27 septembre 1985 la ou il a grandi et fais ces premier pas des etudes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdisamireh (talk • contribs) 13:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No idea what this is about, but it's French, so I thought I'd offer the translation:

Samireh is a Djiboutian computer expert, born in Ali Sabieh on September 27th, 1985. He grew up and started his studies there.

*shrugs* Salvidrim! 14:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Well done. Far better than irritable me could've done. Black Kite (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, let's see if it lasts.--v/r - TP 23:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll assume you saw my e-mail (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Admin steps over the line...

"If you remove the cites I am afraid I will have to kill you." Hardly sounds like something that, even as a joke, an admin should be saying on the WP:RS noticeboard. [4] by User talk:JzG.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

abdirahman hassan samireh

samireh est un informaticien djiboutien nee a ali sabieh le 27 septembre 1985 la ou il a grandi et fais ces premier pas des etudes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdisamireh (talk • contribs) 13:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No idea what this is about, but it's French, so I thought I'd offer the translation:

Samireh is a Djiboutian computer expert, born in Ali Sabieh on September 27th, 1985. He grew up and started his studies there.

*shrugs* Salvidrim! 14:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Corrections: Reverting a close template (not personal attack), no allegations, BWilkins's improprieties, "Bitch" and "Grab an Aruban girl and a beer"

Hi TParis!

Please revise the summary of your close, and consider a less dramatic excision.

Reverting a a close, not personal attacks

(1) I was not blocked for "personal attacks".

(1') I was blocked for reverting the imposition of a close-template (with the warning not to reopen discussion) by an administrator (Giant Snowman) who was edit warring and threatening to block me rather than engage in discussion. To date, nobody has responded to my concern that Sven said he had contacted five people via e-mail, and that any of them might wish to be heard; my other concern would be that the administrators would want to state their regrets at over-reacting or piling on.

Giant Snowman's block was controversial and opposed by several respected administrators (unaffiliated with WikiProject Military History). It also was poorly documented, with no diffs, as noted by another administrator.

(2) Allegations

Please clarify that I made no allegation about any sexual harassment, and that I have been wrongly accused of making or spreading an allegation. Note that Boing said Zeebeedee has struck that accusation, I believe, from what I saw before bed time.

(3) BWilkins

My concern was to avoid further intimidation with block-threats from 3 administrators (notably BWilkins), incivility ("your only business is to shut it") from BWilkins, and falsehoods from BWilkins ("the community has decided that what occurs on English Wikipedia's IRC cannot be discussed on Wiki"). My quotations are from memory, and convey the sense of BWilkins's abuse.

BWilkins has failed to address his inappropriate block-threats, incivility, and falsehoods. He has failed to document why he blocked me indefinitely with diffs. He has failed to respond to complaints about his mis-use of the block button, raised by others at AN/I.

Therefore, your close of all points is overly broad. I have no objection to your deleting only the parts of the discussion related to the concern, which I did not raise and which Sven disavowed.

There is also the matter of Sandy Georgia and the disgusting message by Wehwalt, coming after years of conflict. Another editor was called Bitch by another of energetic men from Military History, who has also been tag-teaming with Wehwalt.

You are welcome to copy this to ANI or AN if you prefer to open a new discussion, rather than to reopen (and edit) the previous discussion. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of falsehoods ... wow. Plus, do you cherry pick much KW? Sven was making extremely serious allegations about an editor, but flat-out refused to provide proof. As such, my warning was either provide proof, or stop making those allegations - no attempt to silence. You're also horridly misquoting me - but yes, as there was no suggestion even that the alleged inappropriate behaviour by the candidate occurred on a Wikimedia-controlled IRC channel, and as such non-Wikimedia IRC "behaviour" would not be acceptable - which was my statement, period. Finally, I 100% responded to every single statement regarding my block on ANI. You have definitely twisted my comments in a reprehensible manner to make it appear that I would go so far as to hide/silence evidence. If you knew my family history, you would know better - but NO ... you far more enjoy having targets for abuse instead of reviewing your own behaviour. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer, I think a new discussion that doesn't go into details about the RfA would be wise. I will review the close summary to fix pertinent details but I will say that my reading of the events is a mix of yours and Bwilkins and I intend to trust my (mostly) outside perspective. Alternatively, I could ask another uninvolved admin to offer a better summary. As far as Sandy Georgia, I am not sure how it is connected to the RfA other than it's a related instance of sexism, but like I said, Sandy has not raised the matter that I am aware of and I honestly think she is a tough girl with a mean punch. She'll raise the issue on ANI when she is ready. I've asked everyone to review their posts and strike inappropriate comments, perhaps I need to add that to the close summary. Thank you for coming to me with these concerns before raising them elsewhere.--v/r - TP 16:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not going to continue arguing over the details of precisely who said what and when - it was a mass of misinterpretation and misunderstanding, and I don't think it will be of any benefit to pore over it word by word. Instead, I'll offer just a few general comments. Firstly, sexual harassment is a very serious issue, but an allegation of sexual harassment is also a very serious issue, and I know of no organization that deals with it by allowing unsupported public allegations to be made. The drama board of ANI is not the place to discuss unsupported allegations of sexual harassment. And that is not what it was actually being used for - it was being used specifically to discuss a problem at RfA, and once the problem specific to RfA was solved, the ANI section needed to be closed. Had there been any underlying sexual harassment investigation needed, ANI was absolutely not the place for it. It was much better to take it to email or some other discreet channel, and had others wanted to join in the discussion, again that should have been via a discreet channel, and absolutely not back at ANI. ANI is for requesting admin action, and admin action would only be justifiable in cases of obvious harassment supported by on-wiki evidence - I can't at this moment think of a worse place for discussing *possible* off-wiki harassment, reported by a third-party, with no actual evidence. (And a couple of things for the record. Firstly, I know more about the issue, because I have had email contact, but that is private and I will not disclose it to anyone. Secondly, I'm not a young man who doesn't know what he's talking about - I'm 54, and I have professional experience of dealing with sexual harassment in an online community environment.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Boing!, et al: I believe I have appropriately communicated each of your concerns to the other parties. At this time, I have taken action to address matters on both sides. We are currently at a point where everyone agrees that sexual harassment is serious, but we disagree on who takes it more serious. That is not helpful in a discussion about how to handle it. It's time for everyone to take a break and we can reengage later when we can focus on addressing the issue.--v/r - TP 16:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, indeed. I meant no implications at all over who takes it more seriously, and if anything like that came across from my words, then I apologize - I have no doubts that everyone involved was acting with honorable intentions. That was also meant to be my last comment on the issue, at least the last I'm volunteering. But if anyone wants to ask me about anything, they are welcome to do so (with the caveat that I will not be engaging in a word-by-word postmortem of previous interactions). Anyone is welcome to contact me on my talk page, or I can respond to direct questions posed here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

TP ... you might have inseted yourself into a "no win scenario". KW gave me a ridiculous "final warning" for NPA, has clearly NOT read the ANI (and continues his assault on me on his talkpage). I've become tired of such behaviour - if you need me to help or comment, I will. Someone has to be the bigger man here ... so it will be me. Good luck (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You have no need to "be the bigger man". Better that you avoid further sexist put downs.

You are however obligated to explain your use of tools, in this case your indefinite block that lacked support and which was quickly removed. You can read the discussion at ANI and find that there was criticism of your block, particularly since I called on you to remove a personal attack (which had already drawn at least one complaint); this suggests that you were involved, especially since I had complained about your mistreatment of Sven. You still have failed to provide diffs for "on the rampage" and for your block. As you know, unsubstantiated allegations are violations of the NPA policy. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No Kiefer - "bigger man" is not sexist, it means "the person who takes the high road", and if you have read the ANI, you'll know full well that I explained the block, and it was indeed supported by many, but was removed by TParis because of a promise from you that the behaviour would not recur, which is what "indefinite" means. I have fully explained my edits, my use of tools, and I believe you have fully misread them - if you read them correctly, you'd no longer be pissed off at me whatsoever to be honest. I will not respond to you further until you show signs of having actually read all that transpired (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer, the block was removed after you and I talked. As I said on ANI, BWilkins took an action that was acceptable. My only complaint to him was that I think I would've tried engaging you instead of a block. But the retaliation right after I fixed the autoblock issue was not acceptable behavior. BWilkins and I only differed on our approach, not our appraisal.--v/r - TP 18:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

While the intent of removal of content contrary standard AN & ANI conventions is good, it just continues what started as a legimate concern (unsubstantiated allegations) and descended into farce. If there is stuff that needs to oversighted, it should be oversighted; we have a good team of folks who work there -- I've contacted them (discretely, of course) many times and found the process efficacious . TP, your ANI summary does not and can not accurately convey what transpired -- not because of a lack of good intent nor skill on your part, but simply because no summary can capture what actually occurred as well as the actual record. Please restore the AN and ANI conversations per standard convention and contact oversight to remove those sections you feel should be removed from the record. NE Ent 18:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

NE Ent - I already talked to oversighters last night who said that it's too much to oversight. If any other oversighter disagrees and wants to do it, all the better. The issues that impact someone's real life are too broad to pick and remove. The conversations would be left unreadable. It's better to start over and pay more care about this real life person's reputation than to keep going with the sinking ship that existed. I understand your concerns, but there is no right decision in this matter and the one I picked had the greatest impact on someone's real life identity. Except for GiantSnowman, many of the key players have discussed this with me and have not had concerns with how it's been handled. I think this is in the best interest of everyone and a diff is provided to the original conversation so it won't be lost in ANI page history. It will only be non-indexable by search engines. The intent was not to hide the conversation from being accessible, only from preventing it from coming up if someone types in this personal name into Google. That's why I left a diff in place.

It really comes down to faith. I spent many hours considering and discussing the options for how to handle the concerns of each party. I would appreciate a little faith and a little bit of leeway in how it was handled and that my suggestion for a way forward be given a shot. That is: Let's all take a break and then engage on the specific issue of how to handle claims of sexual harassment that are inappropriately placed on-wiki using vague examples that do not defame living people. There is no policy to govern how to handle the size of this mess. We're talking about 6 different large discussions with many many editors. I'll need support for this unconventional approach even if you feel there was another or better way to handle it unless you think I've done something in bad faith (which you say I haven't but just saying that if I have).--v/r - TP 18:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to your conversation with me, TParis, that's not an entirely accurate representation of what I said. You asked if the entire situation, including the incivility and personal accusations tangential to the original accusation, could be fixed by me oversighting the threads on AN, ANI, RFA, etc. I said that given the huge Streisand effect in play here, I would definitely not be oversighting anything without protracted discussion with other oversighters, and that even after discussion there was a good chance the Oversight team would determine that the situation has gotten too out of control to handle with blanket oversight use. I cannot speak for my colleagues; that's just my prediction of where discussion is likely to end up. You (or anyone else) may feel free to contact us to request analysis of the situation, but again I'll remind you that oversight cannot fix the issues that stemmed from interpersonal disruption here - it could theoretically remove the accusations made on the RFA, and the references to the accusations, and the references to the references to the accusations, but it cannot fix the matter of individual editors spinning this situation out of control (especially if they continue to do so). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I indeed was referring to the one with you. I don't remember our conversation getting that deep, but I do recall you saying it was huge. I also do remember you mentioning discussing it with other oversighters. I'll leave it entirely up to ya'all, but for now the conversations are not indexable and that is a good layover until the oversighters conversation can happen. I've no concern about which decision ya'all make, I am sure you'll make the right one. But I do not think restoring the conversations I removed is the right approach; especially when we are discussing whether oversight is appropriate.--v/r - TP 19:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I strongly support TP's actions here, and the motives he has explained really are of utmost importance. Whether or not some things should be oversighted, or whether it is practical to do so, I think the worst solution now would be to reopen those AN/ANI sections. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I will be out the rest of the night I am having a Resident Evil marathon with a buddy of mine so I will not be back this evening. As always, my usual caveats apply: My pride is not an issue. If another administrator (or editor) feels strongly and differently then they may overturn or undo anything I've done. Of course, they accept the consequences and take over responsibility as well. Please, everyone, try to keep poor lil TP in mind while I am gone. Don't turn my little girl's daddy into a raging alcoholic :). Good night.--v/r - TP 19:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Knightwatchers

Fine with me, I sandboxed it for BarkingFish to work on, so probably better to move that when he's ready rather than restore, but I'll leave that with you Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jim!--v/r - TP 17:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Note

Note this thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Administrator_abuse, started by an editor you recently unblocked. I don't except you to do anything, but I note that you have been trying to help Kiefer recently, and it might be best if you talked to him? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• I came here to vent. As you probably noticed, I closed this discussion and said it couldn't be reopened except by an uninvolved admin. Scott (involved) felt compelled to disagree and added his remarks to the closure. Putting aside the fact that the thread itself is crazy and would only devolve into another cesspool, now I'm uncertain whether I should enforce my closure (if someone reopens it). This is a recurrent issue - whether admins can prevent non-admins from reopening threads at AN and ANI - and one that we should but probably won't resolve. Don't editors have anything better to do during the holidays? Sigh.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  The thread spotlights how quickly non-retaliation and no personal attacks are abandoned when the ANI block-parties involve administrators, rather than Malleus.

  I am sorry that the mention of cancer causes some editors to go bananas, but such reactions are problems for those editors, not for me. Perhaps one of them will learn something about the prevalence of prostate cancer or the problems associated with delays in seeking treatment for testicle cancer. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  Kiefer, it is not appropriate. Bbb23 - I don't know what to tell you. Scott Mac and I argued over IRC the other day so I'm not in a position to offer advice about him. I personally would block anyone and everyone, including Malleus, if I thought a block on anyone would stick. Kiefer - Malleus enjoys the exact same perceived benefits admins do when it comes to avoiding consequences. I'm not your mentor, and I've only offered to help you to address the issues with Bwilkins and GiantSnowman later, but I think you need to take an honest look at what you wrote to Scott Mac and determine if you are really honestly warning him of the dangers of delaying treatment or if you have another motive. IRWolfie - Thank you for the heads up.--v/r - TP 21:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  I clearly stated that Scott MacDonald was disrupting the discussion by combining a logical fallacy and false premises, and I provided counter-examples to his false premises.

