User talk:TParis/Archive 8

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

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Nomination by non sysops!

Actually someone suggested us to inform some WP:INDIA* admins. But, we have not done so fearing it'll be a WP:CANVAS*. You can see last few posts of this thread. I am interested to learn will it be an inappropriate canvassing if an admin is informed about the nomination (for admin's guidance etc)! --Tito Dutta ✉ 13:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Footnote * Not formatting error.. Actually I have deliberately not linked, because 1) you already know what are in these pages 2) more importantly, I want to highlight only that link where I want you to click!

Yes and no. If you ask someone to !vote in an RFA or "take a look" with the intention that they vote then yes you are canvassing. However, if you're just asking for advice (admin guidance) then that's not canvassing. Canvassing has more to do with an editor's intentions than anything else. The criteria we use are tools to judging the intentions of the editor since we cannot get into people's heads and they are guidance about what not to do.--v/r - T P 16:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

I want to ask my candidate a question, can you say if asking own candidate a question okay/allowed? 2) more importantly, is the question too difficult/uncommon since all the question have been asked are talking about possibilities and I am talking about a live issue. Question below

;Additional question from Tito Dutta (Nominator)
14. Live issue: In some Indian (specially regional film articles) some people change the gross of the film unnecessarily (some of those are exceptional claim), but without source. The worst part it they change the amount of profit in every few days (sometimes few hours) from, say, 10 Crore to 20 Crore etc –which is weird almost impossible– always without source. In some film articles I removed unbelievable unsourced gross and added <--DON'T ADD WITHOUT SOURCE --> Very soon I find some people undoing my edits and adding again adding a unsourced (new) gross amount. Most probably they are fans of the films and want to show their likings here in Wikipedia by adding a unbelievable gross amount! Also note, this is not a problem of one editor. I have tried to talk to at least 10 different editors in last few months

Example These are two live issues Example 1, Example 2.

Your opinion/suggestion? I am frankly saying I am very tired after giving a bunch of editors suggestion/warning/notices again and again!

I have not asked still! --Tito Dutta ✉ 19:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen it happen but there is no rule against it. Also, it's sort of a weird question in that there really isn't much an admin could do and even if there was, it's not a controversial admin topic. So his opinion wouldn't really weigh on his candidacy.--v/r - T P 19:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks! Better not asking this question! Since they are reverting my edits, I have added a CN tag. --Tito Dutta ✉ 19:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit summary counter

Hey TParis. I was looking at this and comparing it with this. and something doesn't add up. Does the tool count edit summaries which just link to the section? They're not really edit summaries in my mind, as they're automatic when you press "edit" on a section. Worm^TT(talk) 15:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It only counts article space. That might be where the mix-up lies.--v/r - T P 16:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That still doesn't quite account for it, does it just check for any text in the edit summary area, or does it ignore text between /* */? Worm^TT(talk) 16:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I-73/74 North–South Corridor

No action has been taken on this article in a year. You were the one that closed the discussion, so I was wondering what the next step is. Wikipedia doesn't have a procedure for this type of situation.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You wanna take care of it? All that needs to happen is content needs to be split into each of the two articles, whichever amount is appropriate, and it needs the appropriate attribution. Then just redirect the page to the most notable of the two.--v/r - T P 19:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose no further discussion is needed. I'm studying it right now.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Took me an hour. Can you please make sure I did everything right?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I know there are errors and there is unsourced information (except for a broken link, but I can research that) in what I merged, but I'm at home and I limit the number of web sites I go to there. I can fix some of the problems on Wednesday.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Perfect. Most folks don't do the attribution so well. Good job.--v/r - T P 21:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It's still not easy for me. I used to do it wrong but I don't remember what articles I did it for. The important thing is the template is there. And I wouldn't say perfect, but it'll be better at some point.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes Houston photo event in September

I'd like to encourage you help organize the activities at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes America/Houston for September.--Pharos (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

RfA ticker

The RfA tasks have been started and are running in my userspace. They can be redirected if you like. Also, do you think. I should initiate a BRFA to take over adminstats and cratstats?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 12:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes.--v/r - T P 13:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer you link the RfX reporter page to my reporter page.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 18:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I can do that, but before I do you should remove the "Last updated by cyberbot I NotifyOnline at 18:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)". I was asked to remove it in mine because it's unnecessary updates and folks didn't like it.--v/r - T P 18:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Like who? SoxBot did it the entire time.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 18:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Timestamp is now opt-outable. Set showtimestamp parameter to false to disable.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 19:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/TPBot.--v/r - T P 20:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Some see it as useful and others don't. The "consumes resources unnecessarily" is very disputable. I think editors should be allowed to choose for themselves whether they want it or not.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 20:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Hello friend.... My name is arun kumar sharma.I am an Indian. I am highly interested in military and military aviation and i am also very knowledgeable in this area. So I want to become an administrator in wikipedia. Please make me administrator . I will give my 100 % efforts to make it improve and please eat this pie. It taste good.

Thank you. Arun sharma 101 16:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You can not become an administrator by requesting here. And this is not easy to become admin too. See Wikipedia:Administrators, also see Wikipedia:User access levels. If you want to contribute in military and military aviation related articles, you don't need admin rights. Anyone can edit those articles. See Help:Contents/Getting started. Happy editing! --Tito Dutta ✉ 17:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Revision history statistics

Hi again. How's it going with your cooperation with CyberPower to bring back the Revision History Statistics tool? I really liked that tool, and I noticed that it's still gone. • Jesse V.^(talk) 04:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You'd have to ask Cyberpower.--v/r - T P 18:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

With college and work now in my life, efforts to fix the bug that is preventing the tool from operating on toolserver has drastically slowed. I typically only have enough time on my hands to maintain the code for SoxBot. I'm going to get back at it as soon as I can.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 18:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

As a college student myself, I can understand how that goes. Thanks for your efforts! • Jesse V.^(talk) 19:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Range contribs question

Hi thanks for the great Range-Contribs tool. Is there a switch to add to this example url that would limit hits to just the last five days? Thanks in advance, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I can check to be sure, but no, I do not believe so.--v/r - T P 18:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Rename

Hi there TParis. I should have pinged you earlier, but could you take a quick look at my reply here? Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw it and posed the question to the user and they havent responded.--v/r - T P 01:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. 28bytes (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes America/San Antonio

You're doing San Antonio rather than Houston, right? It looks like there aren't any dedicated people lining up behind Houston, so in that case maybe we should just send them your way...--Pharos (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That's fine if you'd like to do it. My wife and I discussed Houston and we decided we couldnt afford the gas, but we wanted to do San Antonio.--v/r - T P 01:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Page creation tool

Hi, I see you are now running the edit count tool formerly maintained by User:X! (no relation). He also had a tool which gave details of which pages a given user had created; do you know if there is anything similar, or if anyone else has adopted that one? pablo 15:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, right here http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pages/.--v/r - T P 18:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the one, cheers! (nb the link from https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/User:Tparis/Index doesn't work. pablo 08:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That page isn't mine. I have a capital "P" in mine. Someone else created it. However, I created an index and redirected it to mine.--v/r - T P 22:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles created page loading issue

Coming from this page, it is taking lots of time to open this page

Excecuted in 218.26 seconds.
Taken 0.37 megabytes of memory to execute.

Almost 4 minutes to open this page!

My current internet speed --Tito Dutta ✉ 16:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you've got some slow internet. Seriously though, it is taking forever to load. I played half of a Simpsons episode before it came up. This could be a toolserver issue or a software bug that TParis may have accidentally placed. I see it more likely being a toolserver issue given what I know.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I havent made any changes. It was tool server. I just tried it this morning and got "Excecuted in 5.33 seconds."--v/r - T P 17:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, clicking on the link directly is opening the page quickly, just now I tried an it got "Excecuted in 3.95 seconds.". Please manually open that page too. Click on "My contributions" at the top right corner of this page. At the bottom of the page click on "Articles created". Is it opening fast? --Tito Dutta ✉ 17:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure is.--v/r - T P 17:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know

I would like you to know that your recent action on the incident I had with Jim10701, where you accused me of "trolling" by copying a comment I made on ANI about how I felt an apology was in order and would be welcomed after the uncalled for, untrue and hugely nasty remarks, he put about me on his talk page. He had held a grudge for 9 months (he said) because I did not agree with him wanting to change the lede on that article. That made him more worthy of the remarks he made about me than I was, for sure! I am now having to realize that anyone that sees his talkpage will think that I was out of order and in some way responsible for his outrageous remarks. And what you wrote on my talk page about how I should consider what I had done to deserve his awful opinion of me (I did nothing but disagree with him, with out any name calling or warring) would be a huge embarrassment to me on my talk page, so I removed it. This and other very unfair occurrences on WP have made me feel unwelcome and unfairly considered or appreciated for the content work I do here. I honesty feel my work on a controversial article is at the heart of the matter. I will do what I need to on the articles I have already contributed to in large manner, but I don't feel inclined to do much more now... and your actions, not Jim's are responsible for that, because you are an admin, and should know how to handle such situations, if in fact, you care at all about keeping contributing editors that actually place content work and not just removal of content, as so many editors are only spending their time on now... Thanks, if you feel I have trolled here and in anyway not been entitled to let you know how I feel, I hope you will let me know about that. Agadant (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, my opinion of you has been lowered because of this. You got your apology from Jim which was completely unneccessary. That he was kind enough to give it speaks of his character. That you asked for it speaks of yours. At some point, you're going to need to start acting like an adult on this site. Other people realize that the remarks on Jim's page about you are his opinion. You have no right at all to be upset someone has an opinion of you. The only thing you can do is look inward to determine if something you did caused it or not. That is what I suggest of you. Likewise, you have no right to my opinion. I'll tell you right now that my opinion of you is caused by your inability to let things go. Are you trolling? Absolutely. You are trying to stir up trouble and drama where there needn't be any. Jim thanked me for helping him steer out of that trouble. Once I noticed you two were doing well without my interference, I backed off. Now, if you are bothered by my opinion to the point where you no longer want to contribute, that is a matter of your own. My behavior has been completely professional and good intentioned for the both of you. In my opinion, I saved a user from getting blocked by approaching them respectfully, and I also had a hand in preventing bad blood from brewing between you two. Frankly, I'm satisfied with the way I handled it and I believe Jim is as well. Now, what can you do from here? Well, I strongly recommend you let it go and don't bother continuing this argument. Another option is to keep arguing and at some point I am likely to ignore you. Third option is to take me to WP:WQA or WP:ANI but I think you'll find that other editors will also agree I acted appropriately. At which point you may think the WP:CABAL is protecting one of their own. Or, fourth option, you can for once look at your own actions and apply some self-criticism and self-reflection and improve your approach to conflict. Either way, if your goal was to avoid "embarrassment" and avoiding "anyone that sees [my] talkpage will think that [you are] out of order" then you've done the opposite. I have no intention of removing this and it'll remain in my archive. You need to have thicker skin and accept that people have opinions of others. Whatever fantasy world you think people all like each other in is fiction.--v/r - T P 17:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Other admins that addressed the issue thought they he was highly out of order and should be sanctioned/and an apology should be given to me. I asked for the apology, so that he could learn that he should not make such personal attacks against other editors. I too have personal opinions, sometimes harsh about others, but I don't spit them out on my talkpage. And I soon forget about it. You disagreed he should apologize, which is your right but to say I caused it... is something I did try to examine but couldn't understand why he could violate the rule against personal attacks that applies everywhere on WP. Thicker skin? Me? I'm not the one who held a grudge for 9 months and still felt such harsh feeling after all that time as he said he did. Please give me your reasons why I should have thicker skin but not him? And exactly what I did to warrant his opinion. This is an honest question... You answer him with such understanding but really read me the riot act!!! I don't care if you leave this... I wouldn't have written it, if I did. I just thought you might care or help me to understand what I did so wrong (on this incident only)? You don't seem to think you should waste your time though with an editor actually trying to figure out exactly why they deserve your scorn. Cheers, Agadant (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What you did wrong was ask for the apology. If he wanted to give it, that's great. But there is no rule on Wikipedia that requires it. Human decency? Sure. Wikipedia policy? No. I read you no such riot act. The first thing I did was go to his talk page and explain to him why he was wrong. I took your side. He took the criticism well. When I told you why you were wrong, you became upset. There is a large grey area where WP:CIVILITY is concerned and many admins (including me) are happy to hit the block button quickly. I reviewed Jim's edits and he seemed reasonable so I tried a different approach to see how well it worked and it worked very well. That other admins wanted to take a harsher approach when I proved it unnecessary is not a basis to say that he should've received harsher "punishment." We don't punish on Wikipedia, we prevent. In this case, discussing the issue resolved it and no block was necessary. Again, the scorn you are receiving is because you haven't found something more productive to do. You wanna change my opinion? Accept that had you not come here and started this thread, I wouldn't have ever had another thought about you and we would've been on decent terms. Not that I have an issue with you, now, but I certainly believe you are unable to drop things and I'm going to remember that in the future instead of forgetting you as what would've happened. So are you to blame for my opinion of you? From my perspective: yes. I didn't disagree he should apologize. I disagreed that you should ask for it or that he was required to give it to you.--v/r - T P 17:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't have asked for the apology, if another admin had not suggested it. What do I know, but what you guys set an example for us... I thought that talkpages were where editors could work out misunderstandings... where else, is there to do so? ... and then people can really move on. You don't take criticism well at all, and now I feel like I have been threatened with a block, either now or in the future for trying to find out what you thought I did to deserve his opinion (before I asked for the apology) not because of doing so. Because I don't understand but would have maybe benefited from your direct answer to that question. Unlike you and Jim, I will forget any bad feelings about you or him and not hold any grudge or harsh opinion for very long. Agadant (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

At no point have you ever been threatened with a block by me.--v/r - T P 18:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Queeny Garbage

I mean.. look at this queeny garbage from above from this editor who writes like a soap opera. Utterly patronising. So many Wiki editors are little failures with low self esteem. Get the Star Trek costume on and leave Wikpedia. I quote him/her...

Just so you know, my opinion of you has been lowered because of this. You got your apology from Jim which was completely unneccessary. That he was kind enough to give it speaks of his character. That you asked for it speaks of yours. At some point, you're going to need to start acting like an adult on this site. Other people realize that the remarks on Jim's page about you are his opinion. You have no right at all to be upset someone has an opinion of you. The only thing you can do is look inward to determine if something you did caused it or not. That is what I suggest of you. Likewise, you have no right to my opinion. I'll tell you right now that my opinion of you is caused by your inability to let things go. Are you trolling? Absolutely. You are trying to stir up trouble and drama where there needn't be any. Jim thanked me for helping him steer out of that trouble. Once I noticed you two were doing well without my interference, I backed off. Now, if you are bothered by my opinion to the point where you no longer want to contribute, that is a matter of your own. My behavior has been completely professional and good intentioned for the both of you. In my opinion, I saved a user from getting blocked by approaching them respectfully, and I also had a hand in preventing bad blood from brewing between you two. Frankly, I'm satisfied with the way I handled it and I believe Jim is as well. Now, what can you do from here? Well, I strongly recommend you let it go and don't bother continuing this argument. Another option is to keep arguing and at some point I am likely to ignore you. Third option is to take me to WP:WQA or WP:ANI but I think you'll find that other editors will also agree I acted appropriately. At which point you may think the WP:CABAL is protecting one of their own. Or, fourth option, you can for once look at your own actions and apply some self-criticism and self-reflection and improve your approach to conflict. Either way, if your goal was to avoid "embarrassment" and avoiding "anyone that sees [my] talkpage will think that [you are] out of order" then you've done the opposite. I have no intention of removing this and it'll remain in my archive. You need to have thicker skin and accept that people have opinions of others. Whatever fantasy world you think people all like each other in is fiction.--v/r - TP 17:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Orbiston (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

UTRS

I appear to be an admin again. Although I don't plan to be very active, being able to access UTRS again might prove useful sometimes. Can you waive your magic wand over me again? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

All done, welcome back!--v/r - T P 22:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI

It wasn't a matter of basing my judgement on your opinion as much as respecting your opinion. Your opinion had merit and I was acknowledging it. As you probably know, I'm not the fastest to block an established editor either and respect your hesitancy to block, even if I thought it has just crossed the threshold. Personally, I think a hesitancy to block is a positive characteristic, not a flaw. For admins to have varying opinions on the nuances as well as solutions is a good thing, while group-think is not. Frequently, I'm the only one saying "a block isn't needed" and in the minority, but I don't see it as being wrong, but simply a desire to try other solutions first. And I respect the fact that you are experimenting with your approach to admining, which speaks volumes about your character and motivation here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hi TP, regarding the topic ban, how can I appeal it. The accusations against me are based on a mixture of (a small portion of) truth mixed in liberally with (a much larger portion of) half-truths, omissions, falsehoods, distortions, misrepresentations, misinterpretations, misrelations and misstatements of my edits and my comments. (Kindly please respond on my own user talk page.) Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Family Research Council

I see that you've protected Family Research Council. I was wondering if you could tell me the answer to the two questions I posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Consensus at Family Research Council. Was it that yes, there was consensus, but no, that consensus doesn't stand? St Anselm (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

There was yes and edit war, and need for more discussion. Consensus doesn't just happen when you have a majority, it happens when discussion has ended. Apparently, it hasn't ended yet.--v/r - T P 12:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Trekky is censoring

I just noticed this rather interesting interchange you have removed somewhat deviously from your page. Does the truth hurt? And is it you who blocked the author for a week? And did you really reply "Low self esteem definitely is not one of my issues - I passed my PT test with an 89.6,,,I'm the motha fucking man". I think you did. In which case you are the total arse you seem to be on your home page. Low level American military, low self esteem (as Orbiston says), Christian announcing that you have managed to breed. Christ. Out of 3 million sperm.. you were the quickest? You are not fit to be editing on Wikipedia.

