User talk:Floquenbeam/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

User talk:Kvrk4000

Hi there. I'm leaving you this message since you were the administrator that left Kvrk4000 this message. Seems like rather than listen, Kvrk4000 created a sock and continues the same behaviour. I opened SPI for the sock, but I thought, considering your message, that you might want to take further action regarding the edit warring. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked the sock indef, blocked Kvrk for 2 weeks. However, I hold you partially responsible for making me do this bit of idiocy: [1]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I take full responsibility for not supplying you with the required doze of caffeine. While probably too late for this occasion, I hereby enclose some roasted coffee beans you can chew on next time you approach the block button.
Oh, and thank you.--Muhandes (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks (although I'd need Smell-O-Vision to get the full benefit) and you're welcome. Saw your note on his talk page, I hope that works out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks for the support at User talk:Reaper Eternal. I've been involved in a number of edits over the last few weeks that have literally caused me to wonder if I accidentally logged into Bizarro Wikipedia. Your comment means more than you might realize. Your post helps convince me I'm not alone. SPhilbrickT 21:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Sphilbrick. As I just told Reaper, I don't think this is really a problem with Reaper's decision making, as it is a problem with our decision making. A slightly similar situation is a few threads up, and I've been (unproductively) rude to admins who did this kind of thing in that past, before I realized I was mad at the wrong thing. It's not the individual admins, it's the whole anti-spam mindset. 95% of the time, the content actually does need to go, but the way we go about doing that is pretty much guaranteed to drive off potentially valuable editors. I doubt I can help too terribly much, but I'll see if I can give it a try. Step one would be revising {{spamusername}}. We might as well replace what's there with a big giant "fuck off" notice. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for offering to step in. I really have to bow out, as I have some testing to do for work, and am badly behind. I just want you to know that I send ctwoman and email, with an offer to help, when I'm back in September. If he or she isn't totally turned off by the initial reactions, I think this can be salvaged. I hope. I guess I should also mention that I'm form Connecticut, so maybe have a minor COI when it comes to a Connecticut Hall of Fame. I have no involvement with it, didn't know it existed before today, but as a member of Wikiproject Connecticut, have an interest in coverage of issues related to Connecticut. I mention this in case it affects my perception of the issues. I fully understand that the Connecticut Women's Hall of Fame isn't exactly on a par with the Basketball Hall of Fame, but I'd like to see a more gentle interaction with an editor, who may very well end up being a useful contributor.--SPhilbrickT 21:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Understood. Have a good trip, ping me when you're back, I might want to bounce some ideas off you, or have you bounce some off me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Cute

But you still have a long way to go to catch up with El C. Risker (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Kinda hoping no one would notice... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Notice what? ;-) Risker (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Ohh, I see, I misunderstood. You must just mean I'm cute, but not as cute as El C. Thank you! :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Precisely! :D Risker (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

RonaldMerchant

Thanks for blocking RonaldMerchant. For your information, I added a comment: User talk:RonaldMerchant#Indef block. Cheers, Zerotalk 08:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. It turns out he was a sock, as you've probably seen. Cheers, --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

TreasuryTag

Unbelievable: [2]. Frankly it's a permanent community ban of this user we should be discussing, not the removal of some rant on his userpage.... *sigh* 2.121.29.24 (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

IP is up to no good (not sure who they are, it may even be TT) but restored the comment to yer talk page in the circumstances, apparently TT is standing by it. Egg Centric 21:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't care if he says "fuck you" to me. I also don't plan to get dragged into the "TT is evil" brigade; TT has some serious, long term IP trolls that pester him, and assuming there is even a possibility that the IP above is TT is irrational, and an indication you might be letting emotion control reason. I think we're reaching a point where TT cannot continue to act as he has been, I think an optimal solution would be to convince him to change, not try to push him over the edge. EC, while it doesn't rise to the level of TT's editing problems, while you're here, I'll share my opinion that you (and Sarek, even though he's not here) do more harm than good with the constant needling. It muddies the waters, and makes it harder for uninvolved admins to evaluate the situation, and makes it easier for TT to wikilawyer his way out of trouble. Now that the attacks on you on his page are gone, I wish you'd walk away from him completely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

DRV on Treasury Tag

Floquenbeam, Actually, I didn't vote on the DRV and it's acceptable to NAC a snow close. That being said, I did say any admin was free to revert me, and I'll stand by that. I'll point out that the instructions on that page never say anything about being neutral, just that you close base on consensus and in the case of non-admin closes, (as mine was ) that it cannot be a close that I can't carry out (like delete). So we're clear, I won't revert your re-opening of the DRV per my edit summary, however, I'm not too happy with your choice of words on my talk page:

You can't possibly be seen as a neutral closer. If that isn't obvious to you, then you may not have the judgement necessary to close any discussion here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This is more like commenting on the commenter, not the content. Please be more careful in the future (and read IAR as well - and yes, I do claim both Consensus and IAR on that close. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 12:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"Commenting on the commenter not the content" is a lame red herring; I have seen you attempt to use it in the past when people have pointed out your lack of judgement. You continually cause messes for other people to clean up by doing things like this; it is not some violation of CIVIL to say so. IAR implies ignoring rules when doing so benefits the encyclopedia. You weren't benefiting the encyclopedia, you were setting the stage for further dragging out of this ridiculous drama. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
No, actually, re-opening the DRV adds further drama to the situation. Closing it, however, (whether it's me or another editor) stops the drama, so yes, the encyclopedia benefited, thus my closing was IAR and Consensus. (Your reversal is still there, I won't touch it ) @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 13:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Re-opening it added zero drama, as an uninvolved editor has come along and closed it. I suspect your continual, fundamental misunderstanding of IAR and policies is likely going to get you in more serious trouble some day. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Baconator

Before you blocked him he posted to my talk page saying sorry he wouldn't vandalise any more. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but then he vandalized twice more after he left that message. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Apologies, I should have checked. Dougweller (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
No apology necessary, Doug. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Sillystuff

I modified the closed discussion because I was in the middle of composing my message and didn't know it had been closed. My apologies. If you want to remove my edit, feel free. I also regret going to all the trouble of my extended explanation, not knowing that Sillystuff had been indefinitely blocked. Oh, well.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. Sorry you wasted some of your time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your words of encouragement, you are the first one to communicate with me in a collegial and helpful manner. I am a member of the center and did try to get the name unblocked (murrowcenter) through normal channels to no avail. This has been a frustrating experience to say the least. Apparently when an account name is blocked I cant discuss it through the discussion board. I am new to Wikipedia and this has been an interesting experience.

Ericwilliamh (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)murrowcenterEricwilliamh (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Because of the amount of spam we get here, there's an unfortunate tendency to react somewhat aggressively when a new account creates an article with the same name. In general you were probably told the right things, but in the wrong way.
  • The name User:Murrowcenter is a violation of our username policy. While I would have preferred to discuss it first, it would have eventually required a name change. At this stage I don't see a need for you to request an unblock of that name; just keep using this one.
  • As someone mentioned on your talk page, since WP has a license that allows unlimited re-use, we can't accept material copyrighted by others. In order to use copyrighted material, we have a process you'll have to go through. Read WP:OTRS for more information, I think it's all in there but I'm not sure. The copyright owner (in this case, I assume, the Center or the University) may not want to do this once they read the terms of our free re-use license. In any case, it's unlikely that the text from a website of an organization is going to be written with the appropriate encyclopedic tone. Better to start from scratch, in your own words.
  • I have not looked at the deleted article, and probably won't have time to do so tonight, but please keep in mind that when we say "notable", it means something slightly different than normal human usage. We mean WP:NOTABLE. Take a look, and see if you think the Center meets this definition.
  • Like I said, WP:COI doesn't mean you can't edit here, but you'll have to bend over backwards to avoid the appearance of spinning things, and you'll likely meet some resistance from other editors (remember, anyone can edit the article once you create it, and you won't have any veto right).
Those are my off-the-top-of-my-head comments; let me know if you've got further questions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the notes.

Ericwilliamh (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)EricwilliamhEricwilliamh (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Whack-a-mole

Pop! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I must be getting soft; I haven't been accused of "admin abuse" in a while. Looks like someone else reverted it, and looks like they got bored. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Bored? Apparently not.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, I guess not. We can try WP:RBI, and if they keep it up, I suppose a range block is the next step. Numerous people have tried to explain how to make a range block to me, so perhaps this will be my first attempt. But let's give it another day and see if RBI works first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Just catching up on latest edits. That would be a really large range, too large to block, I believe. I see ANI has been semi'ed for a while by 28bytes, and if he keeps MfDing WP:WALLS and the other page we can semi those too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

SORRY

I'm really sorry for my behaviour. i guess m just frustrated because i'm new here and don't know how to deal with deletions of my contributions properly..sorry again! --Heyhello1234567 (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, everyone has a bad day, and having your contribs deleted sucks (even when the deletion is legitimate). But asking questions or for help is better than yelling and name calling, right? Good luck going forward. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You know you've been on Wikipedia too long when...

I just got a perplexed phone call from our Word Processing Dept, asking why a document I sent them had occasional words in doubled single-quotes (''like this''). To which I replied, "because I want them italicized, of course". Right after I said the words "of course", it dawned on me that this makes absolutely no sense to normal humans. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Floquenbeam. Good call. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, you too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks also for sticking around long enough to block Kevinchen(rui) (talk · contribs). I have a nasty feeling that's a sock.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yes, I'm sure he's a sock of someone you reported to AIV at some point. Comes with the territory, I'm afraid. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Need help on WP:3O for ODB++?

I added a WP:3O for ODB++ but it looks like my request is the only one there. Surely that can't be right? There must be a ton of them? What did I do wrong?Woz2 (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you're fine. It appears that when someone responds to a 3O, they remove the request from the page, and all subsequent action takes place on the article talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Great, thanks! BTW, our 3rd opinion contributor was very insightful.Woz2 (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. I agree about the 3O, I was impressed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
The Anti-Flame Barnstar
Thanks for stepping in the ODB++ edit dispute I allowed myself to get sucked into. I'm going to try to stay cool in future. Woz2 (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Well thanks, Woz2, that was unexpected! I didn't really do anything more than protect the page, but I'm glad to see you think I helped. That whole thing was a pleasant surprise; you and the other editor quickly agreed to not fight, the third opinion was (as you say) pretty insightful, both agreed, and I could unprotect pretty quickly. I like to see disputes work out like that; it's the way it's supposed to be, but you don't actually see it happen that smoothly that often. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

CSD

This comment was particularly directed at you. ╟─TreasuryTag►Osbert─╢ 07:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied there. I'm keeping an eye on the discussion until there's a resolution, so there's no need for further talkback-type messages (although I guess they're harmless if you want to be 101% sure I see something). --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocking and unblocking

In the future, I would appreciate it very much if you took the time to contact me directly – or at least to seek a third opinion at AN/I or another appropriate venue – before making an unsolicited offer to overturn one of my blocks.

Aside from being required by policy, such notification and discussion is a matter of basic courtesy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You request "basic courtesy" from me, but you didn't show it to the target of your block. I note a large number of people have disagreed with this block, and yet it is still in effect. I'm not actually convinced policy would have required me to check with you first; I think there's a difference between common practice and a requirement. Indeed, as noted above, I continue to hope and expect you would undo any of my blocks as soon as possible if you ever think they were unfair or unwise. Still, I will try to remember in the future that you prefer otherwise. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ping. About Arts Tasmania

I'm interested in re-starting that article. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Great, it struck me as a likely notable subject. The deleted article was really heavily promotional in tone, so I'm not sure it would be good to start from that article, it might be better to start fresh. I also have an unsubstantiated feeling some of it might have been taken verbatim from a copyrighted webpage, so I'm loathe to restore it and userfy it until I've checked that out further. However, if you'd like to see the old version, it's still cached on Google, and if it looks like it could be useful to you, let me know and I'll check to see if I'm being too paranoid. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, you might ping User:Arts Tasmania, although that's up to you. I have a feeling if they stick around and get a new uername, they could provide useful information, while you have a better grasp on NPOV, so you might make a good team. Or maybe you like to work alone, I don't know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Read: Question,

Re, your message; yes. Please and thank you.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 21:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Please review these blocks

Resolved
 – It was intentional. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

There was a bug in MediaWiki 1.18 that caused blocks made via the API to have talk page access disabled when it should have been enabled. This also affected scripts such as User:Animum/easyblock.js. Please review the following blocks to make sure that you really intended talk page access to be disabled, and reblock if necessary.

  1. Idiot1987 (talk · block log · block user) by Floquenbeam at 2011-10-13T21:36:03Z, expires infinity: [[WP:Vandalism-only account|Vandalism-only account]]

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to post at User talk:Anomie#Allowusertalk issue. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 02:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

He's baaack....

See here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Floquenbeam (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks much. Yeah, I'm hoping that after a while he'll realise that he's fighting a lost cause and will go back to doing more productive things with his life than trolling some guy on wiki's talkpage. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Fingers crossed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Vancouver Canucks vandal

I reverted your edit on his talk page here as we walked on each other during reverting. Calabe1992 (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

OK... --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Stupid Name

Hey, thanks for blocking User:IMASTUPIDNAME. I believe him to be a sock of User:IMAFAKENAME, blocked earlier today. Due to this, I submitted a c/u request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/IMAFAKENAME. Could you confirm that I factored that properly? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser is no longer active. You want to go to WP:SPI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I created an SPI too. What do I do to get it to appear on SPI...do I post it somewhere or wait for it to be clerked? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
It's been a long time since I've messed with SPI, but I think a clerk periodically looks at Category:SPI cases awaiting administration and does whatever is necessary. I'll delete the RFCU page for you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Oh, and thanks for the cleanup on the RFCU Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
no prob. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Quantum key distribution

Recently, I request an account block for User:Serna137 for additions to the article Quantum key distribution. The article has since come out of semi-protection and the author is back to adding the content with an IP address. It's OR, likely self-promotion, and he hasn't responded to our concerns in the talk page. I'm not sure where I should go from here. Request semi-protection again? Looking at the article history, this has been as issue since July 2010. Is there anyway to block the content itself? Skippydo (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look, give me a few minutes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
They're using a dynamic IP, so I've re-applied semi-protection for a month (and blocked Serna137) while other options are looked into. You could ask at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested whether this is the type of thing they can create an edit filter for; I know just enough about the edit filter to be dangerous, so I can't help there. In a while, when I have more time, I'll look to see if a long-term rangeblock would have too much collateral damage, but I suspect semi-protection is going to end up being the solutino. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
That's very helpful. Thank you very much for your time. Skippydo (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Glad I could help. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

for handling the attacker well. I was going to go to WP:ANI, but I did not know the appropriate procedures. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. If I hadn't noticed them on my watchlist, either a short note on WP:ANI or WP:AIV would have worked fine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you! (sorry)

Okay, seriously, forgive me for the sarcastic, dismissive, dickish comment I just left, and for implying that you were a "lackey" in the first place— both comments were unnecessary, unproductive, and obviously destroyed any chance of effectively delivering the overall point I was trying to make. I could have done so without inflammatory name calling, hyperbole and sarcasm. Occasionally becoming uncivil myself in response to incivility is one of my many flaws, and as TParis said, I have no desire whatsoever to see divisions created amongst ourselves. Swarm X 20:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Aw, just when I was enjoying my righteous indignation. Thanks for the message. It's a frustration situation, really, because I have no idea what a good solution is. There has to be a happy medium between insults 24/7, and "warning" anyone that doesn't channel Barney. Part of the solution is modelling the kind of behavior we want to see, part of it is putting ourselves in other people's shoes and cutting people who are upset a little slack, part of it is being less tolerant of people throwing rocks at dogs, and part of it is asking the dogs' friends to have a quiet word if they see their friends losing their cool, rather than an admin come along and issue a warning that, no matter how well intentioned, is going to make matters worse. If I knew how to get everyone to agree with me, this would be Wikitopia. But for some reason everyone doesn't agree with me all the time. Like I said, frustrating. Anyway, see you around. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Very well said. Best regards, Swarm X 23:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Floquenbeam

Floquenbeam,

Actually, I do. The gentleman in question never said his name, therefore any attempt to guess his name by whatever else is on his page is outing, per policy. Please read WP:OUTING it explains what outing is and that we are not allowed to "Guess" a user's name by any means. Also, let's not threaten with blocks. I'm following policy in this case. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 20:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No, like every other time you try to do something like this, you're following what you think policy is; it almost never actually says what you think it says. Three people have told you you're wrong. Don't revert again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Floquenbeam, I've read his contribs (at the moment back to Oct 4.) He NEVER says his name. Nor has anyone posted a diff where he has. WP:OUTING is explicit that his identity can't be guessed at, assumed etc.... Either shows a diff of him saying his name or retract your threat, it's that simple. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 20:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

GRuban and Sarek and George have already explained this to you. I am not going to repeat it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

They have explained they "THINK" it's him based on what's on his webpage. Again, he NEVER identifies himself, they never offer diffs showing that he did, therefore it's outing. Once again, diffs or retract your threat @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 20:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

We're just going in circles. My threat stands; do not revert again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, the repeated reverts to the "other" version of that discussion are being done by new accounts on the same, extremely large and dynamic British ISP range, so even a short-term range block is not possible. I'm not particularly inclined to semi-protect the BLPN, given its focus, so RBI is probably the best course of action. Risker (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I had exactly the same thought regarding semi-protecting BLPN; that could go spectacularly badly. RBI is fine, as long as some idiot doesn't come along and accuse me of 3RR or using my admin tools in a content dispute. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, without commenting either way on the content being reverted, it's clear that this is someone trying to create trouble for the editors and admins involved in the discussion, not any of the participants socking. Wouldn't hurt if a couple of your TPWs or other admins also keep an eye out for this behaviour as well and step in. I'm kind of busy IRL tonight so probably won't be able to do so. Risker (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
TPW's? All 2 of them? I don't say "fuck off" often enough to have lots of TPW's. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, 75, but who's counting. Incidentally, I just referred to your "cup of tea" discussion with Swarm (up above) on the Gendergap mailing list (it illustrates well someone's good suggestions on addressing certain civility issues), so that number might go up. ;-) Risker (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
(head inflates slightly. first step mailing list, second step a blog somewhere, soon god-emperor of the universe. all going according to plan.) Imagine if I had actually made practical suggestions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey Flo. Not all TPWs have such low standards. Some have more discriminating tastes. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey Dr.K., good to hear from you, been a while. You were 1 of my 2. And admit it, you only noticed it because I said "fuck off" in the edit summary... :) cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Lol. Touché. Nice talking to you too, BTW. :) Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Basically, I've been following your talk-page for a while now, and I decided you needed a companion. So here is one for you. They're cute! And provide unconditional love. Just watch out for the pee on the carpet.

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, don't sink to other people's levels. You're better than that. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Panyd! I'm a cat person, forcibly converted to being a dog person by marriage to someone with cat allergies. Good to have one around again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Maxwell's demon

Hello I apologize for all that editing. I have added something to the discussion section of Maxwells demon to get it okayed with others. However it was Wknight94 who kept undoing my post saying it was unverifiable when I did cite it and is verifiable. The thing that bothered me most is that even though the other posts where unverifiable and had no citations (in the criticism and dev) sections she did not delete those. When I asked her about them she said I was free to delete them on the same basis of unverifiable. This shows a tremendous unprofessional bias. I asked how to edit so it could be considered verifiable but Wknight94 never gave me a reply and only kept deleting. This is also very unprofessional.

However thank you for taking the time to message me. I appreciate ur concern for wikipedia, as I also value it very much (free information) and wish to contribute to make it better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanS333 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about the flurry of editing; it takes some time for new editors to get the hang of how Wikipedia works.

Unfortunately, having looked at what you're trying to add, I don't think there is a way to make it verifiable. It looks like it came from a paper you wrote, that has not been peer reviewed or otherwise meet the requirements of WP:RS. Am I correct? If I've misunderstood, please let me know. Even if you have discovered something new and correct, there will be quite a delay in publishing it in Wikipedia, because as a tertiary source, we are intentionally behind the cutting edge; we republish information that has already made it through secondary sources.