  Scott MacDonald provided a fresh personal attack "contemptible" and Bbb23 a fresh example of his civility for thee but not for me and we by removing my remark but leaving Scott's. That was the point of the discussion, after all. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Great minds and all that

My alternative, written while you were posting yours, isn't exactly the same, but similar in spirit. Define a narrow criteria, if someone else qualifies, fine, but there won't be many. I don't want it to be a complete blank check, so whether we simply enact a hurdle, as you suggest, or provide that it can be removed with no blocking allowed, well, either might work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs)

Can we get community consensus that we're great minds?--v/r - TP 18:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You guys do know the other part of that phrase right? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, I brought up the idea of restricting the situations in which admins can be blocked, due to the risk of severe disruption. Something like requiring discussion for any non-urgent block, and perhaps even saying that only bureaucrats can declare that there's a consensus to block an admin (since it seems there are so many premature AN/ANI closes these days). I'd be interested to hear what some more experienced editors think of this. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think 'Crats prefer to stick to a kind of impartiality in most cases. Plus, there are 1000+ admins to block other users, but only a dozen 'Crats. What happens if they are all offline? Also, as blocks are preventative, they are nearly always an emergency if they are not a community indef.--v/r - TP 15:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Meh. It's good that admins get blocked every now and then. Reminds me of a movie theater manager who would fire an employee once a month just to keep morale up.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Does nobody want to know the flip side of the coin, I made it up like 30 years agos. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Question about Article Blamer

Hi TParis. I appreciate that you have taken over X!'s tools, especially Article Blamer. Per my discussion at Talk:Goosebumps#Referencing problem I tried using Article Blamer to find the string "Histic violence" in the Goosebumps article, but the result I received is an unrelated edit. Any help you could provide would be appreciated. Thanks, and Happy New Year! GoingBatty (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi again - here's another example: I tried using Article Blamer to find the string "MCGOKU305" in the Give Your Heart a Break article, but the result I received is a later unrelated edit. Thanks again! GoingBatty (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the AS...

Great to know that an USAF Fly-Fight-Win is around. Godspeed sgt. Sgt Saloca (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC) (USMC)

...Air, Space, and Cyberspace ;) --v/r - TP 23:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Mrt3366 revert rights

I want to bring it to your attention that Mrt3366 has again been without regard reverting edits on Kashmir Conflict. I am tired of his bullying every time someone makes an edit that tries to balance his POV, but do not want to get into an edit war myself. Request you to look into it. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I can't get involved for two reasons. One is that I've been personally involved with User:Darkness Shines several times and any action I take would be seen as involved since he has taken part in the reverting as well. Secondly, I couldn't find any actual violations of WP:EW. So what it comes down to is a content dispute which administrators are not given any additional authority to handle. If I were you, I'd consider gathering diffs together and presenting a case of ownership to WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U. However, first you should try talking to the user and maybe possibly WP:DRN as well before you go to those steps. Also, be sure that you've got your sources straight too because these kinds of venues can boomerang if you are not positive you're right. Make sure not one but ample sources support what you're trying to do and Mrt3366 is blatantly ignoring them. That would be the sort of evidence you'd need to prove in those venues.--v/r - TP 18:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think TP is exactly right. I also noticed that both Darkness and Mrt3366 gave very detailed summaries explaining their actions, so I'm assuming they did so in good faith, just as I assume you did as well. I have no idea who is right, but I don't see anyone talking about the content at Talk:Kashmir conflict, which would be a good place to start. We have an essay, BOLD, revert, discuss cycle that most editors use as a guide for these kinds of disputes. A brief read would be worthwhile. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you TP and Dennis Brown. I will read this up and explore this venue. Mrt3366 (not so much Darkness Shine) has clearly refused to accept any discussions on the talk page with material (well supported) that balances his pro-India POV. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I never figured you and I were involved Tom, I would take a block from you without bitching (much)as you do your background checks and are a fair guy. Next block I am up for is all yours Darkness Shines (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but it also works the other direction. What if I don't block you and someone notices how many times our paths have crossed? Best just not to jump in places where I've acted with others as an editor.--v/r - TP 19:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

TP, Darkness Shines has suggested that we revamp this article, as some of its sections are just too long. That we keep the major facts (representative of all POVs) and move rest to sub-pages. I completely agree with this. Mrt3366, who represents another side of strong POV has also agreed to it. However, I would like someone neutral to guide us through this as IMHO we all have strong feelings about this content. Can you suggest someone who can help us along? Killbillsbrowser (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

He is a bit rough around the edges, but User:DIREKTOR has a lot of experience with articles which contain a lot of POV along ethnic lines. I think his main focus is Eastern Europe articles, so he'd be neutral in this. You might try him.--v/r - TP 20:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I could give the section a look.. strip the content I myself feel might be too much? -- Director (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Great, thank TP and DIREKTOR. I have suggested we create a sandbox page (and subpages). However, Darkness Shines seems to want to "gut it unilaterally". I request you to guide us through this. Please send a message to them and we can start this process.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Killbillsbrowser (talk • contribs)

Why didn't anybody inform me of this discussion? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not required that anyone do notify you; courtesy sure, but not required.--v/r - TP 16:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is an example [5]. Instead of rolling back (if at all) to the version [6] from User:Darkness Shine, User:Mrt3366 conveniently reverts to his own old edit, killing everything in between. He even rolls back the version by Darkness Shine while only providing explanation in his edit for edit warring from User:MirajMir. This is atrocious. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TParis. You have new messages at Talk:Kashmir conflict.
Message added 16:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Idea for the edit counter

Hi, I wonder, would it be possible for the monthly bars to take up a bigger chunk of the screen? Specifically, in my own case I have a very long bar, whose length however is still about a third of the screen, and a lot of minuscule ones :D Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

X! is back and I after talking with him, I think he plans to take over his tools again. So you might want to talk to him about it. He is rewriting his engine from scratch, so if I made the change, the new tool wouldnt receive it unless you spoke to him.--v/r - TP 17:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Okey then I will harass him on IRC with this and another idea I had. Thanks! Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Intoronto1125 and WP:BLANKING

Hi TParis, regarding this, you are indeed wrong; that discussion is not a notice of any sort, and thus does not fall under the exemptions listed at WP:BLANKING. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok.--v/r - TP 22:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Belated Happy New Year with a Toast!

float	Here's a toast to the host Of those who edit wiki near and far, To a friend we send a message, "keep the data up to par". We drink to those who wrote a lot of prose, And then they whacked a vandal several dozen blows. A toast to the host of those who boast, the Wikipedians! - From {{subst:TheGeneralUser}}

~TheGeneralUser (talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at ~~~~~

~TheGeneralUser (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

A Very Happy (belated) New Year to you TParis! Enjoy the Whisky ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Current RFA

Just a note that the current RFA, of which you are a co-nominator, doesn't seem to be appearing at main page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, as of this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I see it on the main page, but apparently the bot doesn't.--v/r - TP 03:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, there 'tis. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

2013

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg		Have an enjoyable New Year!
		Hello TParis: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 15:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Admin Inquiry

Thank you for your vote of confidence. At this time I do not feel that I am yet qualified for such a position (as I was 6 months ago at User talk:Anthony Bradbury/Archive14#Admin Inquiry). As I've yet to create a significant article I do not feel I would pass the current "Expected behavior" for candidates. I will endeavor in the next few months to become more qualified. Hasteur (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

A nom from TP is not good enough, eh? Holding out for that User:Wizardman or User:SoWhy nom? I understand *wink*. Kidding, let me know if I can be any help.--v/r - TP 20:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget User:Pedro. :P — Ched :  ?  04:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Pedro's isn't a nom, it's an appointment.--v/r - TP 04:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

...

Think I will go crawl under a rock now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

=( I wasn't trying to make you feel like an ass, now I feel like an ass. I thought the irony was funny. Honestly, your oppose was fair.--v/r - TP 02:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not your fault in any way, and there is no reason you should feel bad. I can't change my vote, because it was sincere. I can and did withdraw, because I would feel like a bigger ass if I didn't. If anything, I'm glad to find out sooner than later. That isn't something I would have anticipated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Neither one of you did anything wrong. Life happens. I just wish everyone could talk to each other like this. Bartender! ... kittens, drinks, pies, and cupcakes for everyone! Put it on my tab. — Ched :  ?  03:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • TP and I always get along well. We have different ideas on some things but we agree on most things and have the same goals, so it is easy to talk them out and compromise. At RFA, neither of us expect an automatic vote because the other nominated someone, just a fair consideration, the way it should be. In this case, I just felt bad since they guy used one of my quotes as a personal reminder, so it felt slimy to oppose him. That is my problem alone and withdrawing was the best way to deal with it. If I felt he was really a detriment to enwp, I would have maintained the vote, but I don't. I just think his experience is a bit narrow and it is difficult to judge his demeanor, my first criteria. I'm sure he will do fine with the bit. If anything, I appreciate TParis telling me when he did. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Whining

I'm tempted to make a category of "socially incompetent administrator" just so I can add myself to it.—Kww(talk) 20:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Please, when you create it, feel free to add me.--v/r - TP 20:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

When you get to the "former" section ... +1 — Ched :  ?  21:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi gang. TP, you inserted this into a quote copied from the arbitration committee noticeboard, could you move it somewhere else, please? I won't address it on that page - as it is about my fitness to argue on that page, which is off topic ad hominem. If you move it here or to my talk page I'll happily engage you on it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the discussion was moved. That doesn't make it some kind of frozen discussion that is incapable of being argued. I never said you couldn't argue on the page, you can argue all day long. I said your credibility is lacking on the subject of Kww's, or anyone's, ability to weigh a personal attack and act accordingly when you yourself say that you don't even know what a personal attack is. I also said, earlier on that page if you missed it, that I consider the damage or hurt that folks who get blocked feel are responsible for those feelings. They earned it. I place those folks in the same category as my 4 year old after she cries when I tell her to sit on timeout for jumping on the couches again after I've told her not to. If you don't want to address it there, feel free to address it here. It makes no matter to me.--v/r - TP 21:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I explained what I meant earlier, but redacted it when NYB rightly complained about the bickering. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to your block log. I know block logs can be misleading. I explained myself [7]. I don't think you can call someone socially incompetent and also claim not to know what others would feel is offensive in a social setting. If the latter is true, then it wrecks your credibility in determining the former.--v/r - TP 21:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I know you didn't refer to my block log. You were commenting on my comment about what is a personal attack. I pointed you to that diff because it explains what I meant by "whatever that is." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ohh I see. I stopped after the first line break, my bad.--v/r - TP 21:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Presumably ya'll are commenting at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy in order to improve Wikipedia right? One thing I've observed is that the longer a thread strays into gray area maybe sorta incivil / personal attacks but not so much we can call someone on it -- especially if it's part of a escalating spiral -- is that it ends up putting a wet blanket on the discussion which often spurs to an ignoble termination, accomplishing nothing. NE Ent 21:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Anthony has explained what he meant. I still think he's off on a witch hunt by targeting Kww, but he addressed my concern that I felt he was being pretty rediculous in saying that he didn't know what a personal attack was. What he meant is that the definition of one on Wikipedia isn't clear, and I can agree with that. My earlier comments about whinny folks still stands. Not saying Anthony is one, his diff that he links above fairly well takes responsibility for speaking his mind, but I've run into lots of folks who are.--v/r - TP 22:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this. You were right to pull me up. Some of those comments were utterly inappropriate. When I've had some sleep, I'll review what I said and definitely strike some of it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't sleep. Regarding

I consider the damage or hurt that folks who get blocked feel are responsible for those feelings. They earned it. I place those folks in the same category as my 4 year old after she cries when I tell her to sit on timeout for jumping on the couches again after I've told her not to. If you don't want to address it there, feel free to address it here. It makes no matter to me.--v/r - TP 21:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I know you do. But consider this: there are all types of people in this world; and some are better attuned to the feelings of others than others. You're assuming you'd know when behaviour meritted the pain and distress of a block. Clearly you think you're one of the socially intelligent. And I'm sure I am. But it's what the community thinks that matters. And we should heed the advice of our peers. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Kww, I sincerely apologise for any unnecessary pain my words have caused. It is not my intention to hurt you. But this is new territory for me and, I think, for the community. I'm not sure where to draw the line. I promise you I'll never use you as an example again or speculate about your competencies. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

An invitation for you!

	Hello, TParis. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 00:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TParis. You have new messages at Nickaang's talk page.
Message added 12:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NickAang (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Script

Hello

I have a question - there is any chance that this link will show correct data? I will accept "No" answer, but i want to know. PMG (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It is only as accurate as the database that gets replicated to it from Polish Wikipedia. What is inaccurate?--v/r - TP 15:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Because thats what I get in 4 of 5 cases. I understand that I made a little more edits than standard user, but still i reallllllllly want to see some nice stats. But I get only empty interface. PMG (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

So in 1 out of 5 cases you do see the stats?--v/r - TP 19:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Retested. Different browsers, different connections - 8 try, no correct result. Probably 150.000 edits is too much. Its possible to fix it? I can wait, and get then some static info - or on email, or something. PMG (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

37th Training Wing

Hey TP. Very respectfully, my quick read appears to indicate that Romero was assigned to the 37 Tng Gp when he committed the crime. Now we don't have a page for the 37 Tng Gp, and it is a part of the 37 Tng Wing. Thus it goes at the wing page. Look forward to discussing Buckshot06 (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Found it. Will move the section to 31st Fighter Wing. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, he was in Italy at Aviano when he committed the alleged crime. The 37th is in Texas. I know, cause I'm assigned to it ;). He does have an article on himself though and that's the more appropriate place.--v/r - TP 05:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be mentioned at the wing article. People have to know what activities U.S. forces get involved in - the dishonorable as well as the honorable. On behalf of the Old Commonwealth, and, speaking for many people who look up to our armed forces -US, CAN, UK, Aust, NZ - should be done legally and without torture - we win more hearts and minds that way!! Buckshot06 (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I dont disagree, but if you look into this particular guy's case, he wasn't involved at all. Italy cast a very wide net. Not my problem, just saying. I dont have a problem with it being mentioned, but the 37th doesn't have any attachment to it; especially now that he has moved on.--v/r - TP 05:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

I see I can actually take a few days off and the MRM article doesn't turn into WWIII, thanks again for adding that article to your list. KillerChihuahua 21:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Np.--v/r - TP 22:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap

The generic problem is that we are often very obscure about what we do in blocking. I asked Coren about the block, the summary just says "not here to build an encyclopedia", and I did not get pointed to the AN/I case, just some general "he's a bad 'un" verbiage. Even now this is vague - the AN/I someone pointed to this edit as a reason for blocking. It seems pretty innocuous to me.

