User talk:Barneca/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Return of a pesky editor

Hi, sorry to bother you, I know you're busy, but an IP editor you blocked for a month (User:72.14.117.122) because he or she was posting American Film Institute information to film articles that was badly formatted, and refused to talk about the problems on their talk page, has completed the block and is doing exactly the same thing again. I've posted a note on their talk page, pointing out what the problems are, but there's been no response as of yet. if you get a moment, do you think you could take a look, I'd appreciate it. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 22:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Reblocked for 6 months. Just as last time, I'll unblock as soon as they start to discuss. I'm wondering if there isn't some kind of personal issue with this person, where they would rather not edit than talk with others. If so, that's a shame, but then Wikipedia isn't really the right forum for them. --barneca (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to have caught at just the right time. Thanks. (And I agree with your comment to the IP editor in the block message -- I don't expect him or her to jump when I say to, just to talk about the problems I see.) Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 00:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So, I was trying to do all this crap "on your behalf", but apparently you aren't as "offline" as you pretend. Good to see you around myspacer. Keeper ǀ 76 22:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm around-ish; still liable to disappear suddenly for days at a time. Been back on and off since Labor Day weekend. What crap have you been dealing with on my behalf? I'll try to help out where possible. Thanks, whatever it is. I tried to look at AN and ANI and RFAR to catch up, but it appears everyone has gone completely insane in my absence, with established editors desysoped, blocked, and retiring left and right. --barneca (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

with established editors desysoped, blocked, and retiring left and right -- this is news to you? This is new? It's everyday. Fuckme this place needs a good long winter to f***ing cool off. We are so full of ourselves. I didn't do anything (yet) on your behalf, this was to be my first interception. You are blazing fast. Your usertalk is watchlisted (as evidenced by my post in the next thread), and will continue to be, if only for the entertainment factor. Be well -- Keeper ǀ 76 22:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I mean, more insane than usual. And I'm not blazing fast, Ed just caught a break and I'm on right now. Please feel free to help me out if it looks like I'm not around; it could be a long while until I return. --barneca (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Don't leave. You are sane. And funny. And probably, based on my first two impressions, incredibly good looking. Ah, yes, I can picture you now....be right back....ah, refreshed. Yes. Very good looking. (disturbed yet??? This post, right here, will sink any future chance of an RFB for keeper, heh.). Do what you need to do to make a paycheck and support your family , and then come back and block the fools/POVs/cranks/bastards/SPAs. I heart Barneca. And yes, Wikipedia is more insane than usual, in a sense, except that insanity is now the "usual", so perhaps, when things are quiet, we can accurately say that "things are more sane than usual". Do you want me to list tha-shit, or will you be able to find it yourself? Keeper ǀ 76 22:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Found it myself. Already made a comment at RFAR (which is semi-rare for me). p.s. you've got an orange bar yourself. --barneca (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC) The message on your talk page is just to keep you distracted while I look up the "creepy stalker guy" hotline of my local police dept. --barneca (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL and goodnight! And thanks for the "relief" you provided a few posts ago. See you this weekend. And I'm off! Keeper ǀ 76 23:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments to User_Talk:Simon Bar Sinister

First off, Don't you ever make threats against me ever again! I did nothing to you to warrant you posting a threatening remarks in my talk page, second if they are violating the 3RR or vandalizing a Wikipedia page I am going to report them! Third and finally they are wrong but the Wikipedia Admins are either too stupid or just too ignorant to realize this. Simon Bar Sinister (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

When 3 other editors, and 5 other admins (probably more; I'm just counting the ones at WP:AIV, I think there are others at WP:AN3), all disagree with you, please consider the slight possibility that you just might possibly be a teeny tiny bit wrong about it yourself. --barneca (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

god. have fun, barn. Keeper ǀ 76 22:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. It was getting tiresome fixing his handiwork. We get into this throughout the Walt Disney World Resort family of articles, and we feel we have reached a good idea to have these articles flow into each other. However, as you've seen, we still get people who, while probably at their core editing in good faith, don't seem to be able to work with the group. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yeah, based on his previous contributions, I'm sure he's editing in good faith. I'm hoping he gains a little perspective. I make no judgement on whether he's right or not about the actual content dispute, but he was clearly going overboard. When he returns, do me a favor and continue discussing with him on the talk page as long as he's remaining civil, but if he starts edit warring again, a report to WP:AN3 will probably do the trick. --barneca (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll do my best. To make a (way too) long story short, the consensus among the WDW editors is that the main article will discuss the various municipalities associated with this massive development. Then, the theme park articles, resort hotels, etc., all reference back to the parent WDWR article (i.e. "Theme Park X is an amusement park located in the Walt Disney World Resort.") To paraphrase an old movie line, "I'll be nice until it's time to not be nice." Thanks again, especially with helping to illustrate all the tools we editors have if we hit a trouble spot. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the IP block

here. S/he clearly isn't going to get it. TravellingCari 03:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. It was my last official act before taking my leave for the evening. G'night. --barneca (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sleep well! I figured I'd let someone else handle this step of the blocking. I have no doubt we'll be up to 6 months shortly TravellingCari 04:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

IRC

I would like to point out that the discussion on IRC was nearly unanimously discouraging MZM from taking that action. Phrases like "Don't do it!" and "That would be wheel warring, and there is a special arbcom restriction" where said. This was not a decision made on IRC, it was made by MZM against the urges of his peers on IRC. So please don't let this incident color your view of IRC, remember you get only second and third hand accounts about what happens there and they are often bias. Chillum 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, as you know, I wasn't there, so I have no idea what was actually said. I certainly hope the discussion went as you say. But I at least stand by my newfound theory that no one should ever refer, on-wiki, to "consensus on IRC" as a justification for any action, and I think anything beyond just informally bouncing ideas of one another (i.e. planning with other admins on a course of action on-wiki) shouldn't happen. If you want to chat with people and think out loud with others, I can't and shouldn't stop you, any more than I can stop people emailing each other. But it is a big weakness that I can't see logs of these discussions. Deciding on my overall opinion of IRC should wait until my dander isn't quite so high up. But it does seem that a pretty high proportion of bad decisions get made after a discussion there. --barneca (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not see anyone claiming there was a consensus on IRC, did I miss that? As far as I know IRC was only tangentially involved in that the people there gave the same opinion as on wiki. The only people encouraging the action held the same opinion on wiki as well, same with those(the majority) who discouraged the act. Chillum 20:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The original description of the discussion by MBisanz was that there was a "my consensus is bigger than your consensus" type arguement. As I've admitted, I don't know what was actually said; it sounds like you're saying that's not what happened, I have no reason to doubt you. Still, if that didn't actually happen after all in this particular case, I've seen it used in other situations before. And it highlights (at least to me) the problem of not being able to know for sure who actually said what on IRC. --barneca (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well there is always e-mail, or skype or any other means of talking. The fact is people can talk in private and you will not know for sure what they said, they just have to go on what they do and say on-wiki. Chillum 21:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war

The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.

• Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
• Your contributions are also welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hayleyjubilee

Thanks for taking the time to properly welcome Hayleyjubilee (talk · contribs). I left a message for Nsaa (talk · contribs) asking them to AGF and to be more cautious about labelling new users as vandals. I was about to leave a message for Hayleyjubilee explaining WP:COI and WP:N, but it looks like you beat me to it. Cheers, caknuck _° is geared up for football season 19:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

To be totally honest, there have been times when I would probably have gone Nsaa's route; but lately I'm feeling more sympathy than usual for new editors who are trying to figure out how this place works, and who suddenly get absolutely bombarded by warnings and templates and CSD notices and threats. We don't really give new people time to think. Haley's latest edit was to remove the redlinks to her deleted articles from the article that survived, which I took as a sign she was trying her best. We'll see. Thanks for the thanks. --barneca (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As I told Nsaa, I've jumped the gun with templating the new editors in the past, too. (It's especially easy with Twinkle, with the automated warnings & reports to AIV.) I also saw her remove the redlinks after I deleted those two articles -- which were pretty clear cut G11 and A7 CSDs -- so it looks like she's picking up on things pretty quickly. (This place does have a pretty intimidating learning curve.) Let me know if I can help out with anything else. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 22:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hoping I'll catch you when you're still around...

There's another editor with similar problems to the ones I've talked to you about before. This person, User:Granpuff, has never used edit summaries as far as I can see, on 2000 edits, marks every edit as "minor" (except one, quite recently), and the only response I and other editors have gotten so far is a one line remark about being new. If you get a chance, could you take a look at their talk page and see if you can help get this person to start communicating - or do you think I'd be better off taking it to WP:AN? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 15:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed. You've got two choices: go to WP:AN/ANI, or wait until late in the day for me to take a look. I'm around, and have a Wikipedia tab open, and I may edit here and there today when I have little 2 minute windows available to me, but won't have time to look into anything more complicated than a 2 minute vandal blocking until about 20:00 UTC. --barneca (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no great hurry. If you get to it, and can deal with it in your window of opportunity, that's fine. If not, I'll procede. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 15:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If I see you haven't done anything at ANI yet when I break free, I'll take a look. --barneca (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ed, I left my by-now-standard screed (I should make it a template) at their talk page. Please let me or any other admin know if it doesn't work. --barneca (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - yes a template would certainly save time. Sorry to be such a pest, I don't know why I keep coming across uncommunicative editors. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 22:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why I'm moving this to the bottom of the page, instead of blanking it, is beyond me

HEY YO MAN I SORRY FO DA PULLED PORK SHIZZ IN THE CIVIL ENGINEERING ARTICLE. I firmly regret that you had to waste precious moments of your life to remedy my childish mistakes. I WAS TRYIN TO WIN THE WIKIPEDIA RACE GAME (LOOK IT UP I THINK THERES A ARTICLE ON IT MAYBE) AND I TYPED PULLED PORK AS A LINK SO I COULD GET TO IT FASTER. Rather clever if I do say so myself. Anyhoo sorry for the trouble, my deepest condolences for any grief you may be harboring over that fiasco.

Hugs and Kisses Schmapyrap (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

PS SARAH PALIN IS HOT

Goodcaanod

Apologies for putting a speedy on the above, I genuinely thought that it was nonsense but can see now that it is quite legitimate. Regards Paste (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem; I was a few seconds away from deleting it as nonsense myself, when I finally realized what they were trying to say. --barneca (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Rouge, moi?

Gahhhh. Please don't call me that. If you followed the hideous UCFD wars over that category, you'd know how much I hate that description. (wry grin) Horologium (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense intended; I haven't followed any UCFD wars. In any case, it was used sarcastically, which always works perfectly well on the internet. At least I didn't link it... --barneca (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, upon further review of my comment there, I was evidently referring to User:Horolgium, not to you... --barneca (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the change, and the correction on my name. It's amazing how often it's misspelled, but I suppose it's my fault for choosing a Latin name. (grin) FWIW, I recognized the humor, which was why I included the wry grin in the original. It's just a sore subject for me, and my reaction to further discussion on that cat was the impetus for a question at my RFA. Horologium (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Your friend

I don't think you actually read the facts. He has been harassing ME! Honestly, what did I do to deserve these warnings and even the threat of being blocked ? Please, tell me. EDIT: Sorry, you can remove this section. I was not aware you were watching my user page and I see no other way to contact people on this site. I would remove it, but is that vandalism? Jeffason (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind leaving it here, but yes, let's continue this on your talk page. --barneca (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, your post on his talk page makes it seem like I am harassing him. That is definitely unjust and defamatory. Also, you never answered my question if it is vandalism to remove this post from your talk page. This whole thing is quite ridiculous. If you really want to know the timeline of events you maybe can find my email in my account, and contact me there.Jeffason (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, let's continue this on your talk page; I just posted a big long screed there. --barneca (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for help

Thank you for help in the issue between me and Jeffason. I appreciate the comments about how I can better deal with this in the future. Best regards, --Ekologkonsult (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Who needs a [Show preview] button...

Sorry, I just had to do it! – ukexpat (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

unblock/reblock of User:71.7.163.42

I hope you don't mind that I unblocked this user, then re-blocked him for a period of a month. This is a returning vandal I've been dealing with for months who returns immediately after a block expires to vandalize the same articles. He seems to have a grudge against Shooter Jennings,Waylon Jennings, and Jessi Colter, just to name a few. No one else from the blocked IPs ever requests a good-faith unblock, so I've started hitting them with a month at a time. Let me know if that caused any problems for you. Joyous! | Talk 23:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. --barneca (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank You For Your Comments

I would just like to personally thank you for your comments to Seicer after his abuse, as well as all the helpful information you provided concerning my page 'Firestarter Mini Monster (Truck)', my first attempt at an article as you correctly assumed. You have been one of the only helpful administrators I have encountered, and were indeed the only administrator who forwarded my deleted page after several requests to several different individuals. I was indeed ready to dismiss Wikipedia due to what happened when creating my first page, but due to your kindness, I will be posting the page again after the truck debuts. Thank you once again, you are truly an asset to Wikipedia! Kildare2 (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and you're welcome. --barneca (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For the block on this mope. I'm reminded of "Alien Nation" & what Sykes sounded like... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 12:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, although I'm a tad confused by your movie reference... --barneca (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Stalker

Nothing else to say, really. Stalker. Keeper ǀ 76 23:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No cake for you! --barneca (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I heart cake!!! And soup!!!! And Nazis!!! ( shit, that last one is gonna come back and bit me in the ass...dammit........Keeper ǀ 76 23:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

XD

Ok, I just got to say, this tops my list of best AN/ANI posts ever! :P Tiptoety ^talk 03:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was inspired by the refreshing change. --barneca (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Funny!