Wknight isn't really being unreasonable here. He isn't being facetious; if you find other material in the article that is wrong and unsourced, you really can either take it out, or (if you're tired of arguing) mention what specifically you're concerned about on the article talk page. Since you're new, I'd suggest being a little careful if it's a borderline call, and do it on the talk page first. If you think it's correct but unsourced, you can either look for a source, or put {{fact}} next to the item in question. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not my interest to have things published in cutting edge magazines. I wrote it on wikipedia because I want to inform other readers. I think it is a beneficial addition to the article as it provides another point on view for readers to view. It has been "peer reviewed" however not in the scientific sense as I do not intend to put it in any magazine. Regardless it is a published article, and i'm pretty sure it meets the requirements to be in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanS333 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it meets the requirements for a reliable source. We'll see what happens on the talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For remembering that the role of an admin is to defend the Wikipedia, not to harass the editors. GRuban (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, GRuban. I probably should have worded it more diplomatically, actually. But that kind of thing just pushes my buttons. I appreciate the support. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

TCO

Hi, Floquenbeam. Per your talk page notice, I'm letting you know I'm unblocking TCO's retired user alter ego. Then I will leave a note on WP:BN for a crat to earn their big bucks by merging the histories or whatever. Long time no see, hope you are well.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

Re: self-requested blocks

Hi, Floquenstein. In view of your input on Maunus' page, perhaps you'd like to consider adding yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks? I realise you're semi-retired ( :-( ), but in my experience as a member of the category, it doesn't bring in any droves of customers. Especially after I've told people I go largely by LessHeard's rules for placing such blocks. See also this post. Regards, Bishonen | talk 20:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC).

Hi Bish,
I hesitate to put myself in that category, only because someone will see my name, leave me a request without looking at my notes/warnings/caveats above, and then be disappointed when I don't reply for a long time. If/when I decide to become more active, I'll follow your good advice. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
(Or was it Frankenflock? Or User:Floquenstein's monster? Yes! It turned blue! Thank you Bishzilla! [Little 'shonen falls off chair, curls up on floor, sleeps. ])
Lol, I hadn't noticed that. Luckily, I have a personal policy on this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

User talk:Barts1a/Yell

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

I do not intend to be condescending, and I offer this advice to you without any expectation as to whether you'll take it, but your approach to the incident at the above page strikes me as wholly unnecessary. Barts1a might be under (some sort of) editing restriction, but he was trying to help out, and I even see his point. Non-admins are permitted to close XFDs, so how would one know they are prohibited from declining unblock requests (if indeed they are - I'm not aware of such an explicit policy)? You may have had a bad day at the office, misjudged the situation, or something else entirely; I don't know, and I don't much care, but please don't speak to another contributor in that way. AGK [•] 22:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Since you don't much care to know what the background is, I won't bore you with it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Nice cover for the fact you didn't even remotely think about the back-story yourself(!)Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Good lord. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Do you have any response outside of snide remarks and 5-words-or-less responses? Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
No, not really. Please go back to IRC now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? So you can call your friends to pile on me there? Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Good lord. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An IP sock, really

Hi Floq. Maybe I shouldn't have done this, being involved, but I blocked 75.21.152.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as a self-confessed block evasion of User:Djathinkimacowboy. Whole thing is rather absurd. Favonian (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocking the IP is obviously correct, as it is either (a)block evasion, or (b) a joe job troll. I've noticed an increase in (b) lately, so I have no opinion on which it is, and won't take it up with Djathinkimacowboy. I think considering you too "involved" would be way too much of a stretch. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I've seen quite a few (b) types around. Let's hope it cools off—and thanks for stepping in, by the way! Favonian (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I've tagged the IP as a sock. Based on the comments here, I also agree on the block, will be watching. Calabe1992 00:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I guess it was (a) after all. Thx Calabe. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

A beer for you!

I hope you like beer, because through my casual observation it looks like you've earned one recently. Cheers! Erikeltic (Talk) 03:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I do like beer, so thank you! Not quite sure what prompted this, but I've never turned down a free beer before in my life, and I don't plan to start now. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

My apologies.

I was trying to help clear the unblock request backlog by declining blatantly false unblock requests and unblock requests which do not even attempt to address the reasons for the block such as the one here. I noticed that after you undid my edit another admin came to the same conclusion (Minus the illegitimate unblock request part; which is probably why you undid it in the first place). Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 03:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion continuing on your ridiculous "yell" page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

RE: Unblock decline

Aye, sure, go for it. :) — Joseph Fox 03:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

And I've just completely ignored your talkback request thing on your editnotice. Sorry about that. — Joseph Fox 03:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem at all. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Geez, after all that I got sidetracked and ended up forgetting to, you know, actually do it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Djathinkimacowboy

I thought you might find this interesting - he's removed my comments from his talk page, since after claiming you were "completely mistaken" about him being warned about making unfounded sockpuppet accusations, I was able to show (with diffs) that you were, in fact, correct. Apparently, this was "unconstructive"... hypocritical and hysterical, perhaps... :) MikeWazowski (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs; I knew I'd seen it somewhere, but didn't relish finding the diffs to prove it. However, we know he's seen it, and I've seen it, and I think there is no need for you to post to his talk page anymore. And please, dial back the "hypocritical and hysterical" stuff; he can't answer back, and all it does it ratchet the dysfunction up even more. I know you dislike each other, but lets end this, one way or another, not keep it boiling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't intended to respond any further - I don't dislike him - I generally try to avoid the guy, as he continually attracts and creates drama on any article he touches. However, he's trying to alter the history of discussion on his talk page, making himself out to be the victim and labeling anything he doesn't like (or that shows him in a light he doesn't like) as unconstructive. My original post to him was factual, and his attempt to label it as unconstructive and inaccurate needs to be corrected. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Floq, I am going to follow your lead and unwatch the page too. Despite all of the issues I had with the guy, I had hoped that this time he would learn something. I still do, but I'm not hopeful. Pointed edit summaries like these[3] moments after he claimed to "have seen the light" are why I have my doubts... but one thing is certain -- reading them in my watch list isn't going to do me any good. Erikeltic (Talk) 21:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that is for the best. I'll be watching his editing when the unblock expires, and am not going to be easily misled by "I've seen the light" claims; if the disruption resumes, he'll be blocked, no matter what the claimed intentions. But I'd like for you, and Mike, and anyone else he's been in conflict with previously to be as far removed from it as humanly possible, to give the claimed new attitude as much breathing room as possible, and to make sure that there is no baiting, nor any perceived baiting, to complicate matters. (At least I now know what my beer was for... I was a bit puzzled last night). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Well... I didn't want to get in the middle of it and actually went to lengths to be somewhat vague, but I knew as soon as I stumbled over what had happened that it was going to be a hornets' nest for you and everyone involved. I really have done my best to steer clear of him and will continue to do so. Today was the first time I've spoken to or around him since early December. Today's comments will most likely be the last I ever make on his talk page. Erikeltic (Talk) 22:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Break

I have no clue how to use the wiki break enforcer i cannot be around here anymore I'm just about wanting to snap at Murry. over the last year I've been attacked so often and nothing was ever done, That SPI has a been active virtually all day without a clerk or admin looking at it which shows how serious things are taken. I cant stand it any more I'm past breaking point. Murry just dosent get it. If you can set up the wikibreak enforcer then fine. I cant be around here anymore id go so far as to say i don't see the point of this project any more i feel like the whole time I've edited has been worthless . I enjoy being here but cant stand the abuse anymore. Admins need to listen more to users and understand that this wasn't an isolated incident it has been going on for a long time he broke his block condition and personal attacked again its just ridiculous. Edinburgh Wanderer 02:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I can set it up for you. How long would you like it to be for? A week? Give me a duration, and I'll do the coding. Regarding everything else, think that's best discussed when you're in a better frame of mind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Im talking long term there is no point in discussion any more i cant be around people like this anymore i really don't want to be here. He's made a mockery out of me.Edinburgh Wanderer 02:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Tell you what, I'll set it for 3 months, and you can always email me (floquenbeam at gmail dot com) if you want to come back before then. I think you're seeing things worse than they are, but time away might bring back the enjoyment. Good luck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
If I've done it right, you just need to Bypass your cache, and it should log you out an keep you logged out. Let me know if it didn't work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't see me returning at any point to be honest. Murry took advantage of a lack of admins at spi. All any admin had to do was explain clearly why he had not broken his unblock but no one did. I asked murry to leave me alone but he wouldn't. He just won't stop with his snide little marks if he isn't a sock then I apologise all along but his behaviour isn't correct I can't stand editing somewhere admins don't explain things openly and step in to stop incivility but they dont Edinburgh Wanderer 03:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
just remove the enforcer it clearly hasn't worked. Thanks for trying. Also please don't give murry Any more bait at the SPI he hijacked it and replying any further just makes him win. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess I need to know what skin you're using before it will work. If you've changed your mind, fine. If you still want it set, let me know what skin you're using. If you want a block instead, let me know that too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Ive decided to reply calmly and if any personal attacks are made ignore them and let someone else deal with them. Its mainly me he goes after anyway but I'm sure chris or duck or Snowy will deal with it if he starts on them again. Can i ask your advice on what you would do when someone trolls. Is there a standard practice.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • EW, I have some advice if you're still interested, but time is tight for me right now, so I'll try to post a message (or maybe email, if you have it enabled) in a day or so. But in the process of trying to catch up on what happened this afternoon, I saw Murray's comments to you on his talk page, and that is really excellent advice to start out with. If you have started thinking about winning and losing vs another editor on Wikipedia, you have gotten off track. In the mean time, if they start posting with IP's in the same range, then ignore them and let me or BWilkins or Superm401 know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Roddie Clark article

Hi Floquenbeam. I noticed that you enacted the speedy delete request I put on the Roddie Clark article. There's still an open discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roddie Clark; I'm unable to close it as a non-admin closure like I normally would as I've expressed an opinion in the debate. Was wondering if you'd do the honours? (What a nuisance that editor is). Cheers, Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was on my to do list, but I'm juggling several things, and if you wouldn't mind closing it, no one is going to complain about the NAC - you wouldn't be interpreting anything, it would just be a description of what happened. Take IAR by the horns! :) Thanks for the note though, and if you're still not comfortable doing it I'll get to it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll do it now :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Djathinkimacowboy page protection

Just a note to say that I'm glad you did not put a protection lockdown on his talk page. I've had near-zero interaction with any involved party, but I actually had legit wikibusiness on his talk page, and such a protection would have prevented me from communicating with him. I'm not sure anyone but the involved parties ever care all that much when people talk smack on their own user talk pages, so protecting it wouldn't really solve anything. Just being bored and curious I read Djathinkimacowboy's "epiphany" message and the warnings leading up to it, and maybe he'll actually get the point and be more productive and collegial. I'm sure you had entirely legit reasons for blocking him. Anyway, the point is: please don't protect user talk pages, or it's hard to talk to users.  ;-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 05:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite as optimistic, but hopefully you're correct and this one will take. Locking down the page would have been more out of frustration than rationality; I often tell people to unwatchlist a page if it is causing them distress, so it would have been pretty hypocritical of me to have ignored my own (excellent) advice. Thanks for the note. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong ocean

Re [4]: I live in California, so the Pacific comes to mind by default. :) —howcheng {chat} 20:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't lived on the West Coast in 17 years, and have been on the East Coast for 11 years, and the Pacific is still the default ocean for me too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

Consensus reached?

I participated in the discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Episode_counts_and_updating_times Ït seems a consensus has been reached. What do you think? Can I begin updating episode counts, if no one has done it first? Wingard (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If no one has done it and the episode has begun airing on the east coast, then you can upload it Wingard. But if it's done, then leave it be. And me and you don't match up to a consensus. Others have to chime in as well. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 18:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Wingard, please wait a day or so, to see if more than one person wants to discuss this; as MF says, 2 people in a couple of hours isn't really a consensus. I'll make some comments there later today, when I have a little more time. But thank you for waiting, and initiating the discussion, and thanks to both of you for improving the tenor of the discussion by an order of magnitude or two from last week. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not here to cause drama or get into catty, little fights. Never was, never will. I'm just trying to help out all soap pages, as they are a passion of mine. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 19:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand that MF, I don't think I said you were? I may have criticized some of your comments and actions last week, but if I said or implied that your purpose was to cause drama or start fights, then I apologize, and you should point me to where I said it. I hope you will find, in time, that the same is going to be true of Wingard's editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

In a few hours a day has passed, so I wonder if it's ok if I update tonight if someone didn't beat me to the punch? And by tonight I mean, we in Sweden are 6 hrs ahead of the EST times. Please reply ASAP. Wingard (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to matter to anyone else, so sure, I guess, go ahead. If anyone ever questions you on it, remember to discuss calmly with them, not revert. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I promise. So glad my promises finally counts for something. Thank you for your reply. Wingard (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's been told, to me at least, you have to wait until the episode has begun to air on the east coast before you can change the episode count, since the episode may or may not be pre-empted. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 17:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
If you mean that they would have to be actually watching it on TV first, that might make a certain amount of sense theoretically, but practically speaking this seldom happens, and is easily fixed. If the agreement is that the count is updated as soon as the episode starts, Eastern US time, then I think it is safe for anyone (though leaving it to Wingard is harmless, IMHO) to update it after that time. On the rare event that it is actually pre-empted, someone will come along soon enough to undo the update and explain why, at which point no one will edit war to update it again, so all is well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I did wait, and it has begun, right? Wingard (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think so, unless I've misunderstood something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A pleasure and an honour for me:


 The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For commendable restraint and patience, and hope for a seemingly hopeless editor. --Djathinkimacowboy 03:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, and good luck with "the new you". --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

AN/G

I love your idea. Cheers Manning (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It'll never happen, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

Re: Jewish quote

I'm almost certain I ran across this very same quote two weeks ago. I'll try and find it later tonight if you haven't already found it yourself. Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Viriditas, that would be great; I have not found it myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
A friend has pointed me to Abraham Joshua Heschel. I'm looking into it now. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, let me know if anything here rings a bell. Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
It sounds like my quote is something he would say, but none of them on that page is the right one. Same for Louis Jacobs; sounded like something he'd say, but no quote I can find by him matches. I'll do a little online research later today with this new name and various word combinations I think were in the quote, and let you know if I find anything. Thanks much for this new lead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Could it be that this is the quote you are searching for?
From the Pirkei Avot (2:1):
"The world stands on three things: Torah (Jewish learning), Avodah (service of God) and acts of Chesed (loving-kindness)"
Chesed is more than just loving-kindness. It has profound implications to the application of any law, since it expands the narrow legalism into a compassionate system. Ecce Lector (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Ecce Lector, thanks for the interest. Unfortunately, no, it isn't what I remember seeing. I found the name of the prayerbook yesterday, and spent quite a while scanning the entire thing on Google Books looking for the quote, but they only show +/- half the pages, and it wasn't there. Thanks again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you found the quote? What was the name of the prayerbook actually? I got curious, like others ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.76.164.174 (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I never did, starting to think I'm not going to find it except by looking in the same book again. The prayer book was called "Mishkan T’filah" and is printed by CCAR Press. I have a standing invitation from the rabbi to drop in and browse through it the next time I'm in that area, but it will likely be a while, the synagogue was a bit of a drive. Thanks for the interest. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Episode counts again

Resolved
 – I am apparently too gullible.

It looks like User:Wingard and User:Musicfreak7676 are in a race to see who can update soap opera episode counts first. Both have complained about the other updating the count 1 minute before actual air date. Neither user has exactly bathed themselves in glory over this, and I'm not sure what, if anything, needs to be done right now. However, I'm keeping an eye on the situation and would appreciate it if you would too. AniMate 20:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

AniMate is over-reacting to this situation. I'm not trying to cause a commotion, it's AniMate reading too much into something. I've simply been told before to not update an episode count prior to the episode beginning to air and I simply am trying to avoid them being blocked again, as they've been nothing but a model editor since returning. There's no need to "calm down" since I'm honestly not trying to cause any harm. There's no need to "keep an eye out" as I'm not trying to get any in trouble right now. Not anywhere near the top of my list right now. I'm just simply going on what I've been told by members in the past and don't want them being penalized for actually doing what they've set out to do. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 20:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to fight either, so as MF put it, there's no need to watch out. Not any of us are trying to fight. I'm telling you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingard (talk • contribs)

There has been a bit of a race to see who can get there first, and it's just so silly. Still, if neither of you think there is a problem, then I suppose there isn't. Still, having more eyes on the situation for the foreseeable future isn't a bad thing. AniMate 20:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
It's not a race, though. Nor do I think there needs to be eyes AniMate. I'm just trying to help Wingard. I didn't go attacking them or yelling at them, either. I was completely calm about it. Didn't want them getting banned again for actually doing what they were supposed to do. You're the one who's reading too much into the situation. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 20:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Hello everyone. The Universe appears to be unfolding as it should; Wingard and Musicfreak were both relatively calm, polite, and non-escalative, and appear to have worked things out. AniMate and I were both frustrated with this issue last week (as, I'm sure, were both of you), so I can understand his/her abundance of caution. To be honest, I am indeed occasionally sneaking a peek at everyone's talk page to reassure myself that all is now well, but I don't think there have been, or are going to be, any significant problems. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. I don't wish to cause any problems, nor intended to in the past. Things happened during a bad time and I have no intentions cause a commotion. Never did. And I just wanted that known, that's all. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 21:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Me neither, not anymore. All is well. Wingard (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wingard broke the rules of his contract, though I don't know if it was unintentional. I, when editing, changed the "Start Date" code to the actual code, and after I had done so, he went on to revert said edit and is now accusing me of reverting his, which I did not do. If you clearly look at my edit, the episode count was never touched. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 18:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Days. I accidentally put "Updated episode count" as I thought it read something else. I simply updated the coding for the start date, and then, if you look, 17 minutes later, it was reverted back by Wingard. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 18:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. Sorry. But the presen-t day episode thing only need to be done ione time right? And it was not intentional. Wingard (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I just thiught he reverted my update, but then when he pointed it out I saw he wasn't. It will never happen again. But can you please tell me if the start date he is talking about needs to be updated regularly or just one time? Wingard (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion moved to User talk:Wingard. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note. I'm glad this mess is over and think you handled things quite well. While the time sink was regrettable, giving a second chance here wasn't a bad thing. AniMate 22:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks AniMate, I respect and appreciate your opinion. I was surprised how quickly it all went bad; I actually meant the silly platitudes I spouted a few lines above, I thought things had changed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
This has been going on since 2008, so I'm not overly surprised, but I did hope. As soon as I saw Wingard had reverted someone removing his comment on a user talk page and pretending that he didn't know people were allowed to remove such comments, I knew this was done, considering the four years of talk page blanking they had been engaged in. Excellent re-block and warm thumbs up for be willing to give a second chance. AniMate 17:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks much. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Archiving of Deleted Articles

Thanks. I had hoped that Fastily would notice and jump to action. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What you suggested was standard practice, it's just that she'd already tried that once, and it felt like after going to Fastily's talk, ukexpat's talk, and ANI, that sending her back to fastily again would look like she was stuck in call-transfer hell. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I applied a Fastily-friendly reading of her message. I don't think Fastily's answer there will do us any favors in the customer rankings department. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Userfying Article

Thank you for doing that with the Vivid Racing article. I appreciate the support.Betty Merm (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Good luck with it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


MSU Interview

Dear Floquenbeam,


My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

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

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

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Not really optimistic about this place right now; probably don't want me talking to impressionable young minds. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Surturz/AdminWatch (2nd nomination)

Formatted for you :-) Tweak as necessary. Regards, Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 02:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you; I close xfd's about once every 6 months, and can never remember the details. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, sorry about the "ph" in the MFD's edit summary. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Zomg, that's an unforgivable offence. ;-) (seriously though, if I had a dollar for every time...) Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 02:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

G4 on AdminWatch

Hi there. I see you speedied my AdminWatch page under G4. Could I ask you to reconsider? The original close was "Delete - with no prejudice against recreation in different form." I assert that the new page was in a different form and there is not enough similarity between the original and the new page to be eligible for G4. Also, part of the original close was this:

Also, there has been a major change to the page during this MFD ([1]) which removed the usernames of the admins in question and changed the scope of the page drastically, rendering most !votes before this change less convincing, if not moot.(link)

This, I believe, invalidates your closing comment that "The last version of the previous page also did not have the admins' names in it, and it was still deleted" as a rationale. The only admin to assert that the page was not different to the old version is Elen, whose has WP:COI as it was her original G4 that was overturned at DRV. Toddst1 also has WP:COI issues as nominator, and his nomination was misleading - he misquoted the result of the first MfD, and mentioned the two speedies but neglected to say that they had been overturned. --Surturz (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't G4 it because Elen or Toddst1 said it was the same. I actually looked at the deleted page, and it was indeed the same basic thing, with the same basic problem described by SoWhy. Give me a second and I'll quote the portion of SoWhy's close I had in mind. The "different form" SoWhy describes is if you were temporarily storing information in preparation for an RFC or ArbCom or other dispute resolution; that is not what you were doing. I think you'll find, if you review my editing history here, that I don't close ranks with other admins for the sake of closing ranks; but this page is not the way to achieve the elusive "admin accountability". I thought this through, and am convinced it was a very clear application of G4. Sorry if this disappoints. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The portion of his close I had in mind is: "There is also a agreement though that the problem with the page is mainly the record of specific administrative actions to be listed there indefinitely and not the idea of keeping a watch on problematic behavior by administrators. UP#POLEMIC after all allows such diffs to be compiled if dispute resolution is planned. While a number of people admitted that the page's creator was not given the chance to make a case for this, he did in fact claim that he did want to keep the list indefinitely, i.e. in a way not covered by UP#POLEMIC's exception." --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I have never claimed that the diffs on the new version of the page were intended to hand around for ever, nor was I ever asked. The portion you have quoted refers to the state of the original page at the time of the first MfD nomination, which was a list of admin names followed by diffs for each. I acknowledged at the time that that formulation of the page was in violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC at the time of the first nomination and made efforts to change the format during the MfD. As SoWhy says in your quote, there was no problem with "...the idea of keeping a watch on problematic behavior by administrators". Version 2 of the page only had administrator actions that were reversed because they were problematic. Different structure, different intention, different page.
Could you have a chat with SoWhy? If he endorses your speedy I won't pursue DRV. --Surturz (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on SoWhy's talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I would also suggest Surturz actually read WP:COI, rather than just wikilink to it. I think he'll find it has nothing to say on the subject. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It does, actually: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests". You asked editors to trust your judgement on a G4 without declaring that you had previously had a G4 overturned on the same userpage, nor mentioning that the only links were to. You either made another error of judgement by not declaring your previous involvement, or were letting your personal interest in avoiding a full MfD get in the way. When an admin (or arb) says "trust me, these two pages you can't see are both the same", non-admins have a right to believe that the admin (or arb) that says that is competent and has declared any personal interests that may be relevant. 

