User talk:Floquenbeam/Archive 2

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

Happy wiki-birthday

To Floquenbeam!
from KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A year already? Congrats! KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you, KC. Seems like only yesterday... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
From me too! Might be time to start thinking about bluelinking this... For my part, you were in the "thought already was" category until just now. –xenotalk 22:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
LOL. That warms my heart, Xeno, but... LOL. I suspect that'll be red for a long time; for one thing, I'm not editing fast enough to keep up with the constantly increasing minimum-number-of-edits-before-I'll-even-think-of-supporting-you number. That number is rising so fast, every day I get further away from being an admin. :) Still, very kind of you to say. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Clue trumps edit count and you have plenty of the former. Just sayin'. Though, if you're not finding a need for the tools, maybe it's best you just left them =) –xenotalk 22:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The way I see it, I'm already an admin. I can block, speedy delete, and protect pages anytime I want. The downside is it takes slightly longer to get what I want done sometimes, the upside is I don't have to look at "zOMG admin abuse by Floquenbeam" threads on ANI. At least for now, I'm pretty happy with that tradeoff. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, you mean like this? I'l like to point out that was on my birthday, btw. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 10:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I mean like that. Although I just don't edit on my birthday, so I wouldn't have that problem. To be honest, if I could just see deleted contributions (to help with the occasional decision whether someone is ready to be reported to AIV or not, and to help see if someone's a sockpuppet re-creating the same attack pages, or to help someone at the helpdesk figure out why their page was deleted) I could imagine never wanting the actual bit; everything else is relatively easy to do by proxy, even if it takes too long sometimes. Since I can't, I may apply in 2012 or 2013, when I reach 6000 edits (although by then, the minimum will likely be 10,000). --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for the wikibirthday wishes you two. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


Would you reconsider this addition to HBs Rfa? It is a bit sarcastic, and I cannot see how it could possibly help in any way. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is sarcastic; it was meant to be. The way that RFA is going is disappointing to me. I don't particularly see it hurting anything, but if it bothers you, I'll remove it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I share your disappointment Floquenbeam, but KillerChihuahua was right in saying that it does not add very much to the situation. Thanks for removing it. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh good, glad you saw it; I was trying to decide if it would do more harm than good, or offend anyone, if I posted it on your talk page instead, now I don't have to decide. Sarcastic, but heartfelt, Headbomb; I think this is one of those occasional cases where people are piling on for the wrong reasons, and doing the Encyclopedia a disservice. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes I think so too. As an alternative, you could expand your support vote and give your updated take on the situation, and I doubt that would tick anyone off. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
That sounds a little too... productive... for my taste. But I'll think about it later tonight, and see if I can come up with some non-sarcastic, useful comments. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


I am so sorry about that. I was used to clossing snowballed and requested closures. I realize my mistake and am truly sorry for that. Thanks for the heads up. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries, it all got sorted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)



I'm not Domino79 for your information, but we do share a two bedroom apat togather. I'm sorry about your misconception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photoman69 (talkcontribs) 00:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
It is so annoying all of these false sockpuppet accusations. Just because I share a computer, an Internet connection, and a nasty case of chlamydia with User:MastCell, I am constantly accused of being his "sockpuppet". End the hate. Immature Basophil (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Phil! Ooooooh, that looks fun. I want a bad hand account too! I just have plain old boring User:Floquensock, but I can't edit with him, I'm keeping him un-autoconfirmed because sometimes I forget how things work and I can check to see if he can do stuff. Hmmmm, let's see. How about User:Floquenstein's monster? Not as clever as Immature Basophil, but when I'm not using him abusively, he could go destroy things with Bishzilla. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


[1] a bit of an unfair race, SineBot stopped trying to chase you nearly 700 edits ago ;p –xenotalk 18:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I be confused. What happened 700 edits ago? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You exceeded 800 edits, at which Sinebot started ignoring you =] –xenotalk 19:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Well I'll be, you're right. So those of us with more than 800 edits never make mistakes, is that it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
It's more like...those of us with 800 edits are more likely to make edits that sinebot thinks need to be signed but dont, or get edit conflicted with sinebot trying to fix our own sigs, or any number of other goofs, all which lead those of us with over 800 to bitch at Slakr and cause him to write the exemption into his bot code to stop the deluge of complaints. (takes breath) You can re-opt in by adding {{YesAutoSign}} to your userpage, FWIW =) –xenotalk 19:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Now that rings true. And, since I never, ever make mistkaes, I have no need for Sinebot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Notes From Eric Edwards

Dear Floquenbeam, i am very happy that someone reasonable went into this discussion bethween me and Llywrch. Don't worry, i will not go anymore to his talk page; Instead, i will engage him on talk page of Rulers and heads of state of Ethiopia. In confidance, i think that he isn't (completely) normal, you know? I can say only one more thing abouth him: Poor his daughter (Rachel Kendra Claire) with father like this!!! I really want to have a little chat with you! When you have some time, go to my talk page.-- Eric Edwards (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In confidence, I think making insulting personal comments about someone like this give me an important clue about whether I want to talk to you further or not. Llywrch has been around a long time, and done a lot of good work. It doesn't necessarily mean that he's right in this case (I haven't looked into it at all), but it does mean that accusing him of "not being normal" makes you look worse than you might think. Try to avoid saying things like this, not because some policy tells you not to, but because it seriously damages your credibility. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help, i did all what you told me: Redirect from List of Emperors of Ethiopia to Rulers and heads of state of Ethiopia is completed (you can see that by yourself). I will wait to gain consensus on talk page before i do anything about that in future. I also trashed from that talk page all negative things about Llywrch. I am sorry for saying all that about him; i was just angry. Please, don't judge about me premature, i really want to talk with you. If you want to talk with me, go to my talk page.-- Eric Edwards (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I think those were both excellent steps in the right direction. I'm not sure I have much useful to say about whether to split the article or not, but if I do, I'll visit the talk page. Thank you for reverting your comments there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply from Zaxby

I didn't see the fact thing was already mistake...but i don't need to slow down thank you.(Zaxby (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Note to self for posterity: regards this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply From TheHavok

Just got your message, I'm sorry about adding to the vandalism on the Bishops Blue Coat page, it was a mistake and it won't happen again. I regret it and will be try to be more helpful and contribute better with my future editing. TheHavok (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That's good; thanks for replying. Let me know if you need help with anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


For the support on the admin board :) i appreciate it. -- Ashish-g55 23:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad to see it fizzled, it seemed unfair to focus on one person. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your help with that situation i really appreciate it.Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 03:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Don't know if you saw my latest comment there. At this point, just find an admin you know, and request:
  • Deletion and protection of the 2 user pages
  • Blanking, protection (not deletion) of the 2 talk pages.
I've seen it done several times, it's slightly out of process, but that's what IAR is for. No sense letting someone deface your old user page and have it sit that way for months.
I recognized your name, used to see it a lot, although I must admit didn't realize you'd left (lots of people come and go). here's hoping sometime in the future you'll request their unprotection because you're returning. Good luck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch

That could have led to trouble... :) –Juliancolton | Talk 16:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, tempers seem to be starting to flare a bit there anyway, I thought a quick refactor of someone else's comment was better than pinging him and asking him to fix it himself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Very good catch! Simply bad typing on my part. That would not have been productive at all, and I owe you one! Hiberniantears (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I sourced and reverted it--even adding more. Gotta go now. Talk later. :-D68.179.108.25 (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll be damned. Sorry for doubting you; my BS detector is evidently malfunctioning. It looks like you've made XLinkBot mad, but I've at least reverted to your original version. I'm slightly hurt that you didn't comment on my Scottye Pippena joke, but I've recently been reminded that my sense of humor is not as hilarious as I seem to think. Also, thank you for the link to the Arrogant Worms. Who knew there were so many musical parody groups in Canada? Although, I have to say, I've been to Alberta, and it sucks too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Autoblock is on the fritz! Unblock please...

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock #1572092 lifted. I think the recent code synchup is messing things up. Hope this doesn't go on for too long.

Request handled by: NW (Talk) 00:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I think autoblock is seriously messed up. I looked at ImHERgentleMAN's page because I noticed User:Abce2, User:HelloAnnyong, and User:JNW were all autoblocked, and was trying to post a note about the autoblock screwup on ANI when *I* got autoblocked too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, NW! --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ooops

Yeah, I didn't intend it to be a joke :). My iPhone sometimes loads part of my watchlist, and when I go to click a page I want to see, it sometimes loads a bit more, and instead of clicking the page I wanted to read, I click a rollback link. I try to cancel it, but it still goes through. No harm done I guess. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 01:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. Oppose According to my personal RFA criteria, anyone who ever misuses rollback even once accidentally must edit for 3 more months to regain my trust. Also, shows elitism by editing with an iPhone. Because what's the point of being an RFA voter if you can't make yourself feel powerful by cutting someone else down to size with ridiculous rationales? :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Heh. You see, it doesn't really bother me if I pass or fail rfa, whenever I run. The way I look at it, if I passed, great, if not, well that's fine too. But I've got nothing to lose and everything to gain. It's not like someone has said "Fail RFA and you will die". It's a trial by fire, and I'd like to give it a go at some point. I need to iron out a few issues first, I don't want to run for rfa for the sake of running, it's a process I take seriously and I want to be sure I have a good chance of passing. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 01:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Good attitude. Good luck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


The Barnstar of Good Humor
For your wonderful sense of humor which lightened the mood in a MfD. thanks. Ikip (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Oooooh, shiny! Thanks Ikip, I appreciate it! --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Your welcome. :) Ikip (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


Hi Floquenbeam, I don't believe we've ever met. I am Majorly, and I was wondering if you'd be interested in being nominated for adminship. I've noticed you here and there, and you come across as a clueful person who would make good use of admin tools. I have nominated a lot of people on Wikipedia for adminship (though most were more than a year ago) and I think you'll pass, despite the low edit count. What do you think? Majorly talk 22:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, that means quite a lot to me. Thank you. What do I think? I think you're a lot more optimistic than I am about a successful RFA! I don't want to waste anyone's time, so I'm inclined to say "No thank you, not yet", but let me think about it over dinner, and I'll reply later tonight (my time) or tomorrow. Plus, that gives you time to re-evaluate your support, based on this little gem. (embarrassed shrug). --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Contrary to popular opinion, I don't base my votes at RfA on whether or not the user opposed me or supported me or whatever. Your comment was completely fair in any case. I don't think you'll be wasting anyone's time – unless you're hiding any skeletons, the only things I can think that people may not like is the lowish edit count (but that can be a positive) and the relative lack of article work (but, some of our best admins never work on articles). But I think those things are unimportant when it comes to asking Will this person be a good admin? I think the answer is yes for you, and I hope you agree. Majorly talk 23:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Considering I spend a lot of my time puttering about in vaguely admin-y areas (WP:ERRORS, WP:ANI, WP:AIV, CAT:CSD), it's probably not surprising that I've toyed with the idea of an RFA somewhere down the road. I think I'd enjoy it, and I think I'd be a good one. But the rub is convincing other people. I doubt I could successfully market myself to a crowd skeptical about my experience. I'm not Obama :).
I've got under 2000 edits to my name. I probably average 250 edits a month (just guessing). I've seen RFA candidates smacked down hard for "lack of experience" (not, mind you, specific failings, but just the general feeling that they haven't put their time in) with over 3000 edits. I believe someone just this last week specified 6-8000 edits as their minimum. And recently, someone said they wouldn't support anyone who was less active than 300 edits/month, and I noticed no one contradicted him.
Looking thru past RFA's, I really see <2000 edits as an insurmountable problem. Well, not insurmountable, it's easily fixed with more time. As susceptible as I am to flattery, I think I've just barely got enough self control to decline for now. While I'm contrarian enough to think that 2000 edits is more than enough to evaluate someone's character and wisdom, it's clear to me a large percentage won't agree. And while it would certainly be an interesting discussion (I'm slightly tempted to do it just because it might be healthy to have that discussion), I guarantee I'd lose that round.
I'll likely try someday; I hope it won't be considered canvassing if, when that time comes, I check in with you to see if you're still interested in nom'ing or co-nom'ing. And thanks again for the vote of confidence. It made my day. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Shoving my nose in where it may not be wanted, but I agree with your honest assesment above. I also agree with Majorly that you'd no doubt be an excellent admin (the thread below this being prime examples of why). Alas, under 3,000 edits will get knee-jerk opposes. However many have passed relatively recently with 4-5k. It's a pity that so many just use raw edit count as a metric but there we go. I'll be looking forward to an RFA soon though - maybe at the start of next year..? And maybe I could slide in a co-nom? Pedro :  Chat  06:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Pedro, your nose is always welcome here. I was originally thinking of waiting until I had 4000 edits or so, mostly to avoid a large number of "too early" opposes. Not sure when that'll happen, my amount of participation varies with my real life schedule. Perhaps slightly earlier now that you all have swelled my head a little. When the time comes, I'll ping you and see if a co-nom is still in the cards, very kind of you to offer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Most welcome. Please feel free to hit Majorly and I up when you feel the time is right. (apologies for treading on your toes Majorly!) Pedro :  Chat  13:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC) and Robstark on AIV