In the closing Coren says "I'm going to be bold and simply save everyone the trouble of a long discussion and deny Penyulap yet another forum for his lulz." This is not what bold is for. Blocking- especially long term blocking, by an arbitrator no less, should be deliberative and fact based.

So really Jaguar and I are left wondering, exactly what Pen is blocked for. I have never asked for him to be unblocked, for precisely this reason. (Though I have had two bad talk page blocks removed.) It seems to me that without a clear statement of the reason for the block, the blockee is left with no recourse, including the "standard offer".

Rich Farmbrough, 06:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC).

Rich, I'll see if I can find a better answer for you. I read the original ANI case, and it looks like the user was only around to stir up drama and cause disruption.--v/r - TP 15:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I did some preliminary investigation into the EngVar template on Talk:International Space Station and this seems to be one of those things where maybe Pen was right, but just needed to let it go (something many of us find hard). The rest I don't know, except that a checkuser remarked that Pen had given him very good suggestions about non-obvious socks. Rich Farmbrough, 03:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC).

The editor in question has a history of aggression and some other, less than proffesional behavior.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE covers a range of behaviors, and if memory serves Penyulap fit the criteria for most of them. But this is me going by vague memory, mind you. NOTHERE used to be a fairly common shorthand for a certain type of behavior block - it generally included edit warring to promote a view, and general battleground behavior, and often included personal attacks, stalking, and vendetta like actions. I know I used NOTHERE when I blocked Moulton and he's been crying and complaining all over the internet that I have a "theory of mind" about him because I claim to know his intentions (by saying "not here to build an encyclopedia" in the block summary.) Of course, he is ignoring the text of NOTHERE and that characterizes NOTHERE behavior quite well, because there's generally an element of IDHT in it. KillerChihuahua 02:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up

Apologies for bothering you. Following up your close of the AN/I indicated in the linked post, the editor in question has again warned me that I may be blocked. See here. This is becoming disruptive, has gone on for some time, and continues despite the AN/I and despite your close. I've asked the editor to stay off my talkpage in the past, as he has been uncivil, but he has ignored my request. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Epeefleche - I hate to disappoint, but I don't think that ANI thread applies in this case. The ANI thread was about unsourced content. In this case, there was a source even if it was a primary source. I don't think I can help here unless I have missed something.--v/r - TP 02:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it was (again) wholly unsourced content. See here.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually both the previous ANI case and this case refer to unsourced but easily source-able content. The problem is that Epeefleche is not doing the three seconds of googling required to find the source, which is suggested by WP:V, WP:CHALLENGE and Wikipedia:Editing_policy. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Danjel - the ANI thread closed saying that the google search is not required. The WP:ONUS per WP:V is on the person wanting to keep content; not the challenger. Epeefleche, it was said that a google search isn't hard to do. As we stand now, a source has now been added, the process works, and you two should not be throwing warnings at each other.--v/r - TP 02:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

TParis -- thanks for your input. I assume that your suggestion that we should not be throwing warnings at each other was not prompted by anything that I have done, as I've not issued warnings here. But perhaps it was prompted by actions by Danjel, who has warned me more than once, including in the diff I provided above.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The process as you describe does not work. Your closing comments effectively assigned me the responsibility of wikistalking Epeefleche and restoring easily sourced content, and I reject this. I only notice Epeefleche's edits when they occur within my watchlist, as occured this time. However, the scope of Epeefleche's actions exceed this.

For example, User:Graham87 recently restored (diff) content deleted by Epeefleche (diff) about Murdoch University's main campus, information that is very obviously easily found using the minimum of effort with google. WP:CHALLENGE states that where an editor "think[s] the material is verifiable", then an attempt should be made to find a source.

I asked at Talk:All_Hallows'_School#Removal_of_House_System_section (the first target of Epeefleche's that I noticed, because it's on my watchlist) whether Epeefleche genuinely questioned the veracity of the content that he was deleting and he said "yes", so he believes that a school doesn't, in fact, provide for primary middle and secondary students? That Murdoch University doesn't have a main campus? In both cases, as with many other similar cases raised, the material deleted was not dubious or doubtful and easily found, therefore it's a disruptive breach of editing policy. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No, they don't. The community consensus was that Epeefleche's actions are acceptable to the community per WP:V. Under no grounds does that grant you any authority, obligation, or exception to stalk his edits. That you do not like the process is not at all anyone's concern. It works, as has been demonstrated. If you have anymore concerns about Wikipedia's verifiability policy, you should address them at WT:V.--v/r - TP 13:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You said in your closing remarks that "the burden is on Danjel to find a source for the content." So you effectively said that it was my responsibility to do what Epeefleche does not, for all the articles where he does not spend 3 seconds googling for an easily sourceable piece of content. I should because "the burden is on [me]". I reject this, utterly, as it is patently ridiculous to assign such a responsibility to anyone and to give a user licence to ignore the parts of WP:V and WP:PRESERVE that he is too lazy to follow.

Personally, I'm only prepared to work in regards to my watchlist, but then, what about the other articles where Epeefleche has removed easily source-able content? The process has inarguably not worked there. For example, is it my responsibility to find a source for diff or are we meant to just write off that content? By the way, not that it's a category 1 premium RS, but: [8] (go down to the fifth result - 10 seconds in google). What about the many others (just from the last 24 hours or so): [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Where does my "burden" end, and Epeefleche's responsibility to fix easily fixable content and/or sourcing problems before deleting begin? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:AGF-ing, I think (hope) that you are (here and previously at ANI) just referring to those articles that I edit, but the pattern of behaviour on the part of Epeefleche which extends well beyond the articles that happen to be within my realm of interest (such as the half a dozen or so mentioned above) and that is what I'm calling disruptive. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You have to stretch that comment far out of context to come to that result and you'll have a hard time convincing anyone on ANI that that is what I meant when it is clearly not. The process has worked because the content is now sourced where as it wasn't and was afoul of WP:V prior. Content must be verifiable, the policy is clear. Content that does not have a source can be challenged and removed. You failed to get consensus that Epeefleche's actions were wrong. At this point, you need to drop the stick and just worry about your watchlist. Other folks have other articles on their watchlist, they can source content that falls in their realm of concern.

There are 124k active users on Wikipedia. They are watching the content you are not. Your burden ends wherever you want it to end and theirs picks up. Case in point: Over a year ago, I removed sourced content because it was inappropriate for the article. Someone had it on their watch list and a year later restored that content. They had it on their watch list. Did it happen immediately? No. But it did happen eventually.

Now, as far as what you reject or not, the community just doesn't care. You've been informed on what the policy is, you were given a chance to explain your position to WP:ANI and your position was rejected. At this point, you're bordering WP:IDHT and I just don't think you want to do that. Your clearly here to build on the encyclopedia and ignoring the established consensus is just disruptive and isn't helpful to that goal. So why persist? This isn't a one-man project and you're not required to shoulder the burden of it all. But if you want content to be included, you are electing to carry that burden.--v/r - TP 15:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

So if this is the way that wikipedia is, that the consensus is that WP:PRESERVE and that relevant part of WP:CHALLENGE is irrelevant, then why are those points even there? If quickly deleting content is so much more important than fixing things, to the point where the latter is completely irrelevant then... But then, you said yourself in your ANI close that there were some concerns, that Epeefleche has pointedly refused to consider (as can be seen from the above). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's look at WP:PRESERVE shall we? What do we see there, ohh here: "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies (Neutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research) and the writing cleaned up on the spot, or tagged if necessary." And WP:CHALLENGE, what do we find there? "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." WP:V doesn't fly in the face of the policies you quote at all. In fact, they support Epeefleche's actions. Your interpretation of them was denied by WP:ANI. My point on ANI is that some folks felt it was a bit silly that Epeefleche hasn't done a Google search, but they balanced their concern by saying it's not required of him. Back to WP:PRESERVE, it says in there "Instead of deleting text, consider:...doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself." That's not a requirement, it's a suggestion.--v/r - TP 15:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Three points. First, there are a lot of idiot newbies on wikipedia that don't source content. That they don't source content doesn't mean that the contributions that they're making (i.e., as above in regards to Murdoch University's main campus) aren't useful. In many cases, their content is easily sourced and preserving it is better than deleting it (and, in fact, on approximately the same level of difficulty in terms of keystrokes). Second, WP:V under the CHALLENGE section also states "if ... you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it," but the content being removed is often easily verifiable, there is no "try". Show me how Epeefleche's actions are conforming to the latter part of that second paragraph. Third noting that I disagree because of the wording of V (under the CHALLENGE section) if finding an easily found source is just a "suggestion" that should be considered (by anyone not "silly"), then why bother having it said at all if it can be completely ignored in every single case, even for the most obvious and easily source-able content (i.e., Murdoch University or Al Jazeera Academy)? Despite people objecting to his actions, even if they're just saying that he's being silly (you know I think that he's doing something worse), you can not possibly argue that that any level of consideration is being made because of the examples above. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Look Danjel, I understand your plea. With the goal of building an encyclopedia, removing content is going in the wrong direction. I just think you fail to understand Epeefleche. Removing unsourced content increases the credibility of sourced content. The dispute boils down to: should Epeefleche make the effort to use Google? Policy and consensus says it's not required, but in an ideal situation, yeah, you would expect him to. Why are suggestions made but not enforced? Because best practices are often written down so they can be shared with others. I'm sorry policy is not stronger on this matter, but that's an issue to take to WT:V.--v/r - TP 16:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've had a few students and a couple of colleagues edit and create articles here, but, for various reasons, their efforts have resulted in AfDs or simple removal of text. One of my students, who is a gifted writer, and would be a valuable asset to wikipedia vociferously will not work here (or even at Simple Wikipedia, or anything with the letters w i k in the URL in any combination) because of exactly those experiences, and this is our loss. I've since seen the content that she tried to add (which others have fixed in various ways), and it was exactly like the situations above: easily salvage-able, and she could easily have been shown the way to do things. Epeefleche wasn't responsible for that, but in the 10 problematic blankings per day, same as with the ~160 school-related AfD's in a 3 week period over new year's 2012, and in the permissiveness that people extend to him, I see that problem personified, and I'm unwilling to let it go unchallenged. It is the reason why wikipedia will never gain status as anything more than a source for trivia competitions at pubs. Thanks for your time. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said, the place to challenge that is at WT:V. On the other hand to your situation, how would anyone know of the factual accuracy of what your student had written if it were not sourced? Were it wrong, how does that improve Wikipedia's image? It is for exactly that reason we require sources.--v/r - TP 16:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've seen how well WT:V#Burden of proof is going and how likely that discussion is to attain consensus on anything. Because, as I said, the content was restored/easily fixed/easily sourced in the meantime. Just as with the above mentioned examples (which aren't wrong either), she wasn't wrong, she just lacked the technical know-how required to use citations. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Paul Krugman issues

The article has more than a few issues and violations of BLP policy, edit warring and, what I can only assume is partisan, political fighting on the talkpage. The artcle was locked on the 9TH by KTC until January 20, 2013 [16]. The dispute came to DR/N and made no movement towards resolution. Parties are unable to cooperate, collaborate or admit their own mistakes to move on. I have recommended possible general sanctions and article probation, formal mediation for the content disputes and arbitration for conduct issues. I felt I should give you a heads up.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi - not sure what your looking for here. I haven't been involved in editing this area before and looking at the players I'm not sure I want to even try. Some serious POV pushing there that will have to work itself out naturally. I suspect a sock, actually, of a particular anti-conservative.--v/r - TP 01:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I felt it best to alert an uninvolved admin about the situation as it is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I always forget that many times editors are looking for an action when they post to admin. No action is being requested. Just a little background to a dispute I think will likely become an issue someone will eventually need to deal with. The organic, natural sort of resolution doesn't seem to stick here.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I got you. I just don't want to get involved, sorry. There are some serious civil POV pushers and a lot of poor behaviors there and I don't have the patience to deal with it right now.--v/r - TP 01:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Trust me when I say, I so understand you on this!--Amadscientist (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Quoted you in RFC

I just wanted to mention to you that I've quoted from statements that you have made, in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey TP

Since I'm a bit newer at the whole contributing thing and since I just found out about DYK nominations I wrote a DYK nomination about the CCT page and I was wondering if you could offer any feedback on how I did on it or things you think I could improve on the CCT page I would sure appreciate it. Thanks TP, cheers —  dain- talk   05:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it qualifies for DYK. DYK is for two types of articles 1) Brand new within 5 days, or 2) Articles that have expanded 5x within the last 10 days. Sorry. It's a good article though, you made some good improvements. One suggestion I can make is that you should get rid of all of the billeted lists. Is there any way you can turn that into prose?--v/r - TP 17:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah shucks I didn't know that. damn! I wish I knew that before so I could have spent more time concentrating on the article instead of just doing it casually in my free time. Do you mean just removing the bullet listing or removing the bullets AND putting it into paragraph form instead of a list? I kinda just took the same format from the PJ page. Thanks for the feedback. —  dain- talk   21:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd remove them and turn it into paragraph form. The PJ page isn't a very good example, try United_States_Navy_SEALs instead.--v/r - TP 23:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha, I'll work on that. I'd love to get the CCT's history sections as detailed as the Navy SEAL history sections. If I could get CCT to GA status I would be ecstatic! Ah well, "work work." lol —  dain- talk   13:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm an awful writer, which is why I'm a programmer, but I can hook you up with some GA or FA writers if you need some help.--v/r - TP 14:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the best writer in the world but if you know a GA or FA writer who doesn't mind helping a noob then I would be very grateful. Aside from running huggle/awb I would like to spend my time contributing to WP by improving/expanding articles.—  dain- talk   14:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Absurd

Would you consider removing "absurd" from this comment? It adds nothing and is guaranteed to upset the editor further. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Another question

Hey TP, how do I change the the text whenever someone hits edit on my talk page? Like your "Please be sure to read here before posting. <numbers and text>..." Thanks, —  dain- talk   13:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit this page with your message.--v/r - TP 14:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you very much.—  dain- talk   14:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion involving edit counter

Just a quick note to say that the edit count tool you have on the toolserver is being discussed here ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 16:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles created

Just wanted to let you know that your tool that lists created articles for editors is pretty snazzy! Thank you very much! – Paine (Climax!)  20:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It's actually User:X!'s creation. I just hosted it while he was away.--v/r - TP 21:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And it's a great creation, isn't it! Thank you so much for pointing me to its creator. And you have my gratitude for helping X! out by hosting it!