Anyway, though I disagree with them, SoWhy has endorsed Floquenbeam's G4, so I'll drop the matter. --Surturz (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

TCO subpage

You were the one to block him, so I'm writing to you. He's got a page I need: User:TCO/Fluorine/ref checking 2012. We used (and I keep using) it as a page for the ref checking drive for Fluorine. Could you move it somewhere so I could edit it?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Please never mind. Me so stupid. That big red bar confused me. It's all fine--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm such a fantastic admin that I can now solve problems without actually doing anything; just posting on my talk page is now sufficient to solve most problems. :) Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Barts1a/AGK/Unblock Requests

While you were right with that whole shindig, you weren't exactly the most civil with the way you handled it. Barts1a was only trying to help. I've cautioned him against doing it again. N419BH 09:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't reply to this on-wiki; I'll email you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Received, replied, thanks! N419BH 21:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Received, agreed, and cheers. Need to go look for a "patience of Job" barnstar for you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I guess you guys sorted this out among yourselves, but I thought I should mention that I already pointed out to Floquenbeam that his handling of Barts1a's actions was sub-optimal. The thread was deleted, so this probably wasn't obvious, but someone has already pulled Floquenbeam up about this; however, Barts1a went unchallenged. AGK [•] 21:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
People who are familiar with the situation they're commenting on, such as N419BH, are always welcome to provide criticism/feedback here, regardless of whether it's been brought up as a drive-by comment by someone less familiar beforehand. Indeed, I much prefer the former. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I won't push the point or overstay my time here, but administrators are required to respond to all reasonable criticism of their actions. THe community would prefer, and require, the latter (and 'drive-by' does not per se mean wrong!). AGK [•] 22:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
A perfectly good orange bar, shot to hell. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I do hope that is not the personal attack I see it as! If it isn't feel free to correct... Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Shoo. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

SEMI RETIRED PEOPLE DON'T MAKE NULL EDITS

Hi. :) Pedro :  Chat  22:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a new redlinked category for my user page: Category: Semi-retired people who make null edits.  :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Hee - sounds a winner. Hope you and yours are well sir. Pedro :  Chat  22:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
They are, thanks. I hope the same. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, and we are! The lack of snow (we're in the very south of the UK) upset the kids for two days, but other than that all good. Pedro :  Chat  22:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Vivid Racing article questions

I thought since you offered, I would first ask you about my article changes. By the way, could I have written this message back up under the old one? I did look at the inclusion guidelines and at a couple of the Category:Automotive motorsports and performance companies, as you suggested. Here are my questions: 1. In the first paragraph of my article in red is "citation needed", I think it says. Is a citation here a reference or what do I need there? 2. The History section seems just informational to me. Are there any deletions necessary there to you? 3. The Shop seems informational as to what their company offers mehanically for upgrading cars or do you think otherwise? 4. Other Business might need the section taken out "AP has established.....AP brand is recognized globally" and would this then make it less spammy? 5. The same as #4 for the last sentence starting "In combination...." 6. Is the Advertising and Publicity section something that is not acceptable? I thought the references to the magazines, car rally, etc. made it notable. In reading other articles about businesses and their products, I'm having a hard time seeing how much of my article is too much advertising.Betty Merm (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Betty,
I'm just online for a couple of minutes, but I'll take a look tonight or tomorrow and comment on the talk page of the user draft: User talk:Betty Merm/Vivid Racing. If I don't reply there in 24 hours 48 hours (sorry, really busy today), feel free to nudge me. And yes, you could have put this in the previous section above, but starting a new section is certainly fine too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Answered at User talk:Betty Merm/Vivid Racing. I'm watching that page; any further discussion about the article can be handled there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

Nflfacts2k2

nflfacts2k2 (talk · contribs)

This user has reinserted unsourced original research with POV throughout without an edit request on the talk page in violation of COI and the terms of your unblock. The text is exactly the same as the text I removed here. I am requesting you re-block the account. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced a block is needed quite yet, but they have demonstrated that they need to be editing the talk page, not the article page. I've left a note to that effect on their user talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your kind generosity and support in that ANI discussion I was involved with Floquenbeam. Thanks a lot for supporting me. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✍ Stalk me) 05:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't exactly support, so much as recognizing the wisdom of you two disengaging. I'm not really taking a side, one way or the other. But you're welcome, anyway, if you found the comments useful. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail~!

Hello, Floquenbeam. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Got it, trying to decide if a reply is needed. If so, I'll give you a {{ygm}} in the future. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

Thanks!

Thanks a lot for taking care of those IP vandals tonight. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 01:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You're quite welcome; looks like you're doing your fair share too. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

At ANI

Thank you for finalizing that incident report. User:DL took all the wrong steps, but I am in compliance with what I've been told to do. Noticed any other disruptive posts at that page. For example threats posted to disrupt the page. Noticed them?. ANI report inconclusive. Policy page and talk page remain disrupted. Get rid of *me* and it will all be fine and dandy there? Don't think so. NewbyG ( talk) 01:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't plan to try to make WT:V perfect, or even try to solve its inherent dysfunction; that job is above my pay grade. I handled this issue because it was clear, and easily manageable, and was at least a step in the right direction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I just blocked NewbyG 24 hours for this i'll-stop-disrupting-when-you-do comment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I have no problems with that. Still trying to puzzle out whether this is unintentional or intentional. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I was about to retract that when it ec'd. I apologize for my reaction. I was "involved" in the situation, and reacted in a way unbecoming of a... human being. Very sorry. Doc talk 04:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Doc, I appreciate the note. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Poking my nose in; you might want to see this. Pesky (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer, but I'm not entirely comfortable speculating about other users like that, so I'll leave it to you two. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the minor helpful role you played in the incident that got me blocked. I intuit that you were acting in good faith. No, my medications are working at the usual level. No I am not a different person. Yes, I didn't own a computer for a bit, and technology has zoomed ahead yet again, leaving me in the wash. One thing - intentional? If you have taken the most cursory glance at my contribs, and you doubt my good faith, maybe you need your eyes tested. <smileyface thing> NewbyG ( talk) 06:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • (>**)> Hugz, NewbyG. Apologies if I was in any way out of order; I'm usually around in one form or another, feel free to email me, and you're welcome on my talk, of course. Pesky (talk) 08:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Newbyguesses, just to clarify, by "intentional" I didn't say, or mean, "bad faith". I did notice your long history of good faith contribs here, and that's what had me puzzled. I was unsure if you were posting that way because you thought it was helping (from my perspective, it most certainly wasn't), or because you were frustrated and trying to make a point (which is still good faith, if unproductive). And, at the risk of sounding defensive, I was trying to be clear that I didn't consider your personal stuff my business. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Huigz to Floquenbeam, too (>**)>. (And you;re also welcome over at my talk, any time.) The only reason(s) I ever stick my nose anywhere with a possible mitigating circumstance is because I like to make sure that justice is tempered with mercy wherever relevant, and because sometimes if there is some underlying reason, that can be either fixed, or there's a workaround, or it can be taken into account. Apologies for being a granny ... we grannies are renowned for being a bit like that! Pesky (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
@user:Floquenbeam, thank you for clarifying that. I do truly concur. I do not wish to discuss such personal matters, in such a public arena, other than to offer "Best wishes". That is in line with my own personal preferences, and as you are obviously saying here, it does not "directly" help the encyclopedia to discuss PM's. We are all humans and sentient beings, behind the *avatars*, and feel empathy. It is best to express that empathy by being cheerful, and helpful, which unfortunately *I* fail at, from time to time, but I try. Thanks for the helpful input to discussion at that other talk page, which appears to have concluded for now. Boy, I am bushed, gonna go read an article. Cheers. NewbyG ( talk) 00:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/February 22

Hello! When correcting the italics, you missed the closing parenthesis (which I've added). I'm just noting this for future reference, as it occurs from time to time. Thanks! —David Levy 23:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for fixing it. I'll try to remember next time, but there are no guarantees... --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Hehe, thanks. It happens.  :) —David Levy 01:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

Counting

I have read few things more apt than this. I wish I could write things as brilliant. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well that's very kind of you to say, 28bytes, thank you very much. It's interesting you link to a specific version (the braggart in me says "thank you"); I'm torn about having it in WP space where others can change it. Now I kind of have a clue how article writers feel when articles they've put a lot of time into are modified by others. One's initial impulse really is to revert all changes, open editing be damned. The only other option I think I can live with is to just leave it completely alone and let everyone have their way with it. I don't think I could stand the middle ground, where I'd actually have to talk to people. I don't know how people who write, you know, featured articles and stuff can stand it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I know exactly what you mean. I was very close to removing the later additions; without intending offense to the other editors, the later additions simply don't improve it. Sometimes less is more, and that's very much the case here, I think. Your version (plus the typo fix) was far superior, and it's only out of a sense of not wanting to piss more people off than I already am that I didn't revert to it. 28bytes (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I should write an essay about it :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

RE:Barnstar

Somewhere it's written in either the mentoring page or an essay on it that mentorship only works if the mentoree wants it to. I stand by what I have said and if someone doesn't like it that is their problem. He is now on his own. N419BH 06:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

As you can probably tell from my own less-than-polite interaction with him a few weeks ago, I certainly empathize. Hopefully you can now better understand where I was coming from back then too, and understand as well how annoying it is when people who haven't been dealing with the situation for a long time drop by to lecture about harshness, without trying to understand the reason for it (not talking about you, to be clear, but someone else). Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI

There is more development; I hope you can clarify the situation. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I doubt you want to hear this, or are going to accept it, but you are making a mountain out of a molehill. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me get this straight (so that I can cite this example later): an editor tells another editor to "Fuck off", and then "idiot", and he is let off with a warning. The other editor demands clarification , and that is liable for banning. Yes, I will make a proper note of this point, and also of the excuse used "I said it at the heat of the moment". That way I can tell everyone how to escape from being persecuted on ANI. Oh, not to mention, I should start making friends with admins so that they will be there to help me out if I get into a problem. Good day, and thanks for teaching me something new. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you have got this completely wrong. "Fuck off, idiot" resulted in a warning. He didn't repeat the offense, and indicated that it was a one-off. Pestering him after things were resolved resulted in a polite request to leave his page alone. But you did repeat the offense, and indicated you were not going to stop. You were not asking for clarification, you were trying to stir things up more. That resulted in a stronger warning. Hyperbole and saying silly things are not going to get you what you want, which you made clear is to "win". The Yeti is not my friend (I've never heard of him before this), but I'm becoming sympathetic to what caused his outburst. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Very good, so basically we are in perfect agreement; you are sympathetic of what the editor did (which was foul-mouthedly abuse another editor) by believing whatever he said in defense, and accepted his lousy excuse that he said that "at the heat of the moment". I already stated somewhere, next time even I can use that excuse too. I will bookmark this edit history so that in case somebody tries to point it out, I will show it to them. And whatever you say is not fact and will never be, and the actual fact is that I wasn't stirring things up; I was asking clarification. Sorry, but I cannot care if you disagree with that. And it wasn't a warning, in the foul-mouthed editor's words it was a "veiled threat" of banning for nothing at all, and it wasn't me who personally abused anybody; that is a fact and it is also a fact that a "warning" was peppered with "I agree with you on underlying principles" etc. Quite a harsh and strict warning, I must say. End of discussion. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
No, wrong again, purposefully wrong again. You're being intentionally obtuse, so I give up trying to talk to you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Purposefully. I think I stated, "whatever you say is not fact and will never be". I already wrote this in my last comment : "End of discussion". Funny to see its you who are continuing it. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

fyi

The moon is currently waxing gibbous[1] and the price of Mansuli Rice in Kalihot, Napel is 60/kg [2]. Unfortunately I have no idea what currency units the 60 is in. Nobody Ent 16:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.moonconnection.com/moon_phases_calendar.phtml
  2. ^ http://www.agripricenepal.com/content/search/?S_DAY_1=03&S_MONTH_1=01&S_YEAR_1=2012&part=209&imageField32.x=55&imageField32.y=15&search_type=1_c_d_m&ln=en
LOL :D. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
See, that's the approach to take in this situation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
For your attempts at resolving a contentious issue between two editors that all began on the talk page for John Carter. Well, regards. Jedi94 (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Why thank you, Jedi94! I appreciate the thought, and the hardware. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Evilzionistantichrist

Hi, I noticed you have blocked User:Evilzionistantichrist. Just as a heads up, the edits and username are the MO of the serially banned/sock-puppeteer User:Aryan2012 (See Special:Contributions/Aryan2012). He has been quiet on the articles edited today for a year or so.However, it seems that now his favourite article, Omar Bakri Muhammad, has been protected he may be turning his attention back to some of the other articles he haunts.Pit-yacker (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I agree this passes the duck test. I've watchlisted the articles, but feel free to let me know if he pops up somewhere again and I miss it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Djathinkimacowboy

HI. I see you've met this feller. I just did, too, about two hours ago on J. Edgar Hoover, where he's removed page needed tags four times and gotten all high-horse about pages not being needed on citations. Rather than take it to WP:AN3, I'll point you at it:

The cites in question refer to whole books and given all the controversy concerning Hoover, pages would be appropriate to justify the claims made; I've no real interest in the Hoover article, as I explained on the article's talk; I just happened to edit it the other day because it was mentioned on Template talk:Cleanup where there's a noisy discussion. Speaking of tags, there's an unhelpful one on your user page… Alarbus (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Alarbus,
  • Djathinkimacowboy placed on WP:0RR for a month.
  • You were edit warring too; being right usually isn't a defense. The asymmetry in previous editing history is the only reason for the asymmetry in my response.
  • What unhelpful tag on my user page?
--Floquenbeam (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I'll go look at his talk. I'll also ignore that article. The tag I was referring to was the semi-retired one. Cut that out, please. And I don't like talk backs; I'd check back soon enough. See my commons.css (no orange bars). Alarbus (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Aw, I like the semi-retired tag. Admittedly it was truer once than it is right now, but I definitely expect it will be truer again soon enough. It emphasizes the possibility that I'll just disappear at any time for days and/or weeks, with just the right hint of project disenchantment, without being some kind of drama queen screed. Perhaps you can make your common.css file hide such tags? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
There's too much of that going around; darkens the place. Sure I could hide it from myself, but what about everyone else? We need more asymmetric behaviours to get this place working properly.
Dj's back, as you've seen; he reverted on Hoover and made a post on this really interesting (and busy) page:
It goes on for several sections. Alarbus (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Doh; I'd not seen the change, which I 👍 Alarbus (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam, for those days when you are in the mood for a drama queen screed, use this one. Cheers, -- Dianna (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh cool! But now I want to steal every banner on Yomangani's page. BTW, welcome to my little red category; nice to have some company. Don't blue link it (nevermind), though, or we'll have the hounds of hell descending on us for violating some policy somewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Though I can appreciate how fun this is for you two, and it may even be intended as a test for me, I call your attention to this[5] so you may see these things resolve themselves with a ringing beauty. So please, if I may humbly ask, can the slightly drafty little back-nipping I'm feeling from here please cease? —Djathinkimacowboy 08:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I really don't think there is any "slightly drafty little back-nipping" here. If you're going to get your feelings hurt when someone simply points out a page you edited (and that's all he did, point out a page), you're going to get them hurt a lot, I'm afraid. I didn't bother to look at Talk:Ring (jewellery) when it was pointed out to me, because I don't want to be seen as your fairy godmother, responsible for every post you make. But I have now, and to be honest, Geni is bending over backwards to work with you, you're being sort of difficult there (latching on to the unsigned post springs to mind as one example). If I can be blunt, the problem here is the old "eggshells armed with hammers" syndrome. When someone says something to/about you, even when it's harmless, you take offense easily. But when someone takes offense at something you've said, even when it was kind of rude, you always say that they're being unreasonable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, fair enough. You really don't think so, I will take you at your word. The only thing I was concerned about was the fact that A. said I was "back". In fact I was not "back" and so I took the trouble to show you the good side of that unfortunate situation at Ring (jewellery). Honestly, why is it you are seemingly blind to the fact that I catch my behaviour and try to make amends? Too many amends, you say...but at least it is something positive. That's all. No biggie, and certainly I'm not looking for a fairy godmother, sugar daddy, or anything else. I'm also just 'pointing out' something.—Djathinkimacowboy 04:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Forgive me, I just had to comment in addition: you say things like 'eggshells armed with hammers' and I think that is unfair. Nearly 100% of your claims I feel are fair enough and merited. So...according to you, it is just fine if another editor does it to me, because, well, no one else here has my history, is that right? Note I am not saying another editor has done this recently. This is purely illustrative. Just food for thought.—Djathinkimacowboy 04:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm too tired and cranky to think about this tonight, Dja. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not anyone's place to address any 'hurt feelings' I may or may not have. I'm not here to pester you in any way, and maybe I just got too wordy about it. I apologise. Unless you decide otherwise, let's drop it. It's not my intention to keep coming here, unless of course I have a matter of business.—Djathinkimacowboy 09:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

  • It isn't really that I don't want you to post here, Dja, I just really was tired and cranky and didn't want to post anymore (the "-1 charisma" in the edit summary referred to me, not to you). That said, I'm not sure what more to say. I don't mean you have to take all kinds of abuse and always always turn the other cheek. I mean that, in my opinion, which could always be wrong, and which I wouldn't be forcing on you if you weren't asking, you seem to go out of your way to look for slights directed at you, but at the same time, seem tone deaf about how your comments to others will be taken. The "eggshells armed with hammers" comment is a famous description of the internet in general; I think you exhibit that trait, but you aren't alone. I saw it a little in Alarbus too; I certainly see it in me from time to time. It's probably human nature, but if it gets too far out of whack it becomes a problem.