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For this hysterically and sarcastically accurate discription of the way ANI is, I hearby award you this barnstar. Sometimes, even in ANI, it's good to laugh :) Keep up the good work! - NeutralHomer • Talk 03:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Fourth time's the charm! Thanks, Neutralhomer, I love getting these things. Not everyone appreciates my sense of humor, glad to see you're one of the enlightened ones. --barneca (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, you deserve it. :D Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, OK, you're enlightened too. --barneca (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Were you serious in your pledge to block the familiar handful of editors who were reinserting polling data at Barack Obama? If so, get busy. :) In fact, I'd have done it myself, but I was irritated enough with the blatant disregard for consensus and policy that I went ahead and removed the offending paragraph. I do feel that administrative action is appropriate, and these accounts are not exactly first-time offenders, but since I've officially intervened in the content arena I'll pass this on to you to review. MastCell ^Talk 20:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Properly warned about the special sanctions back in August, and did it anyway, so yes this one was an easy decision. I have a feeling, however, that I am quickly going to regret putting that page on my watchlist... --barneca (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, I really appreciate your comment on my talk page. Also, the post mentioned in the barnstar a few sections up made me laugh. Thingg^⊕⊗ 22:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And let me add my thanks for your support. Not to turn this into a love-fest, but it's nice to see someone else is paying attention and providing a bit of a sanity check.  Frank  |  talk  22:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thingg, glad to see your note on your user page was short-lived; this place is imperfect, and I hope this hasn't got you too upset. Chin up, head high. --barneca (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Curious bystander

Please note that the editor you recently blocked, Curious bystander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), has returned to the article following his block to apply an NPOV tag[1], incite user on the talk page,[2] and file an inflamatory featured article review here. That's about the most disruptive thing he could have done. He is clearly an WP:SPA devoted to disparaging Obama. A number of us think he is likely a sock - if you look at the early edit history he jumped into edit warring on Obama in a way that suggests knowledge of process here, immediately after registering an account, and shares editing patterns in common with a couple other accounts that were banned or determined to be likely sockpuppets. There are some specific edits that are suspicious as well. Wikidemon (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And now he is making personal attacks as well. Grsz^talk 00:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to think about this for a little while; it isn't cut and dried. I am aware of the situation. If another admin acts one way or the other first, fine. If not, I'll act one way or the other after I've had a think. Could be tomorrow; Wikipedia time is limited this evening. However, civility is going to start, from everyone, NOW. --barneca (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've spent quite some time reviewing CB's edit history. At this point, I have very grave doubts about whether that FAR was filed in good faith or not. However, because it is not clear to me whether an FAR is actually appropriate at this time (it very well might be, even if filed in bad faith), I'm declining to call this another obvious instance of disruption and topic ban CB. I'm not terribly happy with this decision, because I think the pattern of his behavior strongly suggests an attempt to game the system, but the actual act of filing the FAR is simply not clear-cut enough. It would end up as a long, long thread at ANI, and I can nearly guarantee there would end up not being a consensus either way, and I have neither the time, the desire, or the inclination to get involved in that. Also, I may not be online much of tomorrow, so it seems unwise to ban and run; I'd want to stick around and defend my actions. Better to wait and see if any other problems occur, at which time I would reconsider. If another admin reads this differently and imposes a topic ban, I won't lose any sleep, but I'm not going to do it myself.

Wikidemon, as to your suspicions of sockpuppetry, have you filed a WP:SSP report? If not, I do not have time to look into such allegations quickly, but if you email me more specific information regarding the "shared editing patterns in common with other banned accounts", I'd be willing to look at it at a slower pace. --barneca (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It will take considerable work to put together. A while ago I started collecting some evidence offwiki so as not to give anything away. There were numerous sockpuppet reports regarding a cluster of meatpuppeting editors back in June or July, and several editors blocked (although one in particular was not). CB began around that period and is clearly not sincere about who he is and why he is editing. I don't recall that CB has ever been named in a sock report, although a number have noticed that the initial edits were quite suspicious. If the problem persists I may take the time to put together something. Wikidemon (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand. In my short 2 hour review, I found no smoking gun; of course, I didn't know what to look out for. If obvious problems continue (blatant name calling, edit warring), I can do something, but I'm no better equiped to deal with subtle attacks and what has been called "civil POV-pushing" than anyone else (probably worse equiped, as I haven't waded into this type of thing before). I'm also not sure how often I'll be online. --barneca (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations - you have made my list of favorite Wikipedia diffs.[3] I think we can all agree that this is the crowning laurel in your fine Wikipedia career.--Kubigula (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Crowning laurel"? So, it's all downhill from here? --barneca (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid so, but you've had a good run.--Kubigula (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

:) --barneca (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Civility

Hi there. I recently quoted you at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Discussion of civility at recent Request for Arbitration. Would you have time to check that I haven't misrepresented what you said? There are several other threads on that talk page that you might be interested in as well, and a proposal to rewrite the policy. For the whole recent story, read downwards from Wikipedia talk:Civility#A Big Question: Does this page make sense?. This will need to be advertised more widely to get more balanced input, but for now I'm notifying those I quoted from the RfArb, and a few other editors who have either written essays on this, or have been active on the talk page recently. Apologies if you had this watchlisted anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied on Carch's talk. --barneca (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Various edit warring/POV warriors on Bill Ayers/Barack Obama/Weatherman Underground related pages

Hey, while you are taking a look at Curious Bystander could you also also take a look at some of the other editors who have been edit warring for a significant time and see what can be done? If you cannot, could you maybe recommend another admin to step in and take a look at the various behaviors? I ask this because as time moves on these editors will continue to ratchet up their warring to push their POV's. If you want/need to know more please contact me and I'll be glad to give you more information. Thanks for whatever you can do to help. Brothejr (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid all I'll be able to do is keep an eye on the article occasionally, only as often as I get online. I'm not the Cavalry, I'm just another set of eyes. I'm not going to actually look into CB's edit history my self more than I already have; I've just said if edit warring continues from any quarter, I'll act to stop it. But I don't plan on spending any time looking at past edit warring. --barneca (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That's all I could ever ask of you. Thanks again for keeping an eye on the situation. Brothejr (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem

Hi, Barneca. No, I don't have any problem with either your block or redrumracer or your criticism of my block of Thingg. Indeed, upon reflection I've decided that the Thingg block was a mistake on my part, and I've apologized to him. The only reason I hadn't edited after that block was that I had some real-life stuff come up — my silence had nothing to do with your block! Don't worry — all's well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, all's well that ends well. --barneca (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I second that.  Frank  |  talk  00:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sawston

Hello Barneca,

I put this on yesterday and then realised I'd put this under some else's text. Hopefully, this time I've managed to create a new section.

I just wanted to say that I really don't want to contribute to the Sawston discussion any more. I don't agree with Pete Myers comments, or the tone in which he says it - but the discussion could go on and on. I genuinely didn't mean to make him defensive - I was flagging up an inconsistency. If CCSC are CofE, then imho I would suggest going to the Ely Diocese and respectfully asking them to update their website, which is possibly all it is. Anything I say will automatically be undermined by Pete Myers, who has to have the final word, and this isn't a discussion, it is talking to a blank wall with their own agenda.