I was promoted to SSgt on November 1, 1971 while on an overseas tour with the USAF. Congratulations! And by the way, if your first name happens to be "Tom", then I have some questions about Starship Voyager for you! (Do you get that a lot?) !>) – Paine (Climax!)  22:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, my first name isn't Tom ;)--v/r - TP 00:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Blank edit summary on some old edits?

Hi TP,

About 7 years ago I included my name on a few images I uploaded, which I later decided was a bad idea. (However, I plan to commit to my real-life identity after I graduate in ~2 years). About a year later a friendly admin helped me remove it from the image summaries and metadata, but I just realized it shows up on the bottom of here. Would you mind blanking the edit summary for those edits? I believe this falls under an allowed use of RevDel, but if not, no problem. Thanks, a13ean (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Done.--v/r - TP 00:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! a13ean (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sysop feedback

Hey TP, I think that after some while it's time, I'll take you up on your mentoring offer and respectfully request some feedback on what I've done so far. I did some work at UAA, AIV, RFPP, AFD, AN-AN/I, CSD. No rush, and lemme know if you don't have time, but I think some review and comments from an established admin such as you can only be helpful. Reply by e-mail if you prefer. :) Salvidrim! ✉ 08:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd give it 6 months and then sign up for WP:Admin review. I could review you now, but it wouldn't be an accurate reflection. You just passed RFA so you're on your best behavior right now. Once you've settled into your seat enough to make a dent in the cushion, that'll be a better overview of your tool-handling.--v/r - TP 15:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) Salvidrim! ✉ 17:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Bill O'Rielly

Re your comment at ANI. I do not watch Fox as I do not have TV, I watch nothing :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well that would explain why you haven't heard about him. He's a big conservative talk show host and he claims to have a "No spin zone" that is supposedly just the facts. In my opinion, though, he frequently cuts off his guests when he disagrees with what they have to say and dominates conversations (like CNN host Piers Morgan).[17] He is pretty far to the right and seems to be completely oblivious to his own extremism. That's why folks say he's not a 'reliable source.'--v/r - TP 20:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

People like that piss me off, so again another reason to be happy not to have TV, BTW you made me chuckle with your edit summary, you called the guy BO . Darkness Shines (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It is what it is. It's his show and he gets paid a lot of money to do it. And a lot of people agree with what he says. He has the #1 news commentary show on cable.[18] Whether some liberal editors on Wikipedia like it or not, a lot of Americans watch his show. You'll see push back because he's so far right that those on the far left are afraid of what he has to say. Either way, both sides, it's all rhetoric meant to scare people into obedience. I ain't interested in what O'Rielly has to say, but a lot of Americans are. So until Wikipedia has a policy against all political opinion commentators, he's still a reliable source.--v/r - TP 20:59, 22 January 2013 (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.—  dain- talk   20:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't come in yet. Try looking me up in the global if it's urgent.--v/r - TP 21:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hrmm, strange. I didn't get my copy yet either. It isn't urgent and I'm not at work at the moment (got 2 comp days for working 11 days straight, love my job :p) so double loss there >.< Ah well. I idle around on a few wikipedia irc chans as Dainomite if you have Andchat or any other mobile irc app. But if you're busy at work it's not a problem.—  dain- talk   21:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Freenode blocks AT&T mobile internet. I'm on my way to the gym but I'll be home in a few hours.--v/r - TP 21:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha, I left you a memoserv on IRC whenever you log on, no rush though. —  dain- talk   21:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Dad

Hey, you're a father too! Congrats. It's fun. My boy is a lot prettier than me and I hope the same goes for you, haha. I set up a Facebook celebrity account for my five-month old son and he's getting more play than I ever did. To prevent it from going to his head I post embarrassing photos of his daily activities. Later, Drmies (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:JoshuSasori

Hi, thanks for your recent help on the harassment issue.

I noticed that since the user was blocked, an anon account appeared and posted a move request to revert a move I made 12 hours earlier.[19] This account's awareness of Wikipedia guidelines etc. is suspicious for someone who had never made any other edits, and it's very odd that someone would just happen to request to revert a recent move as their very first edit to Wikipedia.

This seems awfully suspicious to me, but is there anything to do?

elvenscout742 (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

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 Nick-D (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see this discussion...

... Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Remove_deleted_edit_count_from_everywhere related to your edit count tool! --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Your actions/comments at RFC/U

(1) you're acting as a clearly WP:INVOLVED admin; and (2) your commentS was patronising; (3) that you are repeating the point that I have explained out to you above and repeatedly says that you are having WP:IDHT issues. That you acted without even trying to discuss the issue with me is deplorable for an admin. I am within my rights to respond to WP:POINTiness and allegations of bad faith. I suggest that you self-revert. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Your're right, I am acting as an involved admin which is why I haven't used my tools. I reject your idea that factual statements are patronizing. I further suggest that I am not the one ignoring consensus at ANI to further my point; so you might want to review whom has WP:IDHT behavior.--v/r - TP 16:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You moved commentary from an RFC/U. While that's not strictly speaking using your tools, as almost anyone else wouldn't get away with that, and then shortly after posted a thinly veiled threat. Or would you, as a user, not an admin, now accept my moving that thread back, per WP:BRD?

You then asked, after it should have been pretty clear that I was making the effort to respond to an allegation, "I'm sorry, did you not know that the motivations and factual actions of the nominators was also in review?" which is definitively NOT a "factual statement". Then you went on to repeat a misinterpretation that is now getting to the point of looking deliberate. You again and again return to the ANI, but even you admitted that it wasn't clear cut. Since then, Epeefleche has continued, and it seems that the general feeling in other quarters is that his actions aren't OK. Including Graham87, another admin by the way, and others. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

1) Move whatever you want. There was no "almost using [my] tools." The action could be done by anyone, no tool use required. If you move it back, you're doing it against RFC/U guidelines and that's on you. 2) Yes, it is a factual statement that everyone involved in a dispute is for review. The idea that only the subject can be discussed assumes guilt from the start. Other subjects can be discussed if they explain, mitigate, or defend the subject's behavior. In this case, your reverting Epeefleche's removal of content to reintroduce blatant copyright clearly demonstrates the exact same careless behavior you blame him of. 3) I most certainly did not say that the ANI wasn't clear cut. What I said was "No evidence of a policy violation." That's clear. The only thing that was vague is in saying that googling is easy. And that was vague because it was not enforceable. You're ignoring it.--v/r - TP 16:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

At this point, you need to leave my talk page. Your opening remarks were groundless and I reject all three points. I'll not continue two conversations with you. Further comments may be directed at me at the RFC/U.--v/r - TP 16:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hi TP. I'm just letting you know out of courtesy that you have been mentioned in a discussion on my talk page. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll be fair.--v/r - TP 17:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this

...Unless you consider CIR... I admit I was tempted, but it's not worth the drama... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the drama.--v/r - TP 15:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yo, TP, I think you put your response in the wrong place (Kosh screwed up the indentation a little bit, so it got pretty confusing). I moved it for you; here's the diff, in case it's not what you meant. Cheers! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That's alright, he wouldn't get it anyway. The guy was using unrelated comments from 5 years ago to support his case today. I finally figured out whom he was quoting and I'm tempted to point John (talk · contribs) to this so he knows what he is being quoted for. I understand now why Beeblebrox said what he said now. Kosh keeps dodging the clue stick and doesn't know how to drop the one he's beating the dead horse with.--v/r - TP 19:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had a run-in with Kosh (forget the context, but I remember the impression I got of him, aye, remember it very well.). I know the feeling. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• sigh Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Why is he still editing?--v/r - TP 19:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Mention at AN/I

I have mentioned you at AN/I with regards to a request to block User:Danjel. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

VPP comment hiding

Just saw your reversion of Kosh's inappropriate use of the collapse template on your comment. This has been a longstanding problem with him, explained over and over but he refuses to get it. See this thread and elsewhere in his talk page history. postdlf (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"refuses to get it" summarizes his approach to any piece of information that contradicts with his rigid, ill informed view of WP. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't particularly care about the comment. The person who was intended to see it responded already. If he wants it boxed, he should get an uninvolved editor to do it. I wouldn't argue about such a thing.--v/r - TP 19:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

As an isoated incident I agree it si not worth making a big deal about. However, as part of a seemingly unbreakable pattern of WP:IDHT behavior it is concerning. Part of the problem is that it is o frustrating to try and reason with him that users seem to give up and walk away, and of course I was unable to get him to leave me alone and that led to the unpleasantness lest week that the discussion was about to begin with. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Kosh has made me rethink my opinion of Malleus a bit in the sense that my short conversation with Kosh almost led to me joining you in the corner last week.--v/r - TP 19:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

ygm

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.—  dain- talk   22:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

X!'s Edit Counter: K7L does not exist.

I do exist... really I do... voy:special:contributions/K7L. Yet http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name=K7L&lang=en&wiki=wikivoyage fails with "K7L does not exist." K7L (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Wikivoyage database replication has issues, it's not an edit counter issue.--v/r - TP 00:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks... sorry to have bothered you about this. K7L (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Your .02 real quick

I was just stopping by to get your two cents on something real quick since I'm kind of noobish in some regards. So, I tagged 2nd Combat Weather Systems Squadron for what I think is a lack of notability according to WP:MILUNIT. I was wondering if I did things right by tagging it and explaining why I tagged it on the talk page. Also, I noticed a member of the unit created the article as well when I took a look at the article history. Should/could I have done anything else do you think? I appreciate the help/feedback. (I also asked Bwmoll3 for his input too just to grab another opinion)—  dain- talk   16:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say per WP:MILUNIT that this squadron isn't notable. First off, it reads as promotional. But besides that, when the guidelines speaks of squadrons, it is speaking of aviation squadrons; not weather squadrons. A general rule of thumb for Air Force units is Wing or higher. Groups and Squadrons are generally not notable unless they are covered in 3rd party sources. A notable squadron would be 101st Air Operations Squadron. On the other hand, with a little bit of cleanup to remove the promotional stuff, it's not really hurting anything and WP:MILUNIT isn't a guideline.--v/r - TP 16:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IZAK

Did you see that? It appears that, after the RfC/U on Epeefleche wasn't going his way, Danjel is attempting to discredit the people who disagree with him. He's basically mentioned every single participant in the RfC/U except you and me. Dude needs to drop the stick and back away, and we need to get that interaction ban in place ASAP pbp 17:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Danjel has been beating the caucus a little hard, but User:Rachack does seem a bit suspicious.--v/r - TP 18:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree

Hi TP. Hopefully you'll remember that I am often in full agreement with you on a great many things; and that I greatly appreciate what you do on a daily basis in real life. I found something that I took exception to however. I waited until the last day because it's not my intent to try to change your mind in the least, just something that made me do a double-take. At a recent RfA (Jason's) I noticed that you seemed to equate "bored" with "disillusioned". Now as you said, I didn't take it as "offensive", but I do think the two things are VERY far apart; or at least can be in many instances. I did read through once more a lot of Jason's posts, and I didn't get any sense of "disillusioned" in the least. I was wondering if there was anything in particular that made you feel that way, or was it just a general impression? Granted this is not an important (even in the wiki world) question, so if you're pressed for time, feel free to make this a very low priority question. Hope all is well with you and yours. — Ched :  ?  20:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it's based off my own experience. I was much more enthusiastic about the project pre-RFA and I became disillusioned once I really got into it's working and that has contributed to a lack of interest and boredom. I got the same vibe from him.--v/r - TP 20:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting .. to be perfectly honest - I've very often become disillusioned with the project in many ways over time. It can be a tough feeling to overcome at times. (for me at least). Anyway .. I just wanted to drop the note. Take care. — Ched :  ?  21:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

JoshuSasori?

Hey TP, I'm concerned that 123.225.49.155 (talk · contribs · count) is a sock of the indef blocked JoshuSasori. The account advanced the same position as Joshu in this debate, in very similar language. I was involved in the previous discussion so I'll keep it an an arm's length, but could you take a look?--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It was definitely him.--v/r - TP 15:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action, TP.Cúchullain ^t/c 16:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Does Cullen's Hound count as a vote if he/she (I've interacted with Cuchullain far too many times to not be able to use a pronoun (>_<) ) participated extensively last time but refrains this time? As I said in my second nom, I'm concerned that the first one only failed because JS interfering (following me...) made it look like the consensus was under question, but if it's just me and IIO against Kauffner this time, the same thing will happen again...