    The ideal would be to just dial back the sensitivity to reacting to others' comments a bit, and simultaneously dial up the sensitivity to seeing others' point of view a little, to get closer to a reasonable balance. my 2 cents, your mileage may very, caveat emptor, etc etc. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That was well said. I want you to know I appreciate and understand. You know, it is a problem with me...the sensitivity, the anger that flares. It is a part of my daily life and I know people around me get a bit tired of it; I was born to a fighting clan. Your discipline and advice are big reasons I began the trip toward self-improvement. What I think is if successful here, it can begin to cross into real life. But I do blow my top sometimes. And you are right: it is human nature. Buddha taught, 'A man who can control his temper is like a charioteer who can skillfully steer 10,000 elephants.'—Djathinkimacowboy 04:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

Thank You

I'm so sorry I couldn't respond sooner, I had an unexpected delay shortly after I made my request to User:Bishonen, I had to leave the house for a few hours and I just got home, I Thank you for taking the time to block my old account at my request, I apologize that I was not here to contact you sooner, if only there was a way to let people know when I'm logged in or not so I dont seem rude, Just know your help is appreciated. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't give it a second thought, I never assumed you were being rude. I, too, have a real life. And you're welcome for the block. I can't imagine how, but if this ever causes problems for you, let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
It's a Wikipast I am not proud of, and feel it best be left in my past, the block will prevent me from ever becoming tempted at sockpuppetry again, Last july I made a promise to myself and to the good people of Wikipedia, that I have one account and that it is all I will ever use for the rest of my wikicareer. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Rejedef

Your decision to close this out with a conventional block (not an AE block) looks fine to me. Conventional blocks ought to be considered more often at AE. Do you mind if I change your closure box at AE to look more like the usual AE style? EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Tim already tweaked the close, but if more tweaking is needed, feel free. I was just trying to interpret the "instruction", and would have been amazed if I'd got it right. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wolfly hugz

Huggy Wolf says thank you
(>**)> Mucho hugzies for your input on that IP's talk page. I hope that poor guy comes back and at least sees it. Pesky (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I hope so too. btw, I'm not entirely sure "mucho hugzies" is proper Spanish... --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well crap

I was going to do something special for edit #10,000, but I wasn't paying attention and wasted it on the middle of a mass rollback of a vandal. </mope> --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Up-arrow Level up! +1 Wisdom, -1 Charisma, +5% troll resistance. You have gained the block sockpuppets without detailed explanation perk. MastCell Talk 04:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
LOL. MastCell, you rock. Thanks for the laugh before bedtime. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Awww, that's so sad! I meant to do something special with 15,000, and forgot about it until too late ... (>**)><(**<) Commiseratory granny-hugz. Pesky (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks. I assumed my comment might start a fight and I'm sorry for assuming the worst. v/r - TP 17:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm editing with a shitty attitude today, and should go do something else instead. Thanks for the reality check. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Lover of penguins

Hi, I see that you indeffed Penguinluver1431. Quite a relief!

You will likely want to extend the block to User:Penguinluver9581, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Penguinluver1431. Thank you for your attention. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked the sock, and blocked the IP per DUCK. IP block is only for a week in case it's dynamic; let me know if problems resume from this IP after a week is up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Sure thing. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Participation at AE

Hi, Floquenbeam! I'd like to say a brief word about what you wrote, at Arbitration Enforcement, "I have, with some trepidation (all the rules about AE scare me, I'm sure I'm going to do something wrong and be desysopped and then shot and then desysopped again) blocked Rejedef indefinitely. This is explicitly not an AE action ...". I thought you'd like to know that last year the community revoked the second "desysoping" in the protocol you describe. Some regular AE participants were of the opinion that it should be replaced with making the erring admin listen to this in the afterlife, instead, but wiser heads prevailed, and the overwhelming consensus was that that was just too cruel by far.

Seriously, though, I just wanted to express my appreciation for your participation at AE, and would like to encourage you, and other admins, too, to do so more regularly, if you can possibly find the time. I've followed reports on that board for a year or two, now, off and on, and certainly feel that broader participation from our admin corps would be all to the good. I say so because there have been intervals where the great majority of "rulings" there have come from no more than two or three people; there have even been stretches of multiple weeks where a single admin ( no longer very active on the board ) seemed to be turning in 80 - 90% of the decisions there. Of course, such thin participation on an important board like AE is far from ideal.

I understand from the notice at the top of this page that you may be curtailing the time you spend on Wikipedia, but I nevertheless wanted to say "thank you" for finding the time to look in at that board, and encourage you to do so in the future. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi OhioStandard,
Thanks for the note. I understand everything you're saying, agree it's important, and agree it's good to have multiple admins there. But (you knew that was coming I assume) I probably won't be able to pick up much of the slack there, at least in the near future. My time online is usually fractured, and it's about to resume being more limited than what it's been recently. Most AE threads seem to involve looking into a lot of background, and I doubt I'll have the time. It usually comes in 5 minute intervals that are fine for whacking a vandal, but not great for looking at complicated disputes. Still, I'll keep in mind that AE exists and is in need of warm bodies, and take a peak from time to time if my schedule allows. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
p.s. Thanks to your prodding, I have now commented on an ARBPIA-related thread; something I swore to myself I would never do. I doubt I can ever truly forgive you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm insidious that way, very crafty, I'm told. ;-) I quite understand what you're saying, though, about managing your time, and I respect your judgment: You know best about that, obviously. But whacking vandals is also eminently commendable, of course, so sincere thanks for that, and for the breadth and depth of your generous contributions to the project overall. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Kind of you to say, thanks. btw I noticed you fixed the youtube link; can't look at it now, but will when I can access yuotube. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Of all the things to retire about.

Jeez. 28bytes (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I was just shaking my head at that, wondering what was going on. Sort of wish my first edit summary had been a little more grownup, but... --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Good grief: Special:Contributions/Gobbeldygookerlives; sock, or someone trying to get him in trouble? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Either way, that account won't do anything productive. Might as well block it ahead of whatever's to come. Calabe1992 02:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Eh, if I knew it was an impersonation I'd block now, but if it's who I think it is blowing off steam, I'd like to wait and see if it's sufficiently blown off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that wait and see seems like the best thing to do at this point. 28bytes (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

<--What is the matter with Night Ranger? And if he's asking for a block, why isn't it granted? Drmies (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think he just needs a good night's sleep. I'm sure in the morning he'll realize this isn't important enough to be that upset about. 28bytes (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

You sure about that?

I thought rationing was more prevalent in the US. I remember my great grandmother telling stories about having to split up semicolons and selling the periods for scrap. 28bytes (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Periods were, indeed, rationed on both sides of the Atlantic during the war, but the U.S. (or, as it is sometimes still known today to cut down on period use, the US) was used to doing without periods, because of our greater reliance on the telegraph, which you may recall required periods for approximately half its output (the other half being dashes, which were also in short supply), leaving very little for the general public. Exclamation points were highly prized, as they could be split into a period and a long dash, which in turn could be chopped into two (or in cases of real shortage, three) shorter dashes. The sister of a friend of a cousin of my grandfather's mechanic was arrested for exclamation point hoarding, causing a huge scandal (as you can imagine, I'm sure).

As you note, semicolons were also commonly broken apart, with the resulting periods being sold for scrap, and the resulting commas adding to the general oversupply. In the early years of the war, Liberty ships full of surplus commas were sent to Great Britain, but so many were sunk by German U-boats that there was very little positive effect, and even when the ships got through, it was uneconomical, and the Brits didn't really know what to make of the funny-looking American commas anyway. After large storms, you can sometimes still see crates of commas wash up on the shores of Ireland, having spent over sixty years on the bottom of the North Atlantic. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, the exclamation point hoarding. My aunt's life partner's uncle used to regale us with tales of narrowly escaping the federales while smuggling in some of the upside-down ones from Ciudad Juárez to flip and sell on the El Paso black market. Prebuilt exclamation points were quite a luxury back then; most of the ones in use were slapped together from stray apostrophes and periods, and most of those apostrophes weren't even authentic; often you'd have to made do with the shrapnel from an explosion at one of the poorly managed asterisk mines. I recall reading about one of those mine explosions touching off a chain reaction at a nearby at sign factory; there were tiny lowercase "a"s and loop shards everywhere, although they were able to reclaim some of those to sell to the parentheses manufacturers. 28bytes (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
What a coincidence: I was just talking to one of my younger coworkers about peak asterisk, and was stunned to discover that he didn't know asteriskeses (?) used to be mined instead of manufactured in chemical plants. He gave me one of those eye rolls that kids these days use when they want you to go on talking some more, so I started to tell him all about my uncle, who was a well known union organizer in the asterisk mines up in the mountains of Kansas. But unfortunately he suddenly remembered a dentist appointment and I had to cut the story short. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Stanbidder1

I saw you turned down the unblock request on this editor, I have came across this editor Mikelimerick , an editor from Limerick uses the same language and seems to not like public transport. Edits styles are similar including his how does it work, an you an employee of wiki? and on Stanbidder1 murry1975 why are you deleting my edits? are you employee of wikipedia?. What is the best thing to do next, a SPI? Or try to reason with him again?Murry1975 (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked Mikelimerick as a very obvious block-evading sock - almost a carbon copy of with the other account. I blocked User:Declan799 too, but thought better of it and unblocked; I suppose it's conceivable that a shared dislike of the bus system alone isn't enough to link them. An SPI would be the way to go, with a Checkuser request, but I'm short of time today. If you do it, please add Declan799; if you don't have the time/inclination, I'll do it myself later. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I havent requested one before so I will give it a go, it seems odd that Declan would not be related, not much in the way of this type of vandalism then 3 days of it.Murry1975 (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, I'm mainly operating out of an abundance of caution. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Reported, let me know if I missed anything when I filled it in.Murry1975 (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks good, I commented there. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Cheers bud, I see all three are matches to each other. A little less disruption to the project now hopefully.Murry1975 (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
That might be a little too optimistic. Anyway, cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I see you blocked fully, I was trying to reason with him, trying to get him to read the guidelines and understand but he really did seem to believe Wiki was the place to vent his voice. Thanks for your help, I have a feeling its not the last sock from him. Murry1975 (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You were being quite reasonable, but it became apparent he was not listening, and was not going to listen. I imagine now that we know where to watch, it won't be difficult to see any new socks. I've got the pages watchlisted now. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

NCISfan2

I noticed you found yourself in the middle of NCSIfan2's nonsense last night. Please see the message I just left for MuZemike: [6]; I have come to suspect NCSIfan2 is a sockpuppet, as detailed in the message. I've asked MuZemike to weigh in before I take this to the appropriate SPI, and given your recent interaction, thought I should make you aware of what I'd found as well. --Drmargi (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, yeah, you make a strong case, and if they aren't the same person I'll eat my hat. I don't think I'm going to block right now, but only because I've got my hands full with a few other things, including several real life responsibilities I should be thinking about, and can't handle the additional complication. But MuzeMike or an SPI or both will fix things fairly quickly I imagine. Thanks for the heads up, sorry to wimp out on the adminning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
No worries! I wasn't particularly looking for either of you to block so much as making sure involved admins are in the loop and I'd done my due diligence, particularly if the guy is a sock. SPI will take care of it if need be. Thanks for the feedback. He's ready to go. --Drmargi (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI

I've replied with two things to your point of view on the ANI noticeboard. Thank you for being with me on the matter and enjoy your day. Abhijay What did I do this time? 13:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

About Dave

Hi, i don't know what happened to Dave, but about these weeks he was really not that friendly. I think it might interest his activity about this article: [7] that actually he put in the deletion discussion. As i did of my best to improve the stuff, about Hunter's service with Swiss Air Force and i am available to improve it further (and accept other's help if/when offered), but i did not expect that Dave put it in the deletion discussion page as well.

The tag that questioned the article's existence was put on 11th and should have last until 18th march, so i had 7 days to improve it, as i did. Someone lifted the article from the threat to be deleted (because he rated good enough the article to be retained in Wikipedia..), but Dave, not happy enough, opened quickly the deletion discussion page about it. This is the crono: [8] I wouldn't mess with it as i am the only contributor of that article, so i would be really POV about it, even offering objective things. But the Dave's attitude really sickened me, before reverting anything i wrote in Hawker Hunter article, and later, trying to destroy entirely the spin-off article, in spite it grew a lot from the pruned section (see Hawker Hunter talk discussion). I think that Dave was totally aggressive and even insulting (your ignorance/incompetence [9]) towards me, have abused of some wikipedia's rules and kidded me when i tried to put it in a objective manner. I did not return back in Wikipedia to be handled like a moron, but it is happened and Dave, IMO- seems more focused to attack me rather than do the best for Wikipedia. He may be a good boy, but if i acted like him, i would be kicked out as 'vandal' or 'troll'. Just my 2 cents.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan,
I understand your feeling of annoyance, and I'm sorry you were treated that way. But it's always difficult to make people be nice if their behavior is borderline, rather than over-the-top, or occasional instead of constant, and it's seldom wise to reopen old wounds. I'm paying more attention to his editing now, and if problems continue I'll try to do something without making it worse. I don't think that you posting to his talk page right now helps anything, though. It might feel like vindication, but all it's doing is setting up Round 2 of your argument. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for momentarily solving The Dumbest Feud In The World(TM). Drmies (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Drmies, for the feedback. I was worried for a sec I might have overstepped, but I really think I'd be doing no one any favors by continually allowing the sniping to go on. If you ever think I have overstepped, I'd value the feedback. We'll see what happens, I suppose. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
It dripped over onto my talk page, a little bit. Joy! Drmies (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko block

This guy should have been indef blocked. I think you just used the same duration as the IPs by mistake. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That was me, actually, what did that. Floq just shut off talk page privileges to stop him from embarrassing himself further. Related discussion here. Hopefully the week off will allow him to get some sorely needed perspective on all this. I realize that may be a bit optimistic of me. 28bytes (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, what he said. Normally you'd block all the socks indef, and block the master for between 1 day and indefinite, depending on the judgement of the blocking admin. But Kumioko has apparently scrambled the password to his old account, so ShmuckatellieJoe is (sort of) the master, and Kumioko was the one blocked indef (which I suppose in theory wasn't even needed, but still has a certain instinctive reasonableness to it). The 1 week block is worth a shot, IMHO. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to fight the issue but I do not agree with the practice of putting Sock tags on a userpage if there has not been an SPI so I opened up a discussion on the talk page of WP:Check user for some clarification on when its appropriate to use the tag. I doubt my comments will be needed or welcomed after this point but the discussion is started and the community can decide what to do. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)(Kumioko)
Kumioko, you've exhausted my patience. Everybody knows that's you, we've all always known it's you, and you make yourself look ridiculous when you claim it isn't you. I just don't see the point of putting the tag on there, like a scarlet letter. I almost never see the point, with any editor, and it has nothing to do with this imaginary "friendship" I have been accused of basing my decisions on. I disagree with it in deference to your years of work here, and because it wasn't that egregious as sockpuppeting goes, and because it seems most people who put those tags up on pages when they've got nothing to do with the decision to block are bullies, and because the tag isn't needed because everyone already knows it's you. Now, please don't email me anymore, and please don't feel the need to announce to me what page you've edited, and please don't tell me anymore how Wikipedia Is Failing. I don't care anymore. Add me to the list of bridges you've burned. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

FLM Update

I had a very nice, polite email from FLM. He's taking a bit of time to learn his way around the WikiRules on notability, WP:V, WP:RS, etc., and is intending to drop some apologies around to the people he got into spats with and insulted, which sounds promising.

I think he'll probably be OK, he knows that any step out of line is likely to result in an indef block, so hopefully he'll settle in now and become a useful, expert and productive editor. His passion reminds me a bit of me when I came back to the 'pedia after a very long break, having only produced one article before, though he's a tad (!) more trigger-happy than I was! Montanabw was incredibly patient with me (as were several others from WP:EQUINE), and got me onto the right track, when they could very easily have lost patience with me instead.

Fingers crossed that all will go a lot more smoothly now. Pesky (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

User:DaftEco2

Just saw your edit summary at WP:ANI. I've actually already indef blocked DaftEco2 as a sock, with talk page access disabled. But you're welcome to overturn or modify any part of that if you think it would be worthwhile. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I don't think an unblock is needed. I'm not convinced 100% this is actually DeFacto, but it is essentially a trolling-only account anyway, even if what they say is true. If they want to email DeFacto, they could have emailed with DafEco. This second account cannot possibly have any reason to be unblocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

More drama for your attention

  • See User talk:Abenyosef‎ for more details. Out. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 21:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't understand; does this have something to do with me, or are you just asking for an admin to look into it? That user doesn't sound familiar to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Please take a look by all means, the repeated appeal for unblock is beginning to annoy people with more tolerance than I do. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 21:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Well, I took a look at their edits last night, and was going to post something in the morning, but it looks like I've been scooped. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Floquenbeam (talk)

I've approved your account. Enjoy!--v/r - TP 00:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Holy crap. Any faster, and you would have had to time travel. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm applying to work for Jimmy Johns ;)--v/r - TP 01:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
If it wasn't for a trip to another part of the country over Christmas, I'd have no idea what you were talking about. But I've been to one now, so... (grin). --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh...

Note

I am sorry for have been such a dick to you recently, and I'm sorry for all that I've done. Take care. P.S. I found Abenyosef through Special:Requests for Unblock, just where I found User talk:Stoljaroff1987. Abhijay What did I do this time? 07:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. We all get cranky sometimes; when I'm lucky I realize it ahead of time and log off for a while. Understood about the unblock comment; I suppose sometimes coincidences have unfortunate timing. Too many coincidences would be bad, but harmless ones are harmless. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I'll try to keep my distance and if another problem like what happened a few weeks ago erupts, can I re-report to either you or Drmies? If so, Roger that. Thanks again and enjoy the rest of March. Glad to see i'm not on your 'bad-side' :) And agree, when were cranky, we tend to do things we don't mean to do. Again, thanks. Ab hijay  ☎ 14:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the user page of 'quintby; (cf QuintBy) you'll see that there is none

Hello Flo, I recalled your username but not the unpleasant circumstances until you referred me to the ersatz Talk page for 'Quintby' with lower case B. To the best of my knowledge I had no role in creating this Talk page, and to the limited extent that I have the knowledge to check the existence or non-existence of a second quintby, however capped or non-capped, I came up emptyhanded. Do take a look as well at the user page for this lower-case-b Quintby and you will see that it is completely empty as is the edit history for same.

Not only was I not acting in bad faith here, it would seem to me that someone else acted in bad faith by somehow managing to create a 'Quintby' Talk page, from the looks of things, wholly out of thin air. Presumably, the edits made to the lower-case-b quintby Talk page by me are genuine. i know that there was someone in the past who excoriated me for saying that someone was impersonating me and I now suspect that I was becoming confused because other editors were jumping back and forth between the quintby Talk page and the QuintBy Talk page.

As I've just today added, I have very serious brain damage, serious enough that I have been told that I should not even be minimally conscious much less capable of writing fairly cohesively. But the linear nature of writing makes it far easier to carry out than dealing with jumping back and forth between pages - it all ends up in a jumble which I often simply cannot untangle.

As I already cannot recall what was on the lower-case-b Talk page such that I can address it further I'll simply end by saying that you are more than welcome to e-mail me, although I'm uncertain by what means. Confusedly yours, QuintBy (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, gorgeous!

You're a good egg, and all that, and we don't have much "history" so (hopefully) I won't end up being accused of looking for some pro-Pesky support or anything. :D (and I trust your judgment and impartiality).

There's been a bit of trouble brewing between a long-term experienced editor who takes a lot of responsibility for stewardship of WP:EQUINE GAs, FAs, FAC's, etc., and another editor. The Eq. specialist asked me for some input, and was followed over to my talk by the other editor (see the collapsed content on my talk page). I've had to ask the other editor to stay off my talk now, and I feel it's best that they and I try to avoid interacting as it's obviously not going to go well. (You probably know enough about me to realise that having to do that is as rare as a very rare thing, etc.)