I knew someone ages ago who was converted to christianity by an evangelical church, who ended up committing suicide. I know what the minister of CCSC has said, I know that some of the things he has said are not true, I know that it was because of him that the previous incumbent resigned, and I know that the whole business has left a lot of scars, and this is extremely sad. CCSC, and Pete Myers is typical of the attitude and culture, tend to be very polarised. All the elders, like PeteMyers, are in their mid 20s or early 30s. There is much that is preached about guilt and judgement and going to hell etc, some of which I've found very frightening. They seem to set less store by treating people with respect and understanding. Knowing them as I do, I can see that they could potentially do quite a lot of damage to people, especially if they are vulnerable. Guilt can do an awful lot of damage. There are other fundamentalist churches which, whilst they also are anti homosexuality etc, are slightly more open and compassionate and less polarised. It is my POV, and I make no apologies for this, that anyone engaging with CCSC needs to be extremely careful - and this is why I think it is so important that the page should not be used for evangelical purposes, and that it shouldn't be biased.

However, whether or not this should be the subject for a Wikipedia discussion I don't know. Maybe PeteMyers just likes computers and genuinely wasn't trying to advertise CCSC or be evangelical. PeteMyers doesn't say why he objects to the 'sect'. If you look up the definition of the word 'sect' - http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=sect - it says it is a subdivision of a larger group and a dissenting clique - and I don't see what the difficulty is with that, because they do criticise other church members and churches who they regard as 'liberal'.

I did feel that some of his comments were a bit unfair and a bit underhand - like the constant reference to being verifiable, and 'thank you for finally engaging' , saying I didn't respond until he threatened to speak to the administrators, etc. I don't think he is entirely honest of factual when he makes his points

I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia, as you have probably realised. I apologise if this has put you in a difficult situation. I would have liked to have sent a private message but don't know how to - so if this is inappropriate in accordance with Wikipedia rules then please delete it. Anyway, thank you for your intervention and the work you do. I think that is probably more than enough said! Best wishes Barneca, Cuckoosnest (talk) 10:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC) 11:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Cuckoosnest, 5pm, September 20th 2008.

Hello Cuckoosnest,

Just wanted you to know that I've seen this thread exists, but I have to go back offline now. I haven't forgotten you, and I'll re-read and reply when I get a chance. --barneca (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, some disorganized comments:

• It appears CCSC is indeed part of the CoE. I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs of diocese, parishes, etc., so I can't explain why it shows up on some lists for Sawston and not others, but I went to http://www.ely.anglican.org/about/structured/deaneries/parishes.html, which at the bottom links to http://www.achurchnearyou.com/, which, when you type in sawston, gives http://www.achurchnearyou.com/result.php?query=sawston&type=place, which lists CCSC as a CoE church. If you want to contest this assertion, you'll need to come up with a competing reliable source to even get the discussion started.
• Most of the rest of what you're saying doesn't really belong on Wikipedia. As unfamiliar as you are with Wikipedia, I'm even less familiar with any intranecine arguments in the Anglican church. But what I do know is that the arguments don't belong in the Sawston article. It's entirely possible you and I share a general opinion on socially conservative churches. But in this case, see WP:BATTLE (we love to refer to policy around here by lame shorthand); Wikipedia is not a place to fight, even if you're on the Side of Good^TM.
• There are probably dozens of internet forums out there somewhere where this kind of discussion would be encouraged and welcome and useful. But Wikipedia is not that place.
• Regardless of the dictionary definition of "sect", reality is that being called a sect implies a bad connotation, and I am not surprised PeteMyers took umbrage.
• I would not worry about comments PeteMyers has made about you, or comments you have made about him. There seems to be quite a history here, and even though I don't know (or care) exactly what it is, I'm smart enough not to take anything you two say about each other on faith. In any case, with the article in the state it's in now (a simple list of churches), I don't know what else you two have to disagree about.
• If this has stressed you out, please consider contributing to articles about which you don't have strong feelings. I've found that if you do that, Wikipedia becomes less stress-inducing, and more stress-relieving.
• I think I hit all the high points, let me know if you still have questions. --barneca (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm absolutely fine with that Barneca, thank you for giving such a complete and fair reply, I appreciate it. This discussion has upset me, because I just felt that dishonest tactics were being used, but I don't want to, or think it would be wise to contribute any more to the Wikipedia article on Sawston! Thank you very much Barneca for your time and your comments. Best wishes, Cuckoosnest (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Cuckoosnest, September 22nd, 2008, 7.20 pm.

You're welcome, hope to see you around on some other, completely unrelated, articles sometime. --barneca (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there's now a lot of stuff being said about *me* by this person. Hmmmm. I've had it with Wikipedia. Petemyers (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If you mean here on my talk page, I'm inclined to allow a pretty wide latitude to people posting here; I suppose if it truly bothers you, let me know and I'll archive it early. If you mean elsewhere, please point out to me where. If I understand right, all three of us have, for about a week, agreed that the article should look like it does now. Why are you two still arguing? --barneca (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Barneca... I'm not arguing. Before the Sawston article was protected, I had reported Cuckoosnest twice, and had been calling him/her to a conversation on the talk page. You said that I was edit warring, but I decided not to argue with that. Then Cuckoosnest left lots of claims about people and organisations on the talk page, which really shouldn't be there, and you decided to leave them archived - I haven't argued with that. But I'm not entirely happy with those decisions. Cuckoosnest has left a load of comments on my talk page, and now put a load of stuff about me here. This person seems to have some sort of grudge against the church I work for, and all I've done is try to stop POV claims about that being dumped on Wikipedia, if they can't go in an article, they seem to wind up somewhere else. If I've done something wrong, Barneca, I'm sorry... I'm fine with the article, it's just constantly seeing these sorts of claims that I'm fed up with... I realise you're probably fed up of this discussion - I can guarantee I'm more fed up with this than you are. Petemyers (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll have another word with him. You should feel free to remove anything on your own user talk page. This should be dying down now. --barneca (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, sorry but I'm just, well, fed up! Petemyers (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In brief - message understood, thank you & best wishes, Cuckoosnest (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)cuckoosnest, 24th Sept 2008, 6.52pm

RE:Padillah AN/I

Warn away. At this point I just don't give a shit. If you feel this user is allowed to treat me this way then ... I have no idea how to finish this statement because it is incomprehensible to me that this is acceptable behavior. I see no indication whatsoever that Softlavender will even be spoken to about this. Boy I've got to find out how I can plug my ears to discussion and make attacks on someones mental state and get away with it. Block me, ban me, whatever. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I was doing my school work, involving the article Barack Obama. I happened to view the article right as User:Zach99 made that vandalism. I appreciate you blocking him; nothing worse than trying to work on school and see that. So thanks. Thanks and Happy Editing ⊥m93 TALK 17:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. A word of warning: that page gets hit with a lot of vandalism, some of it quite subtle. So... well, just check anything you read in there twice. --barneca (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice. I just hated the fact that I was doing a report for school and saw THAT. Some people. But anyway... thank you for your advice. As many people as there are that hate him, I can't say I'm surprised. Thanks and Happy Editing! ⊥m93 (TALK) 20:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