I revert Hello Trekky - by Orbiston - I wonder how long it will stay on your page.

− Hello Trekky. I have heard your type on the Howard Stern show. Ridiculous with low self esteem and consequently agressive. Don't send me threatening messages. If your "this is your only warning" message lived up to your own point 5 ("civil.. respect..") I would take you seriously. But you are a bully and a hypocrite like many of your fellow editors. And this must be dealt with at a higher level. And it will be when I publish my analysis of what exactly is going on at Wikipedia. A combination of 6th form prefects wearing their easily earned badges (well all you need is a lot of spare time) while behaving like 4th form bullies. Orbiston (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Bloody Christmas

Heeey, for the first time something I worked hard to introduce is now on WP. I was hoping it to be a new article, and written by users from the two sides of the conflict; but all the same even this re-direct is something important and I feel I contributed to achieving this; moreover, by consensus! Thanks for closing that page and making my day... All the best. --E4024 (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Admin comment on sourcing

Thanks for your comment! Since the page is out of the ordinary, I wanted a non-biased comment rather than the person who nominated the article for deletion.--MrIndustry (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Pages created" tool -> own user page

Hello TParis, I just found a tool which integrates the total number of my edits into my user page in German Wikipedia and automatically updates this number every day. In the same paragraph, I also have a link to your tool "Pages created". I update the number of my new articles manually from time to time. So my text says that I have created more than 1300 articles. When I want to see the precise number, I have to go to the tool and scroll down the list to the last entry. Is there a possibility to get this number to my user page and update it automatically, e.g. with a template? --MSchnitzler2000 (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. See here.--v/r - T P 00:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that's bad luck for me. Thank you for your quick answer and the explanation. --MSchnitzler2000 (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"user created pages" tool - respect user protocol (http/https)

hi. when reading hewiki with protocol "https", the link to the tool (from "user contribution" page) also uses https. however, the links back to hewiki pages created by this user are explicitely "http". should be simple enough to remove all the "http:" from this script, and leave all links as beginning with "//", to respect the protocol used by the user. thanks, peace - קיפודנחש (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I can look into that.--v/r - T P 14:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

thanks. can you look for same issue in edit counter script while you are at it? thanks a bunch, peace, קיפודנחש (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

May i have a go…

…at puncturing your pride a lil' bit? (only kidding, i know it's impossible, etc. :) In your pride you say "Chance are", but chances are you meant "chances are". v/r, benzband (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Haha thank you!--v/r - T P 16:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Broken image links on pcount tool

Hi, thanks for the pcount tool. On [1] I see three broken image links in the lower right corner. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you give me a screenshot? I dont see any broken images.--v/r - T P 16:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The missing images are in the links for the HTML validator, anybrowser and toolserver. I see the broken icons only in Chrome, not in Firefox. AxelBoldt (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Basket of Puppies

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I've reblocked Basket of Puppies with talkpage access disabled again. I'm sure you meant it for the best, but since you unblocked him he has made multiple requests for admins to proxy edit for him in article space. He's blocked for socking on very good evidence - I've reviewed it myself - and if he wants to edit the project, he needs to focus on getting his account unblocked. A standard offer -six months, no socks - would be the usual way to do this. If on the other hand he wants to retire and not edit again - which is what he has repeatedly said - then he needs to retire and not edit again, and not either create socks or ask admins to proxy edit for him. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand why he was blocked, but I do not understand why talk page access has been revoked. Asking other editors on his talk page to make edits isn't exactly abuse of talk page access. But that's fine, I don't have a particularly strong opinion worth fighting over.--v/r - T P 16:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

An invitation for you!


	Hello, TParis. We are in the early stages of initiating a project to plan, gain consensus on, and coordinate adding a feature wherein an article will be chosen for collaborative improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members.

Not sure why, but for some reason this was removed by another user. Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout 19:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank your for your reserach and analysis at Wikipedia:ANI#Analysis_of_DBigXray.27s_AFD_nominations. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that took a lot of work.--v/r - T P 00:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles created tool

Can you give the file directory or directories of where the information is cached to the now taken down articles created tool? I'm talking about the files that cause your quota limit to be exceeded.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I deleted it months ago. It'll rebuild itself in your folder, don't worry. It's best to clear a cache once in awhile anyway. The most files on a drive, the longer it takes to find the data.--v/r - T P 13:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the thing. I can't get it to work on my end. There must be something wrong with my account or a tiny detail that I'm not seeing. Either way, the size of this project is way too big for me to take apart and analyse with the time I have so I have an alternative solution. I need to know the directory and all of the filenames of the caching data. Perhaps you could reinstate the tool for a little bit and give me every file directory.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that.--v/r - T P 14:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Just ping me when you have it ready with the files.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Good for the heart

Is it really a good idea to tell people how to get around the Wikibreak enforcer on ANI? Worm^TT(talk) 14:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I had the same thought before I said it. But let's be honest, we used the same trick during the blackout and the javascript trick got around. It's not really a secret at this point. Probably not bettered by me saying anything, but I don't think we're the worse off either. Especially not where YRC is concerned. I am sure he knows how to get around it if he wanted to.--v/r - T P 14:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I agree it's not a big deal, as anyone tech-savvy should be able to work it out in a second or two, but it does effectively make the script pointless. Worm^TT(talk) 14:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely. The simple pain in the butt it is to bother with it is somewhat of a deterrent. :D--v/r - T P 14:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I used it during my prolonged absence and the work around is a pain in the butt. It was a great way to get me off of Wikipedia to focus on college.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 15:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content
Book reviews: Nick-D on the legacy of World War II
Op-ed: Bomzibar on German military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

error

error: "Unknown database 'dewiki_p'MySQL ERROR! Table 'toolserver.user' doesn't exist" when running Pages created tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.157.18.206 (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hiding stuff at ANI

The least you could've done was to provide another picture. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

lmfao!--v/r - T P 22:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I've dealt with at least a dozen DRN threads regarding that user. What's the reason, by the way? Best, Electric Catfish 22:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC).

I did bump it down to 120px, was just hair too large for my particular tastes, didn't think you would mind. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Too many puns come to mind. How about I take my hat off to you?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

He just reverted your closure! Electric Catfish 22:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Meh, another admin can hat it. I'm not going to EW with him. Enough admins have seen it, no one is going to do anything. NA1K brings it all on himself, there is nothing to do here and it's not about protecting that other guy.--v/r - T P 23:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he's not getting much mileage out of his reversion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2) Your review is required and will be greatly appreciated :)

Hi TParis ! I have started my second editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for Adminship. I see you also evaluate possible candidates for Adminship as you had chosen to do so on Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination, so do evaluate me too! As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I will soon.--v/r - T P 16:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Page History Statistics

The user edit count page has a link to "Page History Statistics (NEW)" but this page does not exist and a note points to you. Is this page coming? If not, perhaps the link could be removed. (BTW, the edit count is a very nice facility, thanks.) PRL42 (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The tool was taken offline because of new restrictions on toolserver accounts. Another user is planning on taking all of these tools over soon so it will return with him.--v/r - T P 16:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have the file paths to the caching data?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 18:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Not yet. I had intended to do it this weekend and I forgot.--v/r - T P 18:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TParis. You have new messages at WilliamH's talk page.
Message added 22:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WilliamH (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Closure

Hi mate, wondering if you might be able to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings Hall. User:Bkonrad has redirected to the appropriate disambig (which I would suggest was in line with the general consensus) and the AfD should probably be closed (as it now refers to an article which basically no longer exists) but neither of us are uninvolved admins. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC).

I took care of it.--v/r - T P 01:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! Stalwart111 (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

drive by comment ...

I just read through your closing comment on the TPH thread at ANI. You continue to amaze and impress. Umm ... yea .. ok .. a pretty un-noteworthy observation .. just wanted to say it though. Carry on. — Ched : ? 01:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it's appreciated!--v/r - T P 01:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

User:MikeAnthNort unblocked

Hi TP. Per MikeAnthNort's decision to redact his legal threat at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fukushima Paradox, I have unblocked him. Given his history, this editor may warrant keeping an eye on; I'll be doing so, but if you could direct your attention his way on occasion too I'd be grateful. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, your call. I'm worried that this guy is beyond recognizing the rights of private organizations like Wikipedia though but we'll just give him the rope.--v/r - T P 12:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI on a user you recently unblocked per UTRS Ticket 2930

I just warned the user that Wikipedia is not free webhosting for advertising, per this edit. I'm not seeing any evidence that this user has any intentions other than advertising here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I was very clear in the unblock conditions that they would not be allowed to edit anything related to Big Block Entertainment. It's clear that they were not honest when they agreed to those conditions so I've gone ahead and reblocked the account. Thanks for notifying me, and sorry you've had to deal with them again.--v/r - T P 18:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries; I just wanted to notify you before I took any action just in case I was missing part of the story. Thanks for taking care of it, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Editor review

Hey, TParis. I was wondering if you could review my edits, logs, ect. It would be much appreciated. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk 03:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

My talk page

Check it now. If an editor can't figure it out now, he needs to take up a different hobby. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Kind of like a talkback

Are you OK with what I propose on Jimbo's page? I think you are, from what I've read, but I don't want to make things worse by misunderstanding you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, from your latest post there (which I missed) it seems clear that you'd be OK with this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, but your decision likely saved the community and I more drama and wasted time so: thanks for getting involved. It's obvious that were I to ask permission before removing rollback, I wouldn't have gotten consensus either so I'm put between a rock and a hard place where I feel what I've done is right but a significant portion of the community disagrees. I appreciate that you're willing to settle the matter.--v/r - T P 18:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like Conti started a thread on WT:ROLLBACK, to perhaps avoid this grey area next time, if you're interested. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand. You're right

It won't happen again, I promise. I fully understand that I had, intentionally or not, overstepped my rights. Somebody told me that repeated disruptive edits, can be seen as vandalism. I again say, it won't happen again. And please consider that I use stiki to fight vandalism mostly, and that that contravention, as far as I can remember, wasn't based on malevolent intent (as a side note, If you see the talk and other edit summaries on kashmir conflict, I repeatedly tried to explain that is not the right place to put an infobox). I understand that it doesn't legitimize my contravention, I am not trying to sanitize what I did, not at all but consider my predicament.

Now, please can I get that right back on this condition? That would be great. You can watch me, I will be doubly cautious after this. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 16:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, Sir, I think you have made an honest mistake. I have not used "rollback" there. I used twinkle. Please give me those rights back. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 17:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If I could remove Twinkle with it, I would.--v/r - T P 17:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your rudeness and virulent language. What do you mean, "If I could remove Twinkle with it, I would"?? I didn't violate rules which could be cited for revocation of my rollback rights. Hence your next step should be giving it back. If you don't, I going to ANI. Do not make it any messier. I don't want to have any more trouble. Please give my rights back you're abusing your rights as administrator. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 17:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You've used rollback for things other than vandalism. You had a prior warning for edit warring. I don't see the misunderstanding. Feel free to take it to ANI.--v/r - T P 17:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

TParis sounds very confident that your going to ANI will not be a problem for them, and I agree. You've been blocked for personal attacks before, you've been warned for edit-warring, you've abused rollback (by way of Twinkle) in a content dispute), and your tone here and elsewhere is very hostile (why anyone would want to insult Anna Frodesiak, we'll probably never know). Going to ANI will almost certainly result in a boomerang-style block. I suggest you calm down and try not to ruffle any more feathers. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for helping restore faith in WP. Mrt3366 was bullying editors on the page Kashmir Conflict and reverting all good faith edits that any editor would make that they disagreed with, inspite of multiple warnings. For this act of yours, v/r please accept

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your scrutiny and help on Kashmir Conflict. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Wikipedia:General sanctions/2012 Presidential Campaign/Log

Since you are notifying, it might be helpful if dropped by WT:WikiProject Conservatism, read a bit and dropped off a message there. Several administrators have expressed their concerns there, and if you shared them, your opinions would always be appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what you want me to see. Where should I be looking, specifically? I dont see any discussion about it.--v/r - T P 18:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The bottom of the talk page, where DGG, Worm and others have expressed concern about the bias of the project. DGG had to edit out some of the material of the group. But it is a project that focuses on Conservative political candidates, so I figured that would be a sound, neutral place to post the information. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see. I'm not sure I want to do that. The project's intentions have been under attack from the start but the community has yet to prove any of it or even sanction the project. I think a better approach is going to be taking it one editor at a time. Besides, I want to have a way to know editors received the warning by putting it on individual talk pages.--v/r - T P 18:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, then I will leave it up to your superior wisdom, friend. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Coord elections

Thanks for your encouragement. - Dank (push to talk) 19:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem, good luck!--v/r - T P 19:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Raquel Baranow

Hi TParis. You've agreed to unblock this user on the condition that they find themselves a mentor. Adam mugliston has stepped up to the plate and been accepted. I could unblock her myself, but since you made the offer, I thought it best to pass the final decision to you - if you're happy with their arrangement, please go ahead and unblock. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 17:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I unblocked her.--v/r - T P 18:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TParis. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Takes America/San Antonio.
Message added 20:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Given the weather, might next Saturday (22nd) be better (for the Wikipedia Takes America San Antonio event)? Guðsþegn (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Markup export from "Top Namespace Edits"

Hi there, would it be possible to at a parameter that allows exporting the list of created pages in wiki markup syntax? Thanks in advance, --Flominator (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to which page you'd like that on? I didn't write these tools, I only host them because the guy retired. So it's not clear to me which one you want this feature added.--v/r - T P 17:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I meant this page as a wikilist. Regards, --Flominator (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Protect on Paul Ryan

The article is already under probation. Topic bans are far more appropriate than yet another "last warning" accompanied by a protection that cuts off the WP:ROPE. And yes, I am advocating a "ban 'em all and let ArbCom sort 'em out" attitude; in my opinion anything (aside from BLP violations, which nobody's alleging here) is better than protecting a probation article. Respectfully, Homunq (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm WP:AGF that some of these editors think that per WP:3RR, the 4th revert is the blockable offense. I don't think they are aware of WP:EW and that they can be blocked for the first revert or even if they are reverting material that was reverted by others. I know I could issue a topic ban, but I'm giving the two that I issued final warnings to a last chance for redemption. My effort is to promote the best possible course for successful collaboration in the spirit of Wikipedia that I can. However, both editors are literally on their last chance. The page protection was only 2 days and to encourage discussion. It should expire tomorrow.--v/r - T P 20:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, that makes some sense. But didn't you know you'd end up protecting the WP:WRONGVERSION?

Cheers, Homunq (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

:D The day a sysop protects the right version, Wikipedia is complete.--v/r - T P 23:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"Homunq: Your understanding of WP:FORUM is way off."

What did you mean by that? I mean, how am I off? Homunq (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM is about folks who use the talk pages to discuss the subject itself rather than the article. Anytime the article itself is being discussed is outside of the scope of WP:FORUM. Examples include "Oh my God, Britney Spears is coming to Miami this fall, who wants tickets?" ect. In the case of that, Arzel is discussing the article itself and WP:FORUM is inapplicable.--v/r - T P 09:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI: refusal to use dispute resolution utterly

There was a discussion at WP:DRN on Christian Right.

One editor, calling the process a "cesspool" in that discussion, seems to view dispute resolution as something which he is absolutely free to ignore. Were it not for the fact that this editor has repeatedly shown colours not compatible with collegial editing, this would not be of great import.

His latest edit on the article talk page shows a rather combative attitude, indeed: [2]

Just to be clear, this material from DRN is not a genuine consensus and is not binding upon the editors of this article

Which is rich as he refused in no uncertain terms to participate in the process, brought a prior volunteer for DRN to AN/I etc.

But wait there's more! (Ron Popeil speaking)

[3]I told you so. DRN is absolutely worthless. The moderators don't prevent personal attacks and they don't follow WP:CLOSE.