I have reverted your removal of and Robstark from AIV. Only admins should remove reporting posts. is a blatant IP jumping vandal and Robstark is a DUCK of sock. They may go through the OTRS process while blocked. - NeutralHomerTalk • 03:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw. Actually, that isn't quite true, non-admins who know what they're doing have been trusted to remove reports there for a long while. I generally know what I'm doing there, although I'm as capable of making a mistake as you are. Blocking would be rash, IMHO. I've commented on your re-added report instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
In most cases, I would wait and see, but this user has been vandalizing that page for awhile on different IPs. This has been going on for a few months now, so a block will do them some good. They can, currently, still edit on the Robstark account (though I feel that will get blocked per DUCK). They can always email OTRS while blocked. - NeutralHomerTalk • 03:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
If they are going to use OTRS, then they aren't really a vandal, are they? You throw that term around a tad too much, I think. And if they aren't a vandal, then it seems unnecessary, and possibly counter-productive, to block them. They can't edit with Robstark, they'll get autoblocked. I don't understand the benefit of not waiting for one more edit, now that they've been given useful information, to see what they do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
They did have a good 30 minutes to edit prior to blocked on both the IP and main accounts, so it isn't like they were immediately blocked...there was a delay in blocking. If you feel the block is wrong, please feel free to take it to AN and let others weigh in. I do believe they aren't at a disadvantage because OTRS is a email service anyway (if I remember correctly) so they can email them via their own personal email account. I do, though, doubt Chad Dukes has a problem with his real name being in the public eye since he has used it many a-time on his show and in print articles for The Washington Post and The Washington Times, among other publications. But if you feel I am wrong, please post to AN, no hard feelings will come from me if you do. - NeutralHomerTalk • 03:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I've made my opinion known to Manning, I'll defer to his judgement. It's enough of a judgement call that I'm not about to start second guessing him (or you) on AN. And to be clear, I'm not saying this person is affiliated with Dukes, or that they're an angel in all this. I'm saying it's enough of a possibility that I'd have waited first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

AIV and its auto-clearing

Hi - I blocked User: but right after I went back to AIV it had cleared. Then by pure luck I checked the history log and saw the comment you left about OTRS. If you want me to reverse the block then let me know ((or reverse it yourself). Cheers Manning (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't reverse it; as NH points out above, I'm a lowly non-admin. I think a block is a bit premature; it's possible this is someone trying to deal with a BLP situation, whose previous edits were all called vandalism. There's a chance they'll keep reverting, but it's worth waiting (IMHO) to see if they start dealing with it the right way. Your call. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, apologies for my mistake on the admin front. (One does tend to make unqualified assumptions about those who dwell in AIV). I shall reverse the block. Cheers Manning (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Now, watch them write "Poop" or something in an article in the next 5 minutes and I'll have egg all over my face. Goodnight. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


I'm confused about what exactly made my edit "vandalism". I can produce many sources to validate my claim, if you like. It is a very common practice in some parts of the world, my parents both did it to me as I was growing up, did me a world of good. Seems like another case of a WP editor thinking that the practices in their part of the world apply everywhere. Such a narrow minded person, you are... (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Jokes are much more acceptable here on my talk page; article space not so much. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


for reverting the vandalism to my userpage! A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 16:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


Hi, just to not confuse things, I'm User:Cybercobra, not User:GlassCobra (to whom I have no relation; I know it's confusing since there are a couple other cobras besides). I just don't want anyone else's good name sullied on my account. (This is regarding your post on Gavin.collins's talk) --Cybercobra (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ack! sorry, I'll go fix it now. And don't say "sullied"; the fact that I think the block was unwise has nothing to do with the underlying issue, where you and I agree. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, by sullied I meant more "associated with this incident/drama". :) --Cybercobra (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think GlassCobra is probably associated with more incident/drama than you right now... :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow, you ain't kiddin... --Cybercobra (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


You've had two occasions to comment on my actions recently, and I appreciate your measured response in both cases. I was quite shocked, honestly, to be the subject of even one thread, let alone two in such a short space of time, as I avoid the whole drama thing pretty strenuously. At any rate, thanks for looking at and evaluating each situation on its own merits.  Frank  |  talk  15:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Frank,
No worries. I think the two-in-a-week thing was just a statistical fluke, and you weren't actively doing anything wrong, so much as not quickly catching the hint that even good-willed comments can sometimes cause unintended stress. An admin truly interested in feedback is, almost by definition, a good one. Cheers. p.s. Going offline for a week; if you reply, I'll respond when I return. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Living fossils

Hi Floq - given your interest in the subject, I've started to try and list the living fossils (aka "2001 editors who are still around"). All have edited within the last few months (I'll add to the list as I uncover them).

Well that's a start. Cheers Manning (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Manning,
Yes. it's good to keep an institutional memory. Perhaps a mass induction into WP:CODGER? You forgot one, by the way! Andre's message was a little disturbing, but I saw he's editing on Dutch Wikipedia today like nothing happened, and he had a similar message last year, so it seems it's his way of blowing off steam. p.s. Going offline for a week; if you reply, I'll respond when I return. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Phillip Mortin

I believe the useranme is the corect venue for repoirting a COI. This is a wannabe politician that is only self promoting. Where should it go? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a COI noticeboard, WP:COIN but I don't think it needs to be escalated to that level yet. He's new, he's going to find out soon he can't write a glowing autobiography here, and we'll see what he does then. But UAA is for blocking, and it's way too early to block this user. Let's give him some time to learn first, and block only if he still doesn't get it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I defer to your judgment but the socks are appearing already.....Thank you for replying! :) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. I've left a non-template message on his talk page, we'll see what he does with it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Nikki is to be the primary account. I suggested on the spi to block and delete the phillip account and have offered to help by writing the article if proivided with sources. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Excellent, things seem to have moved back from the brink nicely. Well done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


For the swift revert and AIV report. Much appreciated. Regards, decltype (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Just happened to open my watchlist at the right time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing
Kww(talk) 18:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of the term "emigrants" vs "immigrants" relating to 19th century US railroads

With regard to the usage of the term "emigrants" vs "immigrants" please see any of the following examples and/or references: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] Centpacrr (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Commented at the talk page, thanks for the head's up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. Centpacrr (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Not RfA Spam

Hello. I just wanted to come by and thank you for your comments in my RfA. It would have been a WP:NOTNOW/WP:SNOW if it wasn't for your comments to quickly save it. Your made excellent arguments that I think convinced a lot of folks to the supporting side. I appreciate the time and thoughtfulness you took in the approach to my RfA. Thanks!--TParis00ap (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to have participated, and was pleasantly surprised to have had any effect; I must be more persuasive than I thought. As you've implied somewhere else, an RFA this "soon" (as the RFA community defines it) was, frankly, a really long shot anyway, but I was serious in my comment that I think you'll make a fine admin, now or in a few months. I think you got some good feedback after the initial flurry of NOTNOWish comments, and if you keep doing what you're doing and take on board the constructive criticism you got, you'll sail thru RFA#2. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Nazi userboxes

If I had my way, we would keep the Nazi userboxes around solely so that they could be MfD'd every few days. The resulting discussion is a useful heat sink for a lot of the unproductive energy that fills this place. Since this community is constitutionally incapable of ignoring trolling, it's probably best to adopt a harm reduction approach. Incidentally, I find it as mystifying as you that a thinking person would conclude that a Nazi userbox is morally equivalent to a userbox espousing (say) libertarianism or progressivism. I like when people say: "But where do you draw the line?" I dunno - maybe start with the frickin' Nazis? It must be an online thing; people can't really be that dense IRL, right? MastCell Talk 23:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL. "...when people say: 'But where do you draw the line?' I dunno - maybe start with the frickin' Nazis" is my favorite quote so far this week. There was just a wee bit of hyperbole from the other side too: "if you keep this userbox, then you must be in favor of a userbox that says 'I rape 9 year old girls'". I'm a little disappointed foolish consistency is just a redirect; I didn't want to quote the whole sentence, lest I be accused of personal attacks for implying people had little minds (and there are some admins here that would have probably warned me for calling others "hobgoblins"). I said my piece, in the Quixotic hope it would calm the waters, but that was obviously silly, and I'm slightly embarrassed to have thought it would have any effect. I like your idea of using userbox MFD's as a kind of sacrificial anode, though. That has some merit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder to read Self-Reliance again. "Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist." Which reminds me of a graffito on the wall of a bar I used to frequent: "Why do all nonconformists look alike?" Incidentally, there are probably several more appropriate redirects for foolish consistency in project- and userspace, but they would likely trigger a block... MastCell Talk 00:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Having only long ago read the Cliff Notes version (or copied off of Jamie Sutter's report in 10th grade, I forget which), I was all set to go down to the library and get a copy to read it myself, when I remembered there's this thing called the internet. Sure enough, there's an external link in the Self-Reliance article to the complete text. I keep forgetting I live in the 21st century. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Although I think I may just wait for the CliffsNotes Manga Edition of Self-Reliance to come out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
My mind is still spinning at the concept, but I have had an epiphany. A truly brilliant idea. The hell with Simple Wikipedia, I plan on creating (I was slightly nervous when I clicked that link, but I'm safe, no one has thought of it yet), where all the articles are in manga format. Tell me that isn't the smartest thing you've heard this year. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
That's the smartest thing I've heard all year. But consider that it has been a pretty dismal year. Patent it, learn from Jimbo's mistakes, and make some money off it. By the way, Self-Reliance would be the Most. Boring. Manga. EVER. MacBeth is much more bad-ass; something about MacBeth "unseaming" Macdonwald "from the nave to the chops" seems to have caught the illustrator's imagination. SHLICK! So foul and fair a manga I have not seen. Incidentally, did you notice that one of the selling points for the Cliffs Notes Manga was that "these books read front to back and left to right, the way you're used to reading"? zOMG. You sold me at "front to back". MastCell Talk 05:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I wonder how Hebrew Manga scans? I liked the "for profit" idea, and wanted to step out from under the wikipedia banner, but some weasel already created Bastard. --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Note from Иван Богданов

Floquenbeam, stay out of this. This is between me and THE BOY. --Иван Богданов (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to get yourself blocked, so be it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments


Thanks for your help with my article. Ultimately I'd like to do several articles on childrens' authors, so this one is my learning experience. I'd appreciate any further help or recommendations you can offer. So, what's next for my HP Newquist article?

AEAndreldritch (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Note for posterity: replying on User talk:Andreldritch.