John McCain vs. raising the Minimum Wage

Why don't you want people to know that John McCain voted 19 times against raising the [[Minimum Wage? I think they have a right to know. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Because you're spamming it all over multiple inappropriate pages. Like I told you, I've left it on the McCain page, but for example putting in on the September 18 page is clearly disruptive, and you've been around here long enough to know that, so please don't insult my intelligence by pretending you think it's OK. Stop it. Now. --barneca (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Greetings!

barneca (talk) Hello my friend, I am back, and wrote a new article, [4] which could benefit from your taking a look, if you have time, to make sure I formatted it correctly. (I am getting better on formatting issues, but still need help!) Hope you are well...JohninMaryland (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a refreshing change from my normal duties as a "wiki fascist police harraser". My time is limited until the weekend, but I'll look it over then, or Monday. A very brief perusal looks good, I did notice you're missing the US from the belligerents section of the infobox. Good to see you back. --barneca (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Done (used as a procrastination tool). --barneca (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

barneca (talk) Hello again my friend! It is good to be back, and Thanks for the extremely prompt help on the article! Take care! JohninMaryland (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban

Unlike many other Wikipedians, I do not have the time to homestead here, so I missed your notice. I also notice that several of the editors who have been pushing like bulldozers to eliminate criticism from Barack Obama instantly supported your topic ban. MastCell said it was a borderline case. You have yourself admitted that the alleged personal attacks were borderline cases. (If I'm getting a topic ban for saying "misrepresentation," why isn't Scjessey also getting a topic ban for using that word first?) In general, despite my unswerving support for Obama I find that many others here (unlike myself) have miserably failed to check their biases at the door, and they WP:OWN the article. Curious bystander (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite comfortable with the topic ban decision. If you disagree, you're more than welcome to bring it up again on ANI, now that you're back online. --barneca (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

66.210.76.252 to his old tricks

I've noticed you managed to ban 66.210.76.252. He is to his old tricks (Latest contributions) and I don't have time to go through Wiki pages of policies and procedures trying to find out whether non-registered users are already allowed to ban other users so can you do it for me and the rest of us? Thanks. 24.83.176.171 (talk) 05:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Persistent little bugger, so blocked the IP for 3 months this time. Only administrators can block someone, but registered and unregistered editors can report a vandal to be blocked. It's usually better to take this kind of thing to WP:AIV next time; the first report takes 5 minutes or so to figure out the formatting, but after that it's much faster than looking for a particular admin and hoping they're active. Anyway, hope this helps. --barneca (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift action. I've bookmarked WP:AIW. 24.83.176.171 (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

the new block tool

Am I being thick, or can I not see it yet in the blk dialog? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you aren't being thick. If I understand right, this was just a note about a potential tool; it hasn't been turned on at en.wiki yet, and I don't know who makes that decision, or when they make it (I'm technologically clueless, but make it up with street smarts :) ) --barneca (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, maybe that's what the crystal ball remark meant then :) Ta! Gwen Gale (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, though still not sure how that helped... --barneca (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sayin' it helped, though there was very likely a helpful notion behind it somewhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Crossposting this from ANI...

New user PalmofYourHand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is claiming on my talk page that he is User:Swamilive and that recently blocked Jeztheham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not his sockpuppet. That's entirely possible, although I haven't had any other wikistalkers lately. Shall I open a new checkuser case or add to the existing? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't block Jextheham based solely on your say-so, or on any Checkuser anything; I blocked them based on behavior. I looked at every single one of their edits. On the off chance this isn't the actual Swamilive, it's still an unwelcome troll. If a Checkuser came back and said it wasn't Swamilive, I'd still stand by the block, so I don't know that a request is necessary, but if you want to do one, I'm afraid I don't know the etiquette of how subsequent Checkuser requests for the same person are handled. I do know that there's a clerk noticeboard of some kind, and if you post a request and make a note there that you're not sure it's formatted right, I'm sure someone will help fix it if necessary. Alternatively, I think Tiptoety (if he's active right now) knows what he's doing on that page. Or, if you want to bring this complication up on that AN or ANI thread we were on to get more eyeballs, I won't take offense; a second opinion is always welcome. I don't believe Jextheham has requested an unblock, though, right? --barneca (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

D'uh, didn't read the thread title... I see you already did the ANI thing. I'll link to this thread there. --barneca (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if that was confusing. I wasn't sure that you were still around, but since you were the blocking admin, I wanted to let you know in case someone else handled it and you didn't see the thread before it got archived. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/72.35.4.220. Feel free to jump in. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Beenturns

FYI: as the admin who most recently blocked a Beenturn account, I thought I would point you towards WP:ANI#Pioneer Courthouse Square. The timing of the account creations suggest that more Beenturn accounts appear to be prepped and waiting use. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Saw that. I'm going to go back and block the other obvious socks like Fair-whatever and Mediman-whatever, but can't devote much time to this; I'm on and offline all day. You should consider a Checkuser to find and block the underlying making the socks. --barneca (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:Pioneer Courthouse

I reduced the protection to a 3 month semi; thanks a ton for waiting for my reply! :) Though, for the record, next time feel free to act without me; I trust your discretion, and I don't mind at all. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 16:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, long-term semi-protection seems fine, unless the Checkuser comes back and puts in an effective range block instead. When I said "unprotect" earlier, this is actually what I meant; should have said "reduce protection". I'm amazed this guy is willing to go to such lengths to add this stupid sentence to the article; WP:LAME may be in order, if it isn't already...

I figured you wouldn't have minded if I did it, but since there was no rush, waiting was the polite thing to do. I'll now add you to the list of admins who foolishly trust my judgement enough to undo their actions without their permission. --barneca (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for being polite, and yeah, I just put up semi-protection so that the guy will have to work his socks more in order to get into the article (and hopefully get bored in that time). Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 16:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

re FYI

Oh... No, I saw the new layout - but I wasn't aware that the move protection and the edit protection had been separated; I was going by the old system that as soon as edit protection expired then so would move protection. Thanks for the note. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Barneca

the only one of my suggestions that has a chance of succeeding is: please stop trying to silence opposers whose criteria you find "invalid"

Good golly Barneca, you need to get out of mind and get over to RfB. Now! Giggy (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. That's going to be a red link for a loooooooong time, Giggy. And even if I wanted to, I think I'd easily make WP:100; but the wrong way. Still, I'm shamelessly vulnerable to flattery, so I will admit you made my morning... --barneca (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I just read User:Barneca/The Problem With RFA. I really shouldn't have. Now I know where my big headedness comes from; it's because you're in there. Giggy (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this some kind of trick to take credit for my ideas? Maybe you're in my head... --barneca (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If I am, I'm telling you to request cratship. Giggy (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC) If worst comes to worst, I'll just write the nom and force you to accept! It worked for your RfA.