In short, I would suggest that the leash you are holding might well be shortened an inch (or two). Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I knew the calm could not last:

[4] the Christian right is an informal coalition of formed around a core of evangelical Protestants that draws "support from politically conservative Catholics, Jews, Mormons, and occasionally secularists" who share their goals

[5] (adding "Bob Jones University to a list of uncited "Christian Right" schools)

*Bob Jones University — Protestant Fundamentalist university, founded in 1927. George W. Bush spoke at the school's chapel hour on February 2, 2000 as a presidential candidate

Making a clear SYNTH link to the Republican Party contrary to the Dispute Resolution result. The source he gives for this claim is [6] an abstract for Into the Wilderness: Ronald Reagan, Bob Jones University, and the Political Education of the Christian Right which was clearly google-farmed for the purpose of linking the Republican Party to the Christian Right, and for no other valid purpose at all. The actual article is far different from the use to which it is ill-put here. (The objectionable part is the "George W. Bush spoke here" implying therefore a connection between "Christian Right" and "George W. Bush" which is not made in the actual article at all!). The actual link [7] shows BJU described as a "fundamentalist Christian university" and not as a "Christian Right university", the article is about the IRS case and the Christian Right's poor relationship with Ronald Reagan, and nothing whatsoever about Bush (clear and deliberate SYNTH violation and violation of WP:BLP as an unsourced claim about a living person. Collect (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

OMG - hjere he absolutely violates the entire reason for DRN:

[8] The Christian right plays a "powerful role" within the Republican Party, which it is "intertwined with which is 180 degrees from the resolution at DRN. And places the WP:FRINGE stuff in the lede to boot. Cheers. -- looks like SS247 is off on a spree. Collect (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

OK -- he has gone past the pale:

[9] Merging back, 2RR, see talk for full explanation (edit summary)

The material "merged back" clearly is politically chosen edit war

The Christian right plays a "powerful role" within the Republican Party, which it is "intertwined with"

is absolutely connected with American Presidential politics on its face, the editor has been warned many times for edit war, and this is a clear example thereof. He also readds a claim which is 'not inthe source given, etc. Collect (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

OMG^2 he is on an editing rampage -- re-adding that Fox News has Christian employees (Fox News Channel, which has numerous conservative commentators, has been the preferred news network for the Christian right; as many of the network's key figures are Evangelical Christians), The Christian right has been a notable force in both the Republican party and American politics since the late 1970's, , and so on and on and on. At least he hasn;t reverted the "timeline" stuff whose only purpose was political. Articles ought to be about the stated topic of the article, and not about political POV pushing, conspiracy and WP:FRINGE pushing, and frankly SS-247 is way past those limits <g>. Collect (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think an RFC/U is in order.--v/r - T P 14:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

He started one <g>. Does WP:BOOMERANG work in such places? Cheers. - but I would like SS247 being given more than just his 20th warning at some point (15 different admins have warned him now). Collect (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

When I issue a topic ban, I want it to stick. Generally, RFC/Us rarely have room for a boomerang and a new RFC/U right now would be seen as retaliatory. Standingstill24-7's behavior, though, is going to catch up to him at some point. He is playing right on the line because he thinks when he gets a block or ban that he can argue ambiguity and blur the lines. He's going to mess up. His behavior is not collaborative and his battleground behavior isn't going to serve him well for much longer. Patience.--v/r - T P 14:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. It appears that I'm being talked about. Is there anything you want to say to me directly? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for Tparis, but since you've asked, let me take this opportunity to say what I'd like you to hear directly: please stop treating politics articles as a battleground. It doesn't really matter if you're the only one doing it, or one of fifty - either way, battleground behavior is harmful to the encyclopedia and generally unacceptable, especially on a topic that's under community probation, and editors who engage in it can and probably will be removed. Do not take the fact that you haven't been blocked or topic-banned yet (only told to "lay off, please") as evidence that your behavior isn't problematic, because that's likely to result in an unpleasant surprise. What's going on right now is people are waiting for you to notice that you're treading very close to the line of "completely unacceptable" and change your behavior accordingly. Please listen when people ask you to tone it down or back off. If you do that - if you can take others' comments on-board and adapt your behavior - you're much less likely to ever hit that point where you cross the line Tparis is referring to. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It does matter if I've been singled out for doing much less than those around me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I assure you that while I remain uninvolved to the dispute, I will be issuing appropriate sanctions based on each particular editor's actions in the context of each particular situation. The easiest way to avoid sanctions is to edit appropriately.--v/r - T P 18:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I am editing appropriately whereas others are not, yet you single me out for threats. I see a problem with that. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:BOOMERANG, I'd like you to look at Collect's behavior on Talk:Christian right and tell me it's acceptable. Decide for yourself. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What particularly do you have a problem with? His pointing out to you the correct interpretation of WP:SYNTH or that he just ignored you when you said "I'm not sure that it would overcome your mental block"? Are you looking for a WP:NPA block as well? If you have a concern, point it out to me and I'll address it according to policy.--v/r - T P 21:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I would start with the talk page section entitled "Rebuilding the article.", which led to Alfietucker and Arthur Rubin both warning Collect about his repeated attempts to misconstrue part of the lead. [10] Where's his topic ban warning for that? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You've misread Arthur Rubin. That last sentence refers to you. You are "SS". StillStanding...had you not noticed? And Alfietucker isn't saying that Collect has misrepresented anything. He said that he believe Collect misunderstands and suggests an alternate reading of it. Is there something particularly concerning about Collect's behavior you'd like me to address rather that what others have said about him?--v/r - T P

That's both true and false, but mostly false. Here's Arthur's last sentence:

I've previously noted SS as being unable or unwilling to understand simple English; if you persist here, I would need to make the sote about you.

Yes, the "SS" here is me, but the "you" is Collect. Arthur's point is that he routinely insults me by saying I don't understand simple English, but if Collect continues to misinterpret what the lead says, then (says Arthur) this will apply to Collect. This is somewhat muddled by the use of "sote", which isn't a word. Charitably, it might be a very bad typo for "same note". Or maybe it really is English, but Arthur is right about my inability to comprehend it.

Alfietucker and Arthur Rubin are not always on the same side of the table, yet they agree with me that Collect was obstinately misinterpreting the sentence for the lead. You can tell because they used phrases such as "for the last time", "you're pushing it", "if you persist here", "raising a straw man" and "don't understand simple English". Note how I pointed out their response instead of mine, to show that there is an objective problem here, not just a conflict between me and Collect. My response was consistent; I politely suggested that he might have some sort of mental block that's interfering with his comprehension.

Assuming good faith -- which is not easy, let me tell you -- Collect is guilty of severe WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Some people might be forgiven for imagining that he may well be intentionally dragging his feet to prevent the restoration of something he deleted. After all, he removed huge parts of the article without prior discussion and has since argued unconstructively, as indicated by this example. Those people would have my sympathy, but I'm certain that if I expressed agreement, I would be singled out for it and threatened with bans. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You want me to threaten Collect with a topic ban because he has an opinion that two people disagree with? Or is it you wish me to topic ban him because other people said some things about him? Have you considered for a moment, that despite what you said on your talk page about my less than fair objectivity, I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I could've very easily just issued a topic ban and I'm 95% certain I would've had ANI's full support? I gave you a respite because the article probation was new and I was giving everyone a chance to get used to it. You'll find that I'm very objective. In this case, I feel your grasping at straws to test me but it's an unfair test to begin with because it's fundamentally a misunderstanding of the policies involved. I'm very happy to explain any particular policy you have a question about were you to ask, but the way your going about it by pushing boundaries and crying foul of others isn't effective in learning. It comes down to this: Your test has two wrong answers and no right answer. Either I block/topic ban Collect, which wouldn't be in line with policy, or I don't, which wouldn't be in line with your interpretation of policy. So when there are two wrong answers, the only right answer is inaction. In this case, using my tools or position of trust inappropriately will cause more harm to the encyclopedia (and me) than not using them. Have you considered mentoring?--v/r - T P 00:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't care less if you threatened Collect; I want you to stop threatening me. But it would really, really help if you were consistent. For example, you tossed out the accusation that I was "pushing boundaries and crying foul of others", when in fact this applies directly to Collect and much more so than it does to me.

Remember, he's the one who removed a huge part of the article without prior discussion -- "pushing boundaries" -- and then he came here to complain to you when I dared bring up citations that support the re-inclusion of some of that material -- "crying foul of others". When I point out his behavior, you jump down my throat and laugh off the idea of banning him, yet you continue to threaten me with the same. Sorry, I just don't see the parity here.

Remember, we got here because you decided that reverting exactly once after much discussion somehow constituted edit-warring, but only when I did it. What I want is for you to state your requirements explicitly and then be objective in enforcing them. If we are obligated to follow BRD, you need to say so now, not complain afterwards. If we must stick to 1RR, say so. If we should edit only after gaining a full consensus on the talk page, say so. It is impossible to comply with demands that are made only after the fact. It amounts to punishing us for not reading your mind. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"I want you to stop threatening me." You're right, I should stop threatening you. In the future, instead of warnings, I'll just move straight to sanctions since that seems to appeal to you more. I'm not enforcing WP:BRD although I've considered it. I am enforcing WP:EW.--v/r - T P 01:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

TParis, your incredibly hostile response is precisely why I question your objectivity. I gave you a road map to objectivity: tell people in advance just what you expect and then hold everyone to those expectations. You refuse. Instead, you're going to block me when I cross some invisible trip-wire that exists only in your head and magically doesn't affect other editors. I'm done here. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I "removed" material directly as a result of a DRN discussion which you called "a cesspool" - remember? When such a clear consensus is shown, it is not unreasonable to act on the clear consensus. And I posted on the article talk page as well. So much for your assertions that I acted improperly in any way whatsoever. I participated in dispute resolution, and followed its decisions. Which is what responsible Wikipedians do. Your claim of "no prior discussion" is errant, fatuous, incorrect, misleading, and contrary to what anyone reading the article talk page ([11] gives a clue), the DRN colloquy (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Christian_right) and all the posts on your user talk page by multiple editors indicate to be the facts. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Your tendentious comments are getting tiring. You want a road map? It's Wikipedia:General_sanctions/2012_Presidential_Campaign/Log right here. If you think there needs to be WP:1RR or WP:BRD on the articles, feel free to propose it. I'm trying to take a "poke and prod" approach rather than a "this is how you'll behave" approach. If you feel I havent been consistent on both sides, I implore you to provide diffs of where I haven't first informed editors of the article probation, and then second given a final warning. Please, be my guest.--v/r - T P 01:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be a budinski here primarily because ISS has asked me not to post on his talk page, a request I continue to honor. ISS feels he is being "singled out" with respect to sanctions. No one likes to be under the microscope, and it is understandable that ISS is upset over what he feels is unjust treatment. However I would like to point to User:Belchfire as a example of someone "on the other side" who has also been threatened with a block. Belchfire has had some problems with his conduct towards others, mostly with uncivil language in TP edits and/or edit summaries. Recently SwatJester [12] read him the riot act and gave Belchfire a final warning. To Belchfire's credit, he didn't deny his behavior was a problem and stated his intention to try and improve. Maybe its because his account is much older than ISS, but as far as I'm aware he didn't get a single admin suggest to him that he might want to step back a bit. ISS on the other hand has has had at least a dozen admins make polite suggestions on how to improve his collaboration. On the face of it, the treatment that Belchfire received doesn't seem fair compared to the kid gloves that ISS has received. I'll admit I could be way off base here as to the "fairness" of things. There might be plenty of things I'm unaware of, but I'm just calling it like I see it. But the bottom line is that Belchfire owned up and said he will try and do better. That is all anyone can ask. And that is all anyone is asking of ISS. So ISS, you are not being singled out. If anything the volunteer admins have bent over backwards to help you, not harm you. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

To add on, scroll down and what else do you see?--v/r - T P 03:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi TParis. I just noticed this and thought I would stay completely out of it for now. LOL!...but, wow.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Staying out of above for now...but not below. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Please take me with you!!!--v/r - T P 03:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The shuttlecraft leaves in ten minutes...don't be late! ;)--Amadscientist (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Its the same shuttlecraft I used to get me away from all those article before this Wikipedia:General sanctions/2012 Presidential Campaign/Log happened. LOL! ;)--Amadscientist (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Break

Would that be the same Belchfire who has been edit-warring at Parents Action League (along with a number of the other usual suspects on both sides) ever since he said he would do better? Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes.--v/r - T P 17:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thought so. I see one side is again badgering admins (you, this time) to block SS247 above. Apparently they didn't get the answer they wanted after going to ANI at least three times. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be an inaccurate portrayal of the history. Both the article probation warning and final warning that SS24-7 received were prior to this thread and were from my own independent and uninvolved perspective. If you'd like, I'd be happy to go through the diffs with you.--v/r - T P 18:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, I completely understand the warnings he's correctly received, I just don't think there's a full picture there because clearly it takes two (or in this case about ten) to edit-war. There's also stuff like - well for example, check out the contribs for today of User:Mollskman, who I've just final-warned, and I strongly suspect at least one contributor is a sock of a banned editor though unfortunately CU would be too stale to use. Black Kite (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think one of the reasons SS24-7 is confused as to my objectivity is that the edit he performed that I gave him a "final warning" for was with an editor who had not been informed of the article probation yet. I gave Stillstanding the final warning at 00:37 17 Sept and at the same time gave North8000 the article probation warning. But StillStanding believes I've been unfair or targetting him because I did not give North8000 the same warning when it is actually StillStanding's second warning by me (the article probation being the first) and North8000's first. The problem comes down to this, in my opinion, Stillstanding doesn't like that he got warned. However, had I gone straight to a topic ban, then he likely wouldn't have appreciated not receiving a warning. Others I've warned have taken it well. I don't know why this user thinks I've targeted him but I feel he's had a hard time getting the point. I've treated everyone the same. He doesn't understand that when he reverts an article that has already received 4 or 5 other reverts, he's partaking in an edit war even if it's his first revert. He seems to think 3 reverts is a right. If you think you can explain it to him and also explain WP:SYNTH to him (I can point out diffs of where this has been a problem) then he will have a much easier time editing here.--v/r - T P 22:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you were completely within your discretion to warn StillStanding. His complaint seems to be that your warning didn't provide clear guidance on which behaviors he should avoid. It might be helpful, in the interest of a productive editing environment, to articulate some clear standards: 1RR and/or WP:BRD would be reasonable in this setting. I'm not sure about sanctioning him for a single revert in the setting of a multilateral edit war; that's a very strict standard, and full protection almost always works better in those settings, but I suppose it's up to you. I think StillStanding feels targeted by you because of comments like this one. I'm sure it's not your intent, but comments like that can create the impression that you're simply waiting for an appropriate pretext upon which to sanction him. MastCell ^Talk 23:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the context might be misunderstood then. What I intended to say was that I'm not going to block or topic ban over something minor that is within discretion at best and harsh at the worse. If I'm to issue a topic ban, it should be for something that deserves it and is unlikely to be controversial and get reverted. As far as the article, I'm trying to encourage all editors to default to discussion rather than defaulting to reverting. I'm trying to poke with the occasional prod. I'd like to see editors do it in good faith rather than because of a WP:1RR and I'd hope that the community sanctions would tip off everyone involved that their behavior thus far hasn't been effective. And so far this is working. Looking at Paul Ryan, I took off the protection mid-day yesterday and still everyone involved is discussing how to include the content appropriately. I understand how anyone would feel they are being 'threatened', but a warning is our standard precursor to harsher sanctions and given the alternative I think he would prefer it.--v/r - T P 23:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I support any sanction you decide on for SS-247 TP, if you so choose. I no longer see this editoras having any redeeming quality and is not here to imporve the encyclopedia, but use it as a battle ground. Should you choose no action, I will support that as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Rtmcrrctr

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Rtmcrrctr (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rtmcrrctr. -- Homunq (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to get a second certifier to sign it.--v/r - T P 14:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Tell me you didn't suggest, or even condone, an RfC/U against a user who had less than 100 edits. There's got to be a dozen different routes to hit before that one, especially since the article in question is under discretionary sanctions. Discussion of your advice has come up here. Worm^TT(talk) 13:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In TP's defense, there was no suggestion that they were referring to any specific user. Homunq (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The comment your referring to is here in this thread and I was talking about User:Arzel who has a few more than 100 edits and I did mention other dispute resolution processes in an earlier comment.--v/r - T P 17:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs :) Worm^TT(talk) 08:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Pure balls

For owning this, I salute you. You have a lucky daughter. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear lord. *turns red*. In my defense, I had my 4 year old with me that day and pretended it was for her (or at least it was evidence I was straight) but shamefully, it was for me. I actually enjoyed Frewin Jones but I guarantee you I do generally have better tastes. I just recently finished "A Dance with Dragons" by George R R Martin if that redeems me at all. I'm thinking I should AfD that article.--v/r - T P 03:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

And if we are all lucky your daughter will still be below drinking age by the time he finishes the next book. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ohh no, all 6 books are finished ;)--v/r - T P 03:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea was, before Martin publishes "A Bounty of Betrayals" or whatever the next one will be called. Homunq (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh right. I thought he was talking about the Jones book; didn't realize he meant Martin.--v/r - T P 17:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note this comment addressed to you.

This. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal log

Stardate 2012.264. After much introspection, I have tagged both User:Viriditas/RfC and User talk:Viriditas/RfC for deletion per the recommendation of TParis. User:RHaworth deleted both as U1 at approximately 09:50 hours. Interested users are invited to participate in the ongoing thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism#NPOV edit requests. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of it.--v/r - T P 11:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Addendum and personal log of Admiral Mad Sci. Negotiations at Camp Khitomer seem to be succussful. There is much work ahead and the road long, but there be light at the end of the tunnel! I am requesting shoreleave to Risa and shall return in the coming days.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

*Salute*, granted, I've got the Delta Flyer in the main shuttle bay for just an occasion. Feel free to use it and let me know if I can be of any help.--v/r - T P 20:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you *Returns salute*. Tell Admiral Janeway I am expecting to meet her for coffe at the Night Owl in San Francisco when I return. She's buying!--Amadscientist (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TParis. You have new messages at 2001:db8's talk page.
Message added 12:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

– 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 12:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Mollskman and Romney

This edit by Mollskman summarized as "per talk" goes against everything that was discussed at talk. Mollskman got a warning a few days ago so he knows better. Binksternet (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think accusing StillStanding24-7 of a personal attack is worse though and shows WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I've given him a month off.--v/r - T P 13:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Not saying that he should not have been blocked, but articles that are going to fall under that umbrella should be identified before hand. The Seamus article is not currently identified as such. Arzel (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The article probation says "broadly construed" and it is a term used often in Wikipedia sanctions at all levels. It comes down to this: If you think it can in any way be connected to the campaign, then assume it is.--v/r - T P 14:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that lends itself to some interesting situation. For example, broadly construed would imply that Irish Setter falls under that umbrella. Arzel (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Advice

I'm asking for some advice here. I've noticed 108.28.53.169 pop up in RC patrol several times, and they seem to be on a very specific mission, adding the words “deep”, “strong”, and/or “close” between every occurrence of “relationship” or “romance” in a certain swath of articles, and other similarly ill-advised edits. Some of them are just iffy, but some are clearly wrong in context. They've pretty much all been reverted (mostly by other people), but it's a huge pain in the ass. What would you do here?

In addition to the warnings on their talk page, I've tried to issue some persuasion: [13]

Some diffs to demonstrate: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerfuffler (talk • contribs)

I would continue to escalate warnings and when they reach a final warning, report them to WP:AIV and we can block the IP for a week. Lots of times, IPs arnt even aware they have talk pages but a block will draw there attention to the warnings.--v/r - T P 14:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Assistance?

Sorry to go this route, I am user:Djathinkimacowboy, indefblocked, by you, for threats. I feel I could make an appeal to ask that this block be lifted. I realise my chances are slim. The trouble is, it is still fully in effect and I cannot even edit my own talk page. What do you reply to me? Please, if you would, reply at the user talk page. My fluxing IP would render a reply to the IP page useless. I thank you.75.21.149.52 (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk page access has been restored by TP. Electric Catfish² 19:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Issues with toolserver?...

The 'Edit Count' search that is hosted on toolserver doesn't seem to be working, all I am getting is a page with "en.wikipedia.org is not a valid wiki". Since the URL ndicates that this is a feature you wrote, thought you would want to know. Shearonink (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The toolserver has been going up and down lately faster than a pair of kids at a see-saw contest, so I doubt this is so much Tparis's issue as the Toolserver's. For the moment, I think we're all stuck with "yeah, stuff isn't working a lot of the time; try refreshing or try again later". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That's strange. I'll look into it this evening.--v/r - T P 16:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

DaB. has announced that several key systems in Toolserver hung up and crashed. It resulted in my bot failing for some reason, which I temporarily shut it off, now on again though. I may consider shutting it off because something in toolserver is causing it to run incorrectly. I'm getting a crap load of error messages right now.

I'm also getting mixed response from the toolserver expecially on the edit counter. In some cases, connections to the edit server fail completely. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

UTRS reminders

Hey TParis. You've got a few appeals reserved in your name in the backlog that are waiting for the appellant's input. Some of these I'm closing as stale, but there are a few I'm leaving open as I wasn't sure if you wanted to follow up with the user. Could you take a look at these when you get a chance? Thanks. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 20:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Big pink warning box in edit window

Yeah, the pink warning box that people see when they edit Mitt Romney. There's a request for one of those to be added by an administrator to the Mitt Romney dog incident article. Discussion at Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident#Warning against edit warring. Can you chime in with your thoughts? Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Don't forget (I've seen you do it) that you can warn other editors.--v/r - T P 03:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kendrick7_-_Faliure_to_abide_by_AfD_v2 little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Done.--v/r - T P 04:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

How is it possible this?

Hello TParis,

It is possible that you do not remember this message on your talk page "Calling my involvement -eager to block you is just ridiculous" said User:Iadrian yu [27] when I had an affair with User:Omen1229.

prelude

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Shortly afterwards, admin Ironholds who had been a silent-reader of this discussion proceeded on your talk page, injected himself in the case without an extraordinary reason to do so, that resulted in me being ArbCom blocked for a duration of one month even without a talk page explanation which was tenfold as much long duration as my previous block.

One might think that Iadrian yu's involvement in block-shopping was succesfull.

When my block expired, I tried to interrogate you about how is it that when I discuss an issue with you that covers your admin capacity, and there is a talk-page stalker admin of this discussion that I was not even aware of as he (Ironholds) did not show interest to participate in the discussion ,and yet he issued me an ArbCom block for a duration of one month without an extraordinary reason to do so, and even without a talk page explanation. To which you answered that you were "involved" in my case[28] and that blaming Ironholds is "disruptive" and that "generally the community forgives after 6 months or so" [29]

Well, the same user (Iadrian yu) who told "Calling my involvement -eager to block you is just ridiculous" as I mentioned above, involved himself in one another block-shopping well 6 moths after my block ,of which you told that "generally the community forgives after 6 months or so"

I began reverting edits made to Wikipedia by a self-admitted sockpuppet, and Iadrian yu appearred at the "edit warring board" - which is a place to get blocks - in order to agitate for one another block for me [30] [31] in which Iadrian yu explicitly mentioned the words Also Nmate`s WP:DIGWUREN restriction Also this user had 2 arbitration enforcement in 2011 well 6 moths after my block ,of which you told that "generally the community forgives after 6 months or so".

I do not want to bring up old grievances here, however, it is not in order that when I delibatery try to avoid articles Iadrian yu edits , and yet I do not succeed. One user who permanently involves himself in block-shopping concerning me, should not edit in response to any of my edits ,nonethless; Iadrian yu keeps following me to articles he never edited before[32][33][34]. And in addition, when he began accusing me on your talk page that resulted in a successfull block-shopping, he also told that "whenever you appear there is a new edit war" [35]. Since it looks to me that this type of behaviour does not strike his socialization skills, would you be so kind as to tell him to give me a wide berth?--Nmate (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't unilaterally impose a interaction ban. All I can do is take a look at his edits to see if he's wiki-stalking and tell him not to. If you want an interaction ban, you'd have to as WP:ANI for that.--v/r - T P 22:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Nmate has added original research to several articles (he doesn't cite any sources in his large additions), so I don't think it is inappropriate for another editor to be concerned and keep an eye. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting [36], IRWolfie- (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The recent contribs of Nmate are very dubious on sensitive issues. I analyzed his text in the Svodín article. He cited:

1. Kingdom of Hungary in 9th century? = Kingdom was established in 11th century

2. The history section without Neolithic, Slavic peoples, Great Moravia..., only hungarian POV..

3. Village was first mentioned in 1416. = without citation.

4. The town had Hungarian majority as early as the 17th century, according to the Turkish tax census. = Firstly it was not town, its village. Secondly, in cited source is nothing about Svodin.

5. Czechoslovak troops occupied the area. = Again strong pro-hungarian POV - its not neutral sentence, from the side of Czech and Slovaks it was a liberation. Czechoslovakia was established in 1918 on this territory and it was a Czechoslovak army.

6. Between 1938 and 1945 Svodín once more became part of Miklós Horthy's Hungary through the First Vienna Award. = again POV without important informations, more details [37]

7. Population (sensitive issue) - without citation obviously...

This problematic user lack a basic historical knowledge. He made such addings to 40-50 articles, he was 10x blocked, now he has only Conditional unblock. What he done durring the period after his Conditional unblock? Shortly after Conditional unblock started with his battleground mentality and edit warring [38], personal attacks with false accusation[39], started with propagandistic spam, writing reports to users whose oversee him... and "Assume Good Faith"[40][41], Nmate also deleted my last contribs without reason. Write here: [42] --Omen1229 (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Reply

What do you understand of Omen1229's message, TParis? Does not it seem to be a little bit confused? It is not because of Omen1229's poor command of English. It is because of the fact that Omen1229 seems to be a rather confused user. So that I can't answer the issues that he raised on your talk page on the grounds that they do not make sense to me. That is why it is hardly possible to advise me to get consensus on talk pages with Omen1229 as it requires common sense on both parties' part.

My firt question is that: what is Omen1229 doing on your talk page? Is this a block shopping while accusing me of battleground mentality?

2. The history section without Neolithic, Slavic peoples, Great Moravia..., only hungarian POV..

My answer is: everyone can add new information to Wikipedia so it is absolutely senseless.

3. Village was first mentioned in 1416. = without citation.

My answer is:it not an infringement. Everyone is free to add ^{[citation needed]} tags to articles so it is also absolutely senseless.

4. The town had Hungarian majority as early as the 17th century, according to the Turkish tax census. = Firstly it was not town, its village. Secondly, in cited source is nothing about Svodin.

My answer is: it was not even me who added this info to the article. But this may also be a part of a content dispute, so bringing this up on your talk page is absolutely senseless. Addministrators do not have authority to resolve a content dispute.

5. Czechoslovak troops occupied the area. = Again strong pro-hungarian POV - its not neutral sentence, from the side of Czech and Slovaks it was a liberation. Czechoslovakia was established in 1918 on this territory and it was a Czechoslovak army.

My answer is: same as above; content dispute, senseless to bring this up on your talk page

6. Between 1938 and 1945 Svodín once more became part of Miklós Horthy's Hungary through the First Vienna Award. = again POV without important informations, more details

My answer is: same as above; content dispute, senseless to bring this up on your talk page

7. Population (sensitive issue) - without citation obviously...

My answer is: it not an infringement. Everyone is free to add ^{[citation needed]} tags to articles so it is also absolutely senseless.

"Now he has only Conditional unblock". It is not true. You can check this. Once I had blocked for a duration of 72 hours when I edit warred with an obvious sockpuppet. Then I get a conditional unblock in order to explicit my standpoint on the sockpuppet investigation board. But when I wanted to explain myself there, there was no need to do so because the sockpuppet was blocked by then.
"Shortly after Conditional unblock started with his battleground mentality and edit warring"

[43]

It is absolutely senseless. What I did there was not even an edit war. I reverted a text Omen1229 added to the article in full violation of the copyright policy.ie. Omen1229 included a verbatim copy paste text in the Ellie Wiesel article. Interesting enough that I had had to revert Omen1229's addition to the article 5 times between 13 July, 2012‎ and 15 July, 2012 by the time he (might have)understood that it is not allowed to include verbatim copy paste texts in Wikipedia. Although he also made an edit in full violation of the copyright policy‎ here shortly afterwards that I also had to revert [44]

"Personal attacks with false accusation [45] started with propagandistic spam ,writing reports to users whose oversee him"

There was nothing that may constitute any personal attack in my writing there, and is en.wikichecker.com a propagandistic spam? "writing reports to users whose oversee him" does not make much sense to me.

and "Assume Good Faith"[46][47]

It is also absolutely senseless, I do not understand it. However, Wikipedia:Assume good faith in the way that it is currently written does not require users to assume good faith to each other if they are familiar with each other. The reason why the policy was changed was that WP:Assume good faith policy was abused so many times. This reason is often brought up when somebody is involved in block shopping for those who are just demanded AGF off. Terefore, Its current version only says that you most definitely should assume good faith in regard to new editors or those you have not interacted with much before. But it does not apply for Omen1229 in relation with me.

"Nmate also deleted my last contribs without reason. Write here"

[48]

senseless as usual. Everyone is free to delete anything from their own user pages including even talk page without any reason.

In conclude, Omen1229 appers to be a rather confused user, and I honestly do not see the reason for what it is worth pursuing any dispute resolution with him. It is not possible to advise me to get consensus with him on talk pages when I do not see how it is possible to get consensus with a user whose behaviour does not really make sense to me.--Nmate (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring sanctions on US political articles

This undiscussed knee-jerk reversion by Belchfire follows his receipt of your "final warning" about his disruptive editing at Political positions of Mitt Romney, and also follows your previous milder warning about disruption at Paul Ryan. Finally, it follows the September 9 warning given by Swatjester in which Belchfire was shown dozens of diffs proving his battlefield mentality. The most recent reversion is a continuation of that mentality, in my opinion. The wiki is harmed by Belchfire's actions. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I've not examined the details of this (I know very little of U.S. politics, and only occasionally have a desire to learn more), and don't wish to second guess what TParis may feel appropriate. However, is there a possibility that some, all, or a few of Belchfire's indiscretions have been overlooked, or treated less harshly, due to the possibility that they were over-reactions to unreasonable or outrageous behaviour by "the other side"? (I'll declare a bias here, since, along with a few dozen other editors, I've been publicly accused of being homophobic and a Nazi and goodness knows what else, by editors on that other side.)

Also, why is TParis the only administrator who should have to deal with this? If TParis chooses not to act, or is busy or whatever, what is wrong with seeking the opinion of another administrator? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I notified the editor who you might say "opposed" Belchfire, or vice versa, on his last reversion, so that shows my neutrality here. The other editor, User:Sally Season, is new, probably a sockpuppet, zeroing in on the "silly season" of political issues.

I am perfectly willing to take Belchfire's actions to 3RRN or ANI. I thought TParis was leading the charge on the 2012 US presidential campaign general sanctions, so I wanted to give him the first option. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you not think that is a little extreme considering 1) The page was not explicitly listed as being under the guideline, 2) Belchfire reverted a what would be a clear violation of the guideline if it were explicitly listed, 3) the new editor is likely a vandal editor or sock as you stated, 4) this does not appear to be a situation of edit waring in violation of the guideline. Arzel (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

While I don't have a high opinion of Belchfire's political-topic editing, which often seems combatively hyper-partisan, I tend to agree with Arzel's third point. I would hate to see any editor sanctioned for responding to what I think we all agree is almost certainly an illegitimate alternate account. MastCell ^Talk 19:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There has been no SPI determination yet, so vandalism is not an excuse here. It is clearly a content dispute. To Arzel's first point, I wish to point out that I listed the article some 17 hours before Belchfire's reversion. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there any evidence he saw that? I rarely check the top of the talk pages I am already familiar with. The bigger issue is that when I go to edit that page I get no notification. I think if we are to use the sanction as a hammer against editors we best not put a piece of plate glass in front of those same editors when it is quite easy to break the rule and not even be aware that it applied to this specific instance. Arzel (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The editor under discussion is already well aware of how his contributions demonstrate a battlefield mentality. He piles on to articles by reverting and not discussing. He's the exact sort of editor that Lionelt wished to draft into his WikiProject Conservatism to aid in vote stacking. Now we see more of the same behavior from Belchfire, a reversion of textual content that is not wrong nor is it vandalism. Binksternet (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I find it very intersting you are accusing anyone of wrong doing and have not notified them yet. I don't know or care if what he is doing is right or wrong he should have been notified, when you first brought him up. VViking_TalkEdits 21:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking into this, but I want to point out in the meantime that an article having a probation template is a non-issue. As I've told Arzel before, 'broadly construed' is a very common (very common) scope in Wikipedia sanctions and means 'have caution everywhere there is a chance this applies.'--v/r - T P 21:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to wait on a checkuser here. If this is a WP:SOCK then it completely changes things and we all hear a loud quack.--v/r - T P 21:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Viewmont Viking, I did not notify Belchfire because it was not required. This is TParis's talk page, not a formal noticeboard. Furthermore, Belchfire has already been given a final warning. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

While notification is not required, it's a good idea. I was about to provide it myself, but VV beat me to it.[49] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, what a nightmare. Alright gents, listen up. I'm on vacation until Friday (wife and I are playing the new WoW expansion) so ya'all can find another sysop to sort through this and patrol all campaign articles until then. On a side note, checkuser came back negative despite the obvious quacking. I still think Sillyseason is a sock and Belchfire probably does too which is a good reason to ignore WP:EW but that's for another sysop to solve. Cya all on Friday, good luck with whatever ya'alls positions are. Keep my advice in your mind, practice WP:BRD.--v/r - T P 02:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I was gonna bug you to look at the Mitt Romney Dog aritcle (sheesh), but it seems like you have far more important things to do. And my complimemnts to your Mrs. That's a good wife. Have fun little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 02:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Issue with Pages created

Hi, in "Pages created" on your toolserver page(http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pages/index.php), I entered my username(Ykhwong) and set language to ko, namespace to main, and redirects to "exclude redirects" to show a list of pages that I have created since I joined Wikipedia. However, it does not work properly. After a long query time, I only get a message like "ERROR: No result returned.". I dunno if this is correct. --Ykhwong (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Changes at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

User:Waveclaira began making major changes to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources [50] that I reverted and attempted to discuss on the talkpage with this new editor. They began to get a little demanding and way off on policy and guidelines...so much that I was VERY concerned about this persons content changes that removed BLP caution warnings among many other things and claimed these changes were minor. I warned the editor several times.