The Discussion on the Admins' Noticeboard is Now Archived, So I'll Just Post My Response to You Here

"Block"? No, it wasn't a simple editing block. They actually BLOCKED ME FROM ACCESSING THE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA. Oh, and your condescending comment about "finding another website to play on" is not going to make you look any smarter... even if it makes you feel smarter. [redacted. my page, my rules.] -- (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Who's "they"? It is not technically possible for anyone here to block you from accessing Wikipedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, they did. Obviously, someone contacted my ISP. I was very scared.-- (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow, contacting the ISP hardly ever works; "they" must have been very persuasive. So do I understand correctly that after being very scared, your solution is to come back here and screw around some more, to see if "they'll" do it again? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you expect me to just keep quiet about the whole thing? Sorry, but that's not gonna happen.-- (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, well, good luck with that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Your closing remark at WP:ANI "Legal threat on users talk page"

You might have already seen it but just in case you didn't, taking the mickey. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 08:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks CambridgeBayWeather, I wish you'd been around yesterday! I had to decode panto by myself too. Luckily there was an encyclopedia lying around. After a few minutes of research, I figured taking the mick out myself, but it was puzzling there for a while. So future generations wouldn't have to go through that, I created Taking the mick. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, panto, stage entertainment where the hero is played by pretty young woman, with good legs, dressed as a man, but with much smaller and tighter short pants. The hero's mother is played by a very ugly man dressed as a woman. Almost all the jokes are double entendre's and the whole production is aimed at children. There's no explaining the English! Thinking back to 1973 or so and an amateur production of Jack and the Beanstalk I was involved in the young woman playing Jack was dressed in an outfit that would have caused a major scandal if she had gone outside. On the other hand it was OK to wear it on stage in front of 200-300 people. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Americans have our own lame peculiarities, but we simply can't compete with the British. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

for your comment here [19]. Made my day. Cheers, (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Knowing I made someone's day made my day. :) I see you around quite a bit (when I can recognize a string of 10 numbers), thanks for all you do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for help

Hello, on one of my articles, I accidentally pressed submit before I was finished with it, but now it won't let me edit it. How can I do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerusal (talkcontribs)

replying on your talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Copy/paste of discussion from WP:ERRORS to Talk:November 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods

Just noting that the last two (I think) contributions have not been copied across - can you do that please? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I made a bit of a hash of it, I'll fix it now if I haven't already. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, it seems I already fixed it in my third (of four) attempts to get it right. Sigh. Thanks again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


No probs, wasn't a big deal anyway (it still got you to the right page) - Dumelow (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


See? You've been here just over a year and you're already silencing a loongtooth like me. Just the sort of glans I was talking about.--JohnO 20:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a quick study. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

ARE YOU SERIOUS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnOw (talkcontribs) 20:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really... are you? No reasonable person could possibly think it's OK to call someone a fat bastard. So, I removed it. I even showed you the courtesy of not leaving you a silly template, since I know you know that isn't cool. So, of the two of us, the glans-like behavior is not mine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Bet that feels good.--JohnO 20:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Stopping by

I saw your comments on Kurt's talk page and am I in awe of your prose. Well done. Mkdwtalk 05:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mkdw, I appreciate that. Although I'm worried that if anyone else ever compliments my "prose", someone will start expecting me to write... encyclopedia content. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


Aren't you an admin yet? Hurry up. Tan | 39 16:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I'm moving (glacially) in that direction; perhaps in a week or two. I have some ducks I need to get in a row first. But thanks for the ego boost. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought you were; I saw your AIV post and thought, "what the hell? do it yourself..." Oops. Let me know if I can help you out at all. Tan | 39 16:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Tan. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


Hey, I saw your comment on the most recent oversight flap at WT:AC/N. I've also gotten the impression that Arbs fall into one of two diametrically opposed camps: those who are constitutionally incapable of admitting even the possiblity that they might have erred, and those whose first response to any error is to resign. The Committee has gradually rid itself of the former over the past few years, but it seems to be left with a preponderance of the latter. I share your amazement that there seems to be no middle ground where Arbs might simply apologize.

In any case, I thought you might find this interesting reading on the topic. In my line of work, there's a movement to consider the ability to apologize a necessary clinical skill, like the ability to detect a heart murmur or aspirate a knee joint. Anyhow, food for thought. MastCell Talk 19:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  • The fact that ArbCom (and voting) has managed to remove the former type faster than the latter type has managed to remove themselves is a testament to... something. It just seems like people who are probably calm, rational, caring, normal, imperfect humans IRL are incapable of acting like that when it comes to Wikipedia (except the imperfect part). There's a sociological dissertation in there somewhere, just waiting to be teased out.
  • Based on WT:AC/AS (or whatever the hell the shortcut is, you know what I'm talking about) (SOFIX'd IT myself), things seem to be more complicated than they first appeared, so (since I wouldn't have a clue what I was talking about) I'm done commenting there; I'll just sit here quietly with my bowl of popcorn and read instead of write.
  • Your link sounds intriguing, but not enough to fork out $15 for the privilege. I'll wait for it to come out in paperback... or MANGA! (can't get enough of that joke).
--Floquenbeam (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, in these tough economic times I have come to take my free journal access for granted. MastCell Talk 19:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I could get free journal access too, but I'd have to quit work, go to medical school, graduate, and get hired somewhere that provides their employees free journal access. Or, I suppose I could go to the library. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for fixing my boo-boo[20] KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Otherwise, Ed would have been banned from editing ANI. :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
and yet that doesn't sound like an altogether bad idea to me... KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought perhaps it was all part of your cunning plan. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Now I'm going to smile all day. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
:) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Dropped by to smile at something you did ...

So much "political" contention these days (before Christmas!!!) so I won't say what I'm smiling about, but I saw you do something that's good to do. Hurray! :-) ... Meanwhile I look up and see some more smiling, which is very good to see, too.

I know this is a profoundly stupid message, but it's the holidays ... and I'm absolutely serious that you did something worth smiling about (although you've probably done something twice as bad, too, but I didn't see that one :-). Cheers, and, um, happy holidays. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I saw you do something good recently too, and since it isn't politically charged, I can tell you what I'm talking about: your "eat dirt and soap" offer on KC's talk page. So, the smile and "happy holidays" wishes are mutual. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
And I got a cool barnstar, too (which I color-coordinated with a pile of purple pigment on my user page.)

Good ol' dirt—as long as it isn't wet, it stays out of politics.^^ (even more smiling) Proofreader77 (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume my holiday sonnet is still being worked on? --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been walking through "political" barfights humming, threatening to write a Wikipedia Western holiday musical review, based on the blood patterns on the floor. lol (something) Now, I've learned from experience that sonnets are really terrible things to sing ... but perhaps a miraculous transcendence will occur. :-) (Did I mention "profoundly stupid message" already? lol) Proofreader77 (talk) 05:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Lol back at you. Be well, I think I'm going to get some sleep, and dream of a rational Wikipedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Now that's really dreaming. Sleep well and beautifully ... Anon (or whenever) Proofreader77 (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't call me "anon", someone will slap a humiliating template on my talk page! :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to say something suitably Shakespearean ... but is seems I've succeeded in achieving that great line in a recent (final?) episode of that horrible miscarriage of television creativity: "Dollhouse."

"This conversation is becoming vague."

Which sounds much less fascinating on a Wikipedia talk page, than from the lips of Summer Glau, playing an evil computer-geek god of some kind. :-) I'm sure that clears up everything. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I assumed you were doing a Shakespearian double entendre with "anon"; I thought it was clever. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, an illusion of cleverness, I must learn to maintain that. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Not quite the Christmas sonnet we were hoping for :-)

But perhaps it's good for Arbcom election day. lol -- Proofreader77 (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(shakes head) Gonna get yourself in trouble again... best not to poke fun at people that don't want to be poked, especially in such a public place. There's funclever (see above), and there's fununwise (see ANI). --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
(excuse delayed response, watchlist now is one gizillion watchees) ...

In future, prospective sysops will be required to explain why they'd make a good admin ... in sonnet form. (smiling with strange assurance, from on high?;) Profoundly non-RS research has shown that the constraints (especially rhyme) force those who reflexively support social bullying against difference ... to think *a bit* differently. ;-)

Fear not, I'll give you a link to some software to help you get the hang of it if the policy change comes before your bit. lol Cheers.
Proofreader77 (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

PS It appears (appeared on aforementioned now-gizillion-entry watchlist) you understand the problem of "the social," ... and should, therefore, be able to imagine why treating (bully-mocking:-) sonnets as an affront to "the social" worthy of sanction ... is silly of a vile kind. (When the previous sentence is quietly nodded at, you may consider yourself worthy of my vote whenever your RfA appears ... assuming your answer to a question there is fully compliant with Sonnet#English (Shakespearean) sonnet constraints. lol ) Selah.

PPS Perhaps "the why" of the vast expansion of watchlist (in the wake of "getting in trouble") goes without saying ... But, saying now, there are bad tribes and good tribes which make up the community. Transient cubby-hole bullies, are not the community. Arbcom, if necessary, can deal with the latter... and perhaps even larger tribal groupings whose mores are damaging to the project. I think that covers it. lol But my talk-page adjustments may also be illuminating. (The End, of this topic, I think. lol) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Documentation ;-)

The above rhetorical excursion is licensed under the auspices of my memory of this diff. Lol, having now found it, displaying an edit summary revealing an unchanged stance, but which I remembered only as encouragement for a sonnet. :-) So, no change in our storyline. But perhaps my "resolve" at a recent ANI topic regarding JHunterJ —who played a role back then (in that old semi-dangling plot thread, which may yet weave new lines ;-) — will be of amusement, even without verse. [End of topic] Proofreader77 (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader, I have to admit I can only understand what the hell you're talking about around 50% of the time (and I think that might be higher than average). But I enjoy the intellectual challenge of decoding whatever I can, and usually agree with 50-75% of the 50% I can figure out. :) You're more than welcome on my talk page anytime, no memory-based licenses from episodes past are required. There's not even a word limit on this page (although I reserve the right, in extremis, to {{collapse}} it).
I don't think I can tell you whether I nodded quietly or not, that would be canvassing. I'll leave it for you to guess. (Am I a politician yet?)
I'm probably not online much between now and January, so if I don't talk to you before them, Merry <insert whatever holiday is appropriate here> and Happy New Year. Peace. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Amen, dear political protege of Majorly :-) (who all I think I remember about is that they voted to remove Jimbo's steward bit — which makes little political sense to me, but I'm only an expert in such things. lol :-). May your holiday season be filled with beautiful moments, while not using up all next years quota. Selah.

(PS re "understand" - See slogan near top of my talk, re "miraculous.") (PPS - There will soon be an Arbcom to determine something of somekind. :-)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


Re this, I'd be happy to do an additional review and make a statement if you'd like.  Frank  |  talk  17:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Frank. I appreciate the offer, and I'm quite confident I would not be running into another Pastor Theo situation if I took you up on it. But I'd prefer to keep the number of people who can link the two accounts to an absolute minimum. So even though I do have the utmost trust in your discretion, I think/hope Alison's say-so will be enough to prevent people from thinking I'm you-know-who (or the other you-know-who) (or the other one) . --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough; feel free to call on me later if desired. (And Alison's a great choice anyway.)  Frank  |  talk  18:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
It's likely to be the 4th before I can give this full attention. However I promise that I will respond. Pedro :  Chat  21:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
That timeframe sounds fine. Thanks, Pedro. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Unless of course I sell the kids into the slave trade between now and then, in which case a faster response is possible ... Anyhow it's my birthday tomorrow, so I'm going off-line to start drinking heavily - thereby ignoring my advancing age through an alcohol related haze :-) Pedro :  Chat  22:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
We occasionally consider selling ours (including the dog) to passing gypsies; is that considered part of the slave trade? </probably politically incorrect and/or racist comment, but that's what I was threatened with growing up> In any case, Happy Birthday, Pedro! I wish I could use alcohol to forget my own advancing age, but (tragically) one of the side effects of my advancing age is an increasing intolerance to alcohol (sob). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
People always treat being kidnapped by Gypsies as negative. But I think it gets a bad rap. It's probably character-building for kids. It worked for Adam Smith. MastCell Talk 22:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
And Madeline too. (Why are my literary and cultural references always so much less sophisticated than yours?) --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I take that back. That is so 80's, man... --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that WarGames has earned its place in the Western canon alongside the greats. It crystallizes one of the great leitmotifs of the 20th century: the conflict and anomie resulting from the increasing automation and mechanization of our society.

Some artists portray the conflict as physical - backslapping German high-school classmates with a 19th-century conception of war as a glamorous competitive sport run up against trenches, barbed wire, machine guns, and howitzer shells in All Quiet on the Western Front. Or as surreal; see Kavalerov's doomed "conspiracy of feelings" in Yuri Olesha's Envy, where his foil, Volodya Makarov, dreams of transceding his humanity to become a machine. I could go on, but it should be obvious by now that you've made me insecure. :P MastCell Talk 23:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's better. You had me worried for a moment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
To be fair I was hoping to sell mine rather than let them be kidnapped - some kind of pay-off for the investment? :) Pedro :  Chat  22:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Usually you have to pay to get them back... but you can leave it up to the free market. I'm sure Adam Smith would approve. MastCell Talk 22:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
You have new mail! Pedro :  Chat  08:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
And you have a first nomination..... :) Pedro :  Chat  12:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Pedro. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A message for you

Just before he died, Michael Jackson passed a message on to me. I cannot reveal to you the exact nature of the message, but it was comprehensive and contained some important revelations, both about Michael's view of the world, and what he wanted me to do for him after his death. I only really came to see the message as significant after Michael passed away. I have been in six months of mourning, but now as the new year approaches, it is time that I do his bidding.

Thank you,

The Great Clunking Fist (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Jokes, even not very funny ones, are welcome on this page. Just don't screw with the articles please. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean? I, and thousands of other fans across the world, consider a message from Michael to be of the highest importance. I am also well versed in motorcycle slang, and you should please not assume that I am not making positive contributions. I have been reading about everyone editing, and it pleases me greatly. In the motorcycle world, such an assumption of wrong-doing would be known as painting the stoat in camoflage stripes. Whilst this may be a crime we can all be guilty of, I would appreciate that you do not think my motives here are subversive. As regards Mr Nicholson, were you not watching the recent documentary about his troubles? Jack has led a long and interesting life, and the singing fish hallucination struck to the core of a former drinker and fisherman like myself.
Thank you,
The Great Clunking Fist (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk/ User Pages

Oops, thanks for telling me that - I keep making mistakes :O --HappyBirthday2U (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Replying on their talk page.

