User talk:Tamzin/Archive/Old/6

User:קיפודנחש/apiRollback.js

Hi F&A.

I was thinking: why would you even want the script to bold the "talk" page of the user/vandal and add the "vanarticle=" thing? this looks so last year!

wouldn't it be better if we add a 2nd menu that would allow you to define what do you want to drop in the user's talkpage? i am thinking something similar to the "summary" line, except you'll be able to use multiline edit mode, and teach the script to remember for you the last 20, 40, or unlimited number of "droplets" you used in the past. i am just thinking here, but let say we let you give them names. you would create little pieces that look like so:

==[[$1]]==
Dear $2, i had to $3 some edit you did in the page $1.
To learn more about bla bla bla read page [[abra kadabra]]
~~~~

or, the more aggressive form:

==[[$1]]==
{{subst:Get lost|$1}}~~~~

The script will replace $1 with the page name, $2 with the user's Nik, and $3 with the rollback text (so it may be "rollback 6 edits" or just "rollback").

The script then will just add this to the user talkpage without taking you out of wherever you are.

if you give this little masterpiece a name, it will be available to you on future rollbacks, but you can just use it once, without giving it a name, as so not to "contaminate" the list of droplets you like to use.

the details are still blurry, and if you think this is valuable we can work them out, but i wanted to hear from you first whether you think this makes sense.

peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. A very good idea indeed. Here's what I think: About 90% of the time that you use rollback, you only need to drop a template message, if anything; with the other 10%, the cases are distinct enough that it's fairly rare that you can recycle messages. So, instead of having it store your latest 20-40 warnings, have it store a dropdown menu of templates, very much like Twinkle's Warn feature, except deployable from whatever page you initiate rollback from, and slightly more customizable.

Proposed specs:

• Like with Twinkle, the following setup:

• Dropdown menu of warning levels - level 1, level 2, level 3, level 4, level 4im (only warning), single-issue notice, single-issue warning
• Dropdown menu of available templates for each level... I can throw together a roster of all of these for you, if you're interested
• "Comments" field - whatever you write there is added, italicized, after the template you leave

• Then, in addition:

• A "custom message" option
• The ability to add messages to the dropdown menus through some sort of function in your common.js - some users make their own series of warnings, and there are also some obscure warnings that certain users in specialized areas often have a need for
• And maybe, if you want to get really fancy, a one-click "warn for vandalism" button, that would read the hidden text included in the standard series of vandalism warnings - namely <!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> and/or <!-- Template:uw-cluebotwarning1 --> - and give the appropriate next level. Though you'd have to program it to only register warnings left in the last day or two, so I don't know how complicated that would be - ClueBot can do it, so it's clearly possible, but ClueBot can do anything, so I have no idea what sort of level of labor that would take.

Anyways, how does all that sound? If you're interested, I'll get started on making a list of the necessary components for you assemble. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

thing is, though what you suggest sounds at first glance simpler or easier, for me it's actually more work/more difficult, because it means we have to hard-code all those boilerplate messages into the tool.

personally, i am not familiar with the specific templates used for vandalism-fighting in enwiki, and this would also make it less transportable to other wikis. if i do it the way i suggested, i.e., start with empty set, and as the user adds more responses, tool learns them so they become boilerplate for next time (without me having to put them there myself - yuppee!). admittedly, this means that every user of the tool will have to enter each of those boilerplate messages manually once, but as you say, there is not such a huge number of them. i will ask you to try it and see what you think. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think the vanarticle setup works better, in that case. Also, there actually are a fair number of templates... there's five levels of each of the main ones, plus a lot of important less-used ones. Twinkle does its job very very well, and, in my opinion, it's best to either directly use it, or copy something from it. Anyways, as I said, I'll gladly draw up a list of the templates you'd need... as for the workload issue, if you can give me a quick walkthrough of how to add the templates, I'd have no problem doing it myself... it'd be the same procedure for each template, right? And as other wikis go, I don't think this would hinder exportability, since you could still have the memorizing function for custom messages, in addition to any hard-coding. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 07:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

i'll tell you what: i will add a facility to read the boilerplates from a .js page, and add a "read boilerplats" button. it will still not be the sophisticated hierarchical thing you describe - all messages are equal. once the user reads the boilerplates, they can add and remove messages (removing is done by selecting a message name, but clearing the message content).

you can try the tool without the "read boilerplates" and see if the functionality makes sense (IOW, i updated the script - just do a deep refresh and you should see the new functionality).

the structure of the boilerplate js page is simple (it doesn't really have to be a .js page, but js allows us to put things the parser would expand on normal page, such as signature and templates with "subst" as part of the message):

{
'message name1' : 'first line\n' +
 'second line\n' +
 'third line',
'message name 2':  'first line\n' +
 'second line\n' +
 'third line'
}

right now, the tool does not leave a summary when dumping the message in talkpage. i think that the message name can be used as summary also.

i am not sure, but maybe it will be better to add a "follow this page" checkbox, instead of using the common.js variable we use today (we can still use the common.js variable for the initial state of the checkbox).

peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

So i added a "Read messages" button, that will read the messages from a boilerplate page as described above. if you do not wish to use a JS page, you can do it by breaking the strings, such:

{
'Warning Level1 - go away': '==[' + '[$1]' + ']==\n{' + '{subst:|Go away|$1} ' +}~~' + '~~',
'Warning Level1 - you are ugly': '==[' + '[$1]' + ']==\n{' + '{subst:|You are ugly|$1} ' +}~~' + '~~',
'Warning Level2 - I hate you': '==[' + '[$1]' + ']==\n{' + '{subst:|I hate you|$1} ' +}~~' + '~~',
'Warning Level2 - Wikipedia is not a zoo': '==[' + '[$1]' + ']==\n{' + '{subst:|Wikipedia is not a zoo|$1} ' +}~~' + '~~',
'Welocome 1': '==I love you==\nSorry I had to $2 your Edits in page[$1]\n{' + '{subst:|Welcome} ' +}~~' + '~~'
}

and so on and so forth. note that in order to avoid subsing, i broke the sigs to '~~' + '~~' and the template to '{' + '{subst:' etc.

please play with it a little and let me know what you think, including changing labels and messages. also, if you'll ever write a help page to this thing, let me know and i'll create a link.

note that i managed to suppress popup on the "rollback" link and added to the tooltip a hint about rightclick. :::::another question is this: maybe we should just drop the right-click left-click thing and jump the dialog box on right-click too?

(oh, one more thing: i'll add 2 checkboxes for "watch article" and "watch talkpage". the 2nd will only be used if you choose to leave a message on the talkpage).

peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

So, i take it you are not interested in creating a list of fragments to be placed in reverted-editor talkpage? also, i do not see many people using this script in enwiki (actually, you seem to be the only one ATM...), so maybe it wasn't such a hot idea after all.

anywho, just in case you are interested to do either of the following, i will incorporate it into the script (it has a language-dependent section, so i can do it here without having to maintain multiple version for multiple languages):

• if someone will create a help page, i'll link to it directly from the dialog box
• if someone will create a list of fragments (including, but not limited to use of templates), i will make it "more automatically" loaded when pressing the "Read messages" button (basically, preloading the prompt-box with the sanctioend page).

peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you -- about User:MikeFromCanmore

Thank you for all your help in dealing with User:MikeFromCanmore. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI

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

You might have seen it already. Just letting you know. Λυδαcιτγ 02:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

|}

Ireland

Hi. I just noticed that at User:Francophonie&Androphilie/countries, your Ireland flag links to Austria - thought you might like to know. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And where should it link? I strongly support Austria's claim to sovereignty over Ireland.</sarcasm>

Yeah, I think I used the link to Austria's flag to reformat all of the links; must've forgotten to switch that one. As I've said before, if anyone can find a userbox saying I appreciate bold edits to my userpage, they should feel free to put it up. Thanks, though! Or, as they say in Ireland, danke schön. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Gays DO make good posts!

Got a problem with me being gay? Well, suck it up, because as observed here, since many vandals write "SO-AND-SO IS A FAG!!!" but very few write "I AM A FAG!!!", it's clear that all homosexuals are good editors.

 

I could not agree more! Allow me to say L'égalité pour tous! Je suis gai et fier! A Wiggin13 (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'm actually in the middle of writing you something at your talk page, for yet another coincidence, O "sockpuppet" mine. Nice to meet you! — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 07:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It is very nice to meet you to! Il est bon de rencontrer quelqu'un qui sait français aussi! A Wiggin13 (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

• From the editor: Wikipedia, our Colosseum

• In the media: Is the Wikimedia movement too 'cash rich'?

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser a success; Czech parliament releases photographs to chapter

• Technology report: Looking back on a year of incremental changes

• Discussion report: Image policy and guidelines; resysopping policy

• Interview: Interview with Brion Vibber, the WMF's first employee

• Featured content: Whoa Nelly! Featured content in review

• WikiProject report: New Year, New York

• Recent research: Wikipedia and Sandy Hook; SOPA blackout reexamined

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Have a yummy brownie on me! A Wiggin13 (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Dissuading SineBot

After spotting your comments at ANI, I thought you like might to know that {{bots|deny=SineBot}}is the magic template for telling SineBot to sod off. Just stick it at the top of your talkpage, and the bot will never bother you again. Happy New Year! Yunshui 雲‍水 13:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Merci

Thanks for your message on my talk page about User talk:Lubnarizvi#Inappropriate use of warning template, constituting personal attack, WP:ANI#User Hell in a Bucket has been very disruptive from day 1. I have replied on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A pie for you!