I spent several hours going through loads of the history to try and work out the ins and outs of the matter, and discovered that editor 2 (S.) has a talent for misrepresentation of situations, so that's one to beware of. There was definitely some WikiHounding / WikiStalking going on demonstrated by the fact that S. (with whom I have never interacted before) came straight over to my talk intent on prolonging arguments (some of them months old) from elsewhere, and I strongly suspect that that isn't the only time that editor M. has been followed around to prolong arguments.

My own impression, from looking at the long and involved background, is that S. is a bit OTT confrontational, a bit WP:TE (though with good intentions, I'm absolutely sure), and tends to resort quickly to accusations of WP:Ownership etc. I know they mean well and seem to have the interests of the 'pedia at heart, and they've also provided some absolutely stunning Commons contributions and are clearly very expert within their own speciality.

Could you possibly wander over to their talk and have a quiet, gentle chat with them about toning it down a little bit, letting old arguments go, stalking, and generally being a bit nicer? I really don't want to see this situation escalating to the point where we'd have to be looking at RfC/U, or sudden appearances on the dramah board, etc.

All the best, and granny-hugz ;P Pesky (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Just kind of cleaning up some loose ends (including one involving FLM), and then going out for a while, but I'll try to take a look later today or tomorrow. No promises I'll actually do anything, but I'll stick my nose in if I think it will help. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
That's great; thanks. Nothing's actually on fire at the moment, so no huge hurry or anything, it would just be good to try and nip any unwanted dramah in the bud. Cheers, Pesky (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to reply here, and use vague wording, to minimize drama; I don't really want to get dragged into this by making direct accusations, and if things have died down there's no sense using actual usernames and notifying people and getting their back up. I also looked into this less deeply than I would if I was going to actually do anything about it. Feel free to point M to this if you think it worthwhile to do so.

Some people are more brusque than others. It's an almost unsolvable fact of life that such people can make other, gentler editors not enjoy working with them. Open, collaborative editing does mean you can't heap personal attacks on others, but it also means you need to have at least a minimally thick skin and accept criticism, even when it is sub-optimally given. (There may be some watching this page who think I should practice what I preach more in this regard)

I think one of the people you're asking about looks difficult to work with, and has personalized disputes that didn't need to be personalized. I don't think I've seen anything lately that could be "sanctioned" per se. I also think (and this is unfortunate) that an unsolicited comment from me would not have any desired effect. This seems a grey area that Wikipedia is particularly ill-suited to deal with.

I think the other person you're asking about is kind and generous, but probably takes brusque criticism too hard. If I were assigning relative blame, this editor would not be who I would focus on. However, since I suspect they are open to advice, I'll say that it's best not to try to pick unnecessary fights with people, even when you are technically right, and even when you think they're a jerk.

So, for example, when someone who annoys you has created a page at a title that is not quite correct, MOS-wise, but isn't really hurting anything, it really isn't a great idea to try to fix it, or file a move request. Wikipedia is far from perfect, so fixing a small imperfection you found a detractor make is going to end up doing more harm than good. It certainly sets the stage for them to do the same thing to you further down the road. Someone else will no doubt notice it eventually, well before Wikipedia is finalized, and it will ultimately be fixed without your direct action.

This isn't great advice for people who have a black and white view of right and wrong. But it is probably at least semi-decent advice for people who are less interested in "justice" than they are in enjoying editing.

FWIW. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

There, you see! I knew I could trust you to say something sensible :D Pesky (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

A nice cool beer for you!

This is to help the stuff which you've bitten off, and don't think you can chew, to go down more easily ;P Pesky (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the thought, Pesky. I'll have to drink it later, tho. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Need Some Help

Hey Floquenbeam, how's things? Good I hope. Need some help with 74.60.24.250‎ who continues to readd a large swath of original research to the WRIR-LP page. I have posted to the anon's talk page with no response. We are both at 3RR (I have issued a warning to him) so I can't revert any further, so I thought an admin talking to him would help. Take Care....Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Neutralhomer, I'll look into this, but after you consider and answer a semi-rhetorical question: are you looking to win an argument, or are you looking to improve the article? One more: do you have any reason to believe the information is incorrect? And a comment: It's a pet peeve of mine when people who are currently engaged in an edit war give the other editor a edit war template. Please consider not doing that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The short post on the talk page is my way of leaving a "short and sweet" post about what the problem is. I didn't want to TL;DR the new editor with a lengthy post. Plus, I am kind of a "short and sweet" person when it comes to speaking or writing. I like the short version of things, I tend to write that way. Will keep in mind the "no 3RR template when in an edit war" thing for next time as well. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Revert if must

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

--George Ho (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Will you please delete two revision logs of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that I made for the sake of privacy? --George Ho (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, good idea, done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The war isn't yet over, it seems..

Hi. Today should be a very good day for me.After a calvarious path, the Hunter in Swiss Air Force is finally saved. But.. it is happening something different now. Someone is never happy enough to play with rules. Next time i'll have the insane idea to write a new article in the aviation section, i'll surely think twice and more instead. Regardless of the 'legitimate sources' i think it is really borderline, if not worse, to question the basis of an article just saved today! And by who, then? A guy that cannot even understand that the sources are 'PD', and shouts about 'copyright issues'. Shall i presume 'good faith'? There is definively the need of some advisors, as i fear to be involved in a very murky dispute. I don't know how it would end, but if interested, the discussion continues here: [10]Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any real interest in getting involved in a content dispute on a subject I know nothing about, but I'll quickly note here that:
  • An article being kept at AFD has absolutely nothing to do with whether the state of the article is acceptable or not. You can't argue against change in an article just because the AFD was closed keep.
  • If you consider it a "war", I suspect you're not approaching it with the right attitude.
There are multiple avenues available to you at WP:Dispute resolution. If conversations on the talk page stall, you should pursue them. But give the talk page a chance first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

UTRS email

Hey Floquenbeam, the email address you entered for your UTRS account doesn't appear to be valid, we got a bounce notice from the toolserver when TParis approved your account just now. Could you send me an email so I can update your email address in the database? Thank you! Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sent just now, thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Mail!

Hello Floquenbeam, you've got mail. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

read it but running out door and reply will have to wait. but generally agree and have been watching on and off already. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Commented. Generally I think you haven't done anything wrong here. I suspect you're frustrated, but please bend over backwards to not let this turn into a crusade of some kind. That's the fastest way to get people sidetracked. Not saying you've done that, just asking you to keep making sure you don't. It's been my experience with others that it becomes more and more difficult to stay polite, and once you get snippy, people seize on that and lose track of the actual issue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I take your point, I've seen that happen before as well, so will try to avoid it. Have to say though that it feels, to me at least, that Abhijay's looking for trouble where there isn't, because I've not done anything related to him (until today) after his last request to leave him alone. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

Re:ANI links displaying offensive image in popups

Re:ANI links displaying offensive image in popups

It was my edit, sorry - I am not sure why this thing happened - but I think that it is a bug - this image is on MediaWiki:Bad image list +(second bug - it was in nowiki). Bulwersator (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yep, probably (at least) two bugs. I reported the problem here yesterday. Thankfully Floq has made AN/I (relatively) penis-free in the meantime. 28bytes (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Bulwersator, I meant to let you know I fiddled with your edit, but got sidetracked. I was able to make ANI penis-free, but it would be too big a task to try to make it dick-free. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

More Frivolous accusations

Hi Floquenbeam, I noticed your block here on one of the SPA. However the other one has not only kept this frivolous complaint up but has repeated it on numerous talk pages. I would suport the call for a CU to be done. --Domer48'fenian' 11:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Domer, from what little I've seen, I suspect you're right, but I don't have much time to look into yet another editor's edits, nor much experience dealing with this contentious subject area. If Gravyring had kept his head down and been less public and blatantly obvious about his disruption, I wouldn't have noticed. Isn't there a noticeboard somewhere that specializes in problems in this area? Or AE? I guess I'm saying you probably do need some help, but I'm not going to be able to be the one to provide it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
As I just said at the noticeboard, if you're going to look into so called SPA's, you should also look into the history of Domer, otherwise your blocks look extremely one sided and short term self-defeating, if they are intended to prevent POV editing in the Troubles area. If Domer wants to present themselves to you as someone who has interests on Wikipedia outside of the Troubles, then you'd do well to investigate that. He is an SPA as far as this topic area goes, you don't have to do much investigation to come to that conclusion. And if you did do any further investigation, you'd see how little effort he expends in actually discussing issues like the one Gravyring is upset about properly, in the manner that consensus building is supposed to occur. Hence when you block one side without looking at the other, you're not doing anything really to settle the dispute long term. I just examined Domer's last 5 edits to actual article talk pages (which are very hard to find in amongst postings to user pages and noticeboards looking for action of the sort above, or the rest which are just article reverts, mostly as part of slow-motion edit warring of the type seen at the Loch article). Not one of those 5 can be described as genuine attempts at consensus building at all, not in my book. [11][12][13][14]. It probably goes on like this through his history for quite a while, and the general quotient of reverts to talk page edits should concern anyone considering his block log. I would be cautious about believing him if he tries to claim every one of these is an article where he is fighting against disruptive SPAs like Gravyring. I'd say it's more than likely he has more than a hand in precipitating these disputes himself, through either the nature of the actual edits, or his methods of ensuring they remain in articles. Neetandtidy (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Floq, but Neetandtidy has a previous account, which he has not named or linked his account to, I have asked him to e-mail an admin to clarify he is cúla-búla, the admin would let us know that he is not a sock. He has also questioned whether or not my account is my first, I have stated yes and would e-mail an admin if required to prove this here. Let me know what info you would need of my real self to varify this. Murry1975 (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Murry, the question has to be asked...why are you getting involved? Asking other users to prove their identity not really your place.Hackneyhound (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hound the question has to be asked, are you telling me what I may and may not do on the project? A user has to connect his accounts, if they wish to edit on the project, if it is a case of identity protection they can choose to start a clean account but they must inform an admin to give it the ok. This stops socks. AGF, I am asking for clarity, not accussing. And that is my right, not to know who they are, but why they are not connecting thier accounts. If it is an ID or outting issue I have no problems with that and I would not ask anymore info from them if an admin cleared it. Murry1975 (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I've neither the time nor inclination nor dispute resolution skills nor patience to get involved more deeply with this topic. I really have no idea how to solve the complex problems with editing in this area, and I'm not saying there are no long term editors who also cause problems. I don't know Domer, and have only had a passing interaction with Murray on an unrelated issue. They could be the good guys, the bad guys, or somewhere in between, I don't know or care. The best I can do is solve the small, easy-to-identify, obvious problem of an editor who is only here to argue about one contentious topic, who made clearly bad-faith ANI reports to try to "win", and who is clearly a returning previously-blocked editor. If I was truly taking Domer's side in this, I'd block you two as obvious returning previously-blocked editors as well, but since I'm not familiar with who's who in this area, and don't have the time for some kind of investigation, I'll leave that to the braver souls who deal with this issue more often than I do. But no one is going to convince me to play cop more often in this area, for either "side", so you should really think about whether further posts here are a valuable use of your time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Floq, I wasnt asking you to take sides. Murry1975 (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Floq, we all appreciate that adminship is time consuming, but your blocking logic should not be based on blocking a newish editor who would not be entirely fluent in wiki policy while letting a user with a history of edit warring go free. And from the looks of it Domer has broken their probation albeit 5 months ago when no one picked up on. Why did you decide to deal with the matter if you did not have time to look into both sides? I am assuming that Gravyring will have their account unlocked then?Hackneyhound (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I did look at the 5 month old history first. It wasn't a violation of their probation (you know this). That's why I called it an incorrect, bad-faith report. Gravyring (like you) is not a newish editor, of that I am certain. So no, you assume incorrectly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
well Domer made 4 edits in 2 weeks, on a page where his probation applied and where he is only allowed to make 1 edit per week. Ohh well. I still think Gravyring should not of received an indefinite block if Domer can continue to edit even after years of edit warring yet Gravyring is blocked for 1 bad faith edit. Doesn't add up and is not very fair.Hackneyhound (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Floq, again I am sorry the way this spilled over onto your page, I apologise if I came across as trying to influence you, it was not my intention. Just to let you know, if you are unaware, that hackneyhound is now block for multiple accounts as is Neetandtidy, your comment above rings true. Again I aploligise for the spill over. Murry1975 (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
    • No worries, Murry, it really doesn't bother me that this showed up here, as long as everyone understands that I'm probably not going to do what they'd like me to do. Domer asked me to get involved, you provided backup info, and I declined; I don't see anything wrong with any of the three actions. Good to know my sock radar still functions, but this was pretty obvious, so I don't know that I've really established anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Question

When an editor is blocked, should a regular editor leave a blocking template on a blocked users talk page or should an admin do so? Ab hijay  ☎ 13:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, three issues. One, if we're talking about the {{indef}} tag-of-shame on a user page, I don't even think they should be used at all, but if they are, it should always be the blocking admin to do it. Two, both {{indef}} and {{uw-blocked}} templates should match reality (i.e. no indef-blocked templates on a page of someone blocked for a week). And three, it's almost always better to leave it to the blocking admin's judgement. They probably have reasons for doing what they did. Even if it was an accidental omission, the blocking template doesn't really do very much; all the essential information for the blocked editor is in the block message they get when they try to edit. In the very rare case of the tag being necessary, and not placed by the blocking admin, leave it to a very experienced editor. So to answer what I think is your underlying question, no I don't think there are any situations where you should place such a template on someone else's page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Floquenbeam. Ab hijay  ☎ 14:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Abhijay, clearly I don't want you to believe I'm hounding you, but I think Floq's quite clearly said above that you shouldn't ("I don't think … you should place such a template on someone else's page") be making edits like this. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Abhijay, I'm... speechless. I am quickly coming around to the possibility that you may be trying to be disruptive on purpose, or see what you can get away with. Still assuming for the moment that you aren't, you need to start thinking much more carefully before making edits like that, or you will find yourself blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Both of you, chill out, I'm sorry, OK. I'm sorry. I didn't know a rule like that even existed, until today when you guys have brought it to my attention. I wasn't being disruptive neither trolling. I didn't know I was doing the right thing, until now. Chill out, both of you. Ab hijay  ☎ 15:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • That isn't really true, is it. I said you shouldn't do it, you acknowledged that, then you immediately did do it again (incorrectly), saying "per discussion with Floquenbeam". In those circumstances, I am having a very hard time imagining any good faith reason for that edit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Please note that I'm on the Asperger Syndrome Spectrum, hence my behavior. If you are still mad at me, and don't believe me, remove this. Ab hijay  ☎ 13:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm not mad at you, it's just that I'm about at the point where I'm not going to accept further obvious disruption, regardless of its causes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Abhijay, I'm a high-functioning autistic. And as I'm an Autie rather than an Aspie, I'm farther away from neurotypical on that scale than you are. It's not an excuse to get away with stuff; it's a reason to try and take a bit more care because you know you might miss things. But I'm not at all sure that being an Aspie would make you miss what was pretty darned clear, there. Next time, read everything at least four times before you're sure you've understood it right. And then leave it for 24 hours while you think about it ... Pesky (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Alright Pesky. Ill come back to you guys If i feel another issue arises. Thanks again. Soviet King (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
See your talk page. I just.... I don't know what else to say. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Floq, if you ever have a problem with Aspie/Autie people, I'm always more than happy to do the "interpreter" thing (knowing what's actually a reason and what's just being used as an excuse helps!) Hugz. Pesky (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
PeskyCommoner, thanks but no thanks. I guess I have explained enough, and I think I don't want to talk more. Soviet King (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Abhijay/Soviet King, I've just noticed your "Retired" banner. By all means take a break, but don't be too disheartened! Aspie/Autie people can end up making excellent Wikipedia editors, and I personally know several people on the same scale as you and I who are admins here, so it's certainly not much of an impediment to progress. Any time you feel you're not quite sure of an explanation, or just want to chat with me or others on the same scale, come over to my talk page. I have stalkers on there who are also Aspie/Autie, and who were incredibly helpful to me when I goofed up as a newbie, who would be delighted to help you out when things get tricky. Cheers, Pesky (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Pesky. @ Floquenbeam, if you are too steamed to talk to me, I guess that I will agree on a few things here. But before we go to that, please note that I'm sorry for having used my disability as an excuse to get away with what I wanted. Yes, it was over the line, and I owe you an apology for the disruption caused. Before I put this matter to a final end, please note that I left the message at Joniquq's page because I felt that he was being a target of a potential block. In this case, it wasn't and I'm sorry for that as well. I now understand that at WP:ANI, I should carefully assess a person's contributions before commenting on a proposed block. With you saying that I shouldn't post at WP:ANI just will not make me edit there. I want to contribute to WP:ANI because I assume good faith, and so are you. Conflict, sure isn't my thing as I added potential 'fuel' to the conversation there because I thought that ThisThat2011 was doing it on purpose, but after seeing his reply on the talk page, I understand that he too went over the line. Editors like them I agree could be a bit difficult to work with (given his apparent judgmental attitude), and I admit I was a bit angry upon reading his comments. You have to admit that ThisThat's jibe seemed rather hurtful, and as Aspie's we tend to proceed in such a way that we often don't realise what impact it would have on ThisThat if I reacted like that. Having said that, I agree conflict may not seem the strongest of my contributions to Wikipedia, and entirely this case was based upon human error and stupidity. I am more than happy to contribute less to conflict between editors, but I feel that it is generally hurtful for you having said that I caused trouble at WP:ANI. Please acknowlegde the fact that I didn't know that ThisThat meant really, and that I acted without having realized that. And note that I actually found out that he went over the line after saying that, and I too went over the line. It would be very rude of me not to accept your constructive criticism on my talk page. I appreciate your constructive criticism, and as and admin it is your duty to make sure stuff is clean and right in it's place. Saying that I use it (my disability) as an excuse will not help me improve on Wikipedia. After all, everyone is trying to the best to make this project like a great big resourceful book isn't it? Up today, I didn't know that rules existed where Administrators can block someone if they post a blocking template on someone's talk page, and I never knew that Templates are a pre-requisite if someone does something stupid on Wikipedia or if they are blocked. Conflict at WP:ANI may not be strong, but in the past I have reported several users for Edit warring. That's enough said of me, and have a nice day. Soviet King (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Anything I and my stalkers can do to help you get along, SK, we'll do our best. The big key is always to relax and wind down, I know. If I'd known in my teens and twenties what I know now, I would have been so much happier and got on so much better! Remember I'll always try not to nag you, and I'll always mean well, but there will be times I'll just remind you about stuff. One of the biggest problems we A-Spectrum types can have is being a bit trigger-happy and over-reactive, and misunderstanding what other people are seeing. But the tricks to dealing with that are actually much easier to learn than a lot of us realise. It gets better as you get older! I'm sure we can get to a place where we can all work smoothly with each other.

Oooh, huge pro-tip! Stop thinking of it as a "disability"; it really isn't, it's just a "difference" in the way we process thoughts and perceptions. Pesky (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: angle trisection, etc.