I'll do it, don't worry :) Thanks again for telling me. --HappyBirthday2U (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Floquenbeam! I too was previously uninvolved in this article until yesterday. I did not remove the Sambo jokes because they are distasteful. I removed them because they don't belong in an encyclopodia. Another editor did not remove dozens of images copied and pasted from this book directly into this article because they are distasteful. They were removed because Wikipedia , at least at one time, was not a place for advocacy or WP:SOAP . I concur that self-publishing alone is not among policy grounds for exclusion from Wikipedia nor is censorship. Attacking individuals is, however, not permitted, and this author's self-published books do attack individuals though most of those attacks are carefully not inserted into this and all the associated articles. Further, WP:BK bears directly as the subject of this article meets none of the criteria for inclusion. WP:NOT and WP:SOAP also bear directly, along with its associated links and categories, seen here in overview,[21] What we have here are two apparent proponents (Norton and buz) writing numerous articles on each of the 35 books by this self-published author. I am not going to get deeply into the weeds here. It is up to Wikipedia to decide how many articles are useful on the subject of this one woman and her fringe church. Alma White is not Mark Twain and self-published though he was, and unquestionably notable though he is, Twain has nowhere near the number of articles and categories on Wikipedia that White does, including lengthy quotes and images from her 85-year-old, out-of-print books.Skywriter (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be saying that because the book attacks classes of individuals, it cannot have an article "on policy grounds". That is simply not true. WP:NPA and WP:SOAP are guidelines on editor behavior, not article content. As one of many examples, you'll note the existence of an article at Mein Kampf. I do, however, agree that WP:BK is the appropriate guideline here; as I think I already made clear, so far I do not see any reliable sources that would help this article meet WP:BK. if none are forthcoming, then I would favor a redirect.
You should really stop implying that Norton and Buz are "promoting" these books, or are "proponents"; that's really unfair, needlessly muddies what should be a clear, simple discussion on whether or not WP:BK is met, and leaves you open to accusations of violating WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Someone who knows about, and edits, Josef Stalin and many other Soviet Union related articles is not presumed to be a communist. I do not find the Alma White related articles promotional in tone, and your continued claims that they are intentionally promoting these books is harming, not helping, your cause.
Your comment about the relative number of articles related to Mark Twain vs. Alma White is not true; compare Category:Pillar of Fire Church and Category:Mark Twain (look at the subcategories too). be careful of hyperbole, it makes people discount your opinion.
Just argue policy, not personality or motivation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


i'am not a neo nazi. --Westwind88 (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Didn't say you were. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thank you. --Westwind88 (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
And where would anyone get a crazy idea like that anyway? MastCell Talk 19:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I did not know that. Learn something new every day around here. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, most of what I've learned here I was better off not knowing. But hey... MastCell Talk 23:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, now, no-backpeddling! LoL (See: Mastcell speaks) -- Proofreader77 (interact) 23:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I am proud to do my personal part in the battle against foolish consistency. MastCell Talk 00:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
There is surely a brilliant retort to that, but I let my chocolate ice cream melt, and am completely incapable of generating witticisms without a CIC fix. (But when I get some, watch out! LoL) Proofreader77 (interact) 00:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Good luck! :)

Dear Floquenbeam, good luck in your RfA!!! Sincerely, Basket of Puppies 15:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, I have a talk page and/or contributions stalker! (although, now that I think about it, you're probably stalking Majorly or Pedro's talk page... aw, shucks.) Thanks for the luck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hehe. Actually, I just saw that you opened your RfA. I've had my eye on you for a while and am really impressed. Good luck! Basket of Puppies 15:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, so I do have a stalker! Yay! Thanks again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Basket of Puppies got my vote without writing a sonnet ... Someone else will not get that slack. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 23:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Refresh my memory; a sonnet is the one with 5 syllables, then 7, then 5, right? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
No haiku for you, LoL ... Iambic pentameter times 14. (Note: Place result at question #13. Very cool, huh?) -- Proofreader77 (interact) 00:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Good luck, from me, also. I think your style on wikipedia means you will be an asset as an administrator. Please don't change how you interact with people, administrators really should be just editors with a few extra responsibilities they're willing to take on, imo. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you, IP69, I appreciate that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I voted support. A great answer to a ridiculous question (Q6). - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tbsdy; that's just a typical User:Keepscases question; he's known for those. I see you got you bit back, congrats. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know all the ins and outs about RFAs, but your RFA attempt is so sad. If you just write a few articles and also increase edit counts by maybe 1,000, then vote would be about 120-5 based on the reason for most of the opposes. In contrast, some RFAs are hopeless given the reasons given and vote count. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about sad; it's frustrating, both for me and, I imagine, many in the oppose column. Things would actually be going swimmingly if it wasn't for the previous account issue, which isn't going to change for any "next" RFA . Let's see how this one plays out first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Congrats, Flouqenbeam! I have every confidence in you! Basket of Puppies 18:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks for your kind words and support, BoP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the heads up there. That was a rather akward mistake. I have now fixed the issue so that it isn't FUBAR. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


Do you actually mean kib(b)itz when you write kibbutz? Pcap ping 16:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

For a second, I toyed with the idea of trying to bluff my way through, and claim that "kibbutz" was a language variant where I live, but no one would buy that, would they? Thanks, I've fixed it both places. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

$1,000 reply

  • PS Sonnet in honor of Shell Kinney's election to Arbcom ... as seen on Jimbo's talk (scroll down to 42+10) ... after we'd chatted about it, because he was late posting the results. Proofreader77 (interact) 22:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Mine took somewhat longer than the 20 minutes you claim, but lacked your flow and elegance. In my defense, it's 14 lines, each has 10 syllables, and it meets the rhyming scheme. The fact that it isn't iambic is not my fault; I'm an engineer for God's sake! Anyway, among other things, it's the occasional interaction with... interesting characters such as you that will keep me here if the RFA goes south the way it might. This place is crazy, irrational, and sometimes mean, but also constantly fascinating. Cheers, Proof, I'm going to go spend the evening with people who don't suspect me of being the Manchurian Candidate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
      • ROFL (re: suspect me of ...) That reply alone deserves instant elevation to Bureaucrat. I will smile for several hours. Do not fear, dear engineer. The angels are on your side. -- Proofreader77 (interact) 23:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
        • The link between authors and engineers has been cited before; after all, Joseph Stalin famously described writers as "engineers of the human soul". Certainly they fared as poorly as engineers under his leadership... MastCell Talk 23:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Great, 10:45 PM Sunday night, and now I have homework. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
          • MastCell, it now seems, can always be counted on to balance the equation ... even if it is about to tip into the pot of gold :-) ... But it is surely true that the writer/engineer axis is some kind of perpendicular to something I've forgotten how to calculate (after memorizing all kinds of crap to get to skip the calculus sequence at a lakeside aerospace institute for engineering ... where I most certainly did not fit in. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 02:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Requisite rhetorical verse requirement

  • Fullfilled (Congratulations. Hear hear! Amen. Proofreader77 (interact) 08:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • +Support +3-part talk page support elaboration countering negatives [uh oh!!]) See #88 Proofreader77 (interact) 08:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Rhetorical analysis processors indicate: nonzero probability Floquenbeam is Majorly's mother. LoL Proofreader77 (interact) 08:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    • You need to whack your processors upside their heads, or recalibrate your initial conditions, or something. This, by the way, is an example of the 50% of the time where I don't exactly know what the hell you're talking about. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Do you mean I should lower the probability coefficient which suggests Floquenbeam is Majorly's mother? :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 12:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback from Orlady

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

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations, Floq. Despite my abstention, I was rooting for you, principles or not. Tan | 39 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Tan. For some reason I really like "I was rooting for you, principles or not"; it doesn't really make sense, and yet it does. I know what you mean, and I thank you for it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, maybe it's a stupid principle. Always a possibility. Tan | 39 19:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations! The Thing Vandalize me 16:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Congrats =) Now do my work! –xenotalk 16:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
    There would have to be 2 dozen of me to do your work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. I am particularly happy with your successful RFA since I am an advocate of questioning candidates about past/sock accounts, but feared that such questions would eliminate all candidates with previous accounts that they cannot reveal explicitly (because of privacy concerns), rather than weeding out only candidates with problematic account history. Your RFA shows that, despite some turbulence, the community can distinguish between the two cases. All the best with the new tools, and hope you continue to enjoy editing wikipedia. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Abecedare. I'm going to ruminate on this experience a little, and them maybe suggest a way to more easily differentiate between the two. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Bloody good news. Excellent. Pedro :  Chat  17:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Cheers to that! Gwen Gale (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Congrats! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you, and thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Never any !doubt :) hydnjo (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

More optimistic than I was; I had a fair bit there for a little while. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to throw in the Pulp Fiction clip. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That'll have to wait until tonight; currently editing from somewhere where Youtube is blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Only so you know, it's not a rickroll :D Gwen Gale (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
But isn't that exactly what you'd say if it was a rickroll? Anyway, saw it last night, and laughed at the metaphor (or analogy, I get those confused). Poor Uma, one too many ANI threads... --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Yep, that's why I threw in the :D. Anyway, all I need to do is think of Uma in that scene as a new en.WP admin and I crack up. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Of course, Floq is male... Tan | 39 17:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, he is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry I got that wrong, Floq. Thanks for telling me Tan. Guess I got that muddled owing to some post I read lately (mistaken pronoun), which led me to think I'd forgotten something. The clip's still fun to watch, though. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Ahem: Floq's gender is officially unknown ... and Tan, who has complained of not knowing who it is, surely does not know ... and surely Floq can be counted on for indeterminacy on the matter to maintain privacy — which leaves Proofreader77's rhetorical processors as most reliable source of gender designation. See "Gender-correct" link below. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 18:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
You're behind the times, Proof. See User:floquenbeam#Hello, and welcome, updated yesterday. Also, some time ago Tan corrected someone else, based on one of my quotes on my user page, and I confirmed it then. Still, I'm comfortable enough with my masculinity that I can assume the role of a woman in a metaphor (or analogy) without getting all icky inside. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Surely you know I knew of the update to your user page. (Note: Proofreader77 has the user/talk pages of all members of the community on his[?] watchlist ... which are ever so much more fun to watch than ignored BLPs :-) ... But you're clearly free to pretend to be whichever gender you wish — you're an admin now. LoL Proofreader77 (interact) 18:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
You're starting to get too close to the truth. And don't call me Shirley. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
(Smiling happily, and shutting up [shocking huh?]) Proofreader77 (interact) 19:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations Floquenbeam, if that is your real name... (Sorry, really poor joke.) I was really pulling for you, I know you'll do a great job. -- Atama 17:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, my real name is John Q. Floquenbeam Jr.; no reason to hide that. My privacy concerns related to the fact that my previous account name divulged that I once drank Bud Light. If that had become public, no one would have supported me. (Oh, crap, did I just say that out loud? Now I have to do this all over again. Oversight!) --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Good plan, because one of the RfA questions would have inevitably been, "Does Bud Light taste great, or is it less filling?" and one way or the other you'd alienate half of the community and sink your chances of success. -- Atama 18:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Motion to immediately desyssop ...