You like your sweets so have some pie! I guarantee my pie is better than the hotel brownies! A Wiggin13 (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Apology

I notice that Craddock1 has apologized to everyone BUT me. What? Am I unworthy of an apology or something? :P Anyhow just wanted to throw that out there. A Wiggin13 (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Notice

Re your message: I see that everything has pretty much been settled now. Thank you for the notice. I think your 2₵ to Craddock1 was very well thought out. I hope that they follow your suggestions. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I have doubts about whether you are who you say you are. But no-one else does. Mandatory WP:BILBY sanctions apply in this case

	A "yet again tough luck for me not believing you are who you say you are" Bilby for you!
	A Bilby for you! Shirt58 (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

How cute. But "I don't believe you, but I'll assume good faith" is contradictory; until you can legitimately assume good faith, I'd prefer that you do not comment here. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we agree to disagree. Out. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It is typically not a good idea to accuse users of anything without proof. Especially on something as touchy as "Your not real" Andrew Wiggin (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It's fine, Andrew. I can handle myself, though I don't disagree with your points about accusations. Shirt58's not saying anything new - see /Archive/Archive_3#Block and WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Francophonie&Androphilie blocked and then unblocked with an apology by Coren. It's worth noting, though, that anyone who accuses me of not being who I say I am isn't simply accusing me of pretending to be a random teenage boy, but, rather, of extensively researching a real-world person and assuming his identity - in essence, accusing me of being some sort of stalker, pedophile, or seriously disturbed individual. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Shirt, I should note that you're welcome to respond to this thread for the time being; you seem like a nice guy, and if there's any way we could clear this up, I'd like to. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Bro. I was just trying to cover your behind. Friends do that from time to time you know :) Andrew Wiggin (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

F&A, as you note, you can handle this as you wish, but if you want the opinion of a friendly talk page stalker, I don't see any good coming out of this section on your talk page (the section header alone is awful). If I were you, I'd remove the entire section, including my oh-so-wise comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb (really, thanks!), but I think I'll invoke that right to deal with this as I like. I've got nothing to hide, and I think people can make what they'd like of this section. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013 - reply

I was a bit rude. I think he was ruder. My apologies for losing my cool, but just because someone's trolling, that isn't an excuse for tearing into them and calling them names - you both validate their trolling, and lower the level of discourse. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 06:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments but are you seriously implying that I am in the wrong when I am defending myself against a troll who has undoubtedly attacked other users before (see his reference to AssociateAffiliate whom he definitely has attacked and surely the others too)? I am not going to retract my comments. I ask again that you protect my user page and talk page. If you are not going to do that, then I suggest you block my account and I will go away and find something better to do. This site is begining to look like something out of a New Labour fantasy: welcome to trolls, bona fide editors can look after themselves. Absolutely ridiculous. Nothing personal as I realise you are following site guidelines and doing your job. --Old Lanky (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Your user page will not be protected unless it is being vandalized. Your user talk page will not be protected unless you are being harassed in such a way that it's impractical to block the users responsible. I don't think you can really blame the admins for not doing either of these things, regardless, when you haven't provided any evidence for your claims. So how about you stop ranting about how poorly our system is managed, and accept that there are two very good reasons you're not getting what you want. Furthermore, you are required to retract your legal threat, and if you're unable to provide evidence to meet our blocking policy, I have no idea how you could provide evidence that would stand up in court or not get you laughed out of the police station. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 12:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Read the "Back Again" topic on my talk page and note that this began on my user page, but I moved it. How about you stop pontificating and use your eyes to do some research instead of expecting everything on a plate and spelled out to you in words one syllable. I am being harrassed on my talk page by a troll who is accusing me of running dual accounts and hurling insults at me in the process. It is the same troll who has attacked AssociateAffiliate. That is obvious from his comments and from the fact that AssociateAffiliate's page has been protected because of harrassment. And, no, I will not retract my statements because I am defending myself and standing up for all genuine editors. You are doing the troll's work for him. --Old Lanky (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Fuck this shit. You took it to AN (not AN/I, where you should've taken it, for the record), you provide the evidence. That said, I've looked at the comments in question now, and you seem far more incivil than the IP. He's not trolling, which means I can only hope you don't actually take this to the police, as you may very well get arrested for submitting a false report. I was mighty patient not asking you to be blocked immediately, and it appears you wish to throw away whatever goodwill I was willing to extend you. Enjoy your forthcoming block. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 13:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC) It would seem you're lucky to escape a block yourself. --Old Lanky (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

LGBT stereotypes

Hi F&A. Thanks for copy editing LGBT stereotypes for the GOCE backlog drive; I think you did a good job. You must not have noticed this, but I had listed the article I was working on for the drive. I'm not upset. I hadn't done any work on it, and you're likely more qualified to work on such an article anyway. If you had asked me, I would've gladly relinquished my claim to you, but again, I'm not upset. You haven't offended any boundaries of etiquette or practice because we haven't established any. But you can probably see how this sort of situation could lead to some conflict. I invite you to discuss the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators#"Claiming" articles in a drive (I don't know if that space is supposed to be used only by GOCE coordinators, but I haven't seen anything to make me think that). And again, just because I can't emphasize this enough, "the issue" is the general idea of editors trying to work on the same page, not this specific instance. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ooops! Sorry about that, and thanks for letting it slide. I've replied there. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Evidence

Per the admin at WP:AN/I, here is the evidence you wanted: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive.

I've got six more IPs which are all undeniably this person as, to his credit, he leaves no doubt as to who he is and you will even find his real name in the archive. I'm going to revert to IP myself now to avoid people like that. I used IP previously to edit and no prblem. --Old Lanky (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for not looking deep enough into what was being said against you; in the future, though, please don't feed the trolls, and please remember that if you're seeking administrative intervention, the onus is on you to explain why you feel what you request is justified. Also, it would really put my mind at rest if you could just state for the record that you will not be pursuing any legal action against Richard Daft or anyone else on Wikipedia. Thanks, and sorry for being short with you. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You've nothing to worry about. It won't go any further. More trouble than it's worth. I think you must be absolutely right about the edit you've removed and mentioned at AN/I. It can only be the same person. Best wishes. --Old Lanky (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thanks for fixing my mistake on WhatamIdoing's talk page...I forgot to put the colons in lol. Have a nice day! ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha no problem. Thanks! — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

• Op-ed: Meta, where innovative ideas die

• WikiProject report: Where Are They Now? Episode IV: A New Year

• News and notes: 2012—the big year

• Featured content: Featured content in review

• Technology report: Looking ahead to 2013

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox shenanigans and wider abuse

Can I throw in: Cotten134 — 75.76.249.231 — 75.133.73.162 — 75.139.106.179 — 2600:1003:B017:17DC:9C:5EE3:997D:E0A5 and maybe 72.74.89.82 — 70.192.196.106 and possibly others in the last month? — 212.139.109.105 (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat you to the punch. Though if any of the IPs that haven't been blocked keep it up, feel free to file a new report - if you create an account, you can enable Popups, which allows you to see who's blocked just by mousing over their username; or, better yet, you can run the mark-blocked script, which puts strikethroughs through blocked accounts' names. Anyways, though, if he's jumping around that much, he probably has a dynamic IP, but, as I said, if you see more disruption from any of those accounts, report it. Thanks! — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV policy note

A comment by you in http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Talk:2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case#Victim.27s_name mentioned me. NPOV impartial tone calls for avoiding personal comments. David F (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Uh, NPOV is a policy about article content, not about talk page discussions... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I didn't mention you, David; I specifically addressed you. Yes, in a content dispute it's preferable to address the community at large (since talking to only one person can often turn nasty), but sometimes, if you find yourself at an impasse with a specific editor, it's simplest to put it out in the open. You might want to see WP:NPA#WHATIS, which gives a cursory outline of the types of things it's inappropriate to say to other contributors. But I must say, I'm a bit disappointed to see that your response to my comment that "you keep on coming up with new arguments, and ignoring parts of mine" was to accuse me of violating a wholly inapplicable policy, and not responding to anything I said; this sort of behavior borders on WikiLawyering, and it really doesn't help resolve anything in a dispute. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for adding Lew's *ridiculous* signature. 199.46.199.230 (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha no problem. Not gonna lie, probably my proudest moment as a Wikipedia contributor. (Context for talk page stalkers: [1] [2]) — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

re Bloomex

Per this edit [3] I suggest you review WP:RS before accepting pending changes that have previously been rejected by another reviewer. Press releases for promotional material do not meet the sourcing standards required. I suggest you self-revert. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Having "The Grump" in your username isn't an excuse for being snippy. I had no clue that another user had previously rejected the changes; accidental reviewer wheelwars are a dime a dozen. That said, yes, I noticed that the sources appeared to be press releases, but I didn't really see much of a benefit in reverting good-faith contributions to an article in need of serious improvement, when the primary sources weren't being cited to say anything particularly controversial, or doing anything else to violate the WP:ABOUTSELF conditions. If you want to revert me, that's your prerogative , but I hardly see anything controversial about the changes I accepted, definitely not to a degree to warrant condescending to me like this. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that you are unaware of the long-enduring attempts by promoters of Bloomex to turn the article into an advertisement, using sock-puppetry, misrepresentation of sources, and more or less every other method in the book - not that this is particularly unusual for the online florist industry, which seems to be surprisingly cut-throat in its attitudes. Anyway, your interpretation of WP:ABOUTSELF seems to be contrary to both mine, and to that of User:William Avery who previously rejected the material. I shall in consequence revert it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Understood. It's funny, I was just saying at ANI that admins should really be encouraged to give very specific explanations when PC-protecting. I would've looked into this much more thoroughly if the protection log summary had said "persistent and versatile attempts at self-promotion" instead of "persistent vandalism" (or, if there really was by-the-book vandalism as well, recognition of both of these). Sorry for the confusion; moving forward now, though, what would you think of a proposal that admins can't use pre-formatted summaries when PC-protecting for anything other than unambiguous vandalism? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Your signature

Just an FYI, your sig is a little distracting for tablet users. You might want to consider shortenig it or lowering the font size. Thx.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Try Firefox on Android...EVERYTHING is irritating on Wikipedia...It resizes some text 5-times bigger than other text for no obvious reason but to make the entire page unbearable to read. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Calling all Talk Page Stalkers! A straw poll.