So that's been you in there, Giggy cricket, the whole time? I thought it was my conscience. --barneca (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ayers Debate

Hey, when you get a chance, could you look into the newly rehashed debate over Bill Ayers on Barack Obama's talk page. As soon as that first Times article came out, User:Norton quickly opened the debate saying with that article, the Bill Ayers controversy should be added to Obama's BLP. We all read the article and have found nothing new in the article, even to the point that the article says that there is no connection between Ayers and Obama. Yet, Norton's argument is that due to the Republicans using this attack against Obama, we should not include in in the BLP. This has been Norton's argument over and over again. You can look back in the Barack Obama's talk history to see how often he has reintroduced the info and of the last couple months seems to be fixated on nothing else. Thanks. Brothejr (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

block of Quitethegood1

Thanks for the block of this vandal. That was getting a bit ridiculous! -FlyingToaster (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Waiting for a Level-4 warning (with cherries on top) seemed pointless. --barneca (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied

Just wanted to let you know I replied to your message at User talk:Tanthalas39. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(for context, this is a copy/paste of Kralizec's message; I think it would be more appropriate to discuss it here, rather than Tan's talk page.) Sorry, I cannot support the out-of-process block of 217.205.107.210 (talk · contribs · block log). The fact is, this IP followed Aldwinteo's final warning [5] and stopped vandalizing, yet was blocked for a week anyway. How can we expect others to follow our rules here, if we do not follow them ourselves? --Kralizec! (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think of it as out of process. If you look at the history of the IP, for the last several weeks there has been nothing but vandalism coming from that IP, but after their previous block on 9/22, it's been coming in dribbles infrequent enough to avoid triggering a level 4 warning. Our process is not a free pass to vandalize an article or two every few days. I considered their editing pattern of the last few weeks, and that a previous 1 week block didn't work, that a 1 month block to stop the disruption was appropriate, and within the provisions of WP:BLOCK. Please see User:Barneca/Blocking policy for more of my thinking on this, as I've recently re-thought my position on this.

I would have absolutely no problem with you unblocking and seeing if there's a change in behavior. And if, after reviewing the last few weeks' editing history of the IP, you think this was a significantly out-of-process block, rather than just a more-agressive-than-normal block in a grey area, please come back here and we can discuss some more; I certainly have no intention of being a cowboy, blocking people left and right that most admins don't think should be blocked. Ultimately, I think from the editing history there that there is little chance of blocking a potentially productive editor; that I guarantee that it is preventing disruption for a month; and the certainty from looking at their edits that these weren't test edits, but edits specifically intended to damage the encyclopedia, that this was reasonable. --barneca (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this issue, as from my perspective, it appears that this IP is being punitively blocked. Perhaps this is not a politically correct way of saying it, however I do not know what else to call the situation when the IP obeyed the instructions on their "final warning" to stop vandalizing, but was blocked anyway. Please note that my issue is not with the fact that the vandal was blocked (I carefully reviewed the IP's contributions while processing this particular block request, so I am well aware of the "quality" of their contributions), but with the way the block was handled outside the normal system. As I said before, how can we expect new users to follow our rules when we do not? --Kralizec! (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kralizec,

I don't think it was punative at all, it was preventative; it prevents anyone at that IP from vandalizing for a month. The IP didn't "obey" a final warning; the final warning was issued 2.5 hours after the last vandal edit for the day; I'm sure they had left study hall or computer class or wherever they were vandalizing, and would not have vandalized again until the next day. But I have no doubt in my mind that they would have continued, final warning or no, since the previous block had not stopped anything. I was attempting to short circuit their gaming of the system. I wasn't punishing past vandalism, I was preventing future vandalism.

I think you understand that rationale, even if you disagree. But what I think bothers you most is the thing that I just don't understand myself: the idea that I've somehow broken "our rules". By "rules", do you mean WP:BLOCK (which does have a loophole, intentionally added I think, for blocking clear intentional persistent vandalism with no warnings), or just the way we normally do things at AIV, or something else? My action was more along the lines of IAR; I improved the encyclopedia by removing a vandal for a month. It's a softblock, so any potential legitimate editor on that IP (there have never been any) can follow the instructions in the schoolblock notice and edit. The only thing I regret is "overruling" Tanthalus, without talking to him first; that was rude, especially since the original reporter threw my block in his face, and I won't be doing that again.

I can't tell if you want to continue this, or if the "agree to disagree" means you're done. I'm happy to agree to disagree and end this, or discuss as long as you want. I really am interested in knowing your reasoning (from our previous dealings I respect your opinion very much), as this was a relatively recent change in attitude for me, and I'm still interested in thinking it through even if it is just one block. If I'm wrong, I'm open to being convinced, but if I'm not wrong I plan to continue with this approach. --barneca (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Arm & Hammer Stocks

Haha, you may have a point there. :) C1k3 (talk) 07:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It frightens me no end that there are people that truly believe that kind of stuff with all their heart and soul. And it seemed an odd combination with their rabid "you aren't Jewish enough for me" attitude. --barneca (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

warning archive

This hiding of stale warnings seems like a good idea. Where is the template to do that? Han-Kwang (t) 08:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I started doing that when I ran across loooong IP talk pages a while ago, to see if anyone thought it was a bad idea or a good idea, and you're the first to ever comment. I created the template myself; feel free to use it/steal it. Put {{subst:user:barneca/temps/wiphat}} in front of whatever you want to hide, and {{subst:user:barneca/temps/wiphab}} at the end of what ever you want to hide. I think it's much better than "archiving" them by blanking them. --barneca (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

How about moving the template to the main template space? Han-Kwang (t) 21:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, why not? What shall we name it; keep it {{wiphat}} and {{wiphab}}? --barneca (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

We could try to follow the convention of a meaningful word followed by 'top' or 'bottom', such as in {{AfD top}} and others in Category:Archival templates. I'd suggest 'Warning archive top' and 'Warning archive bottom', or 'Old warnings top/bottom'. Han-Kwang (t) 21:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I went with Template:Old IP warnings top and Template:Old IP warnings bottom. They're in template space now. Thanks for the advice and comments, and now that they're public, feel free to improve them if you get ideas. --barneca (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC) p.s. {{wiphat}} and {{wiphab}} are shortcuts. --barneca (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Great! But it doesn't show up in the category list for some reason. Han-Kwang (t) 15:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably because I've not categorized it properly (or at all, not sure if I tried to or not). Never done this before, so I'll take a look in a bit, unless you can solve it. --barneca (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

< Fixed. By using [[Category:Foo|Something]], it will appear under category foo under the letter S from Something rather than under the letter T from Template. If you want to create a new category, you could use [[category:hidden archives]], but it would be a rather empty category. Han-Kwang (t) 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing. It wasn't my intention to create a subcategory; it's just that the template I originally stole the code from was listed as "Hidden archive" and I neglected to change it. --barneca (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please , unblock me Eremia a , after 5 months , I have changed , have'nt I !