... for posting a sonnet in an RfA!?!?!?! (smiling) Proofreader77 (interact) 18:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Gender-correct desysopping music ;-) Proofreader77 (interact) 18:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Everytime I see a link to Youtube, i assume I'm gonna get rickrolled... As noted above, viewing will have to wait until tonight. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations :) Nice work on staying calm through the ordeal too. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  18:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Cyclonenim. "Calm" as far as you know. </realize I haven't breathed in last 7 days, slowly exhale and start breathing again.> --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Then congratulations on appearing so calm ;) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  22:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Condolences congratulations on your successful RfA. MastCell Talk 19:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks (for both condolences and congratulations). Three blocks under my belt, and no "Admin abuse by Floquenbeam" threads at ANI yet... --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
    Excellent - a 100% good-judgment rate, and a 0% mistake rate. That's exactly what the community expects of admins. At minimum. :P MastCell Talk 19:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
    Really? 100% is enough? I thought we were supposed to give "110%" every day? That's what it says on the motivational poster someone put up over my locker in the admin locker room... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
  5. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
  6. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.
Thanks, KC, sage advice. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Puppy is always right! (But I repeat myself. LoL) Proofreader77 (interact) 20:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed (except when they disagree with me). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, perhaps you are unaware of the puppy-disagreement-futility-index (PDFI)? Or are you indicating that the FDFI is higher? ^;^ Proofreader77 (interact) 22:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Congrats on your successfull RfA! ϢereSpielChequers 21:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the crappy T-shirt, WSC. I'll treasure it always. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Pile on congrats A bit late, but another congrats, and another offer of mopping help, should you need it. :) GedUK  10:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, for the congrats and the offer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Congrats Floquenbeam! Unfortunately I forgot to support... :-/ Theleftorium 21:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Theleftorium. At least you remembered not to oppose... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Late support

Hi there, Floquenbeam, I was following your RfA all the way through, but actually forgot to support it. While it won't count in the tally, consider this a late support from me. Congratulations on your adminship. Best. Acalamari 21:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you much, Acalamari. You can try to sneak your support into the RFA in a few months, when people aren't watching so closely. :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Wait until the RFA page is vandalized or otherwise clumsily edited and then whoever reverts that can sneak it in. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning removal

No objection here (as the person who's ham-handed use of huggle/friendly put most of those on there!), I'm just as happy to be proved wrong about a user, but this smells like an SPA to me. Frmatt (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Added a personal note to the user's talk page. Frmatt (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I like that note; good save. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
(e/c)Good, I was worried I was going to piss someone off my first day as an admin. It seems a little early to be writing this guy off as an SPA, although you could certainly be right. If you google "Cordelia fine neurosexism", it's not like he pulled it out of the air. I'd be inclined to let it breathe for a few days, see if someone who knows something about it (i.e. not me) can turn it into something. But otherwise, yes I think AFD is better than CSD. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
On that note...Congratulations! I'm not sure we've run into each other before, but I've certainly seen your tracks around WP and am happy to see another good admin! Frmatt (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Need help

Hello, Floquenbeam. You have new messages at Dragon24's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I'll review and comment on your talk page in a little while. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Message from Suomi Finland 2009

Congratulations on your becoming admin. At no time was I opposed to you but I thought the process could have been done so as to make the process completely open and not leave you as a victim because of a question of process. Good luck! Act wisely and I may come to you for wise advice as I occasionally do with another admin! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this polite note. I gather the issues in your previous note here have been answered to your satisfaction? Whether, in future, you believe I'm acting wisely enough to value my advice is up to you, but you're certainly welcome to ask my opinion whenever you think it would be useful, or provide feedback. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Notice of request for deletion of editor Floquenbeam :)

Floquenbeam, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion#Floquenbeam and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the nomination (unless you wish not to participate); such removal will not end the deletion discussion (actually it will). Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :). Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear in my RFA that I seldom participate in XFD. However, I may make an exception this time, as I have some interest in the outcome. Thank you for the notification. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


Thanks again! Are you happy with this edit? It's been closed/archived as such. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That little sneak. Yeah, if I was trying to be clever, I can't really begrudge someone else doing the same. Glad you feel it finally got resolved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Removing it might help, since the dispute doesn't seem to be resolving (Rd232 is now edit warring at Mark Weisbrot), so that ANI thread might show up later in other dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
If it blows back up, I'll change it back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks; he's still reverting, and now asking the other parent, too ... doesn't seem to be subsiding. That info about CEPR seems to be a real hotspot. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Although it isn't my bailiwick, I'll comment on the talk page. You may or may not regret this :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The only pony I've got in this race is to get Rd232 to learn to collaborate and stop reverting everything all over Chavezland, regardless of sourcing. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I've commented on the article talk page, FWIW. In this one particular case, his reverting doesn't look that unreasonable, although I ended up disagreeing with him on the long term result. I'm lazy/busy in real life/cowardly/newly minted enough that I don't really feel up to anything resembling a long, involved look at their long term behavior, to see if that's less reasonable. If things are as you describe, would an RFCU be useful? (my blood ran cold just typing the letters "RFCU"). I know I should try to be more useful than that, but I'm really just a gnome at heart. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
RFC/U is rarely useful; dispute resolution on Wiki is seriously broken, and far too time consuming. But the long-term record is apparent to anyone who wants to go and study it. It's harder to deal with on larger articles, but on a small, easy-to-cleanup article like this one was, it's easier for others to follow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I hereby award you this barnstar for your tireless fighting vandalism on Wikipedia, including my userpage. Thank you! Iohannes Animosus (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Michal! I appreciate the hardware and the kind words. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong template

I noticed on User talk:, you used, Template:uw-vblcok, which doesn't exist. I think you may be looking for Template:block --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

yep, thanks for the note, and the fix. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this is the better template Template:uw-vblock. You misspell block as blcok in the original template. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I understand. I actually misspelled "vblock" as "vblcok". Again, thank you for the fix. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Great attitude!

I've been having a rough day today, and when I saw your closing of an ANI discussion with the phrase "Page protected, everyone invited to drink tea and visualize world peace" it put a smile on my face - the first one all day. I only wish more of us could take petty little battles a little less seriously. Just thought I'd let you know. Thanks! Me Three (talk to me) 21:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about your day, Me Three, and glad I could make it incrementally better. I'm no Baseball Bugs, but i have my moments. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


The template automatically adds the hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Perhaps I was thinking in a different way with the name Dick. Maybe I saw too many Dicks when reverting vandals today ;). --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Note for me: concerning this.

I know, it's just some people don't like that kind of thing. Anyway, it was just a suggestion. I see he's been editing for a while now after your note without saying anything, so perhaps I worried needlessly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheyne Capital

thank you for blocking the page, thue issue is that it seems that this company was at the centre of the sub prime crisis and is now triing to hide the fact that one of the flag ship fund at Cheyne , QueensWalk whent out of business and almost bankrupt for 100's of millions of dollars. this version af the article seems the best one:

-all the Credit Flux references are non third party reliable references -all comments and references to the fact that Lourie and Co are Jewish is normal on Wikipedia and totally encyclopledic such as the Einstein page, Kerzner page or Hank Paulson page for a christian reference....

-please change the article and back to reality. thank you.

-- (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to bring this up on the article talk page, where editors more familiar with the company than I am can discuss the best way to proceed on the article. I have my doubts whether emphasizing the fact that they are Jewish is helping your cause. However, I found it useful when deciding whether just taking your word for it would be a wise move, so thanks for that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, please note the user logged in from (,, is attacking several financial organizations and top executives -i.e. Goldman Sachs, Cheyne Company, Henry Paulson, John J. Mack, Lloyd Blankfein amongst others; pointing out negative facts about these individuals/organisations with the only purpose of misleading the public opinion.
He/She has written facts such as: 'The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a criminal enterprise that transformed into a new world order controlled bank holding company in 2009...' to list one of these examples.
You can track down some other contributions here at
Let's keep Wikipedia clean from unbiased information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the articles to see if it's still going on; I've semi-protected one earlier today. The message above is the only contribution from your IP, so I'll leave messages for you here, rather than the IP's talk page. I'll assume you're watching my page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, I've reverted the POV/BLP violations I could find. I'll keep an eye out, but I'm not around alot, so you may need to report it to WP:RFPP (if multiple IP's are adding this stuff to a limited number of articles), or WP:ANI (if clustered IP's are adding this stuff to a wide range of articles. This second case may require a rangeblock, which I have no idea how to do myself (I'd end up blocking the entire east coast or something), hence my suggestion of ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you have already edited several negative statements on different Wikipedia articles, and just so you know I also found that the same person ( edited the French and Swedish versions of Cheyne Capital. It is really hard to determine what is the real motive behind this campaign, but the only connection I have found so far is the need to discredit Goldman Sachs-related companies and executives. I will try to report this case to WP:RFPP, and will also keep an eye on this individual to avoid any further retaliations. (He/She has already gotten away with adding some negative sources to the Cheyne Capital article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The subject matter is not in my area of knowledge, but I suggest you comment on the article talk page if you dispute anything the other editor has added. Someone who does know what's going on there, and is WP:autoconfirmed, can make changes if they agree. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sock, obvious sock of --King Öomie 19:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

the facts and all the references are more than clear and available everywhere on the net and elswear

do not change the text this is vandalism. Dont you look at the news, those bankers are at the center of the worlds largest economic depression wince WW2, and you want this to be unnoticed. look at the news those bankers are acussed and facing trial, almost every day. -- (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss on article talk apges or the ANI thread, not here. It is not vandalism, you are violating WP:BLP. Please read it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks ...

For your action on the IP vandal.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's always a tough call on things like that. I'm inclined to be a little more proactive than some in long term blocks of IP's with zero productive edits, but I still don't want to go too far outside of norms. If the final warning doesn't work, I can say I tried. Let me know if you notice it resume and I don't seem to have noticed myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Yep -- I wonder whether we don't need clearer standards. True, an IP may be more than one person. But when for an extended period all edits are vandal edits, it should not matter. IMHO. They should be treated the same as one person with all vandal edits. If they accumulate sufficient vandal edits, they are only hurting the project, and IMHO it is unhelpful to not take action against them. Tx for keeping your eye on it.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
And, of course, the other sysops suggestion that five different edits inserting the word penis were not "sufficient" irked me.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Might have been poor phrasing, but I know what he means, though; those 5 edits are basically like one edit, since no one interrupted his fun to tell him to knock it off. The orange bar and warning is there now, I've tried, and we can go from there if the editor(s) on that IP can't be productive. But I don't really fault the other admin for that, he's probably following policy closer than I am. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Then IMHO policy should be changed -- does it really say that five separate edits are considered one, if not interrupted by a warning? No need to spend time answering me, if that would keep you from more important things. BTW -- you may know the answer -- a couple of articles I edit are very big vandalism magnets. In one at least a bot or two helps w/the reverts of vandalism, and the warnings. How does an article get on a list to be watched by a bot, or is there no such process. Its quite helpful, as it tends to revert almost immediately -- and the biggest concern I have w/vandals is others seeing the vandalized product (the second is the waste of your and my time, which that also helps with). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Not really policy, just a perceived attitude that "it doesn't really count" until you warn them. As for the bots, my understanding is that bots watch every article with the same scrutiny. It's possible the articles you're working on tend, for some reason, to attract the type of vandalism that is more easily recognized by a bot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
...and just noticed they're blocked for 3 days by GED UK. Now you know who to go to next time! :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for blocking that one account, could you take a look at my ANI thread on the other socks in the drawer. - NeutralHomerTalk • 22:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd hoped the autoblock would keep the other socks at bay, and anyway I see Blueboy protected the page, I'm sure most of them are socks, but not sure if the first account is socking or being set up, and no time to look deeper. I have to run out the door and may not be back tonight, you might want to do a quick SPI, or see if another admin with time this evening deals with the ANI report. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Okie safe out there. - NeutralHomerTalk • 22:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks like they all got checkusered and blocked. FWIW, I'll try to keep an eye on the AFD to see if anyone else pops up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Heh Well said you colonial! :) Pedro :  Chat  22:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you back, P! Haven't been desysopped yet, so you must have at least some good judgement in RFA noms. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Well I'd be a little disappointed if you'd deleted the main page quite so soon :). I'm mot really back editing at the moment - too busy in RL with business commitments (which is very positive for the old pounds shillings and pence, but less good for generating free time). So I'm keeping up the wikibreak banner but I'll be around nosing when I have a few moments. Glad to see you're putting the admin toolbox to somewhat extensive use BTW! Pedro :  Chat  23:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi Flo, I just wanted to come by and say thanks on your page for moving the ab initio article, your prompt and considerate handling of the matter especially stood out, So I wanted to give this barnstar to you, May you collect many more. Thanks

The Admin's Barnstar
For your Prompt response and handling of administrative matters. Thank you Theo10011 (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Theo, that's very kind; particularly since in retrospect I think I made you jump thru a few more hoops than necessary. The article seems to be going well, glad to have helped. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, I thought your concern was legitimate even for a small task like that, in addition to your fast response time. wouldn't expect any less from an excellent administrator. --Theo10011 (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
(blush). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Senor Reparar

I posted it on the SPI, but it looks like they are very anxious to close the case for some reason, so they can deal with Sr. Reparar when the time comes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I share your suspicions, but we might as well give him enough rope to hang himself with. Plus, it appears he's being somewhat useful at the moment, perhaps just to spite you. I've got his talk page on my watchlist, FWIW. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
"Being useful, just to spite me?" If so, we could use more of those. Maybe I should anger more users. Or maybe NOT. :) Hey, here's a techie question. I already know that the "watch" program only gives summary info, for security reasons. Vaguely related, is there a way to "watch" an editor's contribs without having every page he edits bookmarked? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I have been told that you can use an RSS feed to watch someone's contributions. I have absolutely no idea how one of those works. Technology frightens and confuses me. Perhaps this will be a blue link Help:RSS feed, or this WP:RSS feed. If not, pick a random user out of a hat and ask them; odds are 9:1 they'll know more than me about RSS feeds. Or ask Xeno, he usually knows technical stuff. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I can help a tiny bit: if you go to someone's contributions page, two links in the toolbox on the left margin are "RSS" and "Atom". I've always been too scared to click on them, but perhaps you are more daring... --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
What's to worry? The worst it could do is anihilate the universe. I might give it a try. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
If you're going to annihilate the universe, please do it soon. I have to pay my mortgage tonight, and I would really hate for that to be my last act before the End of Time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
It appears that they give you a raw, unformatted dump of your most recent edits, or whichever editor you specify once you have the URL. Nothing really new ther. It's not clear to me that they're even different. But running them, near as I can tell, did not anihilate the universe. Sorry. :( Now it's time to go back to work, trying to perfect my formula for Ice-9. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, good luck with that (wait a minute...) --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just be glad I hadn't found THIS before your RfA :-)

Wikipedia:Song/The RfA Candidate's Song -- Proofreader77 (interact) 19:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you have insisted I sing it in public, or written my own patter song? Because I could always put my masterpiece to music. Perhaps in my RfB... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Having made several attempts to sing a sonnet, and finding them not very singable, I came to the conclusion that speaking them with musical background is usually preferable.