The other day I was showing off some cool things I'd done to my uncle, who's something of a programming genius. I was showing him templates and parser functions and stuff that I use in my userspace, and he happened to ask about my username. I'm pretty sure he knew I was gay, and if he didn't, he doesn't care, but, to be honest, the more I accomplish with this username, the less sure of it I am. I mean, I like the sound of it, and I have no negative reactions to it when I see myself writing it, but the thing is, as I've said before, when I created this account I had no idea that I'd become a serious Wikipedian. So now I'm wondering if I should change names to something a bit more... mature. I don't want it to be a complete departure from my current username, so I was thinking something like "PinkAmpersand". I could sign as

— PinkAmpers&^{Formerly F&A}_{Je vous invite à me parler}

or something like that. It's sort of a showing, not telling version of my current username - the pinkness hints at the gay part, and the fancy French stuff hints at the French part. I have no problem with hitting people over the head with who I am, but I worry that around here that may sometimes come across as disingenuousness. So, anyways, whadday'all think? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Blah, I like your current username. If you're going to change it, I see User:Francophonie is indef blocked, with only 5 edits, so a WP:USURP could most likely take place if you wanted that. Then you could change the coloring of your signature however you wish. :) I may be missing something, but I really don't get the idea behind PinkAmpersand (where'd the official name of the & come in?!). I do think keeping the Je vous invite à mi parler is good, because it does provide a link to your old name for anyone wondering. However, the "Formerly F&A" may be unnecessary, as I don't know anyone else with that link to the talkpage they use. I have to get up (really) early tomorrow, so I'll add some to this then. gwickwire^talk_edits 05:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't overthink it, if I were you. Personally I quite like F&A as a username; however if it has the potential to cause issues for you in real life (e.g. if you get asked by a relative who is bothered by your sexuality) then PinkAmpersand is as good a replacement as anything. Your proposed new signature is a bit unwieldy to my mind (and at 248 characters, pushes the upper limit of the length restrictions) - definitely lose the <big>ness, too! Incidentally, as long as your sig links to your userpage and/or talkpage, there's no reason you can't sign as PA whilst still being officially named as F&A (it's even technically possible to get your userpages to display as PinkAmpersand's without filing a name change, though I strongly suspect (haven't checked) that we've got a rule prohibiting that...). Yunshui 雲‍水 08:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and my sympathies for the broken goggles; my kids do that to mine all the time, even the fancy Memoflex ones. I know what it's like to see the world through new lenses (or in my case, a myopic fog...) Yunshui 雲‍水 08:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The only relatives who could be worried would also tease me for spending so much time online... and since I've got The Advocate and an LGBT comedy blog in my top pages whenever I open a new tab, I'll probably just switch to my "professional" account on my laptop the next time they come around. Anyways, umm, hmm, if I drop the "Formerly F&A", I think that would take place of most of the signature problems (the <big>s are just to counteract a <small>ness that it seems the "PinkAmpers&" part inherits from the talkpage span). And, sure, I mean, I guess I could just change the sig, but I've never been a huge fan of when people have completely separate sigs and usernames, and it still wouldn't solve the "someone looking over my shoulder" problem (which gets even more serious if you consider the fact that almost all of my friends speak French). As I said, it's more of an image thing. "F&A" sounds cool, and my name looks really sleek when I sign it in black and pink, but... it sounds more like the type of username you find in some perpetual drama board troll than the type you find in a respectable contributor (which is, at the very least, what I try to be).

Oh, and I got the lenses back, at least, but not the frame yet - the store has a loaner that it seems they just keep around to give me every other month when I break my preferred pair. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and Gwickwire: — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} See the pink ampersand? 13:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You use F&A as redirects to your account; if you created that account you could usurp it pretty easily (since you own it), if F&A is indef blocked/banned it'd be just as easy. I think F&A just sounds nice, plus it's short, and nobody (other than us of course) would know that it stood for Francophonie et Androphilie, which is what I assume you're trying to avoid :) gwickwire^talk_edits 22:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Your current name is fine with me. If YOU want to change it, you may want to think about using "Pink" in both letter AND color, - seems a bit duplicate, and not very French ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I would tell you to do whatever you want and don't listen to us or anyone else. Your username is yours, make it whatever you want it to be. 174.227.194.247 (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Your current username is silly, but keeping the same username has practical advantages for forgetful people like me, because we can remember who the hell you are. Username changes burn valuable brain bandwidth. Sometimes a lot, sometimes a little, but always some. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Pink Ampersand is nice. As others above me have said, only you can really make a decision like this, but we can give advice. From my perspective, I am actually surprised no one's complained about the ampersand in the name; I remember a user a few years back who had a name with an ampersand in it, and people complained that it was breaking templates and URL's. But I guess that must have been due to bugs that are fixed now. Even assuming that's a not a problem, I'd like Pink Ampersand . It's shorter, therefore you wouldn't have to use an indirect link in your sig, and you came up with it yourself so you must identify with it. yeah pink is a bit of a stereotype but then that's not necessarily bad. —Soap— 20:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Haha guess who fixed them? But, yeah, thanks, as long as people agree the name sounds nice, I think I'll go for it soon-ish (before it's too confusing for people, re Demiurge's point). — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a clever username, because "Pink Ampersand" is literally your "signature". HueSatLum 21:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

RE: the closed ANI thread

I don't know of an easy way to make a dummy revdel without deleting another part of the page. Regardless, though, I don't think it's necessary; the ANI conversation should be link enough, I'd imagine (it's right below her block discussion, which would obviously be brought up in any future discussions about her. To be honest, I think that the less attention we give this, the better; this looks like a troll to me, and we're just feeding her. I think the usual way of requesting a revdel (discreetly contacting an admin) would've been a better way to handle this than an ANI thread. No criticism towards Rivertorch intended, of course; ANI is the natural reaction for things like this. I'm just surprised it wasn't immediately deflected with the "revdeled; in the future please quietly contact an admin for revdel requests" I've seen in the past. (I edit-conflicted with NE Ent's close, so I'm copying the response here. I've since put a link to the revdel on Hinata's talk page, which should be sufficient.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sock of AndresHerutJuram

Hi,

You have just endorsed the edit of the sockpuppet that generated the discussion to protect the article on the 1948 Arab-Israeli War that way... We are 3 usual users to agree on this and he was already reverted two times with comments stating he is a sock... :-( SPI is pending...

Pluto2012 (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've unaccepted it for the time being. I will reply shortly. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. As you'll see in my reviewing summary (timestamp 19:22), I was hesitant to accept. At first I thought I'd just wait for another reviewer to look at it, and when no one had after almost an hour, I bit the bullet and started weighing the choices. He referenced the talk page, which I checked, and saw that indeed no one had responded to his most recent post. Stupidly, the one thing I forgot to do was check the history to see if there'd been previous attempts to insert it. For that I apologize. I was, for obvious reasons, very reluctant to exercise my reviewing authority over an already-autoconfirmed user, for, as much as I supported KoH's decision to go to level-2 Pending Changes, I could find myself in serious trouble if I were to do anything that could be construed as abusing that decision, and the higher-than-usual power reviewers have gained as a result of it. Still, that just makes it even dumber of me to have not checked the history, and I'll obviously be even more cautious next time. If any CheckUser or clerk watching this page has a few spare minutes, it would be nice if someone could settle that SPI sooner rather than later. (I think the 9 January report might've been overlooked due to the two subsequent ones.) — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, bonjour ;-)

No worry F&A. L'erreur est humaine.

Even me, I am not sure because that sock is particularly clever and I have some doubts because that could be a another editor... But a sock anyway because I doubt very much an new editor less than 1 week old could have found the talk page and the mediation page...