Also, if the Anon is JS, it seems likely that a number of the others (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoshuSasori) are, and that means he probably has one of those dynamic IP things, which means blocking one will not help in the long run.

elvenscout742 (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If the IPs continue, we can consider a rangeblock. As far as Chchullain's !vote, he can make one if he chooses too. I wouldn't get into trying to claim those !votes now if I were you.--v/r - TP

Gotcha. As far as the IPs go, one of them (in the only edit it had made) gave a decent enough argument that it is not JS.[20] Apparently both JS and I voted against him/her in a move request before JS was banned. However, I'm still not sure: this person (whether or not he/she is JS) seems to only be concerned with voting on page moves, but not having a consistent user-name makes it extremely frustrating. elvenscout742 (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, it's not unheard of to hear of folks delibertly trying to throw people off their track but who knows if that is the case w/o a checkuser. I doubt a c/u would get involved here, though, so we'll have to consider behavioral evidence like Cuchullain.--v/r - TP 17:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Are we taking them all to be the same person, at least? I have a bunch of them claiming to be the same person, but one of them (Special:Contributions/124.102.115.125) starts with "124" instead of "123", and has only made one edit. Also, I think you have an interesting point. On Talk:Densha Otoko (film) the Anon nom took the stance JS would usually take, and JS opposed it: was this him trying to give a false impression of good faith? I honestly don't know enough yet, though. elvenscout742 (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

YGM

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.

Just wanted to make sure you got it. Ishdarian 19:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I sure did, thanks. I'll keep you posted on what I come up with!--v/r - TP 19:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Outside opinion request

I am trying to clean up Chuck Hagel for NPOV by making certain that criticism is directly attributed to sources. In particular, I found that one source was cherry-picked for a quote rather than explaining who criticized the statement or trying to explain the whole of the discussion about the article subject. I rewrote, and the revision was immediately reverted with other material by a user with whom I have had editorial disagreements elsewhere concerning attribution. Moreover, the revert was hidden by an addition which was noted in the edit summary, but the reversion was unnoted. diff Before going off half-cocked, I wanted to come to someone for considered advice and perhaps a link to any relevant policy/guideline which concerns concealing reversions. I thought of you - or perhaps you know someone who could tell me better. I know I probably have some responsibility to present a more detailed view about my edit in talk. What else needs to happen? ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a pretty clear COI with this person, I shouldn't be involved in editing their article, sorry.--v/r - TP 02:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Not asking you to edit the article, though. Just looking for advice or a referral for advice about this particular type of edit dispute. ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

With timestamps that close, it might be an edit conflict. Meaning, he might've been working on his edit at the same time you made yours. Your edits were not incorporated into his when he saved.--v/r - TP 02:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I will ignore that no reversion was noted in the edit summary and just continue the BRD path. ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

That's my point, though. He wasn't reverting you. He clicked "edit" before you hit "save" on your last edit. So his copy of the page that he was editing didn't include your subsequent edit. He was unaware that his edit reverted material from you which is why it isnt noted in the edit summary. It was an edit conflict.--v/r - TP 02:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that a revert may be 100% unintentional and the edit summary 100% accurate for the user's intentions. Thank you for clarifying. But if I revert to "my preferred version" without saying something, I think it could be argued that I am edit warring. This is not something I wish to do. So I went ahead and posted at the article talk. I have not reverted to my edit. I am glad you went further in your explanation. What is the best practice response when there is reason to think a revert is unintentional? ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Someone_may_want_to_look_into_this...

...yes, he is required to try other forms of dispute resolution before ANI.

True, except for the teensy-weensy little detail -- a minor thing, really -- of there being no dispute to resolve. MSJapan was simply drawing attention to some potentially troubling behavior, and asking if someone would like to have a word with the editor. This should even be slightly difficult an idea.

If you can't be arsed to do anything -- and "Not Our Problem" appears to be the default setting for some participants at WP:ANI -- fine, but you can't force anyone else to jump through bureaucratic hoops because of that. --Calton | Talk 04:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You also can't bring someone to be humiliated in front of the entire community at ANI because your too lazy and can't be arsed to try to solve it in the lowest, more respectfuly, and humane level possible first.--v/r - TP 13:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

JoshuSasori again?

This is very clearly the same user as the other ones, and now he/she is starting to make seriously disruptive edits to articles. And the tone of the edit summary borders on a personal attack. What do you think can be done? elvenscout742 (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I noticed you blocked the offending IP - thanks! However, I was immediately reverted again by what is obviously the same user under YET ANOTHER IP.[21] Is it time to take this to ... SPI? ANI? again yet? elvenscout742 (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! But this one opposed an RM that was posted 5 days ago and doesn't look likely to get much more attention. The move is obvious, but myself and IIO might not be enough. Seriously, what should we do? elvenscout742 (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Try to catch a checkuser and see if a rangeblock is an option.--v/r - TP 01:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! But no CheckUser: apparently using CheckUser to tie IPs to usernames is a no-no. Here's hoping a range-block is possible... elvenscout742 (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Editcounter

Thank you for such useful tool! But I have a problem trying to know the distribution of edits of my bot (wikt:ru:User:Structor). How it can be resolved? Infovarius (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't speak Russian, how old is the account and how many edits does it have?--v/r - TP 16:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Recall

If you are here because Danjel suggested I be recalled, this is how I describe the events.--v/r - TP 16:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Some comments from me on my talk. Best. Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review. I'm sorry you and the others got caught up in this.--v/r - TP 21:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Fair Observer

Dear TParis,

I am the marketing associate for Fair Observer, a San Francisco based start-up. I was trying to create an article for our company and noticed that there has been a previous version, which was deleted by you about a year ago. Going through the discussion revolving around the deletion of the article, I do recognize all the shortcomings of our previous article. However, things have changed since then and many people have been asking us about the missing article of Fair Observer on Wikipedia. It is very essential for us to be included in such a major platform like Wikipedia since it is a sign for professionalism and the standing of a company. Hence, I would be more than happy if you would reconsider the deletion and allow me to create a new article that will avoid all the shortcomings of the previous article but will be a fair and accurate depiction of our company's profile.

I am very grateful for your cooperation and remain faithfully, Vanessa Cole (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Mrs. Cole - first off, thank you for contacting me instead of creating it outright. I hope I can save you time and frustration. Before any work begins on an article with a company that you are financially connect to, I recommend you read our article on conflicts of interest where your financial obligation to your company will come into conflict with our neutral point of view policy. We strongly recommend folks do not create articles on themselves or their companies but we do not prohibit it. But keep in mind that Wikipedia is not intended to be a status symbol for companies whose inclusion would be any sort of sign or standing. We're simply an encyclopedia (or supposed to be).

As long as you understand that going forward, here is what I propose: the primary concern with this article is a lack of third party independent sources with significant coverage about your company. If you can show me some new sources that are now available, I will 'userfy' this article for you. What that means is, I will take the article out of the 'main Wikipedia article' are and place it as a subpage under your profile. Then, you can work on the article to improve the problems brought up at the discussion. Come back to me once you're done, and I will review it and move it back to article space if it is satisfactory.--v/r - TP 19:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

TParis, many thanks for your quick reply. I would like to point out that I am not being paid or compensated by the company in any type or form. My involvement is completely based on voluntary work. Having said that, I did look into the link provided by you and I will do my best to make sure that if there should be a new version of the article, it will follow Wikipedia's principles of being neutral and reliably sourced. Also, excuse my poor choice of words. Of course, Wikipedia is not meant to be a status symbol. However, it is the go-to platform for most people that are looking for concise information about any topic. Hence, there is a necessity for an article about Fair Observer from my point of view. Please have a look at the following new and independent third party sources (I limited the sources to English speaking reports, but there are by far more reports in German as well as some in Spanish, Hindi and Mandarin): 1. Forbes Magazine: http://www.forbes.com/sites/bhrigupankajprashar/2012/08/02/audacious-startups-by-south-asian-entrepreneurs-parti/ 2. The Economist: http://www.economist.com/whichmba/mba-diary-growing-pains 3. Wharton Magazine: http://whartonmagazine.com/issues/winter-2012/making-waves-on-their-own-ship/ 4. San Francisco Business Times: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2012/07/entrepreneur-lays-economists-end-to.html?page=all 5. Slush: http://slush.fi/en-gb/2012/11/the-slushes-of-years-past/ Hope this is satisfactory and will give me the possibility to modify the article to meet the standards. Best,Vanessa Cole (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Fry

What do you suggest we or I do now? There's been no update since yesterday. It's in this weird limbo as I've actually changed Fry's unblock conditions. Based on what Amatulic said, I have no idea when he'll return to comment. My inclination is to close it as it was going to be closed before Amatulic's comment. As I noted, the discussion could always be reopened. At the same time, I don't want to appear pig-headed if there's really sufficient resistance to the closure.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think what we discussed is acceptable and will meet NE Ent's concerns. If not, it can always be discussed later. If nothing else, the next time it happens, the future discussion can be pointed to the current one to show that Fry had a warning that that sort of behavior was unacceptable, he had a chance to correct himself, and failed. I, personally, would not be so quick to come to his aide next time the same thing happened.--v/r - TP 04:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Recall request

Hi TP. I'm just letting you know that I have declined a recall request made by user talk:Danjel. See my comments on his talk page. However, as a word in the very best of GF from one admin to another, I do think it would be best if you declined to make any further comments at all anywhere until if, at such times, either a successful recall request is launched, or any formal discussion regarding your participation in these issues were begun. Kind regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. Several folks have suggested I disengage for my own sanity. Seems I must do so for my own sake. I just hate seeing users get bullied for doing no wrong and I have a strong urge to stand up for those folks. But Epeefleche has plenty of support without needing my constant oversight. I'm washing my hands of Danjel, have a good night. I might write an essay later about how all admins are abusive instead of just one angry guy who can't drop the stick but I'll save that for another day.--v/r - TP 04:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

On "Articles for deletion/China's University and College Admission System (CUCAS)"

Hi TParis, This is Sue, from CUCAS (China’s University and College Admission System). I am writing on CUCAS articles deletion in Wikipedia in September 2011. According to the related information, we guess you maybe have some misunderstanding on us. CUCAS is an official organization providing application services across a range of subject areas and modes of study for China's universities and colleges. We aim to help international students make informed choices about higher education in China, guiding them through the application process. CUCAS is an online platform authorized by China’s universities to directly receive international applications to study in China. We have established cooperative relationship with more than 200 universities and colleges, although they may not mention our corporative relationship on their website or supply link to our site, we have obtained certificates of authentication from them. In addition, although some universities has established their own application system, offering application forms and publicizing some related information, lots of international students are still not satisfied with them, because mostly the information on university’s webpage is not updated in time and students could not get more help from them. We can help them in a better way by offering special fast application channel, latest application as well as extra services including following up application results, booking accommodation and airport pick-up service. The fact proved that we have exerted a deep influence on international students who want to study in China, both the students and universities are satisfied with our service and help. We need to publicize our organization and let more students know about our service in order to further and better help the students who want to study in China. So it is very important for us to making use of the platform of WIKIPEDIA and list CUCAS (China’s University and College Admission System) on it. Based on the above-mentioned explanation and our actual demand, we earnestly need to know what kind of information and content can be accepted in order to keep our CUCAS (China’s University and College Admission System) article on WIKIPEDIA. Your early reply is mucha appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suexiu (talk • contribs) 03:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this something like the Common app in the US? I'm having trouble from your post realizing whether CUCAS really is an official application organization or if it just gives advice. TParis, for reference, the deletion discussion (from 2011) is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China's University and College Admission System. Ryan Vesey 03:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sue, under no circumstances will you be permitted to use Wikipedia as a means to spread information about your service. I suggest you seek actual advertising means other than Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 04:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Finally heard back from AFHRA

They said they don't have anything related to CCT, pathfinders or air commandos, ugh... just my luck haha >.< —  dain- talk   08:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well it sounds like you made the effort to find a free image and couldn't. Unless you are still waiting for the national archives or Lackland, I'd just go with what you found.--v/r - TP 13:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm glad to be able to use that picture finally. I'll have to look around more for some Vietnam to Gulf War era pictures.—  dain- talk   15:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

HiLo

Seemed like a reasonable close to me, FWIW. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I anticipated the "New Message" bar, but I figured the first message would be criticism.--v/r - TP 19:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I know you and I have had our differences, but that close took balls and appears to be well-thought out and clearly articulated. Nice work. Toddst1 (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Have we? I can't remember. Well thanks.--v/r - TP 19:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Good close. I have no problem with Toddst1's original block and I agree with your view of the consensus at AN/I about the indef. I actually think this was a good example of the community collectively getting it right pretty quickly. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

A well-made close. Neither Hans nor HiLo nor anyone else have the right to use Wikipedia as an engine to their agenda, no matter what it may be. It is certainly not Wikipedia's place to determine what is the ideal viewpoint to have on such issues.--WaltCip (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Just wanted to chime in and say I thought it was a good close too. A combination of consensus-reading and creative troubleshooting that served to de-escalate (I think) a contentious situation. Community concern about the indef was acknowledged without buying into any admin-bashing and the block itself was dealt with in a manner that didn't trivialise the original concerns. Great work. Stalwart111 22:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'll break the string of supporters, then, with a brief critical statement, if I may. As I have commented elsewhere, I have edited with HiLo at ITN for years, and his ANI topic ban from ITN last summer, which expires in a few weeks, came as a great relief to me. I truly believe it is a mistake to reverse Toddst1's original intent which was to compel him to agree to basic civility before he returned to editing. Indeed, I may be mistaken but he has not agreed to edit with civility in the future and I do not believe he has ever admitted to wrongdoing on any topic whatsoever. Therefore, the indef block was preventative, not punitive. I am very much concerned that sometime in the coming weeks and months, editor time and patience will be tried yet again when he decides to insult editors who don't agree with his views, and that we will go through this all over again. I honestly hope I am wrong about him, but I have seen this pattern before, and it always ends the same way... in a gigantic timesink. With best wishes to all, Jusdafax 23:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • You and I share these views about indefinite blocks and I said as much in my closure. However, I cannot force my will on the community. Consensus was to reduce the block and I can't ignore that. But if I had it my way, indefinite blocks would be a hell of a lot less controversial. But if I had it my way, desysops would be less controversial as well, everyone would have a job, and man would be on Mars by now. Part of being an admin, or any editor, and closing a discussion, though, is setting aside personal feelings in favor of the community's. As a side note, HiLo48 has vaguely stated in his reply to Adjwilley that he was remorseful but this comment seems to reverse that. Either way, even if he did retract his statement, I'm not allowed the supervote. The community would have to accept his apology or a ballzy admin would have to unilaterally impose their will and face the possible uproar (if any).--v/r - TP 00:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