But if we're talking about RfB-level competence ... perhaps, yes, I would think a bureaucrat should definitely have to be able to do that. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 20:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I hereby announce that if I ever run for 'crat, I will sing a sonnet of my own creation, and upload the audio file. That is how confident I am that I never, ever, ever want to be a 'crat. On the other hand, if I am ever desysopped and decide to try a new RFA, I expressly state here that I am no longer bound by any promise, real or imagined, to write sonnets, or jump thru any other rhetorical hoops for Proofreader. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I have, of course, saved the diff of your promise ... for the inevitable day of your RfB. :-)

Meanwhile, perhaps you will take care of writing your own song for the Wikipedia Western Musical. Ah, collaborative creativity. ;-) Proofreader77 (interact) 02:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Re your comments at WP:RPP: There has just been another table edit from the same IP[22]. I have reverted it again, but something does need to be done since the IP is still refusing to communicate regarding his/her disputed edits. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. If other IP's show up to resume where he left off, then let me know, or re-report to RPFF. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support

Floquenbeam/Archive 2 - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


.Stop with owning all the pages and stuff i can edit its not like we are allowed to use it for projects so give it up.--Kenver (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Why Cant i put stuff on Degrassi. I will laugh when what happens that i put is true--Kenver (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)--Kenver (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I could not care less whether your predictions come true; what matters, as I've said before, is that our policy is to include only things based on reliable sources. You appear capable of editing a talk page now, which is an improvement. The next step is to edit the talk page of an article if you disagree with people reverting your edits, and discuss the issue, rather than simply reinserting your edits again..
So to be clear, if you revert anyone, or re-insert material you added previously that someone else has removed, without discussing on the article talk page first, you will be blocked from editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

what happened to anyone can edit? you act like you are boss. and its not tense.--Kenver (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

hey i found sources and i was right. now do you care????:P--Kenver (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

About you? No, not really. Just follow the policies people have been linking on your talk page, stop evading blocks with sockpuppets, and use the article talk page when someone disagrees, and you and I will never have to interact again. Revert to your previous behavior, and I'll just block you and your cavalcade of socks indefinitely. The fact that you think you've been wronged somehow leads me to doubt you're going to survive here long, but I've been wrong before, perhaps I'll be wrong again. I hope so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

have you seen the new promo?? its about that. why was it reverted?--Kenver (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)--

I don't know. Ask on the talk page of the article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You're Tense?

If you think that things on Wikipedia are getting tense, you should probably stop using it. If a website can really get to you, then that's a problem. It's a problem called taking life too seriously. Oh wait, I don't mean life, because it's really only a website. (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand; I'm not getting tense; people in general dealing with the whole Chavez thing seem to be getting tense. You weren't helping. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry. Man that was one of the most civil discussions I have ever had on Wikipedia (they always turn out so badly because people just like to warn everyone because they think it's cool). I'm glad you were so reasonable. Thanks, and I will refrain from anymore comments like that from now on. (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This one's getting pesky. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I left another message, but someone blocked at roughly the same time. That's probably more what you were looking for. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't really know blocking policy at all, so no, I wasn't asking for that per se, just saw that you had also noticed the problems there. Thanks anyway, Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Very wise

You didn't take the poisoned chalice that might have been my supporting your RfA. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't so much not taking the chalice, as it not being offered... I'm not wise, I just didn't have the opportunity to make that particular mistake. At the time, things were close enough that I would have embraced that chalice (hmm, mixed a metaphor there). In any case, I'm interpreting this slightly hard to parse comment as praise, so thank you. (And be careful with hard to parse comments; we've started blocking people for those now.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Very true

I take that all on board. Please collapse archive that thread... pretty please? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I think (a) collapsing would be poor form, and (b) archiving might be a good idea, but it would be poor form for me to do it, as I am the last one to comment. Perhaps another editor would agree and do so if you asked on the thread? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Flo, you gave a summary of the situation. Believe me when I say this - you are best placed to archive this. Whatever - let's just cut off that conversation? And I'm sorry for noting the block threat, but when an admin tells you that he's about to block you then it's pretty intimidating. I felt intimidated! Even to another admin - just imagine if that happened to a regular editor? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
He's right. Go ahead and {{discussion top}}/bottom or {{hat}} the matter. –xenotalk 15:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) I'm not going to archive an active conversation that I participated in; IMHO, it will blow up in my face (I could even predict, fairly accurately, who would think it "abusive", but that wouldn't help). I agree it's probably run it's course, which is why I'm not going to check it every 2 minutes anymore. If you do the same, it will no longer be a problem for you (no one is going to get blocked at this stage). If others do it, then it will no longer be a problem for them, and the thread will die on its own. If someone archives it, i won't shed a tear, but it won't be me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Good point. Will do. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's your prerogative, but Tbsdy is right in that admins who arrive to an ANI thread to summarize neutrally the issues are best placed to close it. Perhaps I'll just close it "Per Floquenbeam". –xenotalk 16:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
As I said, I will shed no tears. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


Ok, so I decide to clean articles up and clean SOME that he edit, NOT all, and he decides that I'm stalking him? You can take his side if you want, I don't care if you're on "Team Blackmagic1234" or whatever, I'm finished with here. I requested a checkuser on him a few months ago when on another account that I had named Kagome_77 he made an account with the username Higgys and harassed me on there and nothing was done. Abby 96 (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't involve me in your soap opera. You came to WP:ANI claiming you are being harassed, I spent time looking into it to help you out, and it became clear that you are doing at least some of the harassing. Don't drag the rest of us into your squabbles. I won't play; this is our last communication. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

My blocking/unblocking of Fatherofnew01

Thanks for removing the section! I was editing it to strike it out, and apologise - and then found that you had removed it!

Also, thanks for contacting me - I was a bit hasty, and should have given the editor a chance to discuss this.

If you see anything else in the future that you think was wrong, please feel free to let me know! Just as editing was always an education for me, my actions as an admin (for all of 2 weeks so far, bar about 10 hours) is also an education!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Didn't mean to step on your toes with the section blanking; I was kind of just hoping if the section went away he wouldn't know he'd been blocked. Thanks for the unblock, and (in case you missed it) sorry for the snark at ANI. I'm still a bit green myself, it's a learning experience. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


Hey Floquenbeam, I disagree with this edit (and I wish you hadn't used the word "obviously," which makes me look like an idiot, frankly), but I appreciate the effort to guide this contributor a little bit. As I explained in various places, it's not so much the edit as the blind reinstatement thereof that I deemed to be disruptive; if this editor starts to care a bit for the guidelines they could be a positive contributor. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It was never my intent to imply you were foolish; I apologize if my wording did so. I really don't think it was vandalism, as we define it here. I think he was editing in good faith (i.e. trying to improve it), just not the way we do things. It was their edit warring behavior and lack of communication that was going to get them into trouble, not "vandalism". The diff engine is bad enough that it's difficult seeing what they're adding and what they're removing; their version did not look obviously inferior, though I defer to you that it probably was. Was there anything else besides the use of the term "obviously" that bothers you about my message there? I could have been slightly more aggressive, but that usually doesn't provoke the right response. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
No, that's all the complaints I have for the day. ;) If you look at their version of the articles, and if you know something about this matter, you'll see quickly enough that it wouldn't be a bad essay for an upper-level class, but it's also clear that there is a lot of original research going on. What should be clear is the removal of references: their version has none, and one wonders what authorizes their summaries of issues found in Plotinus, Kant, Locke, Pierce and James. Finally, the "conclusion" to their version lists a number of things, preceded by "The explicit cases of ontological truths admitted by modern sciences are as follows"--that is, utterly and irredeemably, original research.

I don't necessarily think I wanted you to be more aggressive, and honestly, I didn't really desire strongly that this user be blocked. What I did want was for someone to come along and explain, possibly in different terms, how the guidelines of WP mandate that edits be done in a certain way (consensual) and that certain things that are OK in for instance essay writing are not OK here. I hope they got that message--it's something of a problem with a lot of incidental editors on philosophy articles. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, with the first revert this editor made as an IP, with this edit, he went to the fourth revert. Also he continues to lie in his edit summaries, see here. He did not remove vandalism, there was no vandalism to remove. He's returning the same content that we determined was inappropriately sourced for a future film with no scheduled release date. AND he doesn't even seem to realize that I posted to the talk page about this film last night. He said "We can do this all day if you refuse to engage in serious discussion about adding value to this page." He has ignored the talk page and continues on. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I had forgotten to watchlist John Wayne Gacy. Blocked for 31 hours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. In a case like this, where the editor who is adding it is lying in the edit summary (claiming he is reverting vandalism), where IS the proper board to report it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
If it wasn't for the edit warring, I'd guess ANI. The number of boards seems to have proliferated recently, but I don't know of one more appropriate than ANI. AIV is a high volume board really meant for quick and obvious no-brainer stuff. I'm not 100% sure that he's "lying"; I think he's saying what you guys were doing was "vandalism". But the edit warring and refusal to participate in any talk page discussion made this easy, so I didn't have to try to figure out what he was talking about. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. WP:CRIME doesn't routinely list future films in the articles, especially an iffy one like this with no scheduled release date or distributor. And using the isn't an acceptable source for adding biographical details to the article when it is talking about the film. Frustrating. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I understood what you were saying, just not what he was saying. Anyway, let me know if it re-occurs after the block expires. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

candidates for speedy deletion?

as it appears to be created by the org? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floydjones2nd (talkcontribs) 03:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want that speedied, you're probably talking to the wrong admin; I'm something of a softy when it comes to WP:CSD#A7. Being created by someone in the organization isn't a criteria for speedy deletion. I don't have time to look in depth now, but what you should look for is a valid claim of notability. You might also try a friendly message on their talk page, and a friendly concern on the article talk page. People don't come here fully aware of all our policies, so let's do a little talking before deleting. Just my opinion, but you did ask... --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hexa2010 still evading block

Hexa2010 is still evading block as [23]. In this edit [24] he keeps on adding the same unreliable source which is a forum post interpreting a dissertation and in this edit[25], he removes referenced material and adds material based on a movie site and a youtube video. As well as adding unreferenced material. Wikinpg (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Also still causing trouble as [26] by adding the same link to Naga people of Sri Lanka which is original synthesis & interpretation. Also adding unreferenced claims to Jaffna. Wikinpg (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If this is Hexa2010, a block (possibly a range block) is in order; if not, then you need to discuss the changes with them. The problem is, I have too little understanding of the subject matter to tell if it is the same user or not. His other sock was obvious even to me. This isn't. I suggest you do one of four things:
  • Go to a WP:SRI LANKA and find an admin more familiar with the subject matter
  • Do a more painstaking comparison of the two, to explain to a blockhead like me what it is that is similar about the edits. In particular, are all three using the same forum post as a reference or something?
  • File a WP:SPI report and see if a checkuser can find the underlying IP range
  • Assume they aren't the same person, attmept to discuss with them, and if they refuse to discuss and just revert, I'll take that as proof that it's the same person; that was Hexa2010's "tell".
Sorry, probably not as helpful as you'd hoped, but I really don't want to block someone who shares Hexa2010's POV, but isn't him and is just new. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


so why did you delete my talk page again? (I'm just asking, I don't really care)--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 21:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

i sent you an email when I deleted the revision in question. Did you get my email and this is a followup question? Or did you just notice the page was deleted, and haven't read your email yet? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I have'nt read it yet. I will now. Thanks for clearing up the confusion.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 22:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I only remember to leave a "you have email" note on talk pages about half the time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh it's alright, I've replied as well.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 22:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The IP, User:, back after an unblock, is continuing to jam in their disputed edit to Adam Rippon[27][28] without discussing it. I am not sure if another warning is warranted or just a longer block... Nsk92 (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months; if they ignored the previous warnings, another won't do any good. Let me know if they start socking to re-insert the same stuff, I'll semi-protect a few pages. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What #2


I decided to make a quick response to this and say that Abby 96 Is the one who started up that edit war If she did not start cyberstalking me All across the internet. Because of her I had to make a brand new Facebook and new accounts on other sites. And then she decided to make claim that I'm harassing her when she is the harasser. Making false accounts just to vandalize or call others down to the dirt. I swear one of these days she's gonna say something to the wrong person and nobody will believe a word she says.