I admit to having reverted over the 3RR and claim the exemption #7. - Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). This is a weak defense and possibly even incorrect I admit and submit myself to your judgement, but take a look at the changes before you do. I leave this in your hands. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to say it first:

Facepalm . —Kerfuffler taunt
haunt 08:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The editor has now disrupted DR/N. [51].--Amadscientist (talk) 08:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that TParis said above that he's offline until Friday. You should bring this up to someone else who's more likely to be around (e.g. MastCell or Dennis Brown). But, they'll probably see it now that it's on DRN… —Kerfuffler taunt
haunt 08:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Article blame Toolserver

Hello. I enjoy the tool blamer on your toolserver page. Unfortunately for some monthes it doesn't work properly for at least the articles in Wikipedia German. I. E. it doesn't find the right version of the article, show another one which is wrong. Can you help? Thanks and regards --KurtR (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Your edit to "Identifying reliable sources"

I disagree with this edit to "Identifying reliable sources" and have begun a talk page discussion. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit counter

Hi TParis! Looks like the edit counter you've developped doesn't work anymore, at least when the lang parameter is set on fr. For instance, I'm having it working properly when I want to have a look at my edit counts on the English Wikipedia, but it's not when I'm doing the same on the French one. I just wanted to let you know... Have a great day. --Koui² (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It's the toolserver, not the script. Nothing I can do.--v/r - T P 14:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

TParis can you help?

TParis its Dale Embry. Thanks for your service to our country. I started a wiki for Rick Hendrix while my tenure at Rick Hendrix Company and after leaving I attempted to keep it up. People have recently decided to deleted the page. Would you be able to remove the deleted page from public view? I have pleaded my case with these other folks and they no longer email or correspond. I dont care if they think Mr Hendrix isnt worthy of a page-But their comments and opinions should not be a page about him searchable thru Google either. Please advise me or help me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Hendrix

Dalestorian (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I blanked the discussion page.--v/r - T P 20:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:The Lost Queen.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:The Lost Queen.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Activty at article under sanction

TP, could you please read [52] when you get a chance. Thanks. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You may want to have WP:OPP make sure it's not an open proxy, but not all closed proxies require authentication. Some are network based.--v/r - T P 20:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I already confirmed its closed, or else I would have requested it be be blocked. Closed proxies do by defintion require auth, but its usually based upon the EID. How was the WOW fest? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Not so good. I was hoping we'd get to lvl 88 by last night so we could knock out lvl 90 by Sunday. But we only got to 87 and a half.--v/r - T P 21:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer to be rescued by the Army rather than the Air Force, but I'll take what I can get. My Army unit was stationed at an Air Force base in Germany, and all I can say is that the USAF treats itself well. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we do ;)--v/r - T P 21:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

On another matter, my user page says that I'm retired. However, this IP controversy and others have led me to come out of retirement, temporarily. So, if you think the retired template at my user page is misleading, would you please fix? I can't.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Many folks edit with a retired template. If your return becomes permanent, let me know and I'll look into unprotecting your page.--v/r - T P 13:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much

For cleaning up the nasty mess at my talk page. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'll keep an eye on it in case they come back in 2 days.--v/r - T P 02:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you see what you have caused?

You contributed to a new edit war here by failing to adhere to long standing protocol regard RfC's. The section is now open to clear editing while an RfC is ongoing greatly increasing the odds of an all out edit war. I am now obligated to add further Ryan's response to this incident. Arzel (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

He set a trap and it worked. Now he can single me out for punishment. His behavior does not meet the minimum requirements for an admin. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, if you think for a moment that I am at all taking any blame in the actions of others, you've got a serious misunderstanding of my philosophy on life. You, sir, are responsible for your own actions. No one on that article held a gun to your head and forced you to engage in that war. You were under no obligation except to the kneejerk reactions of your feelings. I'm not here to hold your hand, my job here is to ensure the stability of these articles.--v/r - T P 23:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

TP, I know you were doing what you thought was best and your actions were probably right, but I think you should seriously consider stepping away from the Paul Ryan article, because of the combination of issuing sanctions while being involved, and goldlocking the article when there was a consensus not to. Oh, and in case you hadn't heard, there's an ANI going on about the whole topic. p b p 00:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- There are no issues with me being involved. You should read the policy WP:INVOLVED clearly. There has never been a consensus to not block the article in the heat of an edit war. It's only locked for a week. Did you misread the protection?--v/r - T P 00:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

For my part, I say: good job, mostly. I deserved from my last edit, Arzel did from before, SS was ill-considered to remove instead of fixing. I do, however, think that TTAAC should have gotten just a warning; I appreciate the good faith of his edit. And your biggest mistake was missing Toa_Nidhiki05. Since it was a first offense perhaps just a warning, but he was clearly part of it. Cheers, Homunq (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you've behaved the best on the article overall and it sucks that you've been caught up in this. I did warn Toa Nidhiki05 though. The sanctions require that an editor is warned of the article probation before they can be sanctioned by them so my hands were tied with him. But I agree he was part of it.--v/r - T P 01:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I not not contest your questionably approach, but I will reitterate your very poor approach to this entire situation. You could have set the bar early and eliminated this problem, yet you let it escalate to the current situation. Arzel (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

If you think I've caused this then you've misunderstood me. What I said was that Homunq's initial addition was not warring because he waited over two weeks and discussed it on the talk page. When the edit warring broke out again, starting with your revert, I attempted to cut it off quickly by talking to you on the talk page. I told Homunq that while it is technically allowed, it's discouraged and bad taste. His restoration after your revert was edit warring on his part though and then the continual warring and POV pushing immediately after that is what earned everyone else their topic ban. What you would like me to do, and what you see as an ideal action, is not supported by either WP:EW or WP:RFC. It's not edit warring after talking about it for two weeks and there is no rule against editing something while an RFC is ongoing. Would you prefer me to arbitrarily create rules or follow existing ones? I understand you're upset about your topic ban, but my concern is the stability of the article and not necessarily people's feelings. I've given you ample warnings not to edit war, not to revert, and to discuss. I'm not responsible for you ignoring the warnings.--v/r - T P 14:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Do not get me wrong on this issue. My extreme frustration with you has nothing to do with the content edit of Paul Ryan, and my frustration would be exactly the same regardless of the subject or content. My frustration is your wrong headed approach of how to handle RfC's and your apparent complete acknowledgement of how you approach will lead to issues such as this in the future. I fear you lack WP:COMMONSENSE with regards of how to handle RfC's and as a result you banned 4 editors from even the talk page with poor judgement. I believe you have set an absolutely terrible precedent with regards as to how RfC's are handeled. I have been a part of many RfC's in my time here, they are always started because of a difference of opinion on what should or should not be included and implimented as a way to end a current edit war. Your approach has thrown such logic out the window and opened up RfC's for edit warring during the process.

If the goal is to blindly follow policy to the letter without a hint of understanding the the downstream effect of the policy, then there is little need for admins. We could simply have a Bot make black and white judgement calls based on the letter of policy without any care of spirt of policy. You as an admin are supposed to have that understanding, and it is clear that you do not, at least in this respect. Arzel (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, I cannot make policy out of thin air. There is no rule preventing Homunq's first edit. What you want is outside of my authority or trust from the community. It cannot be done by me. The only mistake I made was commenting on Safiele's (sp?) reading of the early consensus and suggesting several ways admins look at it when determining consensus. Had I not done that, Homunq may not have felt confident in his edit. But I'm not responsible for his behavior nor yours. Your barking up the wrong tree with that argument.--v/r - T P 16:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, If I 'm reading this scenario correctly, Homunq added XYZ to the article and then you removed it. The next editor to restore that material is engaged in edit warring, and so are subsequent removals. After the initial revert (yours) you should have taken it to the talk page and voiced your objections to the restoration of the material there instead of simply removing it again. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 16:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It actually goes back a bit further. The material was being warred over. There was an almost 2 week break while it was discussed. When consensus began to lean one direction, albeit early and during an RFC, an editor tried to restore the material. The next revert was Arzel's which I warned him not to do again.--v/r - T P 16:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No arugment from me on your sanctions. I was just pointing out to Arzel that if you don't acknolwedge (to yourself at least) the reason you got blocked/sanctioned then you are likely to get hit again. I don't know if my interpreation would be the same as yours, but after Arzel's revert of the premature restoration, I would consider any edit to that material without consensus to be EW. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 18:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This goes above a little bit to address your earlier point first. If you view the history you will see I reverted one time Homunq's edit, which I continue to believe violates standing precedent regarding RfC's as well as proper etiquette for the dispute resolution process. Apart from that, Homunq took it upon himself to dictate that current !votes indicated some mention of the issue. There is no possible way to determine the correct wording, and by the logic of TP there is no "frozen" version of the article. When the material was returned by Homunq (which really was a true edit war) I added some additional information regarding Ryan's point of view. I forgot to add the source initially, which is why there were two edits. However, you can clearly see that I did not make a second revert at any time. SS then reverted my addition.

You bring up an interesting and totally predictable consequence of the scenario, one which is why I find the situation so frustrating. You state, "..but after Arzel's revert of the premature restoration, I would consider any edit to that material without consensus to be EW.". This is perfect summary of the bad precedent from which I stated. Once Homunq reverted the revert, which by your logic would be "EW" the information was reverted and restored because of the restrictions. I made then what should be viewed as a standard edit as it was not a revert or removal of information. However, is that considered to be "EW"? Who knows. If TP had set a standard from the beginning of letting the process work itself out without editing of the disupted section none of this would have happened. Arzel (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

For the last time, point to where in policy I hold the power to dictate content? Point to where in policy Homunq could not edit? This "violates standing precedent regarding RfC's as well as proper etiquette for the dispute resolution process" isn't in dispute. You are 100% correct. But it's not written in policy. De Facto etiquette isn't actionable, it can only be frowned upon. Do you want help starting an RFC on the subject to consider making it actionable? I'll be happy to explain how, but I fear such a rule would be gamed the other direction with editors starting RFCs to prevent others from editing.--v/r - T P 20:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Show me the "policy" which says that it is fine to edit a disputed section before the RfC is complete. Common sense suggests that you don't need a specific policy, because that is the way it is done. You view this like running a stop light in the middle of the night while waiting for an hour becuase the sensor doesn't work. You are living by the letter (or no letter as this would be) of the policy without letting your own knowledge and reason for being an Admin. Not every single thing always need to be written down for the obvious logical decision be made. You talk about people trying to game a possible rule while being gamed by your own words earlier on this very issue. Being an admin means that you have to sometimes make none specific policy arguments. You were apparently given admin rights for your ability to use good judgement, what is the purpose of that judgement if you simply ignore it? Arzel (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

What kind of argument is that? We don't have a policy that says we don't have a policy. Here's the thing: Common sense isn't common. If I went by what you want, what's to say someone else wouldn't have a different idea of what is common sense? Such an absurd idea would lead to a lot bigger ANI argument than we have now. That's why we have written rules. I was given admin rights because I could be trusted not to abuse the position, by let's say creating arbitrary rules. It comes down to this: you have a hand in the pot. You did not want Homunq to make that edit. So of course your solution and what is 'common sense' is going to lean that direction. In short terms: you have a biased opinion. I don't have a hand in that pot, which is why I relied on policy. I assume your first sentence is acknowledgement that the rule does not exist so and we going to start an RFC?--v/r - T P 21:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm off to the bar to get a drink; it's my buddy's last day at work. If you want to continue discussing this, we can, but I don't see it going anywhere. If it helps, I don't hold a personal grudge on you and I understand your complaint and your frustration. Have a good one.--v/r - T P 21:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not know why you are so caught up on this idea that I am imply you make up some policy. I am saying use your common sense to properly handle situations which don't have explicit policy dictation. Not every single thing need be written down for a system to operate properly. Hell you basically created some of the rules for the general sanctions out of thin air, and now suddenly this is outside your ability because no policy exists for an obviously clear common sensical decesion? Look I will just leave it at that. In the future please use your common sense regarding issues which are clearly grey. Recognize the inherent problem in general of editors making edits to highly contested sections. Even if there is no explicit policy you have to agree that the actions of Homunq were clearly disruptive to the RfC process. Hope you had a good one with your buddy, and I will just end it here. Arzel (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I already agreed with you they were disruptive. And I didn't make up the general sanctions, I copied them from the general sanctions on Abortion and they were copied from somewhere else. The original general sanctions were a community decision built on consensus.--v/r - T P 13:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:ADMINACCT

I am formally invoking WP:ADMINACCT in requiring you to return to WP:ANI and explain yourself. In specific, I want to know what it was about my single edit to Paul Ryan that you considered sufficiently harmful that it justifies a long, broad ban. To the best of my understanding, my edit was entirely reasonable and serveed only to improve the article by making it comply with WP:BLP. If this is not the case, then you absolutely need to explain why.

Don't respond here; respond there. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:ADMINACCT does a whole heck of a lot while I'm asleep, doesn't it?--v/r - T P 11:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but do admins really sleep? I always thought they just return to their alcove to regenerate. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Well normally we just drink the blood of small children--v/r - T P 22:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for cleaning up the mess I made at Sportspeople from County Cork. I really screwed up there. Huon (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I'm on a diet. Why are you trying to stuff me with cookies?--v/r - T P 20:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

He really likes princess fairie dust :) little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan protection change

FYI, you have protection sunsetting on Monday, meaning it's open season on the article next week. I've filed a RFPP to extend the semi-protection to indefinite, consistent with Romney, Obama and Biden p b p 16:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I set it back to what it was pre-full protection. I think semi is a good idea though.--v/r - T P 16:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

		The Mediator Barnstar
		For civilly adding to the conversation at WT:WikiProject Conservatism#Liberal bias, I hereby present to you this Barnstar. Your contributions, I believe, reflect the best traditions (all be them young) of the Wikipedia editing community.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	"This !vote is invalid. !voter uses Apple products.--v/r - TP" -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 20:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TParis. You have new messages at Djathinkimacowboy's talk page.
Message added 02:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI (unblock request) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

		The Purple Barnstar
		You know why. —Kerfuffler horsemeat forcemeat 04:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

and one more...

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For making a tough decision that didn't go over well with everyone, but then...do any of them ever go over well with everyone? Amadscientist (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

My apologies

After further investigation into the Paul Ryan topic-ban situation, it seems to me that your actions were in fact appropriate. I apologize unreservedly for unfairly criticizing you. Because I believe in holding administrators to extremely high standards, it was extremely irresponsible of me to comment on the situation without investigating it more thoroughly. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I genuinely appreciate this, the whole situation has put a lot of pressure on me.--v/r - T P 23:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to take a minute to let you know I support your actions in this case while still believing that the user has value and can become a great contributer. I also very much appreciate that Joefromrandb took the time to let you know of his change of opinion and offer a well worded apology. Wikipedia needs more editors like you two!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry this has been stressfull. When I saw that you took the bit between your teeth and became babysitter for these election related articles, I knew it wouldn't take long for you and ISS to butt heads. His querulous behavior all but ensured that. Thank you for being evenhanded and not backing away from the situation even after ISS tried to poison the well. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 14:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. At this time I just need to have patience. He's showing his colors and I can certainly take the beating for awhile. I've received a lot harsher in my career than he can dish. Nothing he has said is really hurtful. I'm most hurt by the folks who are talking with him but I just remind myself that they are trying to help him not get blocked and they can't do that by starting off with "You're wrong SS." Although it seems even those folks are losing patience. I actually find it funny that he's having trouble reading between the lines of his supporters.--v/r - T P 14:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The path of martyrdom is never easy. I thought about starting an RFC/U on him a while back, but since I doubt he would participate in one what would be the point other than to go through the motions? Either he will change his behavior or eventually he will be blocked. Either of those two outcomes can't come soon enough. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 14:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

A pretty good case has been made that he could be productive. He's smart and he has the capability to be unbiased when he chooses to be. He has extra time and an interest in political articles and he's fairly articulate. Given time to town down his rhetoric and knee jerk reactions to revert, he could bring many of these articles to FA if he tried.--v/r - T P 14:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the events in Imagine are more likely to happen, unless he undergoes a serious attitude adjustment first. Starting with him carrying a WP:battleground around in his pocket. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 14:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Even I (one of his so-called supporters) am near the point of starting a RFC/U. —Kerfuffler horsemeat
forcemeat 14:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Why waste your time? He would refuse to participate because in his eyes his detractors concerns are "illegitimate". I haven't participated in an RFC/U before, but from what I've seen they are pretty much the wiki equivilant of an intervention. No fun for a willing participant and useless for an unwilling one. The only reason one would be started would be to rubberstamp this issue before sending it to Arbcom. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 14:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

SQL query

Could you tell me what SQL query is being used in your tool that finds the non-redirect articles created by a particular user? The best one I can come up with takes 3+ minutes to execute, and yours takes a few seconds. I'm trying to integrate it into a tool, but that one query is slowing me down immensely. Thanks! -Scottywong | verbalize _ 00:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, hang on.--v/r - T P 00:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

/* SLOW_OK *//* CREATED */ SELECT distinct
page_title,page_is_redirect,page_id FROM page JOIN revision AS r on
page_id = r.rev_page WHERE r.rev_user_text = '$name' AND page_namespace = '$namespace'
AND page_is_redirect = '0' ORDER BY rev_timestamp DESC;