    That's pretty accurate. I don't agree with the consensus, but TParis handled it about as well as it could possibly have been done. Toddst1 (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

    • As an indef block supporter, I'd have to add that I thought your close was excellent. I hope he'll take Seb az86556's advice and remember that his opinion doesn't matter in the future, otherwise we'll have to revisit this whole thing. Ryan Vesey 00:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with others here, an excellent close which accurately judged consensus. However, I disagree with the community on this one. A bit of tough love now - and indef block requiring a change in behaviour before being lifted - is probably better than letting HiLo48 build up his enemies list to the point that he gets site banned. Maybe we should call them "conditional blocks" rather than "indefinite blocks" --Surturz (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a brilliant idea... "conditional blocks." It avoids the stigma of the term "indefinite" which to many, sounds final. Jusdafax 00:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

One helluva close.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• What a strangely selective reading of my comment. You take only the parenthetic comment as if that was the only point I made, leaving out the "mild enough to pass"--in other words, while accusing me of a POV you determine that the comment was grave enough to not pass, and then you leave out the rest of my random comment, which is completely in line with what you said ("Wikipedia is not for advocacy"). Strange, how that partial reading now puts me in some kind of anti-gun POV NRA hating camp and suggests that I am in fact a proponent of POV editing. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Did you intend the subtext as a joke? Other than that, while I agree with everything else you wrote, I take note of that specific idea as one that isn't in line with how we should approach a BLP. While I get how you are upset, and I anticipated it when I grabbed that bit, I think it's important to point out when we're talking about a controversial BLP. It's obviously off the collar, but I think it's the same thing HiLo is thinking too. It certainly wasn't selectively read, I read your entire comment, but I couldn't summarize each and every person's comments either. I summarized the most important points that stood out.--v/r - TP 02:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
    • TParis, that was the least important point. For the record, lest your stalkers think I advocated HiLo's language and actions, I completely agree with the initial block, at least with the fact of the block, and I would have closed the thread with the exact same result--except that his "nutters" simply isn't a big deal, it's only a big deal to those who extend CIVIL too far and make it conform to US standards of morality. Hans Adler points out on HiLo's talk page that the German equivalent is in a headline of a respected newspaper, for crying out loud (besides, this isn't such a contentious BLP, it's a remarkably calm article compared to some others, and the BLP concern wasn't the reason for the initial block or its extension). HiLo's block should have been made not on the grounds of CIVIL but for BATTLEGROUND reasons, which is a much bigger and much more important issue. It's not incivility that makes working here difficult, it's editors who use articles and talk pages to make political and other points. (And again, also for the record, HiLo wasn't the only one, from what I could tell.) For the record, I probably completely agree with the points HiLo, Hans, and others were making but not here, not on Wikipedia. CIVIL is a blunt instrument wielded much too inconsistently, and oddly enough BATTLE isn't wielded enough. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
      • My two cents - HiLo has a greater history of incivility in separate facets of Wikipedia (see his ban from WP:ITN/C), such that a pattern of behavior and history is evident. A pattern has not been clearly defined for battleground or soapboxing (which I would like to point out is going on at his talkpage at this very moment). HiLo's status is such that he has become a martyr in the eyes of a sizable number of editors, however he may violate long-standing policy. It wouldn't matter if he's caught red-handed violating some other key policy, because he is always going to have followers who will defend him, much like Delta/Betacommand did. Therefore, I find that TParis' close is as good as any admin could have made in this instance; there is no easy solution to a difficult scenario such as this.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by WaltCip (talk • contribs) 15:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry guys, I don't know HiLo's history and I wasn't much concerned about it when I closed the thread. I summarized the discussion and interjected some of my own thoughts. Drmies, I'm not going to comment on what he said, but I took take exception with that attitudes that other people's actions justify our own. We should not lower our standards of behavior because another party has "unreasonable policies." Of your comment, that is the only part I took exception to and it concerned me enough that such an assertion would even be made that I made note of it. Now, whether it's a CIVIL or BATTLE block, I just haven't made that call and it's not mine to make. I summarized and archived a discussion and enacted it's result. I have no, or thought I had no, connection to either party. Toddst's message above makes me think we might've butted heads at some point that I can't recall. Obviously seen him around, I'll admit, just hadn't thought we overlapped on anything. HiLo48, though, I vaguely recall some ANI thread and I can't recall their result. What I do know, having gained insight into this particular issue before I closed it so I wan't entirely blind, is that he made a comment using the word nutters, later admitted to it, and threw in some caps. Clearly, he was emotionally charged over the issue and creating a hostile environment. We seem to agree here. So I'm not sure why only your first sentence addresses the original point you wanted to make. You are upset that I quoted a small part of what you said, subtext really of an offhand remark in the back of your head, and I highlighted it. So my question is, did I take out of context something you meant as a joke, or did I give too much weight to something you didn't mean to be important? Either way, I am certainly sorry that you are upset. But I am not sorry for highlighting it. It concerned me. I certainly did not want to target you, I've no beef with you. It was the comment that bothered me, not the commenter.--v/r - TP 15:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
        • One needn't have defined a pattern for battleground behavior to see that that's what was happening (I don't dispute the existence of the other pattern: believe me, I know). I wish you would leave out the martyr bit--it's irrelevant here and it casts everything in an unsavory light, that of gang editing and whatnot. Folks who bring up such an argument typically fail to realize that it just as easily works both ways, and this is yet another suggestion that I would be on his side in the matter, which I'm not. I'll put this more strongly: usually such accusations are red herrings and they only serve to taint the opposition, it's hot air. That I, for instance, would agree with his politics doesn't mean I agree with the way he edits (and I don't); that "his friends will defend him" is used to suggest that such a defense isn't policy-based, for instance, and the logical conclusion of that can be one of these two or both: a. "his friends" are POV editors who don't abide by our policies and guidelines; b. we're right and they're wrong, automatically. This argument is a defense TParis doesn't need, if he needs any defense at all. I might as well argue about you in relation to TParis what you suggest about HiLo's "friends". Which I won't, for clarity's sake.

          TParis, I put it in parentheses because it was parenthetic--not really a joke, but not the main point: I do not accept that "nutters" is bad enough for a block and I know you didn't block because of that--but you did mention CIVIL. I'll stop now, since it's not that big a deal--take it easy, and see you around. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

          • Alright m8, we'll see you around. We've all been accused of being someone's friend when we're just giving our point of view at some point. We'll laugh about the whole mess over beers someday.--v/r - TP 15:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
            • (Like Obama and that cop?) That's what Dennis Brown said. In the meantime, I got a fridge full of beer but no one's crossing the Mason-Dixon line to help me drink it. [I don't know if this is much of a mess, but the problems with HiLo's editing may not be solved. I hope they will lighten up, at least on-wiki.) At ease, Drmies (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Toolserver deadlink

Hi... I saw you're now hosting soxred93/X!'s tools on the toolserver - I just wanted to let you know that the link on various pages (e.g. [22]) to the Page History Statistics tool is dead. No need to reply, best regards, Storkk (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This specific tool used cached results to make requests faster and the cached data was clogging up all of my allocated space on toolserver.--v/r - TP 16:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Miniapolis RfA

FYI, the candidate is identified as a female in the nomination statement (in case you want to make that correction). --regentspark (comment) 18:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed it.--v/r - TP 18:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	yayaya Totoh saepurrohim (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Why do you get all the spam?

I've seen you getting more spam than anyone else. Do you have any idea why? I wonder if there's a way to check what links to your userpage that's not your signature. There must be something out there somewhere sending people to this page. Ryan Vesey 03:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I dunno. I've done google searches but I dont see anything linking to me.--v/r - TP 03:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Everybody just knows and loves him. ;)—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 04:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Harsh?

Hello, TParis. You have new messages at Leaky caldron's talk page.
Message added 11:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AGF Rollback nudge needed

Could you please read the following section (and coincidentally the one AFTER) here [23]? This editor isn't AGF when using TW rollback, and doesn't appear to grok when to label a revert as vandalism and seems intent on staying the course. Perhaps you might explain to them they need to be more cautious in using the TW vandal button? Thanks. Happy New Year btw.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for communication. I guess he wants to know Are You Experienced before considering someone else's opinion. I hope Life's Been Good for you and yours this year.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

hasty

Not a good close, in part for reasons I was adding to thread concurrent with your close, and in part because it just reinforces the meme that admins evil cabal who cover up for each other. There's also not a really strong consensus SoV's action wasn't appropriate, as a couple folks (regentsparks, DB) endorsed the move. NE Ent 19:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It's an AE issue that got spilled over onto ANI. There were no tools used, so there is nothing to cover up or discuss. Let AE handle it and boomerang if necessary. There is nothing to discuss on ANI.--v/r - TP 19:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with NE that your close was not a good one. I was attempting to establish a dialog on an issue many consider important and as NE notes, you give the impression, rightly or wrongly, of an admin coverup. I would like to suggest you reconsider and reopen. Jusdafax 20:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The ANI thread was started by SOV to notify that he had taken an action while being somewhat involved, a fairly mundane thing to do when that is the case. During the AE, it is better to handle those AE issues in that venue, with those admin. Afterwards, if a resolution wasn't reached, then WP:AN or similar could be started. The problem is getting too many venues open at the same time, and everyone stepping over each other, which just leads to drama and confusion. I don't have an opinion on the primary issue here, sincerely and intentionally, but debating it in two places is always going to be problematic. In this case, I agree with TP's actions out of a simple matter of procedure. It doesn't mean that either of us agree or disagree with SOV on the merits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, you stated Since Sarek brought it [to ANI (the correct course of action)] but now you're saying it wasn't? NE Ent 02:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

To be blunt, closing the thread when I had asked for clarification and had raised the issue of possible sanctions for SoV does not look good. Admins must avoid not only wrongdoing, but within reason, the appearance of wrongdoing. There would have been no harm in leaving SoV's thread open. This comes during an Rfa which is coming into its last 24 hours, and SoV is a supporter, so rather than disrupt the Rfa, ANI is the place to discuss this further, and also not AE where process debates will go on that have little to do with editor concerns regarding SoV's actions. Regardless of what one thinks about the existence of a "evil cabal," this closure is poorly timed, to say the least. Jusdafax 20:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

But nothing SOV did was an "admin action". Even an IP could have done what he did. We can not sit at ANI and say whether or not the AE should or shouldn't have been opened, that is outside of the purpose of ANI. AE can handle itself. Better to get an admin that works AE regularly to determine that issue, at AE. I would prefer that ANI, AE or any other board wasn't dragged into an RfA, but adding more venues doesn't make it better. SoV filed at AE. If they find it frivolous or improper, you can ask for sanction/boomerang there. Again, it isn't the role of ANI to determine, it is AE's role. I don't hang out with any of these people, so I don't care on a personal basis, it is just a matter of proper procedure. As for the timing, the only time he COULD have filed is during the RfA since it is about the RfA, which is only a week long, so not sure how that affects anything. Again, at ANI, we don't go around shutting down AE cases or blocking users for filing them. That would have a chilling effect and number of other negative ramifications that, ironically, would be considered admin abuse. We leave AE problems to the admin that work AE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. SOV made a few mistakes, opening the ANI thread was one of them. Jusdafax: You are more than welcome to continue seeking sanctions. I've been told more than once that closing an ANI thread is not an 'admin action.' So if you intend to revert the closure and argue for sanctions, I think you're doing yourself a disservice, but you won't find me objecting strongly. My only objection is that you'll be embroiling us in more useless drama and I doubt you'll get a successful consensus for sanctions when no admin tools were used. The rest of my comments echo Dennis.--v/r - TP 21:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