Sorry about this message but my ex friend is going to far.

Black Rose (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

She appears to have made good on her promise to quit editing. Let me know if a new account pops up and starts reverting you again; don't waste everyone's time edit warring with her. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Well she did make a new account called Abby 94. But I don't think she will bother me anymore but if she does I will let you know. And no worries there I don't plan to waste anymore time edit waring with her cause all she will do is complain and claim I started it

Black Rose (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


Just saw your note on my talk page. Thanks for the change. Now, 2 months later, I don't remember what it was. I try to correct (mostly grammer) errors when I see them. I checked out your user page. If I ever get my own user page again, I'll need a copy of your punched card user box. I qualify! Also am into DTG. That page does need work. I'm going to try to remember my old user account. I may be back to ask if you can help locate. It has been a couple of years since I created it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why this appears they way it does?

(It was because of the space in front of the "Just"; I've fixed it.) The fix you suggested was this. I'd be happy to help locate your old account, but if it doesn't work out, there's nothing keeping you from creating a new one, and sticking my punch card userbox on the new userpage instead.
I'm not "into" DTG; I stumbled across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Direct to garment printing, argued to keep because it could eventually be fixed up, and then felt guilty because it got kept. I've been meaning to at least fix it up a little, using reliable sources and all that jazz, but haven't found the motivation. Would welcome help.
Good to hear from another geezer. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explantion on the extra space. I did manage to figure out what the change was. I've created a new account. I suppose the old one will just lanquish in the ether unless someone dumps it into the bit bucket. Yep, I'm a geezer. Learned 'Unit Record Equipment' in high school in the early 70's. Punched cards, sorters, collaters, and wiring the 402 Accounting Machine. As for DTG, my wife and I own a Brother machine. But I'm no expert. I'll see what I can do for the article. I noticed some statements that don't agree with my personal experience but I don't know of any reliable sources. I'm still working full time as an IDMS DBA for the State of California.
I guess if I'm gonna get more involved here, I had better start reading all those wonderful and sometime verbose WP: pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OnTheFlyEditor (talkcontribs) 18:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page, mostly so you could experience the joy of your first orange bar as OnTheFlyEditor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Kmweber's editing restriction

Since you commented in the sub-thread WP:ANI#Specific question growing out of User:Kmweber's recent edits to an AfD page and his subsequent block and unblock, i wish to draw your attention to WP:ANI#Proposed modification of restriction of Kmweber where I have proposed that his restriction be modified as discussed the the "specific question" sub thread. Your views would be welcome. DES (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my very first ANI thread posted about "my behaviour"

Thanks for marking it as closed (as it really isn't warranted and would only waste editors time IMO). Do you like sweets?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have never turned down desert in my life, so thanks. I don't have time to look into the underlying dispute at WQA, but the "refactoring comments" side-issue at ANI was fairly clearly much ado about nothing. Good luck to both of you on the underlying dispute; if I had more time onwiki, I'd offer to help, but I just don't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey, no problem. Enjoy your cake while it is still fresh.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing; a good call, methinks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't know who he was, but I know he was up to no good. Cheers back at you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I tagged the user page with the obvious one, but it could easily be one of the others. I'm great flypaper ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


I saw this on the AN/I.

Initial report by Gerardw was premature. Subsequent arguing is off-topic; this isn't the place for pointless drama. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I made a funny. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:03, 16 March

I'm happy that the thread was closed, but can I ask, as an administrator are you allowed to make a comment like that above?Malke2010 01:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: Yes. Longer answer: What is it about the comment that bothers you? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
If I may: Admins are editors like you and me. The only difference is that they have some more tools available which they are given upon approval of, again, editors like you and me. So yes, as s/he pointed out, they're allowed to have a sense of humor and express it like any other contributor here on WP. That should sum it up (or did I miss something, Floquenbeam?). Anyway, I hope my response will help you, Malke ;) . The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Yep, that's pretty much it. Admins are just plain folks, we have no more "power" than anyone else. Now, go away or I'll block you and your entire country indefinitely. it ruins the joke, but I should probably point out that this is just me being funny again. You're welcome to ask a followup question if you want. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Tham Fook Cheong Page

Hey there =) First of all, I would like to thank you for all your sincere contributions to wikipedia. About the deletation of Master Tham Fook Cheong, I hope you can re-investigate his information. I am from Malaysia and I had heard about Master Tham for a very long time. He was really famous and had received a Medal of honor by the Sultan of Perak (King Azlan Shah) for his contributions. He deserves to be in wikipedia to be recognize. By the way, i had read the deletation log's discussion and found out that there are some wrong researches. i just searched through Master Tham's website and there are a lot of facts and he did not sell snake oil as described by Philip. I think he mixed up Master Stanley tham frm Singapore with Master Stanley Tham Fook Cheong from Malaysia. Master Stanley Tham Fook Cheong frm Malaysia had a lot of proven records and testimonials. there are also a lot of news that had proven he is famous in Malaysia. That's a support to the first point-Notable People In Malaysia and is the reason he qualifies for a page in Wikipedia like other notable people. I had also read about the Purpose of advertsing. He was already famous and had appeared in numerous interviews and television programmes and it don't seemed as he tried to advertise here. I really hope you can revive Master Tham's page. Thank You for your kind attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junthree (talkcontribs) 14:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Junthree, I had reviewed the AFD discussion I linked on your talk page before I deleted the article, and I agreed with the deletion. It isn't my decision, however; you can contest this at WP:Deletion review. Read the directions there, assemble your evidence, and make a case there, and others will review the situation and decide whether to undelete the article. My advice is to not rush into the request, but to take your time assembling your facts first, after making sure you truly believe he meets the guidelines of WP:BIO. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your advices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junthree (talkcontribs) 14:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
It's at DRV. Greetings--Tikiwont (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll chime in there in a while. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey there i am back =D. I had the prrof to show that Master Tham is famous and notable to meet the criteria of Notable People in Wikipedia. I had surf the net and had found a lot of articles about him. What should I do next? I requested for a deletion request but i am unsure of what to do. I had surfed the internet for another person named Aron Lee Koch who was also found in wikipedia but he's not asfamous as Master Tham and he had only one website to support. Is there any way to put Master Tham in wikipedia? I admire him for his services seriously. Thank You and please advice. Junthree (talk —Preceding undated comment added 12:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC).

It looks like you created it in your user space, and someone moved it to article space. I have moved it back to your user space. This is just a warmed over version of the previously deleted article; the result of the WP:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 19#Tham Fook Cheong was that you need to have a version in your user space approved by an admin before moving it to article space again. Please do not move it to article space, or ask someone to move it for you, until an admin approves it.
Also, the many times you have recreated this article, with different usernames and different article titles, has seriously messed up the article history. I have tried to fix it, and the article history should now have all the previous versions. Please do not copy-paste move this article again. This creates significant work for other people to clean up. See WP:Cut and paste move for an explanation.
In summary:
  • Please don't move the article to mainspace again until an admin approves it
  • Please stick to just one account
  • Please don't use cut and paste moves, or recreate an article by pasting a copy of the deleted article
Let me know if this is not clear. If I'm being abrupt, I'm sorry, but I've just spent an hour cleaning this up, on an article I doubt will ever be an actual article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I am so sorry. I needed guidances as I am very new to wikipedia. I went to the deletation review but it was closed and I can't submit the evidences. Please advise how on Earth am I supposed to get a deletion review on this article or get this article back on. Thank you and sorry for bothering. Junthree (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure what the technical process is; I've asked the admin that closed the deletion review how to go about having it reviewed again. However, a quick glance at the article gives the impression that it is nearly the same article again, with at least a few sources that don't look usable here. While waiting for his response, I'll look at your article again in a little more detail sometime today, to see if this initial impression needs to be changed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I've looked again, and this diff] shows that there is almost no difference between the version that was deleted, and your current version. You added one reference that mentions the subject only in passing. This is not enough. If you really believe this article can be made to satisfy WP:NOTE and WP:BIO, then you need to review those two guidelines, and the comments made in the two AFD's and one DRV (I have listed them for you at User talk:Junthree/Tham Fook Cheong), and address the concerns that were raised, particularly the requirement for WP:reliable sources. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


Granted it's been 24 hours, but GWH did state he'd rather see 48, and Yorkshirian hasn't had a chance to weigh in in his own defense yet. I checked the thread, pinged him in email, and came back to find out that you had closed it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, while the consensus is strong, it's not unanimous, and the opposers included someone who's come up on the opposite site of a dispute with him. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I saw GWH's request, but I don't see the point. Consensus is very clear, the minimum time per WP:BAN has been met, and I think WP:SNOW applies. Yes, there's no rush, but there's also no reason to delay the inevitable. It seemed clear that consensus was against trying a more limited revert ban. Is there any particular reason you think there's any chance whatsoever that this would come out differently? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
No reason at all -- I just like making sure people have a chance to have their say in most cases. Especially when I'd be happy to see them blocked myself -- that's when I try to take the most care. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I understand. I think he has had that opportunity. He has edited every day for at least the last month (probably longer, I just got bored checking). Twenty 16 (edited after the fact: sorry, can't count. It was 16 at time of closing the thread) hours ago, GWH emphasized to him that he needed to respond. I find it impossible to believe that he suddenly went offline immediately before being notified of a ban discussion, and for the first time in 30+ days hasn't been back to see the thread since. He can't avoid a ban by refusing to participate in the discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me but its not been 24 hours since GWH emphasized to him that he needed to respond, that would be 8 o'clock this evening. Moreover he has not edited since 10 am yesterday, so he may have been offliine. It is however 24 hours since he was informed about the Ani, I assume this is what you mean?Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, 24 hours since the discussion was started and he was notified. As for having a chance to respond, see my comment above yours. GWH's comment was not the first time he'd been notified, it was just an emphasis to the previous notice. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
While it wouldn't have hurt for the discussion to have stayed open for a day longer, I don't see how doing so would have had any bearing on the outcome, even if Yorkshirian had commented. Based on previous experience we'd have been treated to a lengthy rant about communists and how when a source says one thing it doesn't mean that at all and it really means something completely different. The evidence of source fabrication was irrefutable in my opinion, which was also why any revert limitations would not have addressed the underlying problems. It's unreasonable to allow someone to add what is basically fiction to Wikipedia articles, and only say they aren't allowed to add it back if its removed. It took me two days of researching to compile a list of the problems, and that was just the edits to one article from this year alone. Yorkshirian edited at 100 miles an hour, there's no way it would be reasonable to expect other editors to chase round after him ensuring that there's no source fabrication going on. 2 lines of K303 12:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


I don't understand the technical problem, but I don't want that kind of trouble, so I switched it from your link to an internet reference to keep it shorter. My alternate plan was to say "AM [insert nazi flag here] NOT!" or better yet "AM N[swastika in circle]T!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Found one, and now I've got it, except I won't use it this way on ANI page:
"AM NFile:Nazi Swastika.svgT, SEE!"
Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Heh, clever (as usual). Do you want me to try to explain the technical problem better, or are you just satisfied knowing there is one? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It was something about hovering over something, and I don't understand, but obviously I don't want anyone getting the wrong idea. So, please explain the technical problem, i.e. tell me how to replicate it. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
If you have popups, hover your mouse over this link to WP:ANI. You'll see a thumbnail of File:Rouge-Admin JollyRoger.svg, because this image is included in the ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nazi Flag for Admins? (a thread about this subject, which I should have linked you to earlier). Popups shows a thumbnail of the first image on a page. So, before I changed your link, the Nazi flag image was the first image on ANI, so that flag is what showed up when someone with popups hovered their mouse over a link to ANI. This bothered someone, so I changed it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, I don't use that feature, in fact I have popups disabled on my PC in general, so that explains my blissful ignorance. This time. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


