User talk:Floquenbeam/Archive 4

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

User talk:Kvrk4000

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

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

A bowl of strawberries for you!

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

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

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

Cute

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

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

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

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

RonaldMerchant

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

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

TreasuryTag

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

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

DRV on Treasury Tag

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

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

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

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

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

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

Baconator

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

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

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

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

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

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

Sillystuff

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

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

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

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

Thanks

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

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

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

Thanks

Thanks for the notes.

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

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

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


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

Whack-a-mole

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

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

SORRY

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

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

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

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

Thank you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CSD

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

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

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

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

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

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

Blocking and unblocking

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

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

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

Ping. About Arts Tasmania

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

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

Read: Question,

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

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

Please review these blocks

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

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

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

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

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

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

He's baaack....

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

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

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

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

Vancouver Canucks vandal

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

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

Stupid Name

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

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

Quantum key distribution

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

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

Thank you

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

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

A cup of tea for you! (sorry)

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

Floquenbeam

Floquenbeam,

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

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

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

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

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

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

A kitten for you!

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

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

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

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

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

The Signpost: 7 November2011

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

Maxwell's demon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

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

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

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

TCO

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

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

Re: self-requested blocks

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

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

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

User talk:Barts1a/Yell

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

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

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

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

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

An IP sock, really

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

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

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

A beer for you!

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

My apologies.

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

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

RE: Unblock decline

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

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

Djathinkimacowboy

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

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

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

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

Break

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

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

Roddie Clark article

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

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

Djathinkimacowboy page protection

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

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

Wrong ocean

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

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

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

Consensus reached?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A pleasure and an honour for me:


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

AN/G

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

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

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

Re: Jewish quote

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

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

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

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

Episode counts again

Resolved
 – I am apparently too gullible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archiving of Deleted Articles

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

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

Userfying Article

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

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


MSU Interview

Dear Floquenbeam,


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


So a few things about the interviews:

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


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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

G4 on AdminWatch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TCO subpage

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

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

Barts1a/AGK/Unblock Requests

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

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

SEMI RETIRED PEOPLE DON'T MAKE NULL EDITS

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

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

Vivid Racing article questions

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

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

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

Nflfacts2k2

nflfacts2k2 (talk · contribs)

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

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

Thanks

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

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

You've got mail~!

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

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

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

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

Thanks!

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

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

At ANI

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

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

Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/February 22

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

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

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

Counting

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

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

RE:Barnstar

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

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

ANI

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

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

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

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

fyi

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

User:Evilzionistantichrist

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

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

User:Djathinkimacowboy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

Thank You

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

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

User:Rejedef

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

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

Wolfly hugz

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

Well crap

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

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

A cookie for you!

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

Lover of penguins

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

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

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

Participation at AE

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

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

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

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

Of all the things to retire about.

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

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

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

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

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

You sure about that?

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

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

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

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

Stanbidder1

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

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

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

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

NCISfan2

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

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

ANI

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

About Dave

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Kumioko block

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

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

FLM Update

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

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

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

User:DaftEco2

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

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

More drama for your attention

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

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

UTRS Account Request

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

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

Sigh...

Note

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

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

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