Thanks! I think I was going through the right motions (e.g., alerting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics) but obviously I should have done that well before I got to 5 (or however many) reverts. I'll definitely be more careful in the future. Best, Joel B. Lewis (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I wouldn't have blocked you myself, but it was a judgement call and I guess I understand why it was done. The key is that you seem to have rolled with it, rather than get your back up, which is probably the most refreshing reaction to a block I've seen in a while. Cheers, and thanks for all the content-related work you do here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Soumitrahazra

Hello, You have allowed User talk:Soumitrahazra#Discussion is not optional him to edit one month ago. Now see, he is not listening to anybody in spite of many messages. And I patrolled his contribution page, he is not doing assessment properly and not writing any summary after notice. Thank You. -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 13:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've reminded him. If he resumes assessing articles without discussion, please let me know and I will block the account for good. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons is a joke

[15]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It just got worse: [16], [17], [18]. The person is even edit-warring to keep their clueless message on my Commons talkpage: [19]. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I saw; the amazing thing is, this guy's got like 30k edits over there. As I said on my Commons talk page, I'd forgotten that Commons will keep anything if it's related to a penis. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps so. But I still think this is an attack page on Pepsi Co. Is there anything that can be done via ANI here? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) "The Pepsi Logo is public domain. So there is no copyright issue." Is this actually true? Because... I think the Pepsi folks may have made a slight mistake in their marketing strategy, assuming this is correct... Doc talk 02:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree. But somehow the editor at Commons claims it is PD, even though I doubt it. Regardless, this is an attack page on Pepsi Co's image. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
If I printed that logo up and sold t-shirts with the image on it, I guarantee you I'd face a lawsuit from Pepsi if I were big enough that they'd catch wind of it. I don't care what morons on the Commons say: no Pepsi logo (or Coca-Cola logo, etc.) is "public domain" in the real world. Doc talk 02:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree. Well said Doc. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Meanwhile the uploader of the image at Commons used it to vandalise the Pepsi article here: [20]. What does that tell you about the image? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
That's how I ran across it. I thought I'd help out by going over to commons. Of course, if you notice, he's now nominated another (harmless) picture the same vandal uploaded for deletion - that kind of thing they won't accept. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I imagine what he's trying to say is that the logo doesn't meet the threshold of originality. The commons page for the actual Pepsi logo (File:Pepsi logo 2008.svg) says the logo can't be copyrighted, although it is still a trademark. I'm not sure who actually made this decision; it seems unlikely to me. But that's (I think) what he's saying. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Whatever it is I don't think Commons should be hosting attack pages on Corporate trademarks. Something has to be done about it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Pepsi would not allow their logo, which earns them ludicrous amounts of money for every second that it exists, to be interpreted in any other way except that they own it 100%. Because, of course, they do. That image needs to be seriously reconsidered on the Commons, because it is not in the public domain. Let alone any "penis" derivatives... Doc talk 03:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I've launched a deletion request on commons since one editor is rather rudely declining the obvious speedy... Please see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Pepsi_Logo.jpg . Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 03:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Doc: Good points. I wonder if we can raise the issue at ANI or Jimbo's page? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Good call Barts. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, good call Barts. I know for a fact that ANI, or any other noticeboard here on en.wiki, will be powerless. I'm not sure Jimbo would care. I've asked Fastily (a Commons admin) to give me a reality check. Just like "notability" means something different on Wikipedia than it does to normal humans, perhaps "vandalism" means something different on Commons than it does to normal humans. Barts1a's idea is probably the most productive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok Floq. I guess we don't need any additional drama. And I know Commons is outside of the jurisdiction of ANI, but the only reason I mentioned ANI was that perhaps we could find an en.wiki admin who is also an admin in Commons who could possibly agree to speedy delete this vandalism. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Let's tear this mother down ;> Doc talk 03:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if my talk page here is considered "canvassing" over there? --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Canvassing for common sense? But you never know. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The Coca-Cola script is PD because it was published before 1923: convincing enough. This Pepsi logo is not PD, for obvious reasons. Copying the "Pepsi globe" along with the letters: apparently not copyright infringement in any way. Commons is... ill-informed. ;P Doc talk 04:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It's gone now. The idiot that defended the vandalism got a VERY STERN warning to boot. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fry1989&diff=69091558&oldid=69087649 . Discussion was closed as "Deleted: Blatant Vandalism. Why are we even having this discusison?". Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 08:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Spyder Grove

As you were typing your final warning to Spyder Grove (talk · contribs), I was blocking him for disruptive editing. I'll defer to your judgement and let you decide if he should be unblocked or not. Regards. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I didn't block myself was because I thought someone might think I jumped the gun, and I'm not going to be around much longer today to argue. Good call IMHO. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Huggies

Wolfly hugz for you
Just because you're a darling ;P Pesky (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: angle trisection, etc. -- Repeated Deletion of New Relevant Material

Hello, I've attempted to enter new information under the seventh heading of Wikipedia's "Trisection" webpage entitled, "By infinite repetition of bisection". Such information references a relevant 1995 United States copyright.

a) On March 29th my work was deleted several times. Because of attempting to re-enter the data, I was BLOCKED for Edit Warring.
b) I've received information from you addressing your concern over my placing of multiple entries via different log-in names. I wasn't aware of this problem until now; and will be sure to log in EVERY time I make an edit hereinafter.
c) When I made my complaint to MuZemike, I made notification that two people had multiply deleted me from making such edits. One was blocked along with me, but the other was left free.
d) Today the other again has DELETED my work leaving as a reason that he had decided my intentions for placing the work on your site were for personal gain. I have concerns about replacing this information at this point because again I might be tagged with Edit Warring. However, the information which I've attempted to add many times references copyrighted information and is completely disclosed on
http://www.truescans.com/index-Trisection.htm.
e) Remaining information just added and now afforded under this heading is supposedly copyrighted in 1997. Under that copyright on the following referenced webpage it contains the curious words, "Under construction (just kidding, sort of)". This information of a later vintage carries the same exact mathematical progression terms as my copyright and should definitely be investigated by Wikipedia's "copyright crew".
http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/trisect.htm

So, in conclusion, The other edit warring partner whom I previously identified is named -- User:D.Lazard and JUST DELETED MY ATTEMPTED ADDITION. This represents his third deletion of my work. As opposed to allowing such user to make decision as to what copyrighted information is bonafide, I would appreciate if you NOW INTERVENE in this matter. If you check my talk page for March 29, my appeal to MuZimike, item (3) requested his intervention so this type of problem would not continue after my block duration had ended. And this is exactly what re-occurred.

WIKI-1-PIDEA (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


A couple of notes

Please read these; they will help prevent you from being blocked from editing here.

  • The idea that the current wording of that section of angle trisection is a copyright violation, and that your version somehow fixed it, is bizarre. You do not have a solid rationale for your version.
  • Please do not revert anyone on that page anymore, or I will block you from editing. You are edit warring, and have significantly exceeded the three revert rule.
  • Please be careful how you word things; your post at WP:ANI could be interpreted as a legal threat, even if that was not your intention.
  • You can't copyright an idea. Especially one that existed long before 1995.
  • Please don't source anything else to www.truescans.com. It is not a reliable source.

Thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw your comments at the top of this page, and am concerned that you don't plan on changing your ways here. So I just want to make sure I've been crystal clear: If you resume any of these things again once your block expires, I'll block you indefinitely. Furthermore, I note that in the past, you've used Special:Contributions/WIKI-1-PIDEA, Special:Contributions/66.91.237.221, and Special:Contributions/Ronready2go to add the same material to various articles. This is against our policy of sockpuppetry, and will also result in a block if it continues. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO: "You can't copyright an idea" as listed above, .....

I've already rendered response to that same question as asked by another person -- ref my User Talk page which reads as follows:
"I am most certainly not claiming a copyright for an idea sir-- That allegation is preposterous. What I have made available is an APPROACH for trisection. The 1995 copyright represents the first time on official record that "negative factor" geometric progression represents a true analogous solution to the trisection problem. And that, most certainly IS NOT OBVIOUS! Prior to that research, the statement that iterative trisection could solve the problem was not sufficient because means for incorporating direction had to be determined. So, in conclusion -- before an APPROACH is determined, no one can make a statement as to the results...."

WIKI-1-PIDEA (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO: "Please don't source anything else to www.truescans.com. It is not a reliable source" as listed above, .....

I ask why truescans is not considered a reliable source. It specifies direct pages of very rare books which have lost their copyright status because of being printed over 100 years ago. What can be more reliable than that? With almost five-thousand Wikipedia readers, there has not been a single assertion that such website is incorrect, misleading, or inadequate.
And now, truescans presents a mathematical proof and trisection linkage for "negative factor" geometric progression as described above. It is not a question of the reliability of the webpage which governs here, it is the adequacy of the United States copyright -- which by the way, is watertight. If, what you seek is direct correlation to U.S. Copyright TXu 636 519, I'm sure that can be arranged.
Lastly, what makes truescans any less reliable than http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/trisect.htm which is now referenced at that seventh heading location?

WIKI-1-PIDEA (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


RESPONSE TO: "The idea that the current wording of that section of angle trisection is a copyright violation, and that your version somehow fixed it, is bizarre. You do not have a solid rationale for your version".as listed above, .....

An algebraic proof is rendered on the above referenced truescans webpage, as likewise in U.S. Copyright TXu 636 519. There cannot be anything more solid than an algebraic proof which stands 100% correct! So, I don't understand why you contemplate such proof as being bizarre since it [and it alone I mind you] directly connects "negative factor" geometric progression with "trisection"

WIKI-1-PIDEA (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Note: I've blocked this user indef, and posted an explanation on his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Request

After some discussions with other contributors, i have temporarly quit about this stuff, as it became too warm even for me. But, even if i quitted , someone didn't stopped to insult me. I think that Dave's gratuitus attack was really gratuitus and offensive, as i could be many things, but i am not surely a troll. Regards.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  • @Stefano, if you want to quit then please do so by all means (Do NOT come here to do that!) but if you want to complain about others, please reflect it on yourself first with what you've posted on Talk:Hawker Hunter in service with Swiss Air Force#My reply to Kyteto in which you have deliberately alienated another established editor - User:Kyteto (evidence here) who had been very patient with you all this while. Despite my week long of absence/vacation, you have continued to make multiple snide remarks about me as well as others (inspite of a lack of input from me!) so if that isn't double standard by you, I really don't know what is~?!? This is my last rebuttal to you, do whatever you like, stop taking potshot at me and I will do the same. Also, two other editors besides me are of the same opinion and view that you are indeed trolling, see User talk:Kyteto#The Swiss Hunter page. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Stefanomencarelli, I don't know what part of my comment to your previous post here you don't understand, but I don't have the time or energy or desire to get involved in your dispute with Dave1185. If you want help solving a dispute, look at WP:DR. If you want to try to win a battle, post at WP:ANI.
  • Dave1185, I am so tired of your attitude. You are a net detriment to building an encyclopedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

CfD

"In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."

Therefore I'm notifying you of ongoing discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 1#Category:Wikipedians who wish Bish and Giano would come back, as I believe that you may be able to improve the quality of discussion on a topic in which you are interested. The oxygen of publicity! --RexxS (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

Sorry

I am so so sorry. I mistakenly blocked you while I was going to block an attack account on you (which should be blocked soon). I was looking at the block screen for the person and I took out the end part of the username and I must have clicked enter. Gah. --Bsadowski1 20:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You join an elite group of people who have blocked this account; people with a superior intellect who cannot be bothered by minor details: [21]. No worries. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Heh, I'll remember to "accidentally" block you some time...maybe when I test a new blocking script? T. Canens (talk) 09:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
If User:BlockAllAdminsBot blocks me someday, I'll know it was you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

CSD

Thanks for declining my speedy deletions and giving the advice you gave to the editors. What you said is true, I am a little overaggressive when it comes with even possible promotion in userspace. I'll try to calm myself. :P Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 13:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Whenaxis. I probably tend to be too soft-hearted, so perhaps on average we have the right approach. Still, I do prefer to assume as much good faith as possible at the beginning, when they can't be expected to know everything. Then if they keep spamming after having it explained to them, we can come down a little harder. Even though I know it's hard, when you've dealt with 100 spammers in the past, to extend good faith to someone you suspect is going to be #101. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I can take a hint, lol!

Y'know that hinty redlink you left on my talk?

WP:ASPIE and WP:AUTIE are now in existence (same page but those are the shortcuts) A work in progress, obviously ;P Pesky (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm chock full of good ideas that involve other people doing work. Almost a genius in that regard. I think it might be helpful, thanks for taking that on. p.s. When I suggested that shortcut, I started getting worried that "aspie" and "autie" were like one of those things that people "in" the group can say, but people "outside" the group can't. I assume you'd have set me straight if that was the case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think they're like that to the extent of (f'rinstance) the n-word. They're both pretty much in common use, and most Aspies/auties don't actually find them offensive (I don't, for example, and I'm pretty sure none of my A-spectrum acquaintances do). In a way, they're almost affectionate! Do feel free (obviously) to link people to the essay whenever it could be helpful to do so. Pesky (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Floquenbeam, my deepest apology

Floquenbeam, you were right and I was wrong, and I should have known better. First of all I would like to apologize for what happened at WP:ANI. Yes, I went tad over the line, and I'm sorry for that, but please note that the matter wasn't based upon human stupidity, but It was just a misinterpretation of the issue and I will like to apologize; I will admit to you at that stage I was a bit upset upon viewing ThisThat2011's jibe there, and I didn't know that he didn't mean to burst out like that. I agree that an editor such as him can be difficult to work with at times, given his apparent short-tempered attitude bursting out with comments he didn't mean to say and starting a drama like that. And I apologise for the quote send to another editor's page; I will admit I misunderstood what one editor was actually meaning by that. If you simply had a bad day because of this, I'm sorry for that. Lastly, I've noted that you too tend to lose your temper a little bit too much Floquenbeam. I agree that editors on Wikipedia tend to have their frustrating days and they tend to give you a hard time on your job as an admin, but please don't let that bother you too much. Soviet King (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

Deleted page Leyla Ergun

Dear Floquenbeam,

I have emailed info-en-o@wikimedia.org already but not in time to stop my article "Leyla Ergun" from being deleted. Can I put it back on please? if I remove the fact that I have written a book? as everything else is the truth and by I would say December 2012 everyone will have proof that what I say is the truth, or would I have to wait until December? It would help billions of people if my new article would be accepted please? please read my blog? The Importance Of Love By Leyla Ergun

Best wishes

Leyla Ergun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leyla Ergun (talk • contribs) 17:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

User:AlexFarkouh

I don't know why, but your edit summary here gave me a good laugh. Funny thing is I only saw it after I accidentally tripped the rollback on you. Calabe1992 15:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I realize you're just doing what many people do, and I'm probably in a minority and can't change the world, and I hope I made it clear it wasn't personal. But at least I can affect change in the tiny percentage of cases where I made the block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
You did. No harm, all good. Calabe1992 15:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
On a side note, you may wish to revoke his talk page at the moment. Calabe1992 15:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Imgayrofl

Since you blocked the new trolling account, User:SirKills, I thought I'd bring this to your attention. User returned to edit this comment in via IP: [22], which could be construed as a legal threat. Equazcion (talk) 00:28, 14 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I don't want to start playing whack-a-mole. If they keep it up I suppose I might start blocking IP's but "zOMG legal threat" is what he's after. DNFTT. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
p.s. adding {{unsigned}} and including inside the {{hat}} with no further comment was exactly the right solution, IMHO. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks for taking care of the "Nigger" talk page vandal. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Glad to help; thanks for the note, Fasttimes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Day = wrecked

Don't worry, you didn't wreck my day :) I tried to think of a proper/aristocratic way of saying underwear--I was unaware of that double meaning! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, good. I wasn't aware of it either. learn something new every day, I guess. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

(Redacted)

I can't find the Barnstar of Plain-Speaking in the Wikilove toolkit, but if I did I'd have to put one here for telling the (Redacted)s at AN/I to knock off the (Redacted) (Redacted). Go (Redacted) yourself! 28bytes (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

(Redacted) off my talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
(Redacted) you, (Redacted) 28bytes (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

You're so gorgeous!

The cuddly award
Your lovely quiet way of asking the obvious question makes you just as cute and cuddly as this kitten! Have a big snuggly Granny-hug ;P Pesky (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Aw, thanks Pesky. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
And thanks to you, I learned something new! 28bytes (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Your notice

[23] Will do, also [24] this was Nangparbat. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Good, thank you. I have no doubt that there are a lot of socks floating around on both sides of that whole topic area. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Advice?

What should I do about this guy? I don't want to block him or haul him to AN/I, but he's been making questionable edits (e.g. "fixing" the correct publisher of a website to match the wrong title, changing "plan to produce" to "have produced" when the reference says no such thing), and he's completely unresponsive to queries about what he's doing. Thoughts? 28bytes (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you should do; I can only tell you what I would probably do in your position. I've reviewed his edits from this year, and it seems that:
  • He's not editing frequently enough to cause major damage anywhere
  • He seems to be editing in good faith (except I don't know if the in vitro meat thing was because he was confused or something worse)
  • He's not communicative; it looks like half a dozen people have left him notes in the past few months, all unanswered
  • He's not uniformly unhelpful, just more unhelpful than we'd like him to be. i.e. my take is he's probably doing marginally more good than harm, but it is marginal
So, since I'm lazy, my first instinct would be to not do anything for now, but keep his talk page watched, and chime in if things got worse. More proactively, you could leave a slightly more firm note to the effect that this is a collaborative project and discussing one's edits when they're questioned isn't optional. If things don't change, then the next time he refuses to discuss, you could mention the b word. I have blocked editors before who were marginally more helpful than not, but who refused to discuss when people questioned them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that it appears to be good-faith editing; my first assumption was that he saw or read someplace that the scientists had done what they planned and he just didn't source it, so I asked him about it. Looking a little deeper into his contributions it occurred to me that perhaps it was just naive "fixing"; he saw something was supposed to have happened in March, March has almost passed, so he "updated" it. Neither one of those possibilities are nefarious but it's really frustrating trying to guess at it, and I don't want to scare him off, since many of the fixes he's making are correct. I guess I'll keep his page watchlisted and see what happens. 28bytes (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
It's amazing how often, with a little effort, I can turn almost anything into a "better to do nothing now and wait" situation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
It demonstrates your immense insight and wisdom ... "Wait And See" shows your commitment to conserving energy. This must be good for the global warming thing, surely? Pesky (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Response

"Wave"ing back at you. Calabe1992 00:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That's... mesmerizing. I wonder if I could use it to hypnotize people who visit this talk page, and make them do by bidding? Dr.K, mow my lawn. Calabe, trim my hedge. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Lol

You are so right. I was just thinking the exact same thing. That I just couldn't beat your edit summary on Black hair and maybe I should hold back. My better sense failed me though. Apologies. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

For posterity, my edit summary was going to be "Removing entire section, per WP:Don't create sections that would just be a list of 1,000,000 people (which should be a blue link, but I bet it's red)"
It's so good, I offer a self-revert. So that you can yet register it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Nah, just wouldn't be the same. But while you're here, look at the image above, and... buy me a cold beer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
done
Not sure why this appeared ;) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, this is going to come in handy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
:) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Pedro's recall criteria

You may care to reconsider your position.[25] Malleus Fatuorum 03:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Aw, Pedro's generally a good egg, just hot headed sometimes. I wish he hadn't said that, and hope he'll reconsider, but I'm not inclined to remove myself from his list. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Malleus Fatuorum 13:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

badmachine

Hey Floquenbeam, stop it already. I appreciate it, though. Listen, as weak as it sounds, I don't have much of a reason to oppose a ban for badmachine. They have made positive edits, and they are also a timesink, though not to a great extent for me anyways. I'll never understand that GNAA stuff, ever--but I cannot support blocking just because of that, and IMO badmachine isn't nothing but a troll. Also, the only thing I've seen that could be called trolling has to do with their own user page--but I have not followed their edits very closely, so it's very likely that I would have missed something.