I want you unblock an account , I finished vandalsm since 5 months ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.3.245.142 (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

And, as you can easily see, soon after this message, this user blanked another page. See how he/she has "changed". --Craw-daddy | T | 11:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

9 minutes. You lasted 9 minutes between promisng to stop, and vandalizing again. Let's wait another 5 months and revisit. Until then, I decline. --barneca (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Country/doc

Hello - thanks for the note about Template:Infobox Country/doc. I was just trying to repair the problems, so I reverted to the last revision before WMKJ (talk · contribs) mangled it. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sawston Churches

Courtesy blanking per email request

Hi Barneca. Sorry about this, but, we're having a problem on the Sawston page again. Cuckoosnest has made an edit to the Churches section, which I feel is a violation of our agreement. I haven't touched the history as I'm being mega careful to avoid being accused of edit warring this time around. Cuckoosnest was good enough to leave an explanation on the talk page, and I have put a paragraph there disputing the content change. Can I please ask you to come over and have a look? Petemyers (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I thought this was over. Cuckoosnest seems to have a bee in his bonnet about this. I've got to leave the computer for a while, but I'll head over the Sawston late this morning and have a look. Thank you for not edit warring with him, I know you feel strongly about this. If you see this note before I return to the talk page, maybe you could give me a little unofficial background information so I understand possible motivations here; am I correct in suspecting that there is some bad feeling between the two churches? If so, I really don't want any information about what the dispute is, but it would be handy to know if there's some kind of bad blood between the congregations. --barneca (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there is certainly a pattern here, unfortunately. I originally put CCSC onto the page, just as one of the churches. I'm a wikiphile, and improving wikipedia is something I like to do. Someone (ip: 194.202.111.18) removed CCSC from the page for e.g.. I just treated this as minor vandalism and put it back on, but that's when I first flagged discussion of the issue of CCSC on the talk page, then, Cuckoosnest stuck a load of anti-CCSC stuff on, which when I found I immediately removed due to the Biography of a Living Person policy, this was the first time I removed something cuckoosnest put in, I'd point out that I immediately moved it straight to the Talk Page, and asked for discussion about it. On the 7th September, Cuckoosnest then made a lot of edits to try and say something inflammatory about CCSC, or to vandalise the reference to it in some way. The history of the Talk Page shows that, every time I undid an edit by cuckoosnest, I tried to call for discussion on the talk page (look at 7th September in the history)... but no discussion was forthcoming. Cuckoosnest's first contribution on the Talk page was only after I'd threatened to, and finally had to, report him/her to the admins. The page was protected after I'd reported cuckoosnest twice, and then you got involved.

I'm only listing this because if you take a look at cuckoosnest's contrib page, this user's activity on wikipedia is almost exclusively to push this one issue, other than a couple of grammatical corrections elsewhere in the Sawston page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petemyers (talk • contribs) 15:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign. Petemyers (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Barneca, When can we call this a wrap? Someone has posted a response on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Christ Church South Cambs on Talk:Sawston, yesterday I commented on Talk:Sawston#Our reliable source discussion, currently there's been no response, though it has only been a day. When do you think it's reasonable to say "ok", and then revert the edit to our previous consensus? I don't want to move too soon. Petemyers (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd wait a day or so more; I doubt anyone else will comment on the WP:RSN thread (not exciting enough, I suppose), but I'd like to give people another day just in case, and there's no sense insisting that Cuckoosnest must reply within 24 hours. If we don't get another response at WP:RSN by the end of the day tomorrow, that will be three days, and I'll re-add the COE stuff back myself. --barneca (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That's good advice. You star. Thanks. Petemyers (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Barneca. The Sawston website has been changed again, and cuckoosnest has put a lot of comments on the talk page that don't make me feel particularly happy - there is more stuff about me personally, but that I really don't want to respond to as that always aggravates the situation. There is now stuff on the Wikipedia servers which throws mud at both my boss and me, and I would like it removed. I don't know what you can do about this, could you please intervene simply to put the Sawston article back to our consensus, and then could you suggest how we move on? Cuckoosnest has now said a couple of times that he/she would be very happy to abide by a third party decision, and that has demonstrably not proved to be the case. I am now very, very unhappy with the whole situation. I'm coming to you, because, I don't know what to do, I don't want to aggravate the situation, and I don't want to sink into a mud fight. Petemyers (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Cuckoosnest warned, Talk page archived, I hope (but doubt) this is solved. Next step will be WP:ANI if Cuckoosnest continues to treat the talk page as a soapbox. --barneca (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Barneca. Petemyers (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I've read through the discussion again and my last comments, and I genuinely can't see anything which could be claimed to be mud throwing or personal at all. I'm sorry you interpret it that way. I believe I haven't said anything which is untrue. I did feel that there was a sense in which my comments were not being evaluated in an objective way.

PeteMyers says that I’m obviously very hurt by what happened in Sawston. I do think that the way in which the move from Shelford to Sawston was done was wrong. I’m also conscious that there has been a fairly strong response also from other local villages. However, what really concerns me more, and the reason I posted on wikipedia was that I genuinely am concerned about harm to vulnerable people, and, rightly or wrongly, I just felt that anyone reading the website should have an accurate portrayal of the church – for example, they should know the theological views and about the Canterbury protest etc. I also felt that the comment ‘currently without a vicar’ was a bit of an insensitive comment.

I genuinely do not know why the website says it is the only cofe church in Sawston and still do not think that it is fair or right to make the assumption that has been made - and which formed the basis for the decision on the content of the website.

I have had previous thoughts about the value of wikipedia vs an encyclopedia vs academia - given that the advantage of wikipedia is that it is instant and so many people contribute - but I have changed my mind about the rigour involved in deciding that something that is put on wikipedia is accurate. I'm new to Wikipedia and in many ways this has been an interesting experience and I've learned from it. Apart from anything, it just takes up an inordinate amount of time!

I'm glad in a way that the discussion has been hidden, because I was sorry about those comments which were made which had negative implications against others and had felt guilty about my part in triggering that - and I felt that it was wrong that those implications were made.

I've deleted some text here because on reflection, I feel that this has derogatory implications about what may or may not have been said by a third party. I would prefer that those implications were not made, and I also feel that it would be unfair to allow these derogatory implications to be made.

Please can we leave this here?????????? Cheers Cuckoosnest (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Cuckoosnest Cuckoosnest (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Cuskoosnest

The last thing you wrote was "Please can we leave this here??????????" - but then you had to write even more on my talk page and go back to edit your comments on barneca's talk page. I have two things to say -

1. My comments here are deliberately brief, so that you can't accuse me, again, of simply negating everything you say so that I can have the last word. I am only now commenting because you can't seem to leave this alone.
2. Please leave it. I have heard loud and clear that you have particular views on CCSC and on the events in Sawston. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss those - and that is why I haven't answered any of the points you've raised. If you are genuinely and honestly interested in a real world discussion about these sorts of matters - where you're prepared to hear other people's points of view, and to discuss them reasonably - then if you live in Sawston it will not be hard at all for you to be able to contact me personally. Though I'm not going to post contact details here.