And thank you for your follow up of the article :-) Pluto2012 (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Just so you know, unless I'm missing anything in violation of ARBPIA or consensus in that edit, if he isn't blocked as a sock I'll have to reinstate the changes; the only reason I'm allowed to leave them unaccepted in the first place is that the article was protected specifically because of sockpuppetry. Obviously, this does not have any bearing on your prerogative to revert the changes, though you are, of course, still subject to 1RR. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

Technically, I can revert him but I would not revert somebody whose edit was "endorsed". I think it would be against the spirit.

Anyway : he is blocked.

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad that's taken care of. I see Elockid reverted him, too. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

On letting people make mistakes

Deal. Though I find your wikilawyering to avoid owning up to what you did downright cowardly. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 19:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Per your comment, I'm not sure why you think reopening that thread would be "dangerous" for me. And if someone has actually made allegations that violate WP:CHILDPROTECT, that person should be blocked, not abetted by having their comments hidden. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC) I was merely pointing out that after numerous arbitrators had warned you to not accuse editors of pedophilia onwiki, you re-opened a discussion that had been closed because of allegations of pedophilia (fine, of promoting child pornography, but it falls under the same category). If you feel that that was throwing out the baby with the bathwater, fair enough, but I think it was irresponsible to re-open it without first dealing with the allegations. I don't see how it's abbetting someone making personal attacks to leave a prominent red box on the page with a note about how the remarks were completely inappropriate. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC) I don't think AndyTheGrump intended his statements to be read as an accusation of "pedophilia". If you think that, you should contact ArbCom, not hide the comments. If I had made any on-wiki allegations that any user was advocating pedophilia, I am sure I would have been blocked, not warned. There was no need to invoke my name or misrepresent the as-yet unfinished discussion I was having with the Arbs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Mattbuck is a big boy; the ball is in his court to respond to Andy's remarks as he sees fit. You accused another editor of being a pedophile (I'm looking at the blog post right now, for Christ's sake) and referenced it repeatedly onwiki. There is absolutely no question about that. I quote: Four weeks ago I wrote on this blog that an active Wikipedia editor (<redacted>) was a self-declared pro-pedophilia advocate and made the case that they were still advocating pedophilia, although somewhat more subtly than with their past account. [...] After a couple of days with no reaction, I posted a link to the blog post on one of the most widely watched pages on Wikipedia – Jimmy Wales’ talk page. You attached yourself to those comments the moment you reopened that thread without dealing with them. You're the one who said that it was Jimbo's decision to make, so it's worth noting that Jimbo hatted that whole part of the thread, and didn't appear to bat an eye at my decision to hat, or the reasons I cited. I think you're kidding yourself if you're saying that Andy's remarks couldn't be easily construed as accusations of pedophilia (or related illegal conduct), and that you weren't warned for doing the exact same thing. If you really can't accept either of those things, it would appear that we're at an impasse, and I'd suggest you drop the matter. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC) I'm not saying that AndyTheGrump's remarks couldn't be construed that way - I'm saying I do not believe it was his intention to make such an accusation. If Mattbuck is a big boy, let him put on his big boy pants and deal with it himself instead of needlessly inserting yourself into the situation. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If I had made any on-wiki allegations that any user was advocating pedophilia, I am sure I would have been blocked, not warned. Note the "on-wiki" part, it's important. Also take note of the result of that blog post, it's more important (both what was done and what wasn't done). Jimbo can do what he likes on his own talk page. He didn't invoke my name - you did. He didn't unnecessarily insert a negative reference to a situation which really isn't related - you did. I'm sure you have your reasons, but maybe it would be best of you just ignored me. Let's pretend that we have reached an impasse and then we can stop talking to each other. Deal? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN#PC2 for Mangoeater targets

I didn't follow; have you read any of the oppose rationales from the September RfC? Which ones strike you as philosophical? This is a complicated issue with a long history, so I'll try to keep it simple: you can see from this history page that almost everyone who's asking for the reviewer userright gets it, because PC1 reviewers are expected to deal just with vandalism and clear BLP violations. Is that the best pool of people to be making difficult calls on socking? And what happens when 4 articles under PC2 becomes 400 (which is the position most of the supporters seem to be taking, that there are "no problems") ... isn't it obvious that people who have no intention of using the tool in a helpful way will start applying to be reviewers, just so that they don't have to wait for others to approve their edits? I see a potential problem with having people with little editing history, who have signed up to use a tool for the wrong reasons, acting in an "official" capacity to allow or deny edits by experienced users. - Dank (push to talk) 12:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

My point about the philosophical objections was that a good amount of the responses I'm seeing have a lot more to do with the general case than with the two specific articles this is about - I even had to amend the CENT listing to clarify that this isn't a general debate on PC2. That said, I think you've made a lot of well-reasoned arguments, and NE Ent's response was very insightful as well. I think the answer to your concerns is that we should make the reviewing guidelines very clear on the fact that there's an incredibly high bar for rejecting non-autoconfirmed users' submissions. I'll elaborate:

The current reviewing guidelines are painfully, painfully vague. They point out all these technicalities about reverting vs. undoing, and they seem to imply that there's circumstances under which you should accept, and then promptly revert - and get this, the word "reject" doesn't appear once on the page. So reviewers who use the tool frequently have sorta had to make it up as we go. Since the "reject" option specifically says you have to use a summary if you're rejecting for anything other than obvious vandalism, we've started to use it to fix all sorts of things; I don't really think that's a problem. The most high-profile P.C.-protected article is probably 2012 Delhi gang rape case, which I became involved with as a reviewer, and have since worked on content-wise as well. There you'll often find reviewers rejecting with summaries that fall far outside the bounds of what we're allowed to reject for; no one seems to have a problem with this, and I don't either, since the alternative would be to just use undo instead (or rollback if you have a custom-summary script), which seems sort of pointless. In other words, the unwritten rule has become that as long as a reviewer is clear that they're rejecting on editorial grounds, not for violations of the four policies we're there to enforce, which button they press should not be an issue.

However, with PC2 I'd support actually saying that the rejection button cannot be used on already (auto)confirmed users, simply because it would seem sorta disrespectful for me, with my 5,600 edits, to "reject the last text change" from some veteran contributor with 20 FAs who for whatever reason isn't a reviewer. So the rule would be that if you want to disagree on editorial grounds, you have to do it the old-fashioned way, and if you reject, it's because the editor you're rejecting has either violated one of those four core policies, or because they're an obvious sockpuppet. In other words, require extreme prudence from any reviewers exercising their authority on a PC2-protected article. I'd also suport giving admins the option to PC2-protect articles with the rider that they may only be reviewed by editors already familiar with them... to avoid insane backlogs, we could even make a page for crash courses in what to look for sockpuppet-wise (sorta like an LTA entry, but for a specific article). Alternatively, we could just make it a rule that editors should only review PC2-protected articles if they're confident they know what they're doing.

All of this could take the form of either revised conditions for the Mangoeater protections, clauses in the eventual RFC on this, or, something I'm leaning toward, clauses in an RFC on a temporary approval of limited applications - which is what the AN thread has already sort of become, only without any of these sorts of conditions I'm bringing up here, since I wasn't talking about the general case when I first started the thread. Also, I think that if we were to do all these things, this would mitigate any downsides of what I see as the largely positive trend of admins holding a fairly low standard for reviewership; as long as we're not worried about inexperienced reviewers fucking things up really badly, the more the better, I say, since, of course, this would in itself reduce the seriousness of PC2. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that. What do you see as the advantages of PC2 over prohibiting edits (for just a few articles) for accounts with less than, say, 100 edits? - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The short answer is yes, if you were to open an RFC on that, I'd probably support it; that said, it's worth noting that such a form of protection would technically be more restrictive than PC2. I think with strict policies for reviewing PC2-protected articles, PC2 would infringe on people's right to edit less than would a new medium level of protection, since, while reviewers are surely fallible (just look around this page for mistakes I've made reviewing), they can never make editing as difficult as a simple mathematical formula. The response NE Ent made to this line of reasoning was that PC2 is somewhat deceptive, since users subject to review think they're editing as normal. I disagree: The "submit changes" button sometimes still surprises me, I know that I always noticed the lock icons on protected pages when I was only reading Wikipedia, and there's something about that blue editnotice that jumps out at me every time; additionally, after you save a change to a PC-protected article when not autoconfirmed, you're given a notice saying something like "Thanks. Your changes will go live shortly after being reviewed. For more information, see such-and-such."

Additionally, as proven by things like this, such a protection policy would be in theory more gameable than PC2. (Although combining it with, say, a 2-4 weeks time requirement might solve most of that problem). — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That's my point exactly. If we have a trail of 100 completely unhelpful edits before they make their first edit to a protected page, we'll have the evidence we need to block them, so the page won't need other forms of protection. Edit filters are already good at catching unhelpful edits. (We could get some edit filters that don't currently check userspace to start checking, if people keep using userspace to run up edit counts.) For the smarter socks who figure out that completely unhelpful edits won't get them anywhere, it's likely that they will nevertheless show editing patterns in their first 100 edits that will help checkusers do their job.