This is licensed under the GNU by X by the way.--v/r - T P 00:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! -Scottywong | yak _ 00:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that just seems to give all of the unique articles edited by a user, rather than all of the articles created by a user. For that query, I've been adding "and r.rev_parent_id=0" to make it find created articles, but that seems to make it take forever. Does X do it differently? -Scottywong | comment _ 18:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Wierd, I took it from the /pages/index.php file which shows the created pages. But looking at the query I guess that makes sense. I'll take another look when I get home.--v/r - T P 18:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It may be that he takes the list of articles edited by the user, and then checks each one to see if the first edit to the article was made by that user. I've just done that using scripting and it's somewhat faster, but still slow for users with high edit counts. -Scottywong | verbalize _ 21:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That's actually exactly what he does. He runs this in a loop using the results of that query to do this:

SELECT rev_user_text, rev_timestamp FROM revision where rev_page = '".$row['page_id']."' order by rev_id ASC limit 1;

The reason his goes faster might be because he only pulls 100 at a time for this query.--v/r - T P 22:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Aha! His second query was slightly different than mine, and apparently a lot more efficient. That did it, thanks again for digging that up for me. -Scottywong | confer _ 23:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

AIV

Hi TParis! I see that you're online. AIV is quite backlogged right now. Can you please help out there? Thank you! --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Ohh damnit, someone caught me...ohh fine!--v/r - T P 15:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Broken edit counter

Just letting you know that your edit counter ([53]) seems to be broken - it keeps telling me that I don't exist. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me to be a toolserver issue.--v/r - T P 17:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I've also been experiencing issues. I can't even access it at the moment. Kurtis (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Same here. Other editors also are, I think. TBr and ley 00:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

At last look, I believe a user server was knocked out due to fault and are fixing it. Nonetheless, I will ask toolserver what is going on with the database.—cyberpower _Offline^{Trick or Treat} 03:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Dave Dial (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore it, but it won't stop me or another administrator from blocking your account if you ignore the article probation.--v/r - T P 19:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware of Wiki rules. Perhaps you should extend your break a few more weeks, since you still seem bent on causing instead of preventing trouble. Dave Dial (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, have a good day.--v/r - T P 19:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back

I kept your talk page as tidy as I could for you while you were away. I hope you are feeling better.—cyberpower _Online^{Trick or Treat} 22:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Great respect

I hope you are doing well. I have a great amount of respect for your decision making. One of the very few admin willing to make a hard judgements in areas sorely lacking such! You have my full support! (you may not agree with much of what I think, but I actually do trust your judgement).--Amadscientist (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!--v/r - T P 12:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I could use an administrative hand

Sorry to bother you; I need a bit of administrative assistance. I find that I cannot open an AfD on RedandNater.com, I suspect because there have been 2 AfDs on it previously and the name of the page on the earlier, from 2008, is getting in the way of the process. I think your administrative tools would allow you to have a look and see what needs to be done. Thanks in advance for any assistance you care to render. Please feel free to leave me a note here if you have any questions or comments. Ubelowme _U ^Me 03:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You should be able to create the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RedandNater.com (3rd nomination).--v/r - T P 12:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I think I can figure it out from here. Ubelowme _U ^Me 14:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think

that you need to possibly→possible over at the current civility hootenanny. pablo 14:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Got it, thanks.--v/r - T P 14:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Revert

Sorry, accidental rollback seems to be happening too often for me now. —SpacemanSpiff 17:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Admin abuse, you should give up your bit! Thanks, no problem.--v/r - T P 17:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Spaceman, if this is a common occurrence you might be interested in this bit of code that will remove the [rollback] links from your watchlist. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Been busy

You get here just as Boing! said Zebedee, Drmies, john, Floquenbeam and many others essentially go on strike. Never a dull moment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure I'm going to be active much. Just poking my head in the door. I have much funner things to do than spend a ton of time in recent events. But I think a strike of Sysops would be grand, even if they are all striking for different reasons.--v/r - T P 18:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

This has the makings of an Anarchists' Convention!

You and Black Kite should become ArbCom members. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Surely you mean Dennis and not me. I'd be out quicker than Jclemens. I can take a beating but when I break, I break hard. Besides, I'd likely side with him on the Malleus issue which is evidence enough (to myself at least) that there are times when my personal opinion is just too great to be effective as an arbitrator.--v/r - T P

I think that you have qualities of compassion and humility that are as important as are your intelligence and principled behavior. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The arbitration committee is really fucked up at the moment. It's actually making me think of running just to get it going back onto the right track. But seriously, you should TParis. You and Worm would make an excellent ArbCom members.—cyberpower _Online^{Trick or Treat} 12:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; milestone for the Fortifications task force; contest results
Articles: The month's new Featured and A-class content
Book reviews: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2012/Hawkeye7 on mission command
Op-ed: The ed17 on how The Bugle could be improved

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

blamer

I'm seeing some SQL (and no results) on the screen with this query Nobody Ent 17:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You didn't build that

Maybe you could be more constructive in your suggestions. The first editor was an IP sock of a banned, user. The second was a reflexive revert, and the third did not broach the topic on the talk page. So far, there has been no policy based support of the content. Is there something specific besides raising the topic on the talk page that you'd like me to do? aprock (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd like you not to revert a 4th time. If the editors arn't willing to engage with you on the talk page, try WP:DRN or WP:NPOVN. How you interpret policy and somehow else does is different. You might think there is no policy based argument and someone else can make a pretty convincing case. Also, "second was a reflexive revert" is failure to WP:AGF and "third did not broach the topic on the talk page" is a failure of everyone involved in the reverts. You yourself reverted three times without 'broaching the topic on the talk page.'--v/r - T P 15:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion that I was not involved on the talk page regarding this exact content is incorrect, as these diffs show: [54], [55], [56], [57]. Given that there was no objection to the comedic content on the talk page, I went ahead and boldly removed it. That I reverted an obvious ip sock who falsely characterized my edit as vandalism [58] can't be a problem: [59]. That I restored my edit with an appropriate content summary [60] after another editor reflexively restored the content (with an edit summary of "Like who?" questioning the socking [61]), and did not come to the talk page, might be a bit bold, but hardly out of line. With respect to WP:AGF, I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I assume that he restored the edit because of socking issues, which was separate from the content issue. Maybe you assume differently? When an editor restored the content referring to talk page consensus, I didn't challenge that. As for the a third revert, there is none. aprock (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You boldly deleted sourced material that you felt was inappropriate after two other editors said they disagree with you on the talk page. Then you reverted an IP user claiming they were a banned user but giving no evidence (see WP:NPA "Serious accusations require serious evidence"), you reverted another user who challenged your claim, as you've yet to show any evidence and you called it a knee jerk reaction. The WP:AGF lacks in two regard: 1) That you claim it was a knee jerk reactions instead of being given considerate thought on User:Seb az86556's part and 2) That he didn't personally supported the content. You are right there are only two reverts, but threatening to remove the material again unless your demands for "policy based rationale" is not at all comforting and again is not WP:AGF that the two users above who oppose you can support it with policy. So again, I suggest you try WP:DRN or WP:NPOVN before removing the material again.--v/r - T P 17:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please take more care when reading the talk page discussion. I specifically proposed removing the content before doing so, and only removed the content that other editors did not object to me removing. No one raised any concerns about the comedic content. I'll note that you are not assuming good faith with respect to me reverting the IP sock who falsely labeled my edit as vandalism. I understand that you might take issue with respect to a lack of an SPI inquiry, but that issue was discussed with the editor in question. You can review our discussion of the sockpuppet issues on that editors talk page: [62]. Characterizing my talk page discussion as a "threat" is a clear example of you not assuming good faith. Your multiple errors and lack of WP:AGF towards me seem to indicate that you are too close to the topic to be an effective admin here. As noted on the talk page, this will likely be taken to an RfC. Thank you for your input. aprock (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:Seb_az86556#Self_revert_on_You_didn.27t_build_that is not discussing it with the user. You did not present any evidence. Please do not misrepresent 'discussions' again. Objections were raised about the comedic comment by the very reverts we're discussion. I've warned you, you will be blocked for edit warring if you do not use dispute resolution. I'm not kind to folks who misrepresent themselves and others, I can see clearly what is going on. Running around and telling people how things are going to work is not "discussion". Please leave my talk page now, I have nothing further to explain to you and I've given you ample avenues to discuss your proposed changes. Failing to do so, you'll find yourself topic banned.--v/r - T P 17:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on your repeated continued misrepresentations and lack of WP:AGF, I suspect that any attempt at a topic ban would result in nada. But if you really think there is a problem with my editing, I invite you to take up the issue at the appropriate noticeboard. Adios. aprock (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Not neccessary, Wikipedia:General_sanctions/2012_Presidential_Campaign/Log says "Uninvolved administrators can independently impose sanctions, including escalating blocks or topic bans of up to three months." You can pretend that accusing me of WP:ABF is going to protect you, but it didn't protect the last guy who thought he could behave poorly and just accuse any administrator who got involved of bias. Do not restore material in a content dispute without discussion, it's as simple as that.--v/r - T P 18:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Do not restore material in a content dispute without discussion, it's as simple as that. On this we most certainly agree. I'll take more care in reverting obvious IP socks who stalk me for the purposes of creating this sort of wiki-drama. It's obviously a time sink, and when they succeed in diverting editors from constructive work, the project suffers. aprock (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

...restore or remove. Best to talk it out. This might be easier if you could just explain why they are a banned sock for the rest of us who haven't been able to piece it together.--v/r - T P 18:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

You look like you need one right now. —cyberpower _Online^{Trick or Treat} 22:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :D I actually have one in my hand.--v/r - T P 23:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a distinct possibility that I will loose my Internet due to Sandy. Do you think you could watch my talk for me then?—cyberpower _Online^{Trick or Treat} 00:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

food is another important side of our life, Sajjad star66 (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: WP:NOTGRAVEDANCING

TParis,

Thanks for your help with WP:NOTGRAVEDANCING. Can you suggest a more appropriate criteria for speedy deleting this useless turd of an essay? Best wishes to you and your family!

His highness 174.255.99.193 (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

None of the CSD crtieria apply. Try WP:MFD.--v/r - T P 17:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help TParis! His highness 174.255.99.193 (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Not Howto ??

Tparis on | this removal you state that you removed because we're not a how-to guide. I totally agree with you, but I disagree that what you removed was a how-to guide at all. It describes how a process works, but doesn't give any instruction on how to make that process occur, so it's not a how-to nor does it seem to fit anything described in not how to. I didn't revert you though, just wanted to know why you thought it was a how to. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 16:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it went a little more in depth then how a process works. I think it included how to do the process even if it didn't go into more detail about how to do each step of the process. The sentence before that part adequately describes the process, I think, without becoming a how to guide. In any case, I was just trimming up and Wikifying the article. Feel free to use your own editorial prerogative.--v/r - T P 17:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Mensch

Well done, once again, TParis on a fair close.

Your allowing the discussion to be concluded at CSD was the right call. I'm betting that the deletes will outnumber the keeps (alas), even more than Obama voters will outnumber Romney and Johnson supporters combined (yeah!; this time the Electoral College is on our side!).

You could be a Pole, in your reliability in doing what is right rather than what is convenient or pleasing. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Lol, you know it's funny, I dont think we've ever sided with each other on a single issue, especially not where Malleus is concerned. But you seem to be one of my biggest fans. =D Thanks for the support and the vote of confidence. I appreciate it.--v/r - T P 13:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Bravely done indeed. But I disagree with the result - indeed, it's very much ironical that you criticize procedural problems of the original close, and then close the review as "overturn", which, procedurally, requires consensus to overturn - and reading consensus into anything around this mess is a skill not yet developed on this planet ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

@TParis, you should read my comments about Malleus or myself carefully. I have complained about double standards and specifically about repeated insults and attacks directed towards Malleus or myself, which have been left to stand or applauded by administrators, while we face sanctions. I have trouble thinking of times when I complained that either Malleus or myself were innocent of an incivility (although I have urged that others remember that Scottish, non-Cityboys, Australian men, particularly of working-class origins, frequently use "cunt".) I have stated that one block of MF seemed to be within policy although it was imprudent.

It is also important to restore trust after a conflict by saying a good, truthful word about one's honorable opponent. (U.S. Elections have many flaws, but the election-night speeches are a highlight of civility.) I have even tried to defend persons whom I do not regard as reliably honorable when they face unfair criticism, for simple fairness. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I am not fond of Malleus, but I can certainly say I admire his talent for language and I envy his ability to write articles. I've got an interest in writing fiction but I have a hard time with words and it seems like it comes much easier to him.--v/r - T P 22:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

His critics typically call for him to be banned and cite him replying (with more "efficacious" language) to somebody who is behaving like a jerk, without mentioning the context or calling for any penalties for the person who started the conflict (and first broke civility, usually)? Such unfairness has been my central concern. Does that make any sense to you? (I am unaware that WP bars retaliation.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:NPA ("Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia.") and WP:CIV ("No matter how much you're being provoked, resist the temptation to snap back."). Personal retaliation is not accepted in any civilised society, for the simple reason that it quickly spirals out of control and destroys the very fabric of society. If someone steals your car, you don't steal his - you go to the police. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Stephen, ~~please remove this comment, which lists with blue-links policies I've already cited.~~ Please address the issue that administrators and their familiars are free to insult and otherwise make personal attacks or be uncivil to me or Malleus. Please find one time in a block log that the provocateur making the first personal attack was also blocked. I have repeatedly acknowledged on this page that I don't mind being blocked for retaliation, but I do mind being blocked when some Administrator insults me first. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I've only addressed your claim that you are "unaware that WP bars retaliation" by providing you with cites making that clear. You have linked the pages, but apparently not noticed the passages I quoted. I have not made any other claim - please see User:Stephan Schulz#Collected_ramblings bullet 3. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I struck the ununununintended "un"! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

...and just when I thought we had a perfectly good blood feud going ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"Lashing out"

You seemed to be of some inexplicable belief that I was "lashing out" at something, rather than pointing out your policy-violating block. In any case, I learned a long time ago to make the best of a bad situation: First, the page wound up being locked in the right version and the block was well worth it to make sure the vandalism stayed out. Second, being punatively blocked by an involved admin puts me in some very good company. I saw a discussion recently mocking "virginal block logs". I'll take the fact that I got blocked to mean I'm doing something right. But make no mistake about it: You blocked me for reverting vandalism, and you were in clear violation of WP:INVOLVED. This is a grudge that I will likely carry forever. And yes, I'm well aware that you had the last user to have the temerity to complain about you thrown off Wikipedia; I have no doubt that you'll try that with me, and it's likely you'll succeed. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, I want my comments at User talk:TParis/Archive 8 stricken. Please either strike my comments or give me permission to strike them myself. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Finally, please delete User:Joefromrandb/EditCounterOptIn.js. This appears to be your tool and I want no involvement with anything you've created. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

1) Posting on VP about NYT paywall being disabled is not vandalism. You said you were going to take this to ANI, I welcome you to do so or at least get an admin you trust to opined on it. 2) I was not at all involved in your dispute with the IP or the 15 reverts you did all by yourself. 3) I had nothing to do with that user getting blocked on Wikipedia. I warned him that edit warring was disallowed (and that a single revert can be edit warring if the content has been reverted a bunch of times by other users already) several times before he was topic banned (with 3 other users) and then he proceeded to lash out for nearly a week about how I targeted him (despite all the diffs showing that not once was he singled out) and how I was involved (despite that I not once was in a dispute with him outside my role as an admin warning a misbehaving user) including gross incivility and joking about my murder; he did that all by himself. I was patient and ignored the insults for 5 days while other users tried to explain to him why he was indeed edit warring as several users tried to explain to you why you were edit warring and refused to comprehend. He 'prophesied' about his eventual block and them he pushed until it happened; not by me for the record. It was a battle ground tactic he was counting on to get him unblocked and it failed. I'd suggest giving WP:VANDALISM another read. "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism." I've had my understanding of vandalism double checked, have you? Feel free to complain about me, I take it in stride. Just don't joke about having me taken out and we're good for the most part. You seem like a decent civil guy. Your message here is pretty relaxed and calm, I see no reason why there is a need to hold a grudge. I'd be happy to explain why your reverts were not exempt. 4) No, it's an archive. Archives are meant to record the past, and not changed in the present. 5) You can db-u1 it. Note that it doesn't prevent the tool from doing anything at all. The data remains available to the tool. It is that the tool chooses to ignore the data for certain individuals as a politeness.--v/r - T P 13:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

@Joefromrandb, you can actually opt out of the edit counter without going through the trouble of getting the page deleted. Simply blank the page at User:Joefromrandb/EditCounterOptIn.js. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I find your comments reprehensible but predictable. If I had written on your talk page: "You're the biggest dickhead on the face of the Earth"; then came back here and said: "I really regret saying that -may I please strike that comment?", we both know that you would have no problem with that whatsoever. But because the comment I regret saying is one that shows you in a favorable light, you're going to insist that it stay. That's disgusting. If you're not going to have the common decency to strike my statement, at least add a note saying: "Joefromrandb has expressed to me that he regrets making this statement". Joefromrandb (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Predictable is exactly the word I would use as well. Are you going to entirely ignore the quote from WP:VANDALISM which explicitly refutes your claim to an exemption under WP:EW or do you plan to address it at some point? "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism." I've shown you why your claim is invalid, show me why it isn't.--v/r - T P 13:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