If the reason for the close is that it was a mistake for SoV to open the thread in the first place, why doesn't you closing summary say that? What I'm seeing is a weird hodgepodge of 'Sarek maybe shouldn't have done that but it's okay cause he opened an ANI thread that shouldn't had been opened so we're going to discourage futher discussion of it.' It's not a coherent position, and there's little evidence it's actually anyting approaching a community viewpoint. NE Ent 02:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree completely, NE. This is one of the stranger events during an Rfa that I have seen... comments removed, simultaneous AE and ANI threads, and this sudden close, less than 90 minutes later from when sanctions were mentioned, when there were numerous issues unresolved... Dennis, look at this from a non-admin pov. Do you see how this "chilling effect" could go the other way? The argument that Sarek didn't do an "admin action" is specious... He IS an admin, and he pulled comments off an active Rfa, and filed multiple reports. Sarek is also an admin with a remarkably checkered past - with 5 blocks on his record, he is arguably unpredictable to the max, and he began talking about "recall" as soon as I even brought up the questions of sanctions. And you and TParis both think I should bring sanctions up elsewhere, except I don't have much of a chance because it's more "useless drama" because he didn't use the admin buttons... I am not seeing much clarity here. It is getting worse, not better. Jusdafax 04:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• I do understand your frustration, and I'm puzzled as to why the AE was filed. By all means, I'm not questioning your logic. My only point is that it will not be settled at ANI at this time, and continuing it there would only be a magnet for drama. I haven't looked at the AE close enough to have an opinion, although it does look a bit strong, and just saying that once a process starts, it is easier and better to get resolution there, or wait until it gets shut down, then take it to WP:AN. I "get it" that some things we do as admin are "adminy", but in policy, there is a difference between using the tools and not using them. If we don't follow a bit of procedure, the end result is usually drama without resolution. Following procedure takes time, which means after the RfA is closed, more than likely, but I can't help that. If you think there is a pattern that needs addressing, RFC/U is also another choice, although I am not a fan of that toothless process. I voted to support dirtlawyer, but I don't know him nor have any emotional investment there, it is just a vote on someone I looked at and who looked ok. Same with SoV, he and I don't hang out or chat and seldom even cross paths, so it isn't about protecting anyone. And Ent and TP, as for opening the ANI, any time an admin does an action that might be controversial, taking it to ANI is considered an acceptable way to have it reviewed. Like I said earlier, I would have preferred that AE and ANI were left out of the RfA process altogether and just let the community work things out there. I expect it is going to be messy and adding more venues only makes a messy process a bloodbath. And of course, others will disagree with me on some of these points, which is fine. They could have reversed the close if it was that strong of an issue. Ent has reversed me more than once without incident, and TParis is likely no different than I am about that: Might not like it, but lets the process work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• There is a simple test for whether this was an appropriate close. Ask yourself what reaction there would have been if a non-Admin. had closed it. Instant reversal ("you're not an Admin. - don't interfere") and a politically correct message or worse, to the closer's talk page along the lines of "wtf do you think you are doing?". It was de facto an Admin. close - it was performed by an Admin. on an Admin. notice board and the tool used was simply that of influence - being an Admin. carries weight & implied authority. Leaky Caldron 13:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Furthermore, "avoiding drama" should not be a guiding principle -- DR boards exist to resolve issues. Wikipedia, thank goodness, is full of folks who feel passionately about the project. They're not going to agree all the time. That's going to mean "drama." This is the human condition, not an inherently bad thing. NE Ent 13:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Leaky: WP:NOBIGDEAL. Also, feel free to return the message I left you the other day about being harsh toward Carrite, I'm about to lay it down on Jusdafax NE Ent: I agree that drama is acceptable when an outcome is possible. Jusdafax: If you feel I am being ambiguous, it's because I'm trying not to be offensive. But let me be blunt, like you have. When I say "I think you're doing yourself a disservice," what I really mean is that I think your going to make yourself look stupid by seeking sanctions because an editor (or admin) removed comments. Admins have no power at RFAs so that'll get you no where. If a 'crat did it, then maybe I'd back off. When I say "You are more than welcome to continue seeking sanctions," what I mean is that there is no chance in hell of you succeeding but you are more than welcome to expend that sort of effort if you so like. When I say "but you won't find me objecting strongly," what I mean is that I intend to stay the hell away from whatever mess your about to make like I bet 95% of the rest of ANI will. And when I say "I doubt you'll get a successful consensus for sanctions," I mean that there is zero chance but I wanted to be diplomatic. Let's look at 'just the facts' here and leave rhetoric at the door: SoV opened an AE thread of questionable validity. Neotarf made a comment on the RFA of questionable appropriateness. SoV undid it once. Which policy was violated? Which tool was misused? We don't practice Ex post facto law here. At best you'll get a trout for SoV and if you feel strongly about it then trout him yourself. If not, I'm doing you a favor. But I'm not your mommy and I'm not your babysitter, feel free to do what you wish and seek sanctions that will never happen. Do it on WP:ANI, do it on WP:AE, do it on User_talk:Jimbo Wales, hell do it on WP:RFPP for all I care. Not trying to be a dick, personally, I like all three of you. But this argument is pointless since your preferred solution is impossible.--v/r - TP 14:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Editcounter by namespace

Could you generate a database report containing statistics of user edits in all namespaces like this? محمد شعیب (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

How many users? What is the criteria for users?--v/r - TP 14:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Carrite

TP. I left a Talkback message for you a couple of days ago. See above -#Harsh? Leaky Caldron 14:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I sure did. I agree with you about Carrite's comments, I just would've handled it differently. I didn't feel it was important enough to argue with you about it after I left my opinion, though, but I did read your response. You read my comments and you didn't need me to hassle you anymore about it.--v/r - TP 14:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Stricken part of that comment since recent events demonstrate I wouldn't have.--v/r - TP 14:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

edit counter

Getting the following message atm, figured you'd like to know:

Warning: include(/home/soxred93/public_html/common/header.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/tparis/public_html/simplecount/index.php on line 10 Warning: include(): Failed opening '/home/soxred93/public_html/common/header.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/ts/php/5.3/lib/php') in /home/tparis/public_html/simplecount/index.php on line 10 Warning: include(/home/soxred93/stats.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/tparis/public_html/simplecount/index.php on line 11 Warning: include(): Failed opening '/home/soxred93/stats.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/ts/php/5.3/lib/php') in /home/tparis/public_html/simplecount/index.php on line 11 Warning: require(/home/soxred93/public_html/count/i18n.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/tparis/public_html/simplecount/index.php on line 12 Fatal error: require(): Failed opening required '/home/soxred93/public_html/count/i18n.php' (include_path='.:/opt/ts/php/5.3/lib/php') in /home/tparis/public_html/simplecount/index.php on line 12

Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be a toolserver problem, I can't log in with certification authentication. I'm not getting the error, though, try it again.--12:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC

I've revised the closure rationale per your note on my talk and after reading through the comments/concerns on the ANI thread. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Socks

Hi TParis, a certain someone has been disrupting articles on Japanese films and associated RMs. I've added the list of the most recent IPs and affected articles at ANI. There's no way it isn't Joshu evading his block. Mind having a look at it?--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked and protected. That's all we can really do.--v/r - TP 14:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

3abos

You're probably right, although I think Delicious.carbuncle's argument that, if he's Australian as he suspects, the claim that it reflects Arabic texting characters is just a little disingenuous, is probably not beyond consideration. I'd see how he reacts to a suggestion that he change his name now that I've lifted that block. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The last time.....

The last time I read such an ignorant comment as this [24] the editor was de-sysopped and and half the arbcom and Jimbo were made to look like fools and Wikipedia laughed for weeks. You clearly are a fool.  Giano  20:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Though I strenuously object to Giano calling you a fool, that was a very un-classy thing to say. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the edit summary? I haven't seen Arbcom desysop for violating WP:DRYHUMOR before, that would be a new one. Clearly, I should save my humor for those with the sense to get it.--v/r - TP 20:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• That might be one of your better ideas.  Giano  20:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Nope, because on a fast-moving ANI thread like that, the edit summary gets buried in the page history way too easily. (I have personal experience with that; I myself rely way too much on edit summaries myself, and have been burned for it in the past. :P ) If you were just kidding, then {{trout}} for not making it clear in the body of the message; posting a joke like that towards an editor who's clearly agitated, without making it clear that it was a joke, was still not the greatest of maneuvers. :/ Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• It wasn't fast moving when I left it. I was the third(?) person to respond. I figured the <small> tag would give away that it was a joke. But yes, obviously there are some people who get my sense of humor better than others. I think it's safe to say I wouldn't be the one looking a fool to ask for a desysop over it so I'm unfazed. Just making a mental note that some people's anger doesn't get deescalated with humor.--v/r - TP 20:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well, there were four edits to it within the two minutes around your post, so it was fast-moving enough to move the edit summary out of visibility. Nonetheless, it seems that my attempts to de-escalate the situation have proved equally fruitless, so I'll withdraw; my apologies. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, Writ. It's not a big deal to me. I wasn't trying to insult Giano and if he took offense then I'm not going to get upset that he expressed himself. It's no biggie. Thanks for trying =) --v/r - TP 20:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• A few weeks ago I had a trip to the ER for a kidney stone. While waiting for the needle to go in and let the sweet sweet drip of ibuprofin of all things, the nurse cracked some joke to me. I did apologize for unleashing a tirade that made the blood drain from his face, but only after I was discharged. I'm of two thoughts on this. 1)Don't joke with people who are stressed, or 2)Fuck em if they can't take a joke.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  21:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Lol. Well the joke wasn't even original. It was of the Person A: "Are you a spy?" Person B: "I'm not a spy." Person A: "That's what a spy would say." variety.--v/r - TP 21:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• This is mostly irrelevant, but WP:DRYHUMOR and WP:DEADPAN are now redirects to the most relevant target. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry TParis--I also didn't think it was a joke: my apologies. As you know, I don't think joking around on Wikipedia is a good idea in the first place, and I'm happy to say that my talk page is a joke-free zone and all my edits, including summaries, adhere to the highest standards of seriousness. If you really feel like kidding around, you could have tried Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Gibraltar-related_DYKs#Proposal_for_moratorium_on_Gibraltar-related_DYKs_for_6_months (now hatted), which should be categorized as humorous. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Don't worry about it. I saw your remark, realized I was too subtle about it being humorous and figured replying to your remark would only make it worse. Obviously misplaced humor which could be more appreciated somewhere else by someone else. No need to say more. On the subject of Bradspeak, I feel it lacks humanity and is useful only in certain circumstances, like Arbcom. Since I'll never subject myself to that sort of brutal...well, I'll just never run for Arbcom.--v/r - TP 15:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You might get a kick out of this TP

Check this out. — - dain- talk    22:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Haha, I've seen that photo. That angle doesn't show you his desert combat boots.--v/r - TP 23:26, 14 February 2013 (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.

--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Replied.--v/r - TP 23:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle

Tom, as you probably know the TW rollback vandal feature, more specifically the abuse thereof, is a pet peeve of mine. I've requested the feature be removed here[25] and would like to invite you to comment.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

From the frequent messages I see here, you appear to be a database guru. How could I get a query to give me a list of the first 500 diffs starting at date/time X that have the TW vandalism message in the edit summary? I'd like to go through that list manually and identify the percentage of actual vandalism reverts vs "other" so I have some statistics to present for a possible RfC. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for the spreadsheet. I posted my findings on the TW talk page in case you are interested.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoshuSasori for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously you aren't under investigation yourself. Just I mentioned your name in my comment and I figured I should let you know. If you want to post a comment I'm sure it would be welcome! (Especially considering I made reference to a private e-mail exchange I had with you.) elvenscout742 (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China's University and College Admission System (CUCAS)

Hi Tparis again,

As we talked on delection of CUCAS in Wikipedia on 5 feb 2013. First of all, Thank you for your early reply. I just want to explain what kind of company we are and Wikipedia is important to us because lots of our students told us they could not find CUCAS in Wikipedia. We do not want to use Wikipedia as a method to make advertisement because we have our own marketing and advertising channel. As you know, some companies, like IBM, also list in Wikipedia, if they are using Wikipedia as an advertising means? So we want to know what kind of contents will be regarded as advertisement-making and what kind of contents are permitted. In fact, we just provide the basic information about the compmay,such as when the company founded, which universities are our parternership ones, introduction to the location and so on. All in all, we need not use Wikipedia as a means to make any advertisement. So We hope you could restore our CUCAS in Wikipedia. Thank you very much and looking forward to your early reply. Sue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suexiu (talk • contribs) 05:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sue - IBM did not come to Wikipedia and write their own article. What are your independent sources?--v/r - TP 13:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Human rights abuses in Kashmir's talk page. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Please go through my latest post. Thank you. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

There has been no modification to change the context. - I didn't accuse of anything if that is what you thought. BTW, you might want to go through my latest post on RegentsPark's talk. Thank you. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't intend to accuse you of accusing me of doing that. I just meant that it's all together and I wasn't piecing together different parts of the source. I'll go read that in a sec, working on a close for something else atm.--v/r - TP 17:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I replied there.--v/r - TP 17:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the ANI glitch. I think I got my hands on a source that claims Indian Security Forces are employing and arming groups that use children (reportedly teenagers) would you mind taking a look? Thank you for your efforts so far BTW :). Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

B2C close

Seems like a fairly rational call. Hate when that happens. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. Both counts. :) --regentspark (comment) 18:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this was a very well thought out call. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

On the first sentence ("preempt") did you mean "preface"?North8000 (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I did, thanks.--v/r - TP 18:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to pile on and compliment you on the close. It's not what I would have preferred, but it's fair and well thought out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Since I never hold back when I have an issue with an admin, it seems only fair that I would compliment a particularly astute action. Of course, life's not fair. NE Ent 18:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you should place a time limit on the sanction be in months or years. -- PBS (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. North8000 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I hadn't though of that. But couldn't B2C just ask that the sanctions be removed in 6+ months if they are no longer needed?--v/r - TP 20:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, though you didn't mention that. Maybe just say 1 year and can ask to have it removed earlier? North8000 (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. I just figured it was expected.--v/r - TP 20:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting and creative close. I hope that a lesson can be learnt all around as a result of this episode. Thanks, -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Accolades all around, for sure. Thanks for the kind and wise words and brilliant decision... not to mention putting an end to this quest with a very reasonable expectation from me. I don't believe we've ever crossed paths, but you jumped straight to the top of my list of favorite WP people with this one encounter. Thank you for your diligence in working this out. Born2cycle (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad to see that the close has received positive feedback from both sides. I hope this settles the matter.--v/r - TP 23:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi TParis. I've noticed what good work you do on en.WP; thank you. However, I couldn't help thinking that your acceptance of this barnstar was inappropriate, given the need for admins to maintain a professional distance from matters in which they will make or have made decisions. You can't stop B2C acting inappropriately (it's entirely inappropriate to "thank" someone in the way he has done—both the fact of the barnstar and the content of the accompanying text). But it would have been consistent with the conflict-of-interest expectations in the admin policy to have at least ignored it, and at best to have removed it and/or to have responded in a way that indicated you were unable to accept it. By analogy, patients can't be unethical, but doctors can. Please let me know if there's a conceptual query about what I've said here. Cheers and best wishes. Tony (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

TParis's actions on the case were completed at the time. I personally would not give a barnster to someone who just closed something that I was the subject of, but that's me. I see nothing wrong with TParis accepting it, but after that if I were TParis I would probably not have further involvement on the case as an admin or closer. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concern, Tony, by like North8000 said, I anticipate having no further involvement. I said in my close that I was putting a burden on my fellow admins. I think the opposite, to ignore, is a bit rude on my part. But I also want to make clear that I refrained from acknowledging any sort of compliment until I was sure both parties were satisfied. Other than addressing a concern North8000 had about a mistype and PBP about a time frame, I hadn't responded to anyone else. Once I saw bi-partisan approval, then I felt it was ok to respond to the above. I certainly did not want to give any appearance of favoring any side nor do I really want to get involved in the matter. My primary interest was cleaning up WP:AN and involved me archiving about a dozen RFC close requests as well. You words do ring in a part of my mind about professional distance, though, and I'll remember to distance myself appropriately next time.--v/r - TP 13:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Really? I figured you would be the administrator we would ask, if we thought B2C's contributions to a thread needed attention in the future. Precisely because you DO know all the background and wouldn't have to spend half an hour bringing yourself up to speed on the issues. No? --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I know the background in as much as I read everyone's comments in that ANI thread, the previous ANI thread, and the Arbcom case. But no, I am not intimately aware of what B2C does. I've never personally been witness to it. It would be better for another admin to enforce it in case clarification is ever needed about the close. If I were to act on the close and then there was a question about interpretation, who would be responsible for clarifying it? I would be my own watcher.--v/r - TP 14:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. In case of future enforcement need, then (and I'm hoping there won't be any such need), should we ask some individual admin to look at it, or post the need somewhere? --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Ask an uninvolved admin or post on WP:ANI and reference the close. As you said in your OP post, though, B2C is receptive to being asked to step away. I don't think an administrative discussion ban will ever be necessary. What I strongly recommend is to do this: if B2C has explained his point, kindly explain to him that you've received his message and you'd like him to step away so uninvolved editors can weigh his opinions without anyone's involvement. Try that before approaching an admin. No one needs an admin with a gun to their head. My close empowers other admins with a new tool but it is not meant to be a first step. Give B2C a chance, on each discussion, to step away before asking an admin to make him step away. Seem fair?--v/r - TP 14:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Definitely. Thanks again for a solomonic decision. --MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Now my thank you is "inappropriate"? Baffled, again. Is the morality by which I'm judged documented anywhere? I sure would like to see it. --B2C 21:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