On the other points, there were various responses which you may find helpful at the RfC and at WT:PC2012. Thanks for taking the time to think through this. - Dank (push to talk) 22:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but my issue with the 100 edit idea is it is technically impossible in the current release of MediaWiki, and wouldn't be phased in for at least about a month after consensus is to push for it to be added. Right now, PC2 is all we have. If we need to, we can give out the "autochecked" usergroup (containing the autoreview userright) to persons we trust. That way, their edits will be automatically reviewed to PC1 and PC2 pages. gwickwire^talk_edits 22:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers welcome, Gwickwire! I agree with you that "autochecked" sounds very promising; but, as you know, I'm still not clear on a few aspects of it. Would Dank or any other admin with this page watchlisted mind granting "confirmed" status to my alt account? I think that might be responsible for the quasi-bug I was having in the PC sandboxes. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If you need any clarification on autoreview or autochecked, I can most likely provide it, I spent a while reading up on the rights entailed and the technical aspects of those rights. gwickwire^talk_edits 22:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, first I just wanna figure out why I wasn't automatically accepted in either sandbox, hence the confirmation request. I can go to PERM for the alt account if I really have to, but I should think I have enough admins watching this page that someone will notice. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

• Investigative report: Ship ahoy! New travel site finally afloat

• News and notes: Launch of annual picture competition, new grant scheme

• WikiProject report: Reach for the Stars: WikiProject Astronomy

• Discussion report: Flag Manual of Style; accessibility and equality

• Special report: Loss of an Internet genius

• Featured content: Featured articles: Quality of reviews, quality of writing in 2012

• Arbitration report: First arbitration case in almost six months

• Technology report: Intermittent outages planned, first Wikidata client deployment

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

AndersW's signature

...doesn't appear to link to your userpage or user talk page. That's a bit odd for a user with significant experience, so perhaps you've made some mistake with the html tags? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears you're right. I am a very vanilla user who does not code HTML for this purpose, but relies consistently on the wiki markup signature tag ~~~~. Please let me know if you have a better technique that's also quick and easy. Cheers.

AndersW 20:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) All you should need to do is go into the preferences page and make sure the "Treat the above as Wikimarkup" checkbox in the entry for your signature is not checked. Then the tildes will automatically include links to your userpage and talk page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep. I believe that should do it. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Francophonie&Androphilie, I appreciate your taking the time to write me about why you want the speedy deletion tag. That said, we are a real company and it affects us to have this deleted. Can you please remove the tag? I appreciate everything you're doing to make Wikipedia better but we do believe we're notable and we pledge to add more quality references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NNV91 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, NNV91. Thanks for stopping removing the template. Well, what we normally tell users in this situation is that if your business is truly notable, somebody else will probably create the article for you. That goes double here: If someone disagrees with the speedy tag, they'll remove it themselves. Unfortunately, I think the article is likely to be deleted, and I agree with Dengero's choice to nominate it. This little blurb probably explains best why this is the case, and pledging to add references is generally not enough. (Yes Wikipedia is a work in progress, but there are basic standards all articles are expected to meet.) What I'd recommend is that, if the article is deleted, you ask the admin who deleted it if they'd mind transferring it to your userspace (usually done in the form of User:NNV91/Instameet), where you can work on it without having to meet the mainspace criteria. As a second safeguard against deletion, you can then submit it through the Articles for creation process, if you'd like.

For the record, though, if you really want to keep the article live, if you can find some way to assert notability, then it will no longer meet the A7 criteria. That said, it will probably just get nominated for deletion through the standard process, so I don't really advise that. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi F&A, As mentioned previously, sorry for my angry tone previously and what could be seen as a personal attack on Eyesnore. Maybe one day we'll find out if you really are 16, but I'll need to trust you for now. Ah - je parle Francais? Yes, you can tell my French is pretty poor and I'll be sticking to English. Thanks. Stephen

Hi, Duff Step. I'm glad you're able to take constructive criticism. It's phrasings like "What right do you have" that don't get you very far, and, just like in the real world, inflammatory remarks can often distract from any legitimate points you may or may not actually have. Just so you know, by the way, I don't really enjoy people questioning my honesty about my age. Yes, I link to that explanation in the notice that comes up when you edit this page, but that's more to stop people from saying something dumb. As I said to another user above, "I don't know if I believe you, but I guess I have to" is a contradictory statement. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your hard work for improving Wikipedia. Eyesnore (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

On deceased Wikipedians and a proper template

I hold the view that it is appropriate for a WP:BLP article to have a proper template attached which indicates, as part of a box or otherwise, that the individual in question was in fact a Wikipedia user, with the link to their user page, with appropriate tag/template to indicate that person's passing. I'm surprised this isn't already fully done, but when pressed to think of an example off the top of my head I'm not thinking of one. Can you help? --Brad Patrick (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe there's an already-existing template for it. Going through WP:RIP, I see that there are several users listed there who were the subjects of articles; in some cases there's nothing on the talk page, in other cases there's a {{connected contributor}}. I don't think either of those is a very good solution. So, I just went ahead and made this (testcases). What do you think? (In related news, I'll start a discussion at Template talk:Connected contributor on the possibility of creating variants with less severe language.) — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I think they are cool. I hope others agree that they are appropriate. --Brad Patrick (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

GOCE mid-drive newsletter, January 2013

Guild of Copy Editors January 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter We are halfway through our January backlog elimination drive. The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A pie for you!

For the new name mate. It's an interesting one! ツ Jenova20 (email) 18:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting in a good way, I hope? PinkAmpersand, whose signature is still under construction (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely. I look forward to working with you again! ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 23:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Just saying...

Love the deduction that all homosexuals are good editors. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: I AM A FAG!!! ;o)

Well, the credit for that conclusion goes to some long-ago editor of m:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles, but thanks, fag! :D — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

*BIG GRIN* You're welcome. Keep at the editing :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Over There (Fringe)--related request

Could you revert Over There (Fringe) back to some safe point before this edit screwed it up? I don't have rollback rights and no one else has done it yet, but it needs to get done. Thank you! Greengreengreenred 23:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Just so you know, if you enable Twinkle in your gadgets at Special:Preferences, you can get a slightly slower version of rollback without having to apply. Additionally, rollback only works when the problem edit is by the most recent contributor; to revert edits by multiple users, you can simply click "edit" on the last good revision, and save it, or use Twinkle's "restore this revision" option. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you so much, both for the action and the information. I will remember that for the future! Greengreengreenred 23:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For choosing a shorter username. Think about all the server kitties you saved! :P

Legoktm (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice how things stopped glitching as soon as I changed it? Even Wikidata stopped imploding. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

A favour

Bonjour, Monsieur Ampersand. Unfortunately that's about as far as my French goes, and I have a need to evaluate a source which is in that most romantic of languages... I wonder if you'd mind taking a quick look at this, and letting me know whether you reckon it's sufficient to contribute towards notability for an article on John Little (mentioned in paragraph 1546). If you can give me a brief idea of what ithat paragraph says, that would be handy too. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how Monsieur Ampersand's situation is, but I am unable to see the exact link you linked to. Did you find it through a database such as EBSCO or something? Otherwise, I get a Google 'omg teh book is copyrighted and you can't see it' message on the link. gwickwire^talk_edits 16:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't use it as a source to establish notability: A summarized translation is "The author [Jacques Renaud] describes the works of five painters and sculpters from the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region. He presents the autodidact painter Angémil Ouellet, whose landscape architecture he compares to that of John Little." A passing reference at best, though it's worth noting that da Vinci and Michelangelo are also only mentioned once in the book, Toulouse-Lautrec and Degas only twice. So combined with other sources it might be worth something, but on its own it's not worth much. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much the definition of a passing mention then. Merci beaucoup! Yunshui 雲‍水 05:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure of how reliable these kinds of sources are considered for painters, but here's two sources, in French, about John Little: 1, 2. That was just a quick search, though. If Google Translate doesn't work too well, let me (or &) know if you need some Frenchie assistance. :) Salvidrim! ✉ 06:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate the assistance, Salvadrim. Regrettably, those seem to be French translations of the same gallery blurb that I've already found a few times in English. Nevertheless, the offer of help is gratefully noted; I'll add you to my mental list of "folk who speak other languages way better than I do". Yunshui 雲‍水 06:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Salv-i-drim -- although judging from your userpage you're no stranger to misspellings. As for the languages, if you can read Japanese I'll translate French for you anytime -- it's a fair trade! :) Salvidrim! ✉ 06:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. As far as easily spelled usernames go, I reckon User:X! has the right idea... My Japanese is actually pretty sucky, I'm sorry to say, although if it's anything to do with obscure martial arts or historical terms I might be able to help. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's another one for you both: [4]. I've got a reasonable idea of what it says, but I just want to make sure that it's referring to (or at least verifies the existence of) a 2012 release, rather than their collaboration in 2009. Honestly, you edit for years without needing a single French source, and then two turn up at once... Yunshui 雲‍水 12:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tamzin. You have new messages at Template talk:Pp-meta.
Message added 06:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Salvidrim! ✉ 06:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I asked for feedback at VPT, and if there's any perceived need for broader comment I'll open an RfC. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• As I said, I don't expect it to be controversial much. :) Salvidrim! ✉ 06:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

RE: Signature

Yeah, there is a reason for that. I recently changed my Wikipedia alias via the changing username process; surrounding the process, I changed my signature to the barebones default setting. Thanks for bringing this up; I have now changed my signature to include a link to my talk page. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Having just changed usernames myself, you have my empathy; changing signatures is a bitch. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That's cause you had to get all fancy with it. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Trouting

I assume that was for my most recent MFD (the one on Rich Farmbrough's blog ). Would that be right ?  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  13:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Couldn't think of anything clever to say, so figured I'd just leave it as-is. The trout says it best: You did something silly, something you should've known better than to do, and as a result you've been smacked with a wet trout. That's all. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For being a amazing Wikipedian!