Should a sockmaster template be put on his userpage? Might be helpful when the sadly inevitable happens. DuncanHill (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I usually don't mess with those aspects of blocking people; I can never keep track of the templates to be used, and in any case I don't want it to look like taunting. There are lots of people who know how to do this, and indeed who seem to take pleasure in it. I have no doubt someone will come along soon to do the honors. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Karim Hassan and the undiscussed page moves

Hi Floquenbeam. Ten days ago you were involved in a discussion at AN/I (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive602#Repeated, undiscussed renaming) about Karim Hassan (talk · contribs). The outcome was that you left him a message, stating that he should not rename articles without prior discussion. Well, with this edit he has done it again. The old sultan in question is commonly known in English sources as just plain "Qutuz", though "Seif al-Din Qutuz" is a longer, if not the full, version of his name, so I have reverted the move. The important part, however, is the lack of prior discussion. To date, this user has never contributed to any talk page. Incidentally, his alter ego (talk · contribs · WHOIS) recently got blocked for 48 hours because he indulged in his other habit: changing years of historical figures. Favonian (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've left a final warning. I hesitate to investigate whether we know this is the same person as the IP, as I have very little time this weekend. If you have something conclusive, post it here, I'll look at it, and perhaps block the account accordingly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The best evidence for the IP being that of Karim Hassan is the edit history of the latter's user page. Also, but here I have to trust my memory, they both edited the now deleted article Abdelbasset Gemiey. Favonian (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, I agree they're the same, but since the block has expired I don't think further action is needed. If either the IP or the account resumes problematic behavior, let me know and I'll block both. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the heads-up. I saw that some parts of the article were kind of over-analyzing things and wanted the citations more to speak for themselves. I initially set out to rewrite it but then thought just to make it a lot tighter. Many of the citations are the same and in the same order but positioned to speak for themselves.

Thanks for your responsible and prompt attention. This is a better place with you in it.

Warm regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian McGrady (talkcontribs) 18:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I understand the desire to start from scratch, but people get excited when someone blanks an article. Little by little, as you're doing now, is better. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Uncle uncle uncle

Please actually look at the edits. Uncle uncle uncle (talk · contribs), an admitted sock account of an established user, has repeatedly removed sourced material with no prior discussion of any kind. That is disruptive. -- Cirt (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't assume I didn't look at the edits. It is not forbidden to remove sourced material without prior discussion; that's an editorial decision. I assume I don't have to link BRD. Discuss on the talk page, that's what it's for. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
You can mark the matter at ANI resolved if you wish, or another admin could do it. In the future, hopefully this sock of an established user does not again cause disruption by removing sourced material, multiple times, with no discussion or explanation. -- Cirt (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
It appears your problem with this user goes deeper than this one article. I'll say again that as a stand alone issue, removing sourced content without prior discussion is not automatically disruption. I also see you made essentially the same report at the same time at WP:FILM. Please don't do that; having multiple editors look into the same situation at the same time is a waste of time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Having multiple editors look into the same situation is a good thing, actually. It is why we have processes on this site such as WP:RFC, to actually elicit outside input from multiple previously uninvolved users. I am quite confused by your response and why you are spouting apologia for a disruptive sockpuppet. -- Cirt (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
No, that's why we have the guideline WP:FORUMSHOP. And if you wish to discuss this further, please find a way to phrase your views more respectfully than "Please actually look at the edits" and "spouting apologia". Although I can't demand respect, I won't respond further if I don't get it. Perhaps that will go some way towards explaining your confusion at my attitude. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right, I apologize for my tone. -- Cirt (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I suppose my reaction to this editor is different than yours because (a) he didn't edit an article I mostly wrote, and (b) I don't take his "92 alternate accounts" thing and his self-awarded barnstars seriously. The actual edits he made weren't horrible. If you disagreed with them, you were certainly right to revert them and ask for an explanation, but calling it (and treating it as) vandalism didn't seem accurate. If he had edit warred the changes back in, that would have been a different issue. But, for example, I still don't quite get why we need a sentence from October saying filming would wrap in December, and another from December saying filming had wrapped. Now maybe MOS:FILM has a reason for it, I don't know. But if I had made that same edit (which I can imagine doing, in good faith), I would hope to have it explained to me, rather than be called a vandal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies

My apologies for my tone recently. I suppose I was a bit frustrated that a sockpuppet came along and was removing sourced info from an article that I had worked on researching. I hope you and I can move past this, and work productively and kindly towards one another in the future. Once again, I am sorry. -- Cirt (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Accepted, of course. Thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello - thanks for sticking up for me. It would have been nice if Cirt had apologized to me also. I've mentioned to him that it is rude (and incorrect) to call me a sockpuppet, but in the spirit of comity I gave him one of my barnstars as he did take the time (after calling me disruptive) to fix up the statements I had removed as non-factual. I prefer no statement at all to an incorrect statement Uncle uncle uncle 22:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, UUU. Hope I helped. Since you're here, I 'll take the opportunity to point out that the "92 alternate accounts" and dozens of self-awarded barnstars is likely to elicit assumptions of less-than-good faith sometimes. You should think about getting rid of them. Obviously, up to you though. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Karim Hassan redux

Hi Floquenbeam. Inspite of your final warning to him, Karim Hassan has with this edit renamed an article without discussion, or rather: partly contrary to the old discussion at Talk:Isabella, Princess of Asturias (1470–1498)#Requested move back. Referring to our previous discussion of his IP address, the latter performed the change of the name inside the article here. Guess that pretty much seals it. Favonian (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Named account blocked indef, IP blocked for 2 weeks (seems static, so I could have done for longer, but we'll see what happens in 2 weeks). Sorry you had to put up with a few more warn/move/revert cycles, but at least I tried. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Your patience does you proud. One final issue: when I reverted the page move this redirect and the corresponding one for the talk page were created. They are bad in so many ways, in particular because they are readily confused with Isabella I of Castille (the mother of the article's subject). Would you consider deleting them, or should I take it to RfD? Favonian (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I've deleted them. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


I was just going through the various hits online to be sure, but all of it seems to point back to this "Jerry" character in one way or another... Very weird! Thank you for investigating and dealing with it so quickly. jæs (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's ingrained in a lot of articles, I'm hunting and removing. I don't know enough about this stuff to pursue it too far, but I now sort of suspect a lot of the material he's created. I need to look into how easy it is to insert hoaxes into IMDB, as some of his work is "sourced" to there. I just found his IP address too, which he's been using to actively inserting references to this school. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
It looks like anyone can contribute content to IMDB, although it says they reserve the right to edit or require verification of information. I presume that means they do not uniformly check for accuracy, and I'd suspect any "facts" sourced by him to IMDB may well have been added to IMDB, by him, as well. jæs (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
As soon as I finish going thru his IP's edits and cleaning them up (some of it's been there a long time), I'll go thru and look at his other, non-obvious-hoax contribs, and prune. If it's created by him, and only sourced to IMDB, and no one else has edited it, I'll likely cheat a little and speedy it. Otherwise, I'll prod or AFD. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I was just looking at his earliest edits, all of which were vandalism up to Stepfanie Kramer. From the revisions I've checked so far, it looks like his first few edits to that article can be reliably sourced, but then he began adding other details that appear to be inaccurate. It looks like all of the inaccuracies were eventually reverted, thankfully (since this goes back almost two years). If there's anything specific I can do to help, please let me know. jæs (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the mixture of fact and fiction makes it difficult. I'm getting rid of anything that looks suspect, or is unsourced. If it turns out to be correct, someone can always add it later with a cite. If you've gone thru some of his early contribs, I'm working backwards; when I see you've been to a page, I'll stop and figure we covered it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
What's your take on Peter Robinson (sideshow artist)? Hoax? Real person that he's added BS to? Real person he wasn't messing with? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
It looks Peter Robinson may have existed. There are also two hits on Google News Archive that appear to corroborate the "living skeleton" claim. You may already have noticed, but it looks like he had access to both User: and User:, for at least a time. jæs (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm done with this for today, need to move onto real world stuff. If you're curious, see User:Floquenbeam/Jerrysanders2009, where I've found another account of his (gotta run, probably block it later tonight or tomorrow). --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I left a note on the tracking page you've made there, including a placemark for what I've reviewed so far. I'm worried that there are dozens and dozens more articles between the three — now at least four — accounts that need to be reviewed... Especially after reviewing his edits to the Andrea Elson article, a wp:blp that I fear has had likely inaccurate and potentially very hurtful (if indeed inaccurate) information for some time that has become widely mirrored elsewhere. Given the amount of reviewing and researching that's going to be necessary, should your tracking page and the issue be mentioned on one of the noticeboards so others can assist? Also, should a checkuser be asked to investigate whether or not User:Ansonwilliams2008 is the only sock? What a headache... jæs (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The checkuser is probably a good idea, if I have time I'll put something together at SPI tonight. The noticeboard might not be a bad idea, but I'm not sure which one. ANI? BLPN? If you have an opinion, go for it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Karim Hassan forever

Hi again. Looks like it never ends. Judging from this I guess we shouldn't expect constructive response from this user. Cheers! Favonian (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, at this point I think it's just block and revert. Saw the SPI report, I've deleted the page and blocked his sock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mexico City article


Thank you very much for the message you sent me regarding the article on Mexico City. And thank you for offering me the opportunity to discuss the material I have on numerous occasions had to re-enter as a result of it being repeatedly removed without valid reason.

Here is the situation from my perspective. As you can see by looking at the current version of such article (as of 1:18 am Eastern Standard Time), there is a sentence that reads:

"It is the most important political, cultural, and economic center in the country. "

If you notice my previous edits, I have broken down the above claim into two parts: 1) the part that claims that it is the most important political center in the country, for which support is provided immediately above the claim, i.e. "it is the current seat of the Powers of the Union;" and 2) the part that claims that it is the most important economic and cultural center in the country. This part has absolutely no reference supporting it. In fact, on various occasions I have requested that a reference be entered to back up such claim. And as far as I am concerned (you might be able to verify this), no one has ever supported this claim with a verifiable reference.

Following Wikipedia's rules, I have offered a different view to the second part of this claim. And I have provided verifiable references to support my view. Specifically, I have offered a view that counter-argues the claim that it is the most important economic center in the country by pointing out that, as the federal distric, which belongs to the entire federation, this city receives financial aid from the Mexican federal Congress, which is controlled by the 31 Mexican states. I have provided a specific example by pointing out that the head of government of this city recently asked the federal government for the return of the tortibono program (tortilla coupon program), a federal government funded program that for an extended period of time allowed a substantial number of the inhabitants of this city to eat tortillas for free. My external reference to support my view follows: [29]. Kindly note that the above reference is for an article associated with Televisa, one of the two major television networks in Mexico. Therefore, the reference is not only verifiable, but it is also from a reputable source. I understand that it is in Spanish, but, as you will be able to notice by going over the list of references in this article, many of the references in this article are in Spanish.

I also offer a counter-argument to the second part of the claim that states that this city is the most important cultural center in the country (which has never been supported by a reference.) My counter-argument is that this Mexican city, unlike two other Mexican cities, has never been named American Capital of Culture To support my counter-argument, I provide an external third-party, verifiable reference, which follows: [30]

Invariably, however, my view, counter-argument and associated third-party, external, verifiable references are always removed (which may constitute vandalism.) And, not surprisingly, the same unsupported, reference-lacking claim that this city is the most imporant economic and cultural center in the country is re-entered.

Given that, as per comments entered by numerous users in the discussion section of this article, such as those entered by user Thelmadatter, who maintains " this page is changed so frequently and vandalized", I would like to recommend that this article be DELETED, as it puts Wikipedia in utter disrepute.

Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to discuss the material I have entered adhering to Wikipedia's rules, as well as for your consideration regarding the DELETION of this low quality article.


ElEditordeWiki (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

replying on User talk:ElEditordeWiki. --Floquenbeam (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That obnoxious guy again Same as GregK204 (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs) et al. Page protection? Cheers, RCS (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, yes, most likely page protection. let me give this one final Quixotic try, I'll protect the pages if that doesn't work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I see CHL is more proactive than me, and has protected. That was almost certainly the right decision, so I hope it solves your problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Tham Fook Cheong

I've noticed that Tham Fook Cheong was recreated after two deletion discussions (the later of which you closed) were closed as delete. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. I've moved it back to their user space. For more explanation, see User talk:Floquenbeam#Tham Fook Cheong Page above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)