My post above was solely about my request that you strike or annotate my archived comments as requested. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Point out what post you want stricken. It's not that big of a deal to me.--v/r - T P 14:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The only post I made in Archive 8. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

removed.--v/r - T P 16:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

„Georg vitzthum (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)“

-->Der oben angeführte Satz entspricht einer heute noch vertretenen Lehre auf manchen Tierärztlichen Hochschulen und kommt deshalb wohl auch in Texten (in unterschiedlichen Variationen) von diversen Tierschutzorganisationen vor. Es handelt sich hier um eine Behauptung, die nicht belegbar ist, selbst durch großzügige Auslegung von Schriften und Gedanken Descartes. In Wikipedia francaise, Discussion, article animal-machine wird dieser Begriff im Titel auf Descartes zurückgeführt, allerdings in der Auslegung von Pierre Gassendi. Demnach sind Tiere als Maschinen zu verstehen, die keine Seele haben (d.h. im Sinne Descartes kein Bewusstsein und kein Denkvermögen haben). Eine extreme Auslegung wird Nicolas Malebranche zugeschrieben - einem späteren Zeitgenossen, der zudem auch Theologe war,- ohne ein belegbares Zitat für seine Aussage zu nennen, dass Tiere keinerlei Schmerzen verspüren. Lediglich in Wikipedia englisch-article/talk animal rights findet sich folgendes Zitat: [Animals] eat without pleasure, cry without pain, grow without knowing it; they desire nothing, fear nothing, know nothing. — Nicolas Malebranche (1638–1715)[22] In Descartes Hauptwerk „Traité de l’homme“ (s.a. de.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_homine), das erst nach seinem Tod erschien, finden sich alle seine Thesen zu diesem Thema wieder. Der Begriff Maschine - und zwar eine von Gott geschaffene - wird darin von Descartes für die ganze Natur, einschliesslich des Menschen, angewandt. Damit hat Descartes den Menschen in seiner irdischen Existenz und Beschaffenheit entgegen den damals geltenden Glaubensgeboten auf die Ebene des Tieres (herab)-gesetzt und nicht, wie im Wikipedia-Tierschutzartikel der Eindruck vermittelt wird, das Tier entwürdigt. Der Unterschied zwischen Tier und Mensch waren für Descartes lediglich Denkvermögen und Sprache. Er war ein gläubiger Mensch und seine Annahme, das der Verstand (d.h. der Geist und nicht die Seele) unsterblich sei, ist heute in einer anderen, materiellen Bedeutung noch recht aktuell. Descartes hat sich im großen und ganzen mit dem Thema Tier zu wenig beschäftigt, als dass er zum Thema Tierschutz überhaupt eine Rolle spielt bzw. sogar als Befürworter von Tierversuchen herhalten muss. Wenn man ein passendes Zitat zu besseren Darstellung einer bestimmten geschichtlichen Entwicklung glaubt geben zu müssen, sollte dies ein nachprüfbares sein.

Wow, that was very profound. I think. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Es tut mir leid, aber ich spreche kein Deutsch, und ich kann nicht verstehen, Ihre Kommentare nachdem ich sie übersetzt mit Google. Sie mögen recht haben, aber der Ort zu diskutieren, das auf der Artikels Diskussionsseite. Ich kann dir nicht helfen, besonders wenn ich kann dich nicht verstehen. Viel Glück.--v/r - T P 21:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not speak German and I cannot comprehend your comments after I translated them with Google. You may be right, but the place to discuss that is on the article's talk page. I cannot help you, especially if I cannot understand you. Good luck.--v/r - T P 21:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Lots of stuff about Descartes. (I was waiting for somebody to chime in with "...therefore I am" after my previous post, which was an unintentional setup, by the way.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, well I'm not much into philosophy so the name didn't ring a bell but obviously the 'saying' (?) does now that you bring it up. I think this might be related to an article about animals. I gather something about how someone is mischaracterizing his philosophy on that article or that his philosophy is biased because of his religion? Not positive what to take away. The google translate wasn't very helpful.--v/r - T P 21:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

TLDR

I don't know that I'll ever be able to AGF with you, but in the odd chance you don't actually understand what happened, I'm going to explain it here in great detail, as you seem to be interested. This started with the IP's post that the NYT paywall was down. I responded that it was inappropriate to post that info. Another user explained that it was lowered voluntarily. I responded that I misunderstood the OP's post, stood corrected, and advocated that users take advantage of the situation. It should have ended here. Instead the IP chose to attack me, calling me a troll and launching into a diatribe about how "paywalls suck" and that whenever a paywall is down, people should take advantage of it even if it wasn't lowered voluntaruly. This is akin to saying that if someone leaves the door to their home unlocked, people should feel free to enter the house and take anything they find useful. In addition to being morally reprehensible, I feared that advocating using information gathered under these kinds of circumstances could pose trouble for the WMF. There was more back-and-forth, and then you entered the discussion with the statement: "Joefromrandb please excuse yourself from this discussion. You have turrned a non-issue into an embarrassment. 88 thanks for letting us know". I was, and still am, shocked that you said this. I figured that you, especially as a member of the Service, would have a strong code of moral conduct. However your feelings are your feelings and you are perfectly entitled to them. What you weren't entitled to do was block me. That comment absolutely made you WP:INVOLVED. There was more back-and-forth, and then Sven boxed up the discussion. I wasn't happy about that, but I didn't protest. The IP however, reverted Sven, leaving the part of the discussion he wished to be displayed uncollapsed. Sven reverted, admonished the IP, and warned him not to revert again, which he promptly did. It was at this point that I got involved, along with others. The IP was being reverted by multiple editors, including me; he instantly reverted each time. I was careful to stop at 3 reverts-the IP by this time had eight. Someone should have stepped in and blocked him before it even got to that point. I asked for help at another user's talk page, acknowledging that I was at 3 reverts. That user reverted and again admonished the IP. For several minutes everything was fine. Then the IP started again, only this time he was leaving his collapsed posts visible while removing mine. This was vandalism. Deliberately altering the posts by uncollapsing his comments and then removing mine to give the impression that I hadn't responded was clear-cut vandalism. And I did start reverting again, each time noting in edit summary that I was removing vandalism and my edits were 3RR-exempt. You stated that if I had to note in the edit summary that the IP's edits were vandalism then they obviously weren't. Bollocks! WP:3RRNO specifically instructs users claiming a 3RR exemption to be sure to note what they are doing in an edit summary. I'll repeat: When the IP's posts were merely disruptive, I reverted 3 and only 3 times. It was only when it went from disruption to vandalism that I resumed reverting, following 3RRNO instructions. The rest is history; the IP kamakazed himself at the noticeboard in an attempt to get even with me (can you picture the utter absurdity of a user with 15 reverts reporting a user for edit-warring?), and you and Ks0stm began conspiring to block me. This was especially troubling because I had just finished discussing the issue on my talk page with administrator GB fan. And while GB fan wasn't exactlly thrilled with the way I handled things, he accepted my explanation and elected not to block me. So in summary, your block was excecrible under numerous grounds.

1.) WP:INVOLVED- When you entered the discussion and thanked the IP, while calling me an embarrassment, you absolutely became too involved to block me.
2.) I did not violate WP:3RR. When the IP was only being disruptive, I concientiously stopped at 3 reverts and asked for outside help. It was only when he began vandalizing by removing my posts and deliberately altering what was said that I resumed reverting, all the while following WP:3RRNO. While the way I handled it wasn't perfect, it was within policy, and certainly not grounds for a block.
3.) Another administrator discussed the incident with me and decided not to block me. What you did was cowboy admin tactics. It's akin to going before a judge and being found not guilty, only to be hauled away upon leaving the courtroom, with the explanation: Another judge two towns over heard about your case and has decided to put you in jail for two days. When an admin blocks a user, it is considered bad form at best, and desysopable at worst, to undo the block without discussing it with said admin or reaching consensus elsewhere. Similarly, when an admin discusses something with a user and drops the issue without blocking, another admin should not be permitted to block without discussing it with said admin or reaching consensus elsewhere. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

@Joefromrandb: Pardon my butting in—I have zero involvement in the problem is being discussed, and forget why this page is on my watchlist. (1) Archive pages are not refactored as they are a record of what happened. In addition, there is no need to refactor an archive page—all that needs to be done (and which has been done) is to add a new comment on the talk page stating that the opinion is no longer held. (2) Successful participation at an open-access website requires a rather detached outlook, and it is time to let perceived injustices go. If an injustice occurred, that can hardly be regarded as astonishing (no one expects any editor or admin to be consistenly perfect); moreover there should not be a great concern about loss of reputation, particularly when real-life identities are unknown. What will cause loss of reputation is an inability to take advice. (3) If the underlying dispute concerns edits like this, I confirm that such a revert is very inappropriate, and has no 3RR exemption—the IP's post definitely does not satisfy WP:VAND. Moreover, at a well-watched page like a village pump, there are lots of other editors available to revert an IP if other editors regarded it as necessary. Johnuniq (talk) 07:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not let injustices go. Full stop. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Just drop it. In your quest for justice you are starting to develop a battleground attitutde. Just ignore TParis and go about your business. Its a big encyclopedia and in a short time I suspec you will wonder why this was a big deal to you in the first place. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 12:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BUTTOUT. Learn it. Know it. Live it. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's just assume that your position an admin cabal exists is 100% correct. Do you think your current path for justice against these rouge admins is going to accomplish anything other than causing you blocks and/or sanctions? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 13:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I would much rather be blocked/sanctioned for doing what's right than be a spinless obsequious sycophant. BTW, are you aware that my post above is a response to TParis' repeated requests that I explain why I was right? Joefromrandb (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Joefromrandb: [63][64][65][66][67]. That means that 5 out of 11 of your reverts (45%) didn't restore any content from you at all. However, that doesn't even matter because removing content in good faith to try to let Wikipedia know that the NYT paywall is down is not vandalism. I quoted that to you twice already, but I'll quote it again: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism." Secondly, Lack of administrative action is not a facet of WP:WHEEL. You and I cannot know why GB Fan didn't block you. Thirdly, you walked into that dispute assuming bad faith of the IP from the get go. When the IP tried to explain himself, your bad faith continued. I assume you were just still angry from your dispute at Template talk:Civility and that must be why you were so rash with the IP. I find your lack of self reflection worrying. Why don't you go back and read that conversation with the IP again and see if it pans out like you remember it. Also, I never said you were an embarrassment. I said the way you were talking to the IP is embarrassing. It's embarrassing to me when IPs say we have an IP bias and we keep insisting we don't, and then cases like this come up where we prove we do. You were representing the entire community to that IP. Put yourself in his shoes.--v/r - T P 14:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Almost everything in your response is entirely incorrect. I knew you would never admit that you were wrong, and I was foolish to post that explanation against my better judgement. While I would never wish death upon anyone or joke about someone's murder, I can certainly understand why StillStanding became so frustrated with you. I am done with this, walking away from it with a deep, deep hatred for you and what you did to me. Before this happened, I had spent almost 2 years here, with over 12,000 edits. I enjoyed the work I did here immensely. This injustice has left a very bad taste in my mouth. As much as I feel that I should just walk away and wash my hands of this place, it's likely that I'll gradually return to editing. Hopefully this was just a one-off incident, because dealing with something like this again would almost certainly drive me away from this project for good. I hope you got your money's worth. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I've given diffs and links to policies. Please dear God explain how I can possibly be wrong. Seriously. You continue to ramble incoherant "wish the world was this way"s but you havent produced a single shred of evidence to support your claim and you've completely ignored everything that shows you were wrong (hint: use policies and diffs). You insist that I'm not listening and understanding you, and yet you demonstrate none of the behaviors you ask of me. You're here to prove you are right, you're not here to discuss. Please do leave my talk page, I cannot stand bullheadedness.--v/r - T P 15:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

"Please dear God explain how I can possibly be wrong" and "please do leave my talk page" in the same thread is a great example of what I'm up against. I've already explained exactly how you were wrong, with policies and direct quotes. I'm not going to be foolish enough to do it again. If you honestly believe that I "haven't produced a single shred of evidence" then the one guilty of WP:IDHT is you. (This isn't at all surprising; with WP:IDHT claims, the accuser is so often the doer.) And yes I'm extremely bullheaded and quite proud of it. We Calabrese are possibly the most bullheaded people in the world, and we wouldn't have it any other way. I will most gladly leave your talk page now. It is my sincere hope that we never cross paths again. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned

Please see User talk:Salvio giuliano#Dispute at Debi Gliori mentions an IP who you blocked. The dispute is also at ANI. You are the other admin who previously blocked this IP. My guess is that a further block is needed but I thought some consultation is desirable so I asked Salvio. Your opinion would also be welcome. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, it seems to be working itself out.--v/r - T P 13:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

toolserver resource limit

Just looking at the top of Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Northamerica1000. Am I correct in understanding the issue is the hit on toolserver, as opposed to WMF's servers? I'm wondering if would be useful for me to download the source package and run the counter from one of my own servers. Nobody Ent 16:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You'd have to download the wiki-en database as well and set up mysql. It's an artificial limit written into the script.--v/r - T P 17:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The mysql isn't a problem (I've been running a server for about a decade now). Data size seems prohibitive. So, if I'm understand correctly, the scripts run against a replication of the wiki-en database, and WMF and/or toolserver don't open the database to external queries? Nobody Ent 17:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yea, that's how it works. I'm not sure about WMF Labs, but toolserver sure doesn't. I dont even think Labs has the replication setup yet.--v/r - T P 17:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that's officially too hard, then. Thanks. Nobody Ent 18:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

hi I love cookie Loussinda (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment at your !vote at RfA

Hello, TParis. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Northamerica1000.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Im Trying to create a race car drivers biography (my son):

Im trying to create a biography of my son, a race car driver and every page ive sent over for review I have lost. Over 4 hrs of work.. Can i mail a submission to post, for someone to create? Dont know how to do this and know one to contact for help via phone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Racerdad10 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage up for closure

Hi, TParis. At WP:AN/RFC you indicated willingness to close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage; it's now in its scheduled closing timeframe. Can we get a close? :) Please let me know if not. Thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You said you'd like three, did you have two others in mind? You don't have to have sysops, Eraserhead1 has a good history of closing RFCs.--v/r - T P 00:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Three would be spectacular, though I don't want to hold my breath for it. But if you and Eraserhead1 want to collaborate on a close, I'm all for it, and if a third person can be scared up, even better. Also, I buckled down with a spreadsheet and posted an analysis of the !voting according to that essay of Homunq's at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage#CMJ analysis of community feedback. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Reaching the end of the hoped-for closing day. How are our chances looking? —chaos5023 (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I dont know if I'll get it done by today, but I planned to try.--v/r - T P 20:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for chewing on it. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

While obviously I'm all kinds of happy with it, there was one bit of apparent confusion in the close, about the numbers in the summary table -- the intention was that 0 = strong oppose, 1 = oppose, 2 = neutral, 3 = support, 4 = strong support, rather than 1 being neutral. Of course it would've helped if I had put that in a legend somewhere. In any event, thanks again for your conscientious work. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed the numbers and I found that some of the 'endorse' were given a '2'.--v/r - T P 03:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that's a different error then. :) Do you recall who that was the case with? —chaos5023 (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles created incredibly slow

Do you know why your articles created tool is so slow? Is there any way to speed it up? Ryan Vesey 05:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

RepairCite error: There are `<ref>` tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

I dont know who is the stupid creep who are making each time I talk about my Dad,which I use to fixed up and settle up an article about him, regading his Artistic carreer François Vermeille aliase Onésime Grosbois, as Member of the "Hot Club of France",Django Reinhardt Quintette... This team Band, was foundators of the "Swing Jazz continental", very well known all over the world....So I really dont like such attitude according that you have through Google several pages about him + on Discogs,Price Minister,Amazon,Encyclopedisque,World Cat Music,Virgin and so on...So you stop such dummies and ridiculous actions in order to wipped out everything about him....This Artist besides has been involved with Django Reinhardt, use to create with Eddie Barclay himself,33 songs all toguether Google07:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)VERMEILLE60 (talk)§Bold texttogether,released and register to the S.A.C.E.M. Now, please I ask you to repair all this mess....!! Thank you. Patrick Douville^[1]

Edit counter and the new projects

Hi, could you look into getting the new projects (wikivoyage and wikidata) to work with the editcounter? I don't see to have much luck -> https://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name=LtPowers&lang=en&wiki=wikivoyage Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 11:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you happen to know off hand which server the replication is on?--v/r - T P 22:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TParis. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 15:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edit counter problems

Hello TParis. I was referred to you by another user on another talk page. A couple of days ago, X!'s edit counter was experiencing one of its 'replication lags'. When it finally displayed my edit count it was reduced by about 40-50 edits -- I know because I took a peek at my edit count when I first logged on that day and made a fair number of edits immediately following. Another user at Village pump (technical) says it may be because of "ongoing maintenance of the toolserver database replica, which had been corrupted".. It has been a couple of days since the problem and since then X!'s edit counter has counted my latest edits but for some reason hasn't included the 40-50 edits I made two days ago. As I said my main concern is that this doesn't happen again. Any help would be greatly appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not an issue with the edit counter but rather with toolserver's replication of the enwiki database (and wikimedia's database in general) and outside of TParis control. Basically the edit counter looks at the copy of english wikipedia's database and counts your edit, if that copy is out of date, so is the edit count. When the database gets up to date, the edit count will be up to date. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I see now that you're saying it's missing a batch of edits in between, that would be weird, but in any case ascribable to db issues outside of TParis' control. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Whew! Okay, thanks for the info' but I keep getting referred to people who evidently can't help. Any ideas who to consult now? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Overturn

Would overturn mean the recreation of the category?[68] Wouldn't "endorse" make more sense? Apteva (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

In this case, overturn means the process was incorrect. It returned the decision to the correct process: WP:CFD.--v/r - T P 03:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit counter does not work for Wikidata

The edit counter doesn't currently work for Wikidata. When you get the time, can you fix that? I'd love to have it running, as the project is rapidly ramping up. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I can look into this, but are you positive it doesn't work? Snowolf had the same problem with Wikivoyage, but when we checked it turned out that the database wasn't finished replicating. It worked for some users but not others. Could that be the problem or does it not work at all? How long has it been replicating to tool server?--v/r - T P 14:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that unlike all other projects en.wikipedia, es.wiktionary, commons.wikimedia, there's no middle dot in http://www.wikidata.org, and the form won't work without both slots filled in. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at my talk page

Hello, TParis. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 09:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jill Kelly

Tom, could you look at the recent moves to Jill Kelly regarding dismabiguation? During the recent Patraeus mess I heard the name Jill Kelly come up and my inner smutty self remembered this was a porn starlet back in the 80's. I made a slight edit to the page and added it to my watch list figuring there would some shennanigans happening there soon. Soon after someone moved the page for disambiguation purposes, though as far as I can tell there is only one Jill Kelly article. Then some proposed deletions and other moves were made. I'm not that familiar with disambig stuff, and I'm confused as to what is happening with respect to this article. Would you mind taking a look and make sure that everything is kosher? Thanks. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 17:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I made some changes, how's that?--v/r - T P 18:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you did there. Makes sense now. Sorry I had to have you work on a different sort of "princess" article. :) little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 18:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello TParis...

Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Northamerica1000's talk page. Message added 05:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC).

request to semi-protect Kashmir Conflict for some time

Content being deleted by IPs over the last few days. Myself, Mrt3366 and DarknessShine have been restoring it, but it would be better to semi-protect it for some more time. THanks Killbillsbrowser (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I see, but it doesnt look all that bad yet. I don't think semi protection is necessary yet. Those IPs reverted different content. They might just go away.--v/r - T P 15:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, we don't exist anymore.

Hi — were you modifying code recently (perhaps for Wikidata or that ilk)? It looks like you may have inadvertently broken the edit counter. Thanks, —Theo polisme 04:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe it's just database problems on the Toolserver again...yeah, that sounds more likely. —Theo polisme 04:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I was thrown into a paroxsysm (spelling problem) of existential self-doubt when I saw that I did not exist either. I am FeralOink. I arrived here separately from Theopolisme. Seriously, don't worry about this because of me, I am already reassured that my work on Wikipedia has not been obliviated and globally reverted, despite what the Tool Server says ;o) This is not a big deal, I just wanted to let you know in a friendly like manner. V/R yours --FeralOink (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

it is indeed reassuring that we dont exist, I always felt that was the case... trust fixing it is fun - cheers Satu Suro 08:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

According to the edit counting toolserver, I dont exist. I beg to differ. ````Buster Seven Talk 12:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems I've exceeded my allowed connections. I'm looking into it.--v/r - T P 13:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, you all exist once again.--v/r - T P 14:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

thanks for that, Satu Suro 14:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

We seem to have disappeared again. I couldn't get to it from my edit edit count link, so I tried Theopolisme's link above as well. All I get for either is a spinner forever (or at least as long as I'm patient enough to watch it). Don Lammers (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Worked for me just now.--v/r - T P 16:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it works for me from this page (sorry, I had not tested that) but still not from my user page. Obviously the script is working, so I just need to figure out why not from my user page. Sorry to bother you. Don Lammers (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Seb az86556's Nazi post on AN/I

Hi TParis. I'm sorry I didnt see this [69] earlier but by the time I noticed it the thing was gone or moved. I feel that Seb az86556's post on AN/I was a personal attack on me and nothing will or can convince me either wise. If you go back and look, you will see that he had posted he was happy to have confused and offended me by calling me a Nazi cabal member. He was not trying to make a point, he meant what he said and I take great offense to it. How he could get away with such an offensive attack on ANI without any admin taking action is shocking to me. Caden ^cool 10:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

He's 'getting away with it' because from an uninvolved/outside perspective, we can see that in context it is pointy but not a personal attack. I really don't see the point in coming to talk to me if nothing can or will convince you. I tried discussing it with Seb and he went ahead and blanked my comments so I'm going to write it off that the guy isn't worth anyone's attention and I've lost respect for him. I think you should do the same and move on.--v/r - T P 13:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Alright dude I'll just write it off and move on unless he does it again. Thanks. Caden ^cool 17:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Closing the DYK RFC

Hi TParis. You are the only outside party so far that has shown any willing to step into this. I was wondering if you were still interested. I have also brought it back up at WP:AN in a related thread and invoked you, although not by name. See this diff. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Why was PrimeFaces removed?

Hi,

In the list below JavaServerFaces -> Ajax-enabled components and frameworks there is a quite diverse set of component libraries for JSF being mentioned. Of this list, exactly one has been deleted: PrimeFaces. Very similar ones like RichFaces and ICEFaces among others are still there. What's the rationale here?

Arjant (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Lack of third party reliable sources that demonstrate it's importance. If you find some, I can restore the article so you can add them. You'll need at least two, but the more the better. See this - short - discussion for more: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PrimeFaces--v/r - T P 15:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for willing to look into this. I can understand the motivation you mention, but in my personal opinion by that same token hundreds, if not thousands of other useful articles could then probably be removed as well. Spot checking several technology related articles (my personal area of expertise), I actually don't see any of them qualifying for "third party reliable sources that demonstrate its importance". It's not like any of those technologies or products won the nobel prize, or any other publicly recognizable reward. The removal of the PrimeFaces article, to me, still seems a bit arbitrary.

Let's just take two example articles: Vaadin and Apache_Wicket. Which are the reliable sources here that demonstrate its importance?

I would love to provide sources, but looking at similar articles it's hard for me to learn what you're exactly after. If you could help me out here that would be great. For what it's worth, PrimeFaces is often being mentioned as -the- component library that made JSF popular. See e.g. http://www.hildeberto.com/2012/01/choosing-between-vaadin-and-jsf.html and http://raibledesigns.com/rd/entry/infoq_s_top_20_web PrimeFaces is also being mentioned in book publications, see e.g. http://www.amazon.com/JSF-2-0-Cookbook-Anghel-Leonard/dp/1847199526 and a dedicated book will be published by Packt Publishing in early 2013, see http://www.packtpub.com/primefaces-leading-jsf-component-suite-cookbook/book PrimeFaces is also being mentioned in spec proposals from the Java Community Process, see e.g. http://java.net/projects/javaserverfaces-spec-public/lists/jsr344-experts/archive/2012-09/message/1

Looking at popularity (which I think is one aspect that reflects the importance of a technology to the overall community), it can be seen that on StackOverflow, PrimeFaces was at the moment of writing tagged 3362 times in questions (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/primefaces). To use the same examples as above, Vaadin by comparison was only tagged in 706 questions (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/vaadin) and Wicket in 1469 ones (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/wicket).

Furthermore, PrimeFaces is listed as the second web framework technology here: http://devrates.com/stats/top?tagName=web+framework Note that all other technologies mentioned in that list in fact do have Wikipedia entries. See Grails_(framework), Tapestry_(programming), Vaadin, Play_Framework, RichFaces, Apache_Wicket, Django_(web_framework) and Ruby_on_Rails. These are all open source frameworks and many of them are backed by a commercial party. I still don't see what's so special about PrimeFaces that exactly this one was deleted, but not any of its direct peer technologies. If that was cleared up, it would probably be easier to improve the deleted PrimeFaces article. Arjant (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head, the is nothing special. We have an essay that explains this, it's called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What it boils down to is that other articles are not a reason to keep this article. Their existence is more likely that no one has taken the time to try to improve them, and upon finding themselves unable to do so, then nominated it for deletion. In fact, the JSF page itself has a terrible problem with lack of sources and promotional material and I was going to take a look at striping it and then improving it with sources sometime next week.

As far as PrimeFaces goes, the kind of sources you want to find are expert reviews, newspaper/news, technology journals from respected sources, magazines, books, ect. Anything that is published (not self published, no primary sources), goes through a fact checking editorial process (or is by a respected expert in the field), or is by a source known as factual. This doesn't include forums, blogs, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, ect. Exceptions can be made only when it is an established expert or is a primary source used only for non-controversial material. Material that appears to be financially tied or is promotional/trivial in nature doesn't count toward notability. Neither do how-tos. Just some digging, this looks like it might work as a source.

Not trying to catch you in a PR move, but are you connected to the company? If so, first you should read WP:COI over. Then, contact your marketing department. These folks usually keep news snippets about their products. They may even be kept online. Marketing departments are a great place to find sources.--v/r - T P 13:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

To start off with, I'm not in any way associated with the company behind PrimeFaces, nor do I have any personal or monetary stake in PrimeFaces or any company behind it. I'm a technology enthusiast, with a focus on Java and Java EE and more specifically JSF and EJB. I have an Msc in Computer Science and am employed by a company that among others uses JSF and PrimeFaces to build its web site, but does not sell JSF products themselves in any way. I do run several open source projects (without any commercial backing or involvement), some of which are based on/for JSF and where a public showcase web site uses PrimeFaces.

Basically, I would have been just as upset ("upset" is a big word, but I hope you understand what I mean), if any of the articles about the peer technologies (like Vaadin, Wicket, RichFaces, etc) was deleted. These are all well known and respected technologies. Not having an article on any one of those would be a disservice to the community.

With respect to the sources, there thus definitely are books mentioning PrimeFaces. I'm pretty sure it has been mentioned in various paper magazines as well, but I have to look that up. I know the discussion about blogs has been held before on Wikipedia and I don't want to go too deep into that topic here, but in the tech field blogs are very much respected. For many topics, they are just as respected and probably fact checked as well. For example, the blog from JSF specification lead Ed Burns (http://www.java.net/blogs/edburns) is a more reliable source than some paper magazines, where on some occasions I found material that was not entirely correct. The publishing medium shouldn't be such a big distinction. But as I said, this is probably not the best place for that discussion.

At any length, another source similar to h-online is probably this one: [70] and two German ones: [71] and [72]. It-republik/jax-enter is a well known and respected German publisher, part of the S&S Media group who publishes technical magazines ("Fachzeitschriften"). News website InfoQ has also run several articles about PrimeFaces, e.g. [73]. JSF specific, but otherwise independent review site JSFCentral has published an interview about PrimeFaces: [74]. What do you think, are these sources enough?

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is interesting indeed, but it remains a difficult situation. It's not that 'some' other stuff exists, but as far as I can see, in technology (mostly software products) it seems to be more the norm than the exception. I think it won't help the community if someone started tagging hundreds or maybe even thousands of articles about well know software products for deletion. If the process of deletion is truly unbiased, then I fear many of them would indeed have to be deleted. But do we really want that?

About the quality of the JSF article, I'm all for improving it. Let me know if you need any help there. Do you have any experience with JSF? I noticed you mentioned several distantly related technologies like ASP and PHP on your user page, but not JSF itself. One thing I can mention upfront is that component libraries (PrimeFaces, RichFaces, Trinidad, etc) are central to JSF. In fact, JSF was created mostly to facilitate such libraries. Respected books on JSF from e.g. Prof. Cay. S. Horstmann (University of Connecticut) mention those component libraries as well (ICEfaces, RichFaces, PrimeFaces, ADF Faces, Trinidad, and Tomahawk on page 548 of Core JavaServer Faces, 3rd Edition [75]). Arjant (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I've actually tried avoiding Java as a whole except for my degree program. Actually, I am about to start working in mobile apps so I'm going to have to pick it up. Anyway, these articles could definitely use some improvement and having an enthusiast in the field take in interest in them is exactly what Wikipedia is about. Blogs such as ones by someone like Ed Burns are definitely the exception and are acceptable as sources about products Ed Burns is not financially connected to (like Oracle or JSF). Anything he writes on PrimeFaces would be acceptable. Keep in mind that more than mere mentions are necessary in sources. Sources are required to significantly cover the subject (more than a paragraph). I'm going to userfy the article for you. By that, I mean I am putting it as a subpage under your username User:Arjant/PrimeFaces. Work on it a bit there and let me know and we can discuss moving it back to article space. Check out the {{cite}} template for how to use citations on Wikipedia. Also, please be aware that external links are generally discouraged in the prose of an article. If you get this article in order, then I'd strongly suggest working on the others in this field as well. Also, if you are able to improve the prose on this article by 5x or more (more than 1500 characters) within 7-10 days, then I can help you get the article featured on Wikipedia's main page and you'll get a small 'award' for it.--v/r - T P 17:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to take a deep breath and see how far I can get with this during the weekend. Yes, I'm aware of the external links policy. I'll have to try how to best weave the sources into the text. If you have any example of a software product/tech article where this is done correctly, then this would surely be helpful. Thanks again for your trouble. Arjant (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

If you have any questions feel free to ask. Wikipedia's best software articles are OpenBSD and Opera_(web_browser); they are both "Featured Articles". PHP and Perl are probably closer related to PrimeFaces and they are Good Articles (GA class) too. For more articles, look at the table at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Software#Project Articles, anything under "FA" (Featured Article), "GA" (Good Article), "A" class or "B" class are good examples.--v/r - T P 18:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Get stuffed

	Happy Thanksgiving
	A big thank you from me to you. little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer 05:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. You too!--v/r - T P 13:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Article Blamer broken?

For the past few days, trying to use the Article Blamer brings up diffs that have no relation to the entered text. What's up with that? There's also stray SQL in the top of the results page for some reason, don't know if that's related. Klilidiplomus+Talk 17:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you give me an exact link to your query?--v/r - T P 18:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's one for example: [76]. Apparently, the tool is rather picky, as this query (http://toolserver.org/~tparis/blame/index.php?article=Blooper&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&text=%27%27%27[[boner]]%27%27%27) works just fine. I have no idea how to format that link properly. Klilidiplomus+Talk 18:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that's interesting. I'll look into it.--v/r - T P 18:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Soxred93's Tools

For some reason the Pages Created in the spanish WP tool is not updating the information since the beginning of the month (November). I am not quite sure that I should report this here. Excuse me if I am out of order. Thanks.--Yodigo (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a replication issue on the toolserver.--v/r - T P 18:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have an idea if this will be solved automatically and how soon? Thanks for your prompt response.---Yodigo (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

According to this list, es.wiki is on SQL server #7. This graph says that server 7 is facing a 1,032,214 second replication lag which amounts to about 12 days. It should fix itself automatically, but if it doesn't then you'll want to file a report at JIRA for the database folks.--v/r - T P 18:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Methodist Churches in Scotland

Can you move that category to the correct title with churches lowercased? Ryan Vesey 18:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Learned something. Can't move categories. I deleted it though. You'll (or I really) have to create the new one.--v/r - T P 18:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks. I guess it makes sense that categories can't be moved (all of the pages would be pointing to the wrong category). Ryan Vesey 18:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Touré

He was criticized later, on November 26, 2012, for calling Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham "old, white, establishment folks.

That's not a criticism, that's a Fox News talking point sourced to an opinion piece written by conservative activist/journalist Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center. Why does it merit inclusion? Do you have an independent secondary source highlighting the importance of Gainor's "criticism"? Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems like criticism to me. It's just something I came across on Fox News and I saw the guy had other criticism for racist comments. Figured it was relevant. Didn't realize we updated WP:RS to say we needed RS's to tell us which RS's are relevant. Feel free to remove it.--v/r - T P 22:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It is the consensus of media analysts that one of the primary reasons the Republicans lost the most recent election is because of their focus on the "old, white, establishment" demographic instead of the new, diverse voting population that includes youth, Hispanics and Asians. So what exactly is Gainor "criticizing", if I may ask? We generally shy away from opinion pieces unless they are notable. Gainor is just reading the script. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, feel free to remove it.--v/r - T P 23:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I won't be removing it, as I have no interest in that topic. I'm more interested in your rationale for adding it and I wanted to bring it to your attention. That's all. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Figured it was relevant to the bit about "niggerization" and racism.--v/r - T P 23:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Qwyrxian (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

^ Cite error: The named reference undefined was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[undefined-1] Cite error: The named reference undefined was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]