Andrew Wiggin (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Aww, thanks. :) Though I'm getting a bit worried that you're spending more time giving me WikiLove than editing the encyclopedia. :P — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

lol why shouldn't I give you wikilove? We have so much in common! :D Andrew Wiggin (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better I just reverted some vandalism on Windows 8's page and nominated a page for semi-protection. Andrew Wiggin (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Haha okay. But too much and you cheapen the value... not that I mind. ;) Jsyk, I commented on your Request for page protection re Asa Butterfield. (You didn't do anything wrong, but I wasn't sure if it would qualify for semi, so I made the case for Pending Changes protection instead - the reviewing admin can accept either argument, or neither.) If you have any questions about RFPP or other paperwork-file-y places in the future, feel free to ask me, since I frequent quite a few of them. Speaking of which, we never settled on a title (as opposed to "adopter" and "adoptee")... WikiSiblings? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiSiblings sounds good! We could make our own UserBoxs saying "this user was separated at birth from" and... ya... lol! We have to much in common not to be siblings! Andrew Wiggin (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

My request for page protection was approved! See? I can be useful! Andrew Wiggin (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

rename maintenance

You might want to update most of the instances of Francophonie&Androphilie on your userpage to your new user name -- some of the links don't work (e.g. block log one). NE Ent 14:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attack by PinkAmpersand regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 15:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion, no admin action was necessary and the co mplainant should have come here first. However in your own interests, don't use edit summaries like this one even if you feel you've been provoked. It only gives your opponents an unnecessary stick to hit you with. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all admins involved: BZ for the notification, Kim for the close, and Elockid for the block and section removal. In light of Matchurine's subsequent attempt to delete User:72Dino/barnstars, I've filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000. But yes, Kim, I do apologize for losing my cool; I only ever get like that when people come at me personally in very nasty ways, which for some reason has been happening a lot lately (from three separate sockpuppeteers), but I'll try to remain aware that the majority of the time cursing someone out accomplishes nothing other than to validate their trolling. (I.e. I stand by my description of a painfully demeaning personal attack by another Mangoeater sockpuppet as a "fucking low blow", since if he's been disrupting the project for half a year now, turning the other cheek isn't going to fix much, but I agree that I didn't really help anything by swearing at someone who'd just made fun of me a little [for unambiguously positive work, at that], and had mocked my signature.) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

• News and notes: Requests for adminship reform moves forward

• WikiProject report: Say What? — WikiProject Linguistics

• Featured content: Wazzup, G? Delegates and featured topics in review

• Arbitration report: Doncram case continues

• Technology report: Data centre switchover a tentative success

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for your support! Andrew Wiggin (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tamzin. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Hari7478_reported_by_User:Mayasutra_.28Result:_.29.
Message added Hari7478 (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Scott Menville

I'm a bit confused as to what all has happened on that article, but so far, there is no evidence that Scott Menville is an MLB pitcher. I've found nothing via Google, and the source used by the contributing IP seems to be made up (the URL was "www.MLB.com@www.imdb.com/....." (with further text where I put the ellipses). Inks.LWC (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oops! Struck my !vote, and will re-evaluate later on, since I'm on the fence re WP:CREATIVE. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Template

Thanks for following up on the template confusion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		For sorting out that template mess. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

A Czech pink lemonade for you!

	Česká růžové limonády pro Vás!
	Here's a nice cold drink for you for being so observant and polite today. Dianna (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

User:BigNate37/TM/Extant organization content notice

I think you got confused on my intent. I nominated it for TFD by mistake, withdrew and moved to MFD, which is the correct venue. Somehow my MFD got G7'd even though I didn't tag it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Huh. I could've swarn that I saw you'd placed the G7 yourself. Either way, sorry. I just removed the TFD template, and <noinclude>d the MFD one. Is that correct? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be at MFD. I just remade the MFD discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

test

I see that the pink is in your edit notice too —Soap— 02:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The pink's everywhere. :D Try clicking on the ampersand in my signature. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I could not help myself...

lol, look at your main page... see if you notice it...— Preceding unsigned comment added by A Wiggin13 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 29 January 2013

• Thanks Andrew. You've been doing a great job with RFPP lately, by the way. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

RFPP??? Sorry but I forget what that means! Andrew Wiggin (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:RFPP. JSYK, if you want to be able to check things like that easily, get Google Chrome (download) if you don't have it already - you can search Wikipedia just by typing " W + Tab ↹ " in the address bar. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh ok. Thanks! Have you seen my latest "Apple" Vandal revert spree? Andrew Wiggin (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

The moral of the story was, as always, DTTR.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Menville. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. The SPA template says that it applies if "there are multiple new accounts or IPs voicing the same opinion". Considering that three of those IPs are relatively close to each other, this is precisely the kind of case where it should be used. Inks.LWC (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC) I didn't notice that three of them were from the same city [5] [6] [7]. So fair enough on those three. But the other two are from Wichita and Austin; I think the reviewing admin can decide for themselves how much weight they should attach to those two IP votes. So here's what I propose, compromise-wise: We leave up the {{Spa}} tags on the three from Aruba, remove them from the Wichita and Austin addresses, and throw up a {{Not a ballot}}. Additionally, I have half a mind to give you a {{uw-tempabuse2}} for using warning templates against two users who had procedural/policy issues with your use of the {{Spa}} tag, which doesn't even fall remotely under the protection afforded to comments in a community discussion. Anyways, though, fine, AGF is not a suicide pact on the first 3, but on the second 2 I see no evidence to allow you to tag them like that, per the first line of the template: Please remember that a comment should not be dismissed merely because it comes from a new account; in itself, this is an argument to the person, considered to be rather weak. So does the compromise sound fair? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Amended 21:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Nowhere in anything about SPA does it say it can be removed. It was a comment added by me, and per the rules of AfD, it should not be removed. It should stay there for all IPs and users who have limited edits, because we cannot identify who may or may not be a sock. In no way is an SPA tag dismissive of the !votes, and the discussion on the use of the template indicates that. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC) The SPA tag is highly dismissive; admins already know to pay extra attention to IP !votes, and all adding it wantonly does is discourage IP editors from !voting. And a comment goes *'''<!vote>'''': Reason reason reason reason. Adding a tag after somebody else's signature is most definitely not a comment without which "it may be difficult to create consensus", to quote your template. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC) None of those editors fall under the "Who not to tag (SPA tagging guidelines)" guidelines of WP:SPA. It also says, "New editors should be aware that while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards." That being said, I don't really care if you want to go ahead and do your compromise. The closing admin will (almost positively) be smart enough to connect the dots on his own. That being said, I disagree with your reasoning and beliefs on the tag, but I don't have a strongly vested interest to keep the tags there. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Original report

Hi, Why am i not able to see this original report filed on the ANI page? If Hari7478 is around, available and is undoing changes to Vadakalai article, then wondering why is he not responding to my report on misquoting sources? So would like to know how much time will admin give Hari7478 to respond? Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

That discussion can be found here, in the archives. And I can't speak for the administrators, but generally we don't put time limits on users' responses if there's no serious ongoing abuse. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Goodness, so being civil is a disadvantage?? Just kidding :) Anyways, from my end am disappointed. So far Hari7478 has tried every tactic to evade a response on misquoting sources. Yet is able to misuse wiki machinery to protect his content (of silly ethnic / racial theories) with misquoted references. So what choices do i have....I made a fresh report at the ANI page though after seeing Boing's response. Any idea what can be done to bring admin attention to the issue without getting uncivil? --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Re: Wrong page, perhaps?

Thanks, not sure how that happened. Somebody else made the same request so I merged it into one request. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Not Necessarily...

Your suggestion that my edit for the userfanbox for Asa Butterfield is in violation of WP:CHILDPROTECT is a little more damning than you make it to seem. Remember that he is 15 so any wikiedian from 13 - 17 can like him and it would not be inappropriate. In addition, I don't see how leaving a small warning saying I am alway watching the page so not to vandalize it is in violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. I thought thats kinda the purpose of talk pages? To leave notices? Anyhow point is your almost completely incorrect on the first point and IDK on the second. Andrew Wiggin (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to pass any judgment, Andrew: Talk pages aren't supposed to be used to discuss their subjects in a context outside of the article. Stuff like userboxes to show appreciation for an actor is a text book WP:NOTFORUM contravention. A note against vandalism is... well, first of all, it's ineffective - almost no vandals check articles' talk pages before vandalizing them, and while leaving warnings against vandalism helps somewhat, it's not really an effective method. I mean, you can use talk pages for general sorts of notices, but notes pertaining only to yourself aren't really appropriate.