The section I pointed at, at ANI--I broke a lance for someone and unblocked them, and within a week they first proved that they were really a jerk and then that they deserved an indef block, which I gladly gave them. In other words, I'm wrong about these things all the time, and that your argument for blocking is objectively stronger than my flimsy argument for not blocking is more than likely. It's just that I don't like blocking in cases where you actually detect a human behind the name, not just an asshole with nothing better to do. OK, enough out of me. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say you were always right; just that when you and I disagree, I rethink my position to make sure I haven't missed something. In this particular case, after some thought, I'm still right and you're still wrong :) But there's obviously no consensus to block, and I'll consider myself successfully trolled by choosing to comment in the thread to start with. I should have known better. When everyone uses "troll" to mean "someone I disagree with", it loses so much of its meaning that an actual troll, professing membership in an organization whose stated purpose is trolling, can actually convince people that they're just someone I disagree with because "they belong to an organization". I suppose I'm lucky I haven't been accused of being a homophobe or racist. I just find it odd that people who are honestly expressing a dissenting opinion about WP (Kurt comes to mind, other specific names escape me at the moment) are labelled trolls and driven off, but actual honest to God trolls are not. Funny place.
Now, be a good chap, stare at the picture a couple of sections above, and then go block badmachine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, I feel the same about you (that you're wrong, haha). I don't know, Floquenbeam. He made some helpful edits. I didn't check the ratio. I detest that GNAA stuff and find nothing funny about it, but I don't think it rises to the level of banning. I haven't seen the low-level trolling myself in article space or on the dramah boards; yesterday's little outing at ANI was relatively mild. Malleus gets accused of trolling, so it must be an easy term to throw around. I have escaped that charge so far. There's something else that can be done, though: propose that the GNAA box be deleted or, if it's a logo, that its use be disallowed in user space. Would that help? I support that, but I am not sure we'd find a consensus for it. Ah well. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I did look at that picture for a while, but Hoegaarden isn't really my thing anymore--too 1980s. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
An MFD on the GNAA userbox would be a trolling magnet; I've no desire to start one, or participate in one. I imagine it's been nominated before. Plus, I don't actually care if someone has that user box, or the MLP box, or a satanism box on their user page as a joke or a protest or something; I care (and yes, I know I shouldn't) when they're continually using them to troll.
Odd that I didn't think of it since he posted right above here, but yes, MF is another good example of someone accused of trolling by some people, when what is really meant is "I don't like him". Perhaps we've just stripped the meaning from the word completely.
Dammit, wrong picture, I forget I have to be more specific around some people. Up a little higher. No, too far, not the books. A little lower. Yes, that one. Stare at that one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I'll stare at the box at the top of this page, and try remind myself I shouldn't be here right now (Hello, my name is Floquenbeam, and I'm an addict. It's been 1 week 1 minute since my last fix) --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I know the feeling. But what am I gonna do, grade papers?? Drmies (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Back in college, I used to work part-time for a Muslim professor. At one point he wrote a letter to the editor titled "Racism against Muslims", which I thought was odd, since Islam was a religion and not a race. I asked him, wouldn't it be more precise to call it "Bigotry against Muslims"? But he assured me that racism doesn't have to have a race as its target; one could legitimately be "racist" against religions, nationalities, etc. I wasn't quite convinced, but OK. Fast forward to this year, where I've seen more than once the claim that Wikipedia engages in "racism against IPs". Meaning, I guess, that unregistered or logged-out editors as a class are a "race". I'm 85% sure the "racism against IPs" meme is pure trolling rather than ignorance of what racism is, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see the claim appear that objecting to the racist trolling of the GNAA means that one is "racist against the GNAA". So stay tuned for that. I suppose I'm in a vanishing minority (see what I did there?) of people who actually think that using racist terminology for teh lulz is not something that should be tolerated. 28bytes (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Using "racist" to mean "bigoted" has always puzzled me; there's a well-known, relatively short, more appropriate word right there, and you don't use it? What, you're trying to save syllables? I suspect if someone ever accuses someone else of being "racist against the GNAA" that will be my cue to block them irregardless of consensus anywhere else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hiya, question about the Irelan incident

I note that you blocked his neighbour's IP. Is it okay if I remove his comment from my talk page? Since it already showed he is a friend of the other user? Gorgak25 (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's obviously not his neighbor, but him, pretending to be his neighbor. Yes, you can remove the comment, and if you want me to semi-protect your talk page for a short time, I can do that too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh no, I don't mind my page being left opened at all (thank you, though). I just left it for a while so the comment would be there during the dicussion. But am I right in thinking if I did remove his comment, that the history of that edit will be available unless an admin removes it from the edit histtory? Gorgak25 (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Yep, that's right. It will always be here: [26]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Lunchtime. This in appreciation of your impeccable use of negatives. Now get the fuck away from Wikipedia and try to finish your work--and I'll try to do the same. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not unappreciative of this note, assuming it was not mistakenly misapplied to the wrong page (wait, I think I pushed my luck too far). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I was going to fuck off, but then Bgwhite dropped something on my talk page that smelled socky. *Sigh.* Hey, let's dance tonight, to Cat Daddy. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Take this. Floquenbeam. From User:Abhijay, a.k.a Khvalamde. Khvalamde :   Holla at me   11:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm. Not sure what it's for (general wonderfulness?), but I'll take it. Thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's for general wonderfulness :) Take Care and Best Regards, Khvalamde :   Holla at me   23:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I second the vote for general wonderfulness ;P Pesky (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
lol Floquenbeam. Khvalamde :   Holla at me   13:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Bishapod very thoughtful user, would make a great admin

Spot the fishapod: a lovely plushy for Mrs.

Upon reading this quotebox, Pod thoughtfully hands Mrs Floquenbeam a fishapod plushy from his ample store, all sewn and stuffed by the great Yomangani. (YoMama is truly a man of many talents.) Now Mrs can play, too! bishapod talk to your inner fish 21:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC).

Darwinbish makes short work of troublesome socks
Nah. psychofish make better admin - has excellent way with socks. Nice to see Poddy awake though. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
[Darwinbish is pleased. ] Psychofish, haha! Fine nickname! [Bites little PsychoElen shrewdly on the ass to celebrate new nickname. Goes off to list it on her own page. ] darwinbish BITE 20:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC).
Little Elen glad Darwinbish likes name - needs to get taller buffet to stand on though, as Darwinbish can now jump high enough to bite ass. Elen off her Rocker
  • Hi Bishes! (Hi Elen too). Mrs. Floquenbeam says thank you for the... I can't lie. Mrs. Floquenbeam didn't say thank you. I didn't tell Mrs. Floquenbeam about your thoughtful gift, because Mrs. Floquenbeam doesn't understand the whole Wikipedia... zeitgeist? mindset? not sure what to even call it. Anyway, if I were to tell Mrs. Floquenbeam about your generous gift, she would not do what you would expect: smile and say "my what quirky friends you have". No, she would give me a really weird look and say vaguely disrespectful things about how I spend my free time. Perhaps psychofish would care to bite her rather indelicately on the ankle?

    So. I'm keeping the plushy for myself. Or perhaps I'll save it and give it to my daughter when she's older; she's a nerd in training, so I'm sure she'll eventually edit here too, and appreciate hand-made electronic plushies (not the mass-produced crap they sell as webkinz). --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Recall procedure

Hi there. I have chosen you as one of the editors who may request my resignation as part of my my recall procedure. Could you have a look, and confirm whether you're happy being on the list? Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, why not? I've been wanting to lop the head off an admin for a long time I'd be honored, and will act as a recalleur only if I believe it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

Thanks

No need to apologize, I understand, thanks for keeping an eye on the situation. I hope he/she calms down and returns as a productive editor. Arcandam (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Your attempt to talk them down from the Reichstag was honorable, if doomed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
We tried, that is important. Arcandam (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Good day, thank you for blocking the IP vandal, 89.205.24.130. Just FYI, he appears to have created a permanent account and is continuing to edit war: User:Agamemnon s. Regards, DP76764 (Talk) 16:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, already saw it, but thanks. Already left him a final warning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI

As an active donor and supporter to Wikipedia i feel angry for being punished without breaking a single rule on Wikipedia. People who are protecting violated the Terms of Use. I will raise this dispute to higher levels of Wikipedia even demand my donations back because i was misleaded by the message of Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agamemnon s (talk • contribs) 16:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI, empty threats make you look ridiculous. Reverting your spamming doesn't violate any terms of use. New users can expect a certain amount of leeway, but you don't get to spam your website because you're new. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

1. It's not my website. 2. It's not spamming. 3. I didn't broke any rule. 4. I will return my donated money, but it will bad record for the foundation, and someone will ask why i want to get my money back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agamemnon s (talk • contribs) 17:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Lol. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

We will see who will lol at the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agamemnon s (talk • contribs) 17:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

Thanks!

Your unblocking of my account is greatly appreciated. In retrospect, I definitely should have just reported this to admin earlier and stopped with the reverts; won't happen again (regardless of whether it technically was allowed under the rules.) But, your stepping is is much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs)

You're welcome, Joel. The suggested addition of "Stalin, Mao, and Lenin" to the article reminds me of the suggested addition of "sword-wielding skeletons' to Peloponnesian War. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

wp:ani

I may have misinterpreted, but I don't think so. It looked like there was a shot (a small one and I've thick skin) at me in there. I just wanted to note that I've tried to clarify my thoughts there. I hope you can see the point I was at least trying to make. If not, well, such is life.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Just replied there. No shot at you was intended; I was referring to the fact that Joel was blocked for 3RR for removing that nonsense. What you're saying about properly telling the IP what they're doing wrong makes sense. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Just saw your reply. Looks like I did miss the mark. (And maybe my thick skin does have a thin spot). All good and thanks for the reply.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for your assistance with my on-again-off-again ban (not to mention for pointing me towards an enlightening article about the use of skeleton warriors during the Peloponnesian War!) JoelWhy (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Gee, thanks Joel. Glad I could help. I wonder if I hang out at CAT:UNBLOCK all day, if I could just rake these things in... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hiya

I appreciate your taking care of a couple of hundred deletions WRT Plum90's mass tagging. I was gonna attack the task after my HG session and, lo and behold, no work for me to do :)

Anyway, I wanted you to know that you had back-up...see ya 'round. Tiderolls 02:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem once I found Special:Nuke (That's a really useful tool that could probably make a pretty big mess if misused). Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there something wrong?

This edit: ([27]) was a complete outburst and I just find this rude and just another outburst of vexation. While I can sympathize that I did have a bad time at WP:ANI noticeboards, and you telling me that I shouldn't get involved in other conflicts as it wasn't my thing, this was completely uncalled for. I don't take bribes, nor do I take this bribing offers if I brang a discussion to WP:AN. There was nothing wrong bringing a ban discussion about a user, and I do not see why you are so irked off with it, and calling it "ridiculousness". If you do think of it as "ridiculousness", I am more than happy to welcome any constructive criticism/feedback. Perhaps you are just having a bit of a bad day - It certainly does flow in once in a while. This is the third time I am seeing these outbursts from you, and still I am assuming good faith, so please don't push my goodwill. Khvalamde :   Argue, Scream, Chat, Yell or Shout   04:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

SK, you need to step back and realise you're the one who's using up everyone else's goodwill. I think you're very lucky Floq hasn't already indef-blocked you at some point in the past two months. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I've attempted some helpfulness; have no idea whether it will have any beneficial effect, though. Pesky (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Kvalamde,
    1. Look, I think such votes are bad ideas, and yes, I am frustrated that they keep popping up so frequently at AN (initiated both by you and, if I recall correctly, others), and am frustrated that people keep voting in them. But to call it an outburst or rudeness or incivility is not reasonable.
    2. Criticism is not the same as personal attacks.
    3. As the ANI thread you started quickly made clear, that was not a serious "bribe" offer; I intended the ridiculousness of the offer of the free unblock to have made that clear. I wasn't really going to give you $5 either (the barnstar is, actually, still available if you want to take me up on that).
I will try to remind myself more often not to use sarcasm as humor with you.
  • SP, I doubt I will ever block Kvalamde for anything; I think by now I'm too "involved". But the votes for banning has nothing to do with blocking, there are several people doing it, and it was a frustrated cry for change, not a threat to block.
  • Pesky, I haven't looked yet at your comments, but thanks in advance for stepping in.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it will probably not surprise you that Khvalamde has decided to "retire" again, while deciding to log out and have a bit of fun on my usertalk before doing so (I've filed an SPI just for formality's sake, although I know it was him and I won't get a CU). I really don't know what is with that kid, but unfortunately it seems even Pesky hasn't been able to help turn him into a useful contributor. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed that things escalated further after the ANI thread got closed. I'm a little jaded about the retirements by now; I imagine he'll be back. But I'm surprised and disappointed if that IP is him. Are you sure? I don't know him well, but my sometimes-faulty instinct says that doesn't seem like something he'd do. A joe job, maybe? Anyway, I guess we'll see. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The IP geolocates to where he previously publicly disclosed he was studying, so I think it's fairly likely it was him. At any rate, let's wait to see what happens, like you say. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
This will be the last message I will ever post on Wikipedia. I don't know if you are lying Floquenbeam, or if SP is having something personal, or if the both of you wanted something against me, but those are not the conclusions to jump to at the moment. The fact remains the fact that there were faults on my side and some on your side and SP's. Flo, we both had opinions that clashed rather angrily against each other, with you getting all heated up and me being the bearer of that, which led on to a warring argument because of me posting at WP:ANI conflict, which led to the conclusion that I shouldn't post on conflicts such as Topic Ban as that was not my thing, and yes, I did say sorry for doing some misleading and incorrect edits, and that has largely grown old now, and I've learned from those mistakes. It appears that the differences between me, you and SP will not seem to stop and neither party looks much more innocent than the other, and just goes worse almost all the time I try to do the right thing. If i was using up people's goodwill, I'd be unfriendly or have an uncooperative attitude which is what most vandals and troublesome editors would do, but I did take the advice and accept input from most people. I am human, I do make mistakes, and I don't see whats the big fuss about making something big out of something that proves to innocent. But clearly, I did mess up big time with SP, and posting to WP:ANI was a stupid thing from my side, and I'm sorry for all of that. Now what else do you guys want more, a palace of apologies? I am done here. Good luck and have a nice day. Khvalamde :   Argue, Scream, Chat, Yell or Shout   03:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
SK, take a break and get your exams out of the way! That, on its own, could well explain why you're stressed out and not at your best at the moment. Then, once you've had a break away from us 'orrible lot in here ;P have a think about doing some of those things I suggested. You might find it quite rewarding, and it's unlikely to lead you into any conflicts. Pesky (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This is related to the above section.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Jasper. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! SwisterTwister talk 20:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Need your take on this

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

Hey Floq,

I really don't know what to make of this and would like your opinion on it, as I figure you're just as well-versed with SK as I am. Please see the message I received here from an anon IP. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

God damn it, I just wanted to have a clean start once more, and is it really that much of a great deal? No, I don't declare Mr. Stradivarius as a sock, nor do I for my fresh start account. Clearly Stradivarius lives in Japan, whereas I live several kilometers away from him. I figured that when I retired my main account, and wished to start new because taking those experiences on User Khvalamde (my former account), I wished to start again on a new account once more because I didn't want to repeat the same mistakes over again. Geez, it's a god damn website. Khvalamde :   Argue, Scream, Chat, Yell or Shout   15:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
The IP posting on Strange Passerby's talkpage is almost certainly banned user User:Rinpoche, so a rangeblock covering the two IPs he's using there is probably a good idea, especially since he appears to be admitting that he was visited by the police as a result of his harassing the SK kid off-wiki.
Mr W is nothing to do with Mr Stradivarius other than copying his userpage layout, as he has now made clear at the top of his draft userpage (which he wasn't using publicly anywhere anyway).
I think Khvalamde means Stradivarius lives "several thousand" kilometres away, not several. Khvalamde, can I suggest you decide which account you are going to use, and stick to just that one account? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Demiurge, thanks for the explanation, that makes sense. Khvalamde, I'm not going to be able to control who gets in touch with me. And obviously if I'm approached by someone I don't know over a complicated issue, I'm well within my rights to ask an admin to take a look at it. I did not know if the user mentioned (Mr. W) was indeed you, although you seem to have admitted as much (and clearly, you didn't have to). If I were you I would take Demiurge's advice to stick to one account, as CLEANSTART requires you to not use your old account and advises "it is best to completely avoid old topic areas after a clean start". —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Note - as far as I can see, everything explicitly linking Mr W with Khvalamde has now been revdel'd, so let's keep it that way. A couple of Rinpoche IP addresses have also now been blocked.
Floquenbeam, you may have to look through the last few revisions of Strange Passerby's talkpage to find some of the details of what we're on about :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes. To Strange Passerby, I am now going to use my new account Mr. Wikipediania, but just because I am starting new, does not mean I will egregiously insult you or probably anyone because I know that doing something like that is just plain stupid. And again, thanks for giving out a few pointers out to me. The troll Rinpoche is back? I thought the troll said he retired from editing Wikipedia and even admitted the project was something with no future. Oh god. Mr. Wikipediania Talk 23:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh and for the record, I am now creating a Long-Term abuse case so that this stupid harassment will just stop. This silliness from Rinpoche has gone on long enough. Mr. Wikipediania Talk 04:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Trying to catch up on all this. I'm completely unfamiliar with Rinpoche. So if I understand right:
    • The IP who posted to Strange Passerby's and Demiurge's talk pages is a banned user who has a previous history with Mr. Wikipediania. Noted.
    • Mr. Wikipediania is going to file an LTA case against this banned user. Fine with me. I really suggest you keep public comments about this banned user to an absolute minimum, though, Mr. Wikipediania.
    • Mr. Wikipediania is attempting a clean start with this new account. Fine with me... but make sure to read WP:CLEANSTART, it's not just a way to avoid people looking at your previous history, you need to leave past conflicts behind, and edit with one account. If you re-involve yourself in past conflicts, it will really go downhill fast.
    • The banned user more or less outed the new account. I'm sorry that happened, Mr. Wikipediania, but that's not anything I can prevent.
    • Mr. Wikipediania has nothing to do with Dr. Stradivarius. Noted.
    • Strange Passerby hasn't done anything wrong here, simply passing on a comment on his talk page he didn't understand.
    • Demiurge has given Mr. Wikipediania some good advice. I suggest you take it.
    • There's not really anything for me to do here, I'm just now in the loop. If not, let me know what you need from me.
--Floquenbeam (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Not a probs Flo. In the mean time, I think my recently created essay will need to be given to him. Mr. Wikipediania Talk 14:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
That's not what I meant by "I really suggest you keep public comments about this banned user to an absolute minimum". In any case, I don't think that essay is a great idea, particularly it's name, and the shortcut you chose. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, yes, possibly (I lost track). Yes. Not that I'm aware. No, it isn't ridiculous - at least, wait until an off-wiki harasser has a significantly measurable real-world effect on someone with authority over you (like, say, your employer), and assess your behaviour as a result, compared with your usual behaviour, before you decide whether it's ridiculous or not. And, yeah, hmm, my deletion discussion, not very refined but I feel it's justified. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Well whaddayaknow. I was going to find an appropriate deletion rationale (as in, disruptive shit that's not funny) but it's already gone. Apparently Fuckhead copied "Fuckhead" was copied from somewhere else. Tsk tsk. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Drmies. Yes, Mr. Wikipediania still has an interaction ban with Dave, although that seems to have settled down, and might be a sleeping dog best left lying (or laying, I always get confused?) --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Hello there mr. admin Floquenbeam, and how are you faring tonight? Hey, is this cat acting appropriately? Abhijay was renamed to Soviet King, Soviet King was renamed to Khvalamde. Hhvalamde is retired. For shits and giggles, see this--or maybe you already have. User:Russophile23, anyone? Or User:Ab23?? Does this jive with anything? Cleanstart? They're active in the same areas for all I know and really being a nuisance all over the place. Also, "lay" is used with an object. One lays something down. Keep it straight or I'll arbcom you. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Misunderstanding there. I had renamed my old account (Khvalamde) several times I owned it. I first named it Abhijay, then changed it to Ab23, then Russophile23, then back to Abhijay, then to Soviet King and then Khvalamde. Simple misunderstanding there, and no I had not created any other accounts. Mr. Wikipediania Talk 02:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
For fuck's sake, why do you need to rename your account a half a dozen times? With user pages deleted instead of redirecting to the new account? With no notices about previous account names? No wonder people are confused. I never suggested you had more than one account at the same time--though someone might well ask if those frequent changes are to avoid scrutiny. Just make sure that you don't run into trouble in areas where your alter egos have been in trouble: since you asked for user pages to be deleted you are implying a kind of clean start, if I'm not mistaken. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UTRS 1484

Hi. It's one you blocked. He says he's had time to think about it and would like to be unblocked (he requested you blocked him). You know him better than me.. Secretlondon (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't figure out the UTRS interface, so I've unlocked his talk page and will discuss an unblock there. When this gets resolved, I'll try to figure out the UTRS interface well enough to mark it resolved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll close the UTRS version. Actually I can't as you've reserved it. UTRS seems to promise much but can do very little. Secretlondon (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks; that's a lot of buttons to choose from for an old dog. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I think I closed it. Let me know if there is something I should have done differently. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
You did fine :) Secretlondon (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Floquenbeam