One person said that. I wouldn't read anything into it beyond that. Time to move on and have some fun. Same goes for the folks that have been butting heads with B2C if you are watching. Send each other a wikibeer, don't give up your principles, just keep 'em shorter, and butt heads in a friendly way with people who are friends first, fellow Wikipedians who are sincerely trying to make Wikipedia good second, and opponents third. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course B2C was in his rights to give out barnstars. However, bestowing for the reasons given clearly, IMHO, traverses into what I would call "creepish" if not potentially corrupting behaviour. It's not unlike giving a police officer a "thank you" red packet for not issuing you a speeding ticket or not slinging you into gaol. OTOH, I wouldn't call the close a "Solomonic decision" either, for it may turn out to be as ineffective as a trouting. The proof will be in the pudding of whether it will stop the objectionable behaviour. As I noted above, it's interesting and creative, and I reserve judgement about how complex its administration will be or how much workload or 'admin involvement' it will engender (although TP stated clearly he appreciates there will be a burden). Once again, as I said at AN, what I care about the most at the moment is for the noise to stop. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 01:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you is inappropriate? Absurd. NE Ent 03:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A 'thank you' is never out of place. But there are many ways of saying that "thank you". -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

In this case, I believe the "thank you" was out of place, given the inappropriateness of the original post here. Tony (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Ladies and gentlemen, we're spending far too much time debating this rather minor issue that Tony brought up and I acknowledged already. Shall we move on to more important and productive things?--v/r - TP 13:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Imagemaps....

Hey TP, do you know if WP supports the use imagemaps? If so I'm going to have to waste a few hours making some. — -dainomite   20:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel like I've seen them somewhere, but I really don't know.--v/r - TP 20:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Review requested

Mathsci (talk · contribs), under injunction here here actually, is insisting posting an accusation that The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) is violated their interaction ban. Please review and take whatever action, if any, you feel appropriate. NE Ent 22:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent has been refactoring, or suggesting the refactoring of, other people's edits today (yours on WP:AN, Timotheus Canens on an arbcom page and mine on FPaS's talk page). He has just invited TDA to comment here despite knowing about TDA's WP:ARBR&I interaction ban. I don't know whether NE Ent's account is somehow compromised today, but his edits seem both disruptive and unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hang on guys. Mathsci - NE Ent is usually right in his AN/ANI hats or at least does it in good faith. Unfortunately, I can't help right now. I am on my way out the door to my 5 yr old's bday. If you want me to take a look when I get back, then everyone needs to step away from Wikipedia in the meantime so the situation doesn't get worse. Otherwise, another sysop will have to intervene.--v/r - TP 22:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not at all in a position to handle this. I once told TDA to f- off, which I later apologized for. And I once blocked Cla68, which I also apologized for I think. Anyway, I'm involved with those two editors so it'd be best if someone else stepped in. Sorry.--v/r - TP 23:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A good response. Enjoy the birthday event. Mathsci (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) NE Ent, maybe I'm misunderstanding you, because if you're saying that Mathsci has violated a restriction (per your first diff), you appear to be wrong. T. Canens's comment in that diff says that TDA et al are not allowed to comment on/interact with Mathsci, not that Mathsci can't comment on them (I haven't looked into whether Mathsci's saying that TDA violated anything is correct, I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying is the problem with this situation). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Posted the wrong diff, fixed now; I'm not saying Mathsci has definitely violated the restriction but rather providing it for context. My viewpoint is it's an unfounded, inflammatory action which doesn't benefit the encyclopedia. I decided to ask TP at Mathsci's suggestion on their talk page but personally would be just as happy to have The Sandwich review the situation. NE Ent 23:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

All this disproportionate bluster about this edit?[26] On a previous occasion, after a Mikemikev ipsock had posted a death notice on Ramdrake's page, this was what NE Ent posted on my talk page, having reverted the ipsock tagging.[27] Fortunately Deskana intervened. Mathsci (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Joshu's back, back again

As 123.225.56.62 (talk · contribs · count) and 123.224.195.138 (talk · contribs · count), re-opening several RMs, such as this, that were previously started by other socks.[28] Could you block these? I wonder if we should look into a range block.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked.--v/r - TP 13:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

We got one more: 123.224.191.243 (talk · contribs · count). See also the SPI, where they try to make the case that they're the sock of someone else than Joshu.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. And another: 124.102.71.246 (talk · contribs · count). Should we seek a range block?--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Another option would be to semi-protect the affected talk pages: Talk:Kyōka Suzuki, Talk:Kyōko Koizumi, Talk:Aya Ōmasa, Talk:Ryōko Hirosue, Talk:Yū Aoi, Talk:Kōji Yakusho, Talk:Hideaki Itō, and Talk:Zatōichi (2003 film). I don't think I should be the one to do it due to my previous involvement with Joshu.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I already looked into a range block. We might be able to block several smaller ranges, but his range is quite large and we'd have 124 million anonymous users as collateral damage. Protecting a entire topic area seems pretty overkill. I think WP:RBI is our best practice for now.--v/r - TP 20:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the solution is, but my major concern here is the effect he's having on RM. Even without Joshu evading his block to create new and pointless RMs - and stack them with additional sock votes - the backlog is already at something like 150 articles, with a dozen or so added each day. He's compounding what's already a substantial problem and further wasting everyone's time. At any rate, 124.102.71.246 needs to be blocked; he didn't even bother changing the signature in the RMs.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:LTA maybe?--v/r - TP 21:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a thought, but as he's only been at it for a month I don't know how "long term" it really is. I'm still hoping he'll eventually get sick of the whack-a-mole and move on.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Seriously?

Re [29] -- See The Soup Nazi and Yada yada yada. NE Ent 23:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah ha! I didn't get it then. I don't think I've seen the Yada episode.--v/r - TP 23:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Just an FYI: overdue followup

Hi, I know it's been awhile and you probably couldn't care less but since you were partially involved [30] in a dispute I had with User:Lhb1239, I thought you should know that he was later found (SPI Jan '12) to be a sockpuppet of blocked User:SkagitRiverQueen. El duderino ^(abides) 22:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of CUCAS

Hi again,

Further to our discussion on deletion of CUCAS, about you further question" What are your independent sources", I want to confirm if you want to know about our advertising means? If yes, I could tell that our advertising method is GOOGLE Adwords and Adsense, instead of Wikipedia. So we need not use Wikipedia as a means to advertise. Your restoration of CUCAS in Wikipedia is highly apprecited. Sue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suexiu (talk • contribs) 07:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not my question. What I want to know is, where has CUCAS been covered in independent media that discusses your school in detail as the primary focus of the article and where your school has had no financial or otherwise hand in generating the media article? I need several such sources. I'd prefer them in English, but I will seek a Wikipedian to translate if neccessary. Also, understand that if such as article on your school were restored, it would only contain that material which can be found in these sources.--v/r - TP 18:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

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 Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

fyi

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#tpclose NE Ent 14:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't read the whole case because I don't see anything that involves me, but I also can't see what prompted you to mention the US Places ANI thread. What's up exactly?--v/r - TP 16:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't involve you at all; I'm advocating arbcom kick the Tea Party issue back to the community and was offering an example of a recent successful community resolution of a complex issue. Naturally, I found myself in a Wiki-22 -- if I notify you I mentioned something you did, I'm canvassing; if I don't, I'm "failing to notify an editor." NE Ent 17:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ohh ok, I get it. Cool, thanks for the compliment then.--v/r - TP 18:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit counter

Hi, thanks for all your good work. You may already know, but the Edit counter seems to be giving an "en.wikipedia.org is not a valid wiki" error message. Best regards  LittleBen (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Happened to me too. It's an amusing message, though! — sparklism ^hey! 16:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The system works by checking the main toolserver database to see what database server the English Wikipedia replication exists on before going out and getting the stats. It's likely a problem with the toolserver database that is causing this issue.--v/r - TP 19:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Localization of editcounter

Hi! How it is possible to add new language to edit counter's localisations? Links at the bottom of it's page seems to be broken. Is it possible to move translations maintains to translatewiki.net ? --Base^talkсontr. 19:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The main screen acts as a template. There is a file for each language that has the proper words that correspond to the appropriate place on the template. I can send you a copy of the language file if you want to add a new language but only those languages with files will work properly.--v/r - TP 19:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, send it please. If via email it is base-w[at]yandex.ru . --Base^talkсontr. 15:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

More from Joshu

Same things, same way: 124.102.103.158 (talk · contribs · count)--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope. I'm neither JoshuSasori nor Mysterious Island (JoshuSasori's sockpuppet). Please see the evidence below:

• Mysterious Island

15:42, 19 February 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+508)‎ . . User talk:Cuchullain

15:35, 19 February 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+1,304)‎ . . Talk:Edogawa Rampo

15:24, 19 February 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+508)‎ . . Talk:Yūji Oda

15:02, 19 February 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-107)‎ . . Donald Richie

• 124.85.41.37

15:39, 19 February 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+112)‎ . . Yoshishige Yoshida

15:15, 19 February 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+592)‎ . . Yoshishige Yoshida

15:05, 19 February 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+6)‎ . . Yoshishige Yoshida

1. At the same time (between 15:00 and 15:45, 19 February 2013) when I was editing Yoshishige Yoshida, Mysterious Island was editing Donald Richie, Talk:Yūji Oda, Talk:Edogawa Rampo and User talk:Cuchullain. Therefore, I'm not the same person as Mysterious Island.
2. JoshuSasori opposed the requested move at Talk:Densha Otoko (film), which I had nominated last year. Additionally, I removed the photo from Takayuki Yamada, which he/she had previously restored twice.
3. JoshuSasori undid my edit at Kōji Yakusho, which was due to my fault.
4. JoshuSasori also reverted my edit at Manami Konishi, which was due to my removal of material without explanation. The next day, I reverted again with explaining the reason in the edit summary.
5. See also Talk:Shigehiko Hasumi, where JoshuSasori and I had a truly heated discussion. In fact, he/she seemed to think I was another editor who had mediated there. Therefore, I'm not the same person as JoshuSasori.

123.224.185.7 (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It's time for you to find another hobby, Joshu.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope. I'm neither JoshuSasori nor Mysterious Island (JoshuSasori's sockpuppet). Please see the evidence below:

• Mysterious Island

15:42, 19 February 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+508)‎ . . User talk:Cuchullain

15:35, 19 February 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+1,304)‎ . . Talk:Edogawa Rampo

15:24, 19 February 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+508)‎ . . Talk:Yūji Oda

15:02, 19 February 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-107)‎ . . Donald Richie

• 124.85.41.37

15:39, 19 February 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+112)‎ . . Yoshishige Yoshida

15:15, 19 February 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+592)‎ . . Yoshishige Yoshida

15:05, 19 February 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+6)‎ . . Yoshishige Yoshida

1. At the same time (between 15:00 and 15:45, 19 February 2013) when I was editing Yoshishige Yoshida, Mysterious Island was editing Donald Richie, Talk:Yūji Oda, Talk:Edogawa Rampo and User talk:Cuchullain. Therefore, I'm not the same person as Mysterious Island.
2. JoshuSasori opposed the requested move at Talk:Densha Otoko (film), which I had nominated last year. Additionally, I removed the photo from Takayuki Yamada, which he/she had previously restored twice.
3. JoshuSasori undid my edit at Kōji Yakusho, which was due to my fault.
4. JoshuSasori also reverted my edit at Manami Konishi, which was due to my removal of material without explanation. The next day, I reverted again with explaining the reason in the edit summary.
5. See also Talk:Shigehiko Hasumi, where JoshuSasori and I had a truly heated discussion. In fact, he/she seemed to think I was another editor who had mediated there. Therefore, I'm not the same person as JoshuSasori.

122.17.63.223 (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, because using multiple browsers or machines at once is so hard to do. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Pingpong123q

Was this intended to be a temporary block that will expire, as stated on the talk page, or indefinite as stated in the block log? Peter James (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Indefinite unless someone is willing to mentor. I think this user is likely a minor but they have serious WP:CIR issues.--v/r - TP 01:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It was just the conflicting templates - it wasn't clear which was intended. Peter James (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, TParis. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC). 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.

Jasper Deng (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, TParis. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 10:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC). 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.

~TheGeneralUser (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but...

I ran across this discussion; then had a brief look and noticed this little bit. I'm not personally familiar with any "compromised account" template, but perhaps you are. Perhaps that should be noted on the user and/or usertalk pages. The only reason I mention this here is because you are the blocking admin., and I assume you're familiar with the situation. — Ched :  ?  21:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Update: OK, I did find this, but I'm not sure that's exactly right either. He wasn't blocked because of the "compromise" .. but it did happen after the fact. I'm not familiar with editing templates enough to try anything myself. Anyway, hope you're having a good weekend. TY. — Ched :  ?  22:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Hey - Could subst: the template and they modify it for what it needs.--v/r - TP 22:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)