As for the CHILDPROTECT thing, my point was simply that for the vast majority of Wikipedians it would be highly inappropriate to use a userbox like that... and, as you say, the only people who can use it are teenagers, who may very well find themselves in trouble due to the other side of CHILDPROTECT, since the Oversighters aren't particularly fond of us minors sexualizing ourselves. I definitely did not mean to imply that it's a CHILDPROTECT violation for you to say that you have a crush on him (though, as I said, grown-ups might not exactly want to hear that), but rather that it would be for almost anyone else to. (You're one of only two teenage Wikipedians I'm friends with, and the other one isn't open about his age onwiki.) Anyways, I was just trying to apply policy even-handedly. I hope you're not mad at me. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well my warning is kind of irrelevant because of my getting the page protected so I am not upset about that... I am just bitchy this morning so I am sorry for my failure with that! As for the fan box, I can see your point, however I feel the need to point out that ratio of teenagers/Adults on wikipedia remains a unknown so I am still going to call that one a ok box... Sorry for my stubbornness with that. But I am not mad at you at all... I am just crabby. (Mood swing?) Andrew Wiggin (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

• In the media: Hoaxes draw media attention

• Recent research: Lessons from the research literature on open collaboration; clicks on featured articles; credibility heuristics

• WikiProject report: Checkmate! — WikiProject Chess

• Discussion report: Administrator conduct and requests

• News and notes: Khan Academy's Smarthistory and Wikipedia collaborate

• Featured content: Listing off progress from 2012

• Arbitration report: Doncram continues

• Technology report: Developers get ready for FOSDEM amid caching problems

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:GOCE January backlog drive award

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions to the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors January 2013 backlog elimination drive! For copy editing over 8,000 words, please accept this award along with our appreciation, and be sure to come back in March! —Torchiest talkedits 21:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

• Special report: Examining the popularity of Wikipedia articles

• News and notes: Article Feedback Tool faces community resistance

• WikiProject report: Land of the Midnight Sun

• Featured content: Portal people on potent potables and portable potholes

• In the media: Star Trek Into Pedantry

• Technology report: Wikidata team targets English Wikipedia deployment

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

CCI

Hi PinkAmpersand! I noticed that you helped out with the Dr.AB copyvio problems by checking into a couple and cleaning them up, so I thought I'd let you know that it is complete and I've archived it. Thanks for your help! - Bilby (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tamzin. You have new messages at Template talk:Pp-meta.
Message added 16:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

⁓ Hello71 16:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:OUTING

Re this — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

My sincerest apologizes with regards WP:OUTING on the AfD discussion for Eldridge Hawkins, Jr.. I appreciate your assistance in letting me know the policies for WP:Outing. TheGoofyGolfer (talk)

No worries. It's an honest mistake to make. These situations are always tricky, since the outing is legitimately relevant (as opposed to something like "hey guys... hate so-and-so? Well here's his phone number"), but they can come back to effect people's careers... in some cases they can even get people in legal trouble, though that happens less with Americans. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

To support, no worries. Keegan (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well done indeed

Hi PinkAmpersand. I know you've asked me not edit your talk page, something which I would otherwise fully respect, but I would just like to express my admiration for your lightning-quick response to a situation I'm sure you are aware of. Please feel free to delete this, and lets get on with otherwise ignoring each other. Sincerely, Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Pete! I myself am banished from a talk page over the same matter I banished you for, and, as I see him doing things I admire or agree with, it annoys me that he and I are on bad terms. (Though I believe he once implied that he'd rethink things if I uploaded a picture of my father... which is on a rather long to-do list of mine, the rest of which can be seen in all the unanswered sections of this page.) So, yeah, I understand where you're coming from, and I've never been one to turn away praise. (And, to be fair, unlike some other users, you've never once implied that your qualms about my truthfulness involve any conduct issues on my part.) So umm... thanks! — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 09:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI 2.0 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:ANI 2.0. Since you had some involvement with the WP:ANI 2.0 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

— PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

• Op-ed: An article is a construct – hoaxes and Wikipedia

• Featured content: A lousy week

• WikiProject report: Just the Facts

• In the media: Wikipedia mirroring life in island ownership dispute

• News and notes: UK chapter governance review marks the end of a controversial year

• Discussion report: WebCite proposal

• Technology report: Wikidata client rollout stutters

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

rouge amin

Now I guess I've really proven I'm a WP:Rouge admin Dlohcierekim 22:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, felt bad about that one. Imagine we're gonna be doing a fair amount of those these next few days. I forget which admin it is who has a little essay with a line like "No, I can't leave it up. Not even for a little bit. Why don't you go do something special in the real world instead? It'll be much more memorable."

Anyways, I don't believe we've met. I see you're coming off of a WikiBreak... welcome back! It seems to me that the returning admins are always some of the most helpful. (By the way, you're userpage still refers to you in parts as a former admin. Or are you just being extra-rouge?) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Rut-roh Dlohcierekim 22:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

3abos

Re this — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)}

No, I wasn't. But it's not so much the user's intent that matters as it is how it will be perceived. I suppose you might find a way to claim that, say, "user:3nigggaz" refers to something other than what it so obviously looks like, but that doesn't matter, does it? I remember once that, at a name RFC, we persuaded a young man who had chosen the username "Jewboy" to change it even though he had meant to show some pride in his Jewish identity. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Still, I think knocking it down to a {{uw-ublock}} might be a good idea. He's rather volatile (i.e. quick to jump to accusations of persecution and censorship), and the consensus so far is that we should try to work with him and help him out, so it'd be a shame for this to end with him going of the deep end over a misunderstanding. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I'll do that. Daniel Case (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

But we should probably suggest he change it if he's unblocked. Daniel Case (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I believe that with a username block, you can just request via {{unblock-un}}, right? Anyways, I'd leave a note explaining things to him, but I'm currently banished for my blatant heterophobia. You might want to drop a line to someone else who's commented there, though, and see if they'll hold his hand through the unblock/CHU process. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Here's an adorable kitten!

— - dain- talk    19:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!! :D ... What for? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)}

YGM

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

Wikidata weekly summary #45

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

• Development
  • Deployment to English Wikipedia
  • Fix various minor bugs in client, including watchlist toggle with preference to default to always show Wikidata edits
  • Added the new Baso Minangkabau Wikipedia (min)
  • Fixed wrong revision of statements being shown in diff and old revision view
  • Diff visualization for claims (simple version for main snak)
  • Diff visualization for claims (extended version for references, qualifiers, ranks)
  • Tooltip that notifies about the license your contributions will be covered by while editing (can be disabled by each user)
  • Started with valueview refactoring
  • Started with user interface handling of deleted properties
  • Started with refactoring of local partial entity lookup
  • Started with refactoring of toolbar usage in jQuery.wikibase view widgets
  • Finished improvement on jQuery.wikibase.claimview’s edit mode handling
  • Improved search by using entity selector in search field instead of normal MediaWiki search field
  • More work on Lua-based templates for entities
  • Specified the capabilities of the query language we need
  • Created query object
  • Proper bot-flagging of edits (bugzilla:44857)
  • Use of ID to directly address an item or property
  • Search should give more of the complete matches now
  • Special:ItemByTitle should work for canonical namespaces and later on for local namespaces
  • More robust format for notifications of changes on the repository to the client
  • Started work on refactoring API and autocomments code
  • Started to maintain documentation of configuration options in git
• Discussions/Press
  • List of currently existing properties
  • Proposals for new properties
• Events
  • Upcoming: Wikipedia Day NYC
  • Upcoming: office hour in English tomorrow
  • Note: changed day of next German office hour to March 8
• Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • We have a time scheduled when Wikidata will be read-only for a database migration. The window for that is Feb 20 19:00 to Feb 21 2:00 UTC.
  • New features and bugfixes on Wikidata are planned to be deployed on Monday (Feb 18). This should among other things include:
    • Showing useful diffs for edits of claims (they’re currently empty)
    • Automatic comments for editing of claims (there are currently none)
    • Ability to add items to claims by their ID
    • Better handling of deleted properties
    • More results in the entity selector (that’s the thing that lets you select properties, items and so on) so you can add everything and not just the first few matches that are shown
  • We’re still working on the issue that sometimes editing of certain parts of items or properties isn’t possible. If you’re running into it try to reload the page and/or change the URL to the www. version or the non-www. version respectively.
  • Deployment on all other Wikipedias is currently planned for March 6 (a note to the Village Pumps of all affected projects will follow soon)
  • Check out a well-done item
• Open Tasks for You
• Help expand en:Wikipedia:Wikidata
• Help expand and translate Wikidata/Deployment Questions
• Hack on one these

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 21:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

GOCE February 2013 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors February 2013 events newsletter We are preparing to start our February requests blitz and March backlog elimination drive. The February 2013 newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the February blitz and March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

BJM138 reply

I just wanted to thank you for welcoming me to the site. I look forward to doing what I can to improve the website. You appear to show experience as a Wikipedian and I will gladly ask you for advice. BJM138 (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Aww thanks! Hope I can be of assistance. Just so you know, since no one ever seems to tell you this when you're new here, generally it's preferred that you keep a discussion in one place, though some users do things differently. (You can use {{Talkback}} to notify an editor that you've responded to them.) Your call, though. Anyways, welcome once again, and obviously feel free to drop by with any future questions. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this is the stuff I need to know.

BJM138 (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

sup

Seeing as you have become a total wikiholic since our last encounter, I thought who else would be better to ask this question? I've always thought about asking someone this but never got around to it. It's completely irrelevant to anything and everything, but hey you've gotta learn at some point, right? Why do you - and a lot of other people - include the number of times your user page has been vandalized on your user page?