I commented on your post at WT:AC, and I had some ideas that I'd like to get your thoughts on.. (if you have free time). [28], probably used WAYYYYY too many words to try to propse it, but this is jsut an off-the cuff first draft. SirFozzie (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, will look in tomorrow. Calling it an early day, feeling a bit under the weather. Thanks for commenting, tho. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Get well soon, Floquenbeam. The wiki might break if you don't. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, thanks Drmies, didn't mean to imply it was serious. Just a head cold combined with fatigue and muscle and joint aches that made me feel about 95 years old. Sleep did wonders, now it's just a normal head cold, which I normally hate but which now seems harmless in comparison. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, glad you're better. Now go block someone--if you do so for civility, you should probably take your cool user name and go back to bed. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
You did get a flu shot, right? (I mean, despite the well-documented autism risk)? Because it sounds like influenza. MastCell Talk 19:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm... I guess I just subconsciously assumed you can't get a cold and the flu at the same time. Don't know why I assumed that, I can't think of any reason why not, I guess it's just never happened to me before. But yes, in retrospect, it felt exactly like having a cold and the flu at the same time for 2 days, and now the flu symptoms are gone, and the cold is still here. Yes, I did get the flu shot (my enlightened employer provides them free to employees and their families, administered at the office, and sends out a gazillion email reminders, but still only get a 50% participation rate), but from what I understand that just protects you from the common strains, not the uncommon ones. You're a genius, as usual, MC. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The flu season has come really late this year, so if you were vaccinated back in October or so, your seroprotection has probably waned a bit by now. Even with a really good "fit" between vaccine components and circulating viral strains, the flu vaccine is at best about 80% effective, so it's really dependent on herd immunity (and it sounds like the vaccine uptake wasn't ideal in your office). In any case, if you scan and upload your insurance card, I'll see that the billing gets handled. Wait, you are insured, right? MastCell Talk 20:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
That would have been a good question to ask before dispensing medical advice. Plus, implying I'm part of some "herd" is a personal attack, I'm sure. But I won't report you, so we can call it even. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
You're right. "Herd" implies a bunch of obtuse animals incapable of acting with critical thought or individual intelligence. I should have said "community". Which is totally different. MastCell Talk 21:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I was about to try to think of a witty reply, but now I know I'm outmatched and give up. I just saw something you wrote in the last hour or so (I'll make any stalkers look for it) that made me involuntarily guffaw in a quiet room full of people. Got some odd looks. Naughty MastCell. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

User:Pull lead

I notice that you unblocked the above, after he promised that "trolling and personal attacks are not going to resume", however it looks like his fist two edits here and here were just that, clearly attacking my motives. Mtking (edits) 20:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that; my fault for believing him. Reblocked, and won't ever be unblocked by me again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
No need to apologise, not your fault. Mtking (edits) 21:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Best wishes

I see you've decided to step down — and I assume you're taking a step back from everything in general, too. Best wishes in whatever you decide to do. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much SP (and those below), but that might be premature, not retiring quite yet. I'm desysopping myself mostly in disgust, but not (yet) quitting in disgust. Waiting to see if being a mere mortal is sufficient to remove the bad taste in my mouth. If I decide to quit, I'm sure I'll do something drama-queen-ish so you'll know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Users who support this statement
  1. ^ This. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  2. and I. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  3. As someone who could never figure out why anyone in their right mind would want to be an admin or a doctor, I of course understand when someone realizes what I believe I already knew. Equazcion (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    People want to become doctors so they can enrich themselves while suppressing The Truth about cheap, natural cancer cures that you can buy online for $9.99 plus shipping and handling. Actually, that's why I became an admin, too. It's all starting to make sense. MastCell Talk 17:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  4. Been there, done that. You'll like not being an admin, or at least you'll dislike this demented "community" a bit less. Best wishes in your search for eternal slack. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  5. I can understand; if it weren't for the ability to view deleted pages (which I find indispensable), I'd probably have resigned the admin bit a while ago. Good luck, and let me know if I can help with anything. MastCell Talk 17:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  6. Me too; s'why I locked up my main account and have to use this one. Heimstern:Away (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  7. I wonder most days why I even asked for my bit back. Writing and researching is so relaxing. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  8. This user (Floq) not only has my full support in their actions - but also has at least one person considering the validity and value of such action. All my best Floq. — Ched :  ?  01:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  9. teb bit is supposed to be no big deal (except to teh power-mad;). This demonstrates that some get it, while some abuse it (and should lose it). Ever tried being a mere IP? /worse/. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Users who a) can't figure out what's up, but b) wish to make supportive noises, but c) because of a) can't formulate them
  1. Dweller (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  2. -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 16:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  3. Well this is the opposite of a nice welcome back present. I demand that this be fixed at once. NW (Talk) 02:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  4. Well, that's a shame. But glad to see you're still editing. Makes it more important that you contact me with issues, anything similar to our past interactions. WormTT · (talk) 07:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Others
  1. This sucks -- there are already too few [[Category:Zen Master Administrators]] and losing another is not good for Wikipedia. Especially one who had just agreed to run the place Nobody Ent 11:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


Puzzled reply to all

That's really, really, nice of you all, but some of you make it sound like I'm dying, or moving to Canada, or Meatball:GoodByeing, or something. I just gave up the bit, I haven't Quit with a capital Q. I suppose I'll save all these up and copy/paste them when/if I do leave, so I don't just hear crickets? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"Even if we didn't lose an editor, we lost a good admin." I think that sums up the replies you'll get to this. Equazcion (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
To put it in simpler terms the average admin IQ just suffered a drop after your exit. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
including... oddly... my personal IQ, which may well be linked to the average WormTT · (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
LOL. Everyone knows your IQ is very high WTT and FWIW the admin IQ is already high enough. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Moving to Canada! I resemble that remark! -- Dianna (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
It's elementary Dianna. Everything is frozen there and remains in the same state unless it moves south to the US. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

SPI

Hey Floq, I was also a bit dismayed with your giving up the bit again, but that's not why I'm here. Regarding that SPI case, I've got no problem at all with you reverting my close. You might want to drop a line to the CU, though, since they're not particularly active at SPI and might not notice your request otherwise. Cheers, and enjoy your break ;) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

That would have been a good idea, but I went AWOL. However, it looks like Deskana found my comment anyway. Thanks for the note, DoRD. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Integrity
Thanks for your words of wisdom on that SPI. May not make any practical difference, but getting a probably-incorrect badge of shame corrected was nonetheless the right thing to do. 28bytes (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, 28b. "Wisdom" is my middle name (although sometimes I lie and say it's "Integrity". --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

The Barnstar of Good Humor

The Barnstar of Good Humor
"I know the cat's dead, but I still have to wonder if the expression on its face is somehow related to the installation of the "rudder assembly" I was swigging some pop thru a straw when I read that quote. Some pop did escape and land on my shirt and laptop. First time I've ever done that before. Thank you Bgwhite (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Gee, thanks Bgw, glad there are others who appreciate sophisticated high brow humor. Sorry about your laptop, send the bill to Drmies, it's his page so it's his fault. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

AE

Please see this AE which as The Blade of the Northern Lights states: "Comments from other admins would be really nice too." Ankh.Morpork 10:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Jayblackcar back on the mic and m-cee

Hi Floquenbeam. I don't know if you remember, but back in March I took User:Jayblackcar's userpage to mfd for being about a non-existent album and an artist whose claims to fame appear to be false. I don't recall now how it ended up at ANI (whether I took it there, or someone complained that I was biting him). Regardless, his userpage was deleted and I don't think he edited ever since. I just noticed User:Jesseblackcar, who started editing in may, and whose userpage is the exact same information as Jayblackcar's deleted page as far as I can tell.

I'm unclear if you are around, but figured it was worth a try to run it past you what you think the next step should be. I haven't looked into the details yet to see if he has modified the spurious claims. I don't want to slap a new editor, but this seems to be more a case of deception than honest newbie errors.

Any thoughts? Thanks. Syrthiss (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi Syrthiss, I'm sort of around, in the sense that I check my talk page once or twice a day now, but won't be getting involved in this directly; I don't have my sheriff's badge anymore.

    I believe I was in the "don't bite the newbies" camp last time, and disagreed with the result of the MFD. But, that can't last forever, especially when the user makes zero effort to attempt to communicate, nor any attempt to, you know, help make an encyclopedia. I don't have the magic x-ray glasses anymore to see deleted contribs, but the new user page looks the same as I remember the old one looking. If you look at Links to the image, it appears there are several other accounts being used too. Since, in spite of my note on their talk page last time, they did not attempt to communicate with anyone, I think we're into "not your personal webhost" and CSD#G4 territory now, and I have no real concern about biting a newbie anymore. If I were an admin, I'd be tempted to (a) leave a message on their most active account's talk page reminding them of the MFD; (b) delete all the user pages, (c) ask them which account they'd like to keep, and block the others, salting their user pages, and (d) explain that continuing to recreate the page again will probably result in blocking the remaining account as well. But then, I have less patience with pretty much everyone than I did a couple of months ago, so that might be too harsh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hehe my patience with people here waxes and wanes. I apologize if I was / am a part of the cause of that. Thanks for the advice. I think I need to take a deeper look into the timelines of contributions of the various accounts, and perhaps talk to a checkuser. If this is a case of a serial password-forgetter (so no overlap between the accounts) I'm apt to be more conciliatory towards them than if they are hopping back and forth between them in an effort to build ramparts and prevent the eventual deletion. Also, thanks very much for the file link idea - I wouldn't have thought of that and probably would not have been able to paint as complete a picture without that. Regards, Syrthiss (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I misremembered; I'd already become less patient by the end of the MFD, and had switched to delete. Anyway, I stalked your contribs from today, and agree with all you've done here. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
[Worried. Very keen to be a good user. ] Hopping back and forth between accounts is... bad? darwinfish 19:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC).
Normally I would block you for such blatant disruptive behavior, but (a) I'm scared of your evil twin, (b) an important distinction is whether the socking amuses me or not, and (c) my block button seems to be on the blink. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

Thanks

...for explaining so eloquently what I no longer have the patience to do. Parrot of Doom 12:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. It took slightly longer to type than "fuck off", but (a) I'm not going to get blocked, (b) it's good karma to offer help, and (c) I don't actually write content here, so it's as close as I can come to being "productive". --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Question: By 'others', do you mean just yourself (my talk page)? I have not bothered checking yet. Busy, but that would be my par expectation, Floquenbeam.Julzes (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
From the article talk page? No, I don't mean that (if you're busy, it would have taken less time to look at the article talk page history and see than to ask). I did, however, remove your comment from Parrot of Doom's talk page, for reasons that I hope have become clearer now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
My error. The problem remains about removing edits that were edit-method related in context and in regards to WP:FORUM having been justification (on account of its section 4), but I don't plan a follow up.Julzes (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Dave1185

Hi. I mentioned a block of yours in an ani thread:

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Not feeling like I have some responsibility for dealing with people like Dave is one of the many reasons I gave back the bit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack

Stop, just stop. I know you are upset, but please just step away instead of posting personal attack. KTC (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank God you put the little red stop sign in there; otherwise I wouldn't have known you were serious. You will make a fantastic admin someday. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, KTC, you're missing the big picture, here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey! Floquenbeam! I was invited to a party. I had a bunch of cognac, some Affligem Tripels, an eau de vie, and a couple of regular beers tonight. Dinner involved carpaccio and a whole bunch of grilled, roasted, and sauteed animals (dead) with assorted sauces. It's cool and clear here. Tomorrow, I'm taking my kid to the beach and we might go swimming bare-butted if I manage to forget the bathing suits. Then, we're going home to eat dinner, drink more beers (well, not her, obviously), and watch a soccer game. Then, win or lose, we'll drink more beer. None of these activities involve Wikipedia. Also, none of the people I ran into today or will run into tomorrow are assholes, which makes for a great change of pace. You should try it! Enjoy your weekend! Drmies (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Blast from the past

he does not seem like the kind of person who is self-righteous, argumentative, negative, pessimistic or bitter, ... He is always polite, courteous, and friendly, everything you could possibly want in an admin. Remember that guy? It's obvious you're Wiki-burnt -- easy place to get and I've been there myself. It's not worth the aggravation and it's not going to do any good to go out on a rant. Take a break for however long you need to. You'll do a lot better by both Wikipedia and yourself coming back as your previous positive self, getting the bits back, and being the admin voice of reason you used to be. And if the break turns out to be forever, that's cool to. You don't owe this place anything and if it's not fun you shouldn't be doing it. Nobody Ent 16:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a sinking feeling that I've left messages similar to this on pissed off users' talk pages in the past, but FYI, all it does it annoy the person you're trying to calm. I know you didn't intend that, but it does. I'm not an idiot, I know all about the off switch, and the "listen to me because I'm calm and you're not" attitude would probably work if used with a close friend, but just kind of grates when said by someone I don't really know. Still, having probably done it myself, thanks for trying to help. Hope the feedback is useful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Don't you confuse your participation on this project with being helpful, either. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, what a pleasant little ray of sunshine you are. Y'know, you didn't used to be like this, and you don't have to be like this now.lest there be any misunderstanding, this is in response to B.R.>Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Frustrated with losing Floq and keeping 1185. Teh Tree, above, mostly just talks. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, I see where you're coming from. But still...
There was a time when I was pretty insistent that content creation was what it's all about. I don't think that any more. Part of it is resentment at not being able to contribute in my field of expertise -- although I'm not formally under sanctions, given the present composition of Arbcom it would be extremely unwise for me to do so. There's also a realization that WP already has articles on the vast majority of topics that the vast majority of people care about. Granted many of those articles are mediocre or worse, but given the nature of the project I have real philosophical questions about whether quality is generally achievable. Finally there's the realization that this place has turned into a rather nasty MMORPG. I just don't have the talent for duplicity, gamesmanship, and the other skills that it takes to play effectively.
So I don't put much emphasis on content any more, whether in my own work or others'. Don't get me wrong; I respect people who add quality content, it's just that I don't see doing so as a prerequisite for being a full member of this demented "community." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
No need to beat up on Nobody Ent, Br'er. His wasn't really a productive comment, but at least his heart seems to be in the right place. At this point, anyone who doesn't spend their day going around bullying others counts as a fucking saint in my book.
Unlike Boris, and Br'er, I've never really contributed any content here. I never thought it was vital to be primarily a content editor. "Each according to his abilities", right Comrade Boris? :) It's always been a MMORPG, I'm sure some people think my non-content participation was MMORPG-like. But now it's become a depressing, mean-spirited MMORPG with inertia; somewhere along the line, people stopped paying close enough attention, and let the jerks gain control of the asylum, and they've propagated and there aren't enough non-jerks to do anything about it. The good karma's been sucked out of the place. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

:(

Very sorry to see this, Floq. Sorry that an issue I raised may have been a trigger. You are, of course, right about a lot of what is wrong with this place. Best wishes — David 12:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks David. No worries, I'm sure some other final straw would have come along if you hadn't pointed out this one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC) (actually the 19th; fake timestamp so this archives quicker)
You take care, please. — David 00:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Best wishes, good luck, and keep well. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 04:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Important

I see that you've decided to retire Flo. Well, I wish you best of luck in your future endeavors, and I'm sorry to see that you've made a tough decision to retire from Wikipedia. I agree that you've been burned out with the way how things have been going, but don't let that bother you too much. Best of luck. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 13:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Precious

polite, courteous, and friendly, missing
Thank you for not seeming "like the kind of person who is self-righteous, argumentative, negative, pessimistic or bitter, ... always polite, courteous, and friendly, everything you could possibly want in an admin." Remember, you are an awesome Wikipedian! You created a wonderful category. Missing you now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


  • roarrr

To cheer you up

... today's good story (hidden message: "open mind") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Gerda. Nicely done by all of you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Floq, here is an impossuzzle you may like to look at

We have never spoken before, and that's probably a condition that you'll long for in a short time. But if your after an impossuzzle which other experienced editors haven't been able to solve, and my inexperience and artificial aura are delaying, then I would like your advice. Penyulap ☏ 23:32, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Note

Was expecting to be near a computer this morning but I'm not. Will comment at AN in a couple hours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

copied to AN. Chedzilla (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thanks Ched; phone can't load AN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I am in complete quandary, as I assume that if I make any new comment beyond userspace or noticeboard, or revive an old comment, I would, again, lose my account function. &, I assume worse for any alternate account as well.

I am acting as if none of my accounts have any function.

& there is this persistent malware accusation; I have offered a comparison with a message that I have just received, which you can find in my * today * history.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 17:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your kind words : ) - jc37 21:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good luck. If I'm overcome with the urge to tilt at windmills myself, I'll comment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Get them kids off my lawn!

Grumble grumble grumble. In all seriousness though, welcome back, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. :-) The Helpful One 22:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. You wouldn't think I'd lose so much muscle memory in 2 months, but... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Best edit summary of the week. Thanks, I needed that. Risker (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll try to screw up more often, to keep you amused. May not even need to "try". --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Considering the recent attack involved working down a list of the most-transcluded templaces and attacking the ones which weren't fully protected, perhaps it would be a good idea to protect any remaining templates with more than, say, 10000 transclusions...? bobrayner (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought that had already been done. i don't think he's hitting templates that affect that many pages. In fact, I dimly recall someone getting yelled at for pre-emptively protecting less-widely transcluded templates, like 1 to 2 years ago. Not even sure where a list of widely transcluded templates would be... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Ham Cork Fest first hit, {{Infobox settlement/metric}}, has 77k transclusions, then {{Redirect template}} which has 62k transclusions, then Bio icon with 60k, and so on. The final one (before getting blocked) was {{De icon}} with 26k transclusions. I have no idea where the boundary is on "Should we protect this template by default?" but 10k seemed like a sufficiently large number which would mollify those opposed to wideranging protection, but would still have blunted an attack like this. I have emailed you (beans) a report listing all vulnerable templates. Have fun... bobrayner (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh. Perhaps... just perhaps... I shouldn't talk about things I don't know anything about. Seems like a discussion ought to be had somewhere. At the risk of sounding elitist (now that I have my bit back), I'd be tempted to liberally fully protect all templates with greater than X transclusions, but I doubt there's consensus for that. And, I don't know what X should be. I may leave it to people more technically wise than me, but if there's a discussion about it somewhere, I'll chime in. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
OK. Have fun... bobrayner (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Thanks, your comment made me LOL: "Original question long resolved, but surprisingly for ANI, this has degenerated into bickering. That hardly ever happens." Arcandam (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Glad you liked it. Thanks for the hardware. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Surprising?

ANI bickering surprises you? You must be new here. Nobody Ent 02:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't say that, NE, he may think you don't understand sarcasm. Just leave him an Oldwelcome template. It's like it was created for Floq. Bishonen | talk 09:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
I should have used the new irony punctuation I just learned about. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on WP:ANI. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dear Mrs. Floquenbeam, such comments are an insult to the entire Wikipedia community. By way of punishment I'll have to "tsk tsk" you: tsk tsk! Drmies (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Mustard after the meal, I see. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I probably deserved the {{uw-snark3}}, but what's with the Mrs. Floquenbeam comment? (p.s. you Europeans with your cute accents and quaint expressions. It's adorable.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you pretty much got it exactly right. Nobody Ent 14:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I always do; it's just others sometimes don't realize it :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Not always, there was that recent ill-considered "retirement" -- fortunately for WP you didn't come to you senses and unretired (5%). Nobody Ent 14:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
(abrupt subject change) Thanks for closing that... we'll see if it sticks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hokiaputa

I know my remarks were critical of you, but for the record I do not believe and did not mean to imply that you were acting in bad faith. I think you made the wrong decision and that you incorrectly considered yourself uninvolved, but I believe these to be honest mistakes and I'm sure you are genuinely trying to help this user, we just see his actions and attitude very, very differently. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

careful

Just be careful what you suggest re. option b. Unblocks aren't always popular: {example) — Ched :  ?  01:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw that, I was making a subtle reference to it. Your unblock was fine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Floquenbeam/Archive_4&oldid=1185615498"