Also, do instances when people have changed your user page in a constructive manner without asking you first count as vandalism? My first instinct is no, and I would not consider these edits vandalism, but I don't see how some people have numbers like "144" without counting these instances.

Thanks, Charles35 (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Another thing I've been sort of hesitant to ask people - do you get paid to edit wikipedia? Or do you just have a lot of free time on your hands? There are some people on here that seem to be editing 24 hours a day.... Am I missing something? Do you have bots edit for you or anything like that? Charles35 (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Charles! :D How've you been? So:

1. Well, people include the vandalism tallies for various reasons—it can sort of be a badge of honor, since as a general rule, the frequency of vandalistic edits to one's userspace is proportional to their work in anti-vandalism arenas and/or sensitive content areas. In my case, since you may have noticed I have it plastered all over my userspace, I use it as something of a deterrent, too, and it's been surprisingly effective. (See User:PinkAmpersand#Planning on vandalizing this page?; the other userbox reminds people how many users are watching this page, and combined they've actually managed to significantly decrease the frequency of vandalism to my userspace.) It's one's own choice what to count as vandalism, and how to count it (e.g. do you count multiple consecutive vandalistic edits as one instance or several?). However, I think it's fairly universal that one doesn't count good-faith edits as vandalism; in fact, it could be construed as a personal attack, per WP:NOTVAND, if you were to be seen updating your vandalism count right after a good-faith change to your userpage. So, the answer to your question about some users' insanely high vandalism stats is... they really have just crossed that many trolls in their time. Often admins who work in counter-vandalism can get well above 100, but if you think about how many people some of them block a day, that's not so unbelievable.
2. A lot of Wikipedians have a lot of free time on their hands. Koavf (user · talk · contribs), the Wikipedian with the most edits (1,246,920 according to Popups), as quoted in his article, cites unemployment as what initially allowed him to do so much Wikipedia work. In my case, I'm on a leave of absence from high school. Of course, there are many many Wikipedians who have all sorts of real-world major commitments and still manage to be highly active. Very few of them are paid to edit (it's pretty much forbidden); most of them just really like editing. Additionally, there are, I believe, a disproportionate number of users with mental health, emotional, or developmental issues, and I count myself among them as someone recovering from depression. We have an awful essay called WP:NOTTHERAPY that some people use to pretend that that isn't the case, or that, if it is, it doesn't have anything to do with why some people get so passionate about Wikipedia. Obviously not everyone who really likes editing feels that way because they find it therapeutic, but I'd venture it's a lot more people than you'd think. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, this is very informative. It does make a lot of sense when you think about it, that the reason some people's vandalism tallies are so high is because they fight vandalism. I hadn't considered that. That's an interesting essay and an interesting idea about wikipedians having issues. However to a certain extent, I think you'll find that anywhere on the internet, but more so with wikipedia. I hope everything works out for you well with high school. Things like that can be really tough and seem like your entire world at the time. You said you're 16 - so are you a sophomore right now? I can see that you're a very bright and motivated person, so I'm sure you're planning on going to college. I think you'll be very relieved when you get there and you'll do really well. A fresh start is really nice. But don't forget that college, especially freshman year, is pretty much the last time you'll ever get a fresh start. That is really important to remember. Please feel free to drop a note whenever. Best of luck, Charles35 (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

A cure for depression for you!

Hope it works (fingers crossed) and that it made your day a bit better! Have a good 'un!

ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

• WikiProject report: Thank you for flying WikiProject Airlines

• Technology report: Better templates and 3D buildings

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation declares 'victory' in Wikivoyage lawsuit

• In the media: Sue Gardner interviewed by the Australian press

• Featured content: Featured content gets schooled

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Editing interlanguage links

[8]: Why do you still see a need to do it manually? — Sebastian 17:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, short of an outright policy against it, I didn't like the idea of saying you shouldn't remove them; rather, you simply don't need to. If you can find a better way to phrase that, though, I have no objections. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought I was saying just that. This seems to be an instance of us two expecting different levels of directness in language. This reminds me of the problems Western people experience in Japanese culture, where a "No" is usually expressed by a modified "Yes". — Sebastian 18:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Heh. Well, yeah, I agree that there are different ways to read it. I was thinking of "there's no need" in the context of "now, there's no need to be like that!", but one could also read it as "you don't need to do that". Actually... why not say just that – so you don't need to do this manually anymore. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 18:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, that would work for me, too. — Sebastian 18:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #46

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

• Development
  • Deployed new features and bugfixes including diffs for statements and the ability to enter items and properties by their ID
  • Updated demo system
  • Database maintainance (Wikidata was in read-only mode for a bit)
  • Implemented first version of a string data type
  • Worked on better error reporting from the API
  • Ported Lua function mw.wikibase.getEntity to Wikibase extension
  • Worked on making the search box suggest items and properties while typing
  • Improved the behaviour of the entity selector (thingy that lets you select items and entities)
  • Improved debugging experience in JavaScript when dealing with prototypical inheritance
  • Worked on cleanup of local entity store
  • Generalized generation of localizable edit summaries
• Discussions/Press
  • Wikidata development will continue in 2013
  • Wikidata Phase 2 in Full Swing
  • RFC about the Wikidata API
  • Lots of discussions about certain properties and how they should be used. Current state is at d:Wikidata:List of properties and new ones are being discussed at [d:Wikidata:Property proposal]]
  • RCF about amending the global bot policy for Wikidata
  • Proposed changes to Wikidata’s notability guidelines
• Events
  • office hour including a report on the current status of Wikidata (log)
  • upcoming: Wikipedia Day NYC
• Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Deployment of phase 1 (language links) on all remaining Wikipedias and a small update on Wikidata are planned for March 6
  • Great page for editors to learn about what phase 1 means for them
  • Cool tool visualizing family relations based on data in Wikidata
  • “Restricting the World” (first in a series about some design decisions behind Wikidata)
  • List of most used properties
  • OmegaWiki is using Wikidata to get links to Wikipedia articles
  • Nyan Nyan Wikidata Nyan Nyan
  • We’ve hit d:Q5000000
  • Had a look at d:Wikidata:Tools lately?
• Open Tasks for You
  • Hack on one of these
  • Help translate Wikidata/Deployment Questions
  • Help bring the content of en:Wikipedia:Wikidata to your Wikipedia

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 17:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

X Factor

Hello

Yes, I can't unaccept the other revision for some reason. Anyway there's nothing to suggest that Tulisa is leaving the X Factor, that's why the revision was rejected. I did leave a note stating that so not sure why you can't see it. According to this source it's not confirmed that she's leaving the X Factor.--5 albert square (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I was just commenting on the technical side; I trust your judgment. When I started writing that note you hadn't reverted the changes yet, so that explains the mix-up. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

A adorable kitten for you!

Just because! :D

Ender Wiggin (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

GOCE news: February 2013

Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2013 wrap-up Participation: Out of 19 people who signed up for this blitz, 9 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the six-day blitz, we removed over twenty articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, BDD and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

• In the media: Ex-WMF trustee creates "Wikipedia Corporate Index" for PR agency

• Recent research: Wikipedia not so novel after all, except to UK university lecturers

• News and notes: "Very lucky" Picture of the Year

• Discussion report: Wikivoyage links; overcategorization

• Featured content: Blue birds be bouncin'

• WikiProject report: How to measure a WikiProject's workload

• Technology report: Wikidata development to be continued indefinitely

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #47

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

• Development
  • Extended diff view to include references now
  • Fixed bug where incorrect statements revision was shown in diff view
  • Added first version of Linked Data interface (RDF/XML); will be accessible from Special:EntityData
  • Updated the demo system
  • More work towards using Solr for our search
  • More investigation and fixes of search issues
  • Fixed several bugs in the entity selector and improved its behavior
  • Worked on refactoring of how our widgets use the toolbar
  • Worked on implementation of missing data model components in JavaScript
  • A lot of bug fixing
• Events
  • Wikipedia Day NYC
  • upcoming: Wikimedia metrics and activities meeting
  • upcoming: office hour (German)
• Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Rollout of phase 1 (language links) on all remaining Wikipedias is still planned for March 6
  • Next update on wikidata.org is also planned for March 6. This will have bugfixes and if all goes well string as a new available data type.
  • Proposal was made to the Hungarian, Hebrew and Italian Wikipedias to be the first batch to use phase 2 of Wikidata (infoboxes). Scheduled timeframe for this is end of March
  • d:Wikidata:Database reports has some useful reports like the list of most used properties
  • The interwiki shortcut :d was changed to always use www in the resulting link (to prevent editing issues on other URLs).
  • The list of available properties is growing and a whole bunch of new ones are being discussed
  • Reasonator gives you a nice adapted view of an item about a person
  • Items by cat helps you find missing items in a certain Wikipedia category
  • A few more additions to d:Wikidata:Tools that you should have a look at if you’re editing statements
  • We now have more than 2600 active users on Wikidata. Thanks for being awesome. <3
• Open Tasks for You
  • Help bring the content of en:Wikipedia:Wikidata to the remaining Wikipedias that will get phase 1 on March 6
  • Hack on one of these

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 00:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)