I am posting this both on your talk page, and on Barneca's. Petemyers (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine.

I wanted to say my reasons for posting on Wikipedia because I felt they had been misrepresented - and I feel that that is only fair. I make no apologies for this.

Barneca and Pete - I hear what you're saying, but I do feel that there is a bit of hypocrisy here - personal insults for one but not another, stuff needs to be verified for one but not the other etc - you've both thrown a lot of stuff at me, and maybe this is just the nature of Wikipedia.

I object to the comment that I'm not able to listen to other points of view etc, and feel that these constitute personal attacks. I know myself, even if you are unable to hear it, that I haven't been dishonest in any way. Yes, I think that a discussion where each person listens to and respects the other point of view would be a good thing, if it were possible - but it takes two. You already gave me your email address.

I did say, 'rightly or wrongly'. Cuckoosnest (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Cuckoosnest.

Seattle comment

Thanks for your comment on the discussion. If I could locate a barnstar for demonstrating sanity in the face of a debate wheel, I would give you one.

I had considered adding a "weak oppose" to the move ... mainly because it doesn't affect me much with either name, and I didn't want to see another move ... followed by what will undoubtedly be yet another debate for another move. When it comes down to it, I really don't care one way or another on this thing, and wish we could get away from the distraction. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Slightly embarrassed that I even allowed myself to get drawn into that silly discussion, but there's a similar move afoot at Talk:Boston, Massachusetts, and I commented there, and then because of that I saw an ANI thread, and because of that (and the fact I have Seattle watchlisted) I was just exposed to the discussion too much to avoid commenting. I often think coin flips would be a good way to solve many arguments on Wikipedia, but no one ever agrees with me... until now! --barneca (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk page revert on Pioneer Courthouse Square

You removed an entry from the Talk:Pioneer Courthouse Square page that appears to be at least mostly legitimate. I agree that the edit to the page should have been reverted, but reverting a talk page entry isn't the best practice. Cheers, ted. Tedder (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tedder, that's a vandal that has been attacking that particular page for two years. He's the reason the page is semi protected. I can find links to sock puppet pages and Checkuser reports if you want. --barneca (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the context. I didn't know that. Tedder (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Uncommunicative editor

Hello again. There is an IP editor, currently editing as User talk:68.79.133.27, but previously under User talk:75.41.6.98, User talk:69.218.254.170 and User talk:67.36.58.41, who continues to make problematic and disruptive edits but refuses to talk about them to anyone. I've been unable to get this editor to respond under any of these IPs (there's absolutely no doubt that it's the same person, look at the idiosyncratic use of "over last" in edit summaries, and the nature of the edits), could you see if you could get them to at least discuss their edits, if not stop doing them? I believe you posted anotice to them under one of their previous addresses, probably 69.218... Thanks, Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 04:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Left another final warning on IP's talk page, and left a comment at LHvU's talk page (who I see you also asked for help). Frustrating, but at this point, I think if they still refuse to comment and continue editing, you could point an admin to my comment on their talk page, and there's a decent chance they would agree to block each IP and revert their edits as soon as you see and report them. Hopefully, the IP editor will be frustrated enough by this to either go away, or begin talking. If LHvU has a better idea, I'll defer to him, since I'm very unthrilled about this solution. With a dynamic IP, this could be a bother. --barneca (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - and, FWIW, your thought about autism (Aspergers?) occured to me as well. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 18:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This person has appeared again, at User talk:76.212.57.95, making edits which have raised the hackles of other editors. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Another one?

I'm beginning to think that the fault is not in my stars, but in me -- there's another editor, one who is apparently fixated on death and burials, who is making odd edits and will not talk about them. Could you take a look when you get a chance? (And about that template you were going to make...) User talk:71.82.7.68. Thanks you. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 19:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

see user:barneca/temps/discuss. Left the inaugural version on the IP's talk page. --barneca (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 20:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

On a more general level: Is it just me? Am I just more sensitive to this kind of thing, that more easily rolls off the backs of other editors, or is there, in fact, a kind of underground of very tightly focused non-communicative editors? Are, for instance, people with Aspergers attracted to editing here? It's very mysterious to me, especially considering that the social-site aspects of WP often seem to me to be in danger of overwhelming the encyclopedia-building part. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 20:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've asked myself that same thing - is it just him? :) My own guess (and it's just a guess) is that making small, repetitive edits to Wikipedia articles is probably attractive to some subset of people with autism spectrum-related issues (I don't know enough to be more specific than that, but my daughter has a friend with Aspergers, so I'm familiar enough that it's kind of my gut instinct to assume that when I see this type of pattern). But this same group of people often have no desire whatsoever to interact with other people on more than a very superficial level, or to accept criticism (again, based on my very limited personal experience). As for whether you're being unreasonable, well no, if I thought that I wouldn't be backing you up. In general, if someone who doesn't want to communicate isn't causing a problem, or stops the problematic part of their editing when challenged, I think we should leave them alone; they're enjoying it, and it's generally helping. If there were some very occasional problems, I'd also say just let them be; it's a net positive. But regardless of any desire to be kind or understanding, we simply can't have people who are making lots of questionable edits, who's every edit must be scrutinized to see if it's a good one or a bad one, continue on as if all is well. As for why you're picking up on it more than others, I really have no clue; are you, perhaps, editing in areas that seem attractive to this kind of editor? I haven't run into this independently myself; I occasionally see a thread at AN/ANI on it (which is where I think you got my number). As for whether everyone else lets it roll off their back, no I doubt it. There aren't many people here who take being ignored too well. Anyway, the "Ed Fitzgerald Template" is now ready for action, so let me know if you need further help. --barneca (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, which make much sense to me. I do edit primarily about films, and maybe the set and fixed nature of a movie and the facts around it make them attractive to the sort of person you describe. I also agree about letting those folks be if they change their editing in reaction to comments but continue not to talk - I'm not so much interested in palaver as I am in the edits. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

0.05% not wrong

Your threats of blocking only make the situation worse. There seems to be near resolution on ANI and now you fan the flames.

You should be fair. One possible thing you could say would be "the user did make the edits despite denial. sometimes, it's better to correct the mistake and move on." Instead you attack me and I'm the one who found the wrong information.

ANI is for discussion. Blocking someone for expressing an opinion is wrong. It disrupts nobody to read what is happening. In fact, if you do block, you would use some false excuse like "disruptive" when the other user was the disruptive one. Mature administrators can resolve this easily. Immature ones threaten.

This is nearly resolved but please withdraw your threats. Fossett&Elvis (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I see someone else just blocked you instead, so my "threat" is moot. Your inability to accept feedback is bizarre; I hope it was temporary. --barneca (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I figured it was better to go ahead and do it as soon as I saw it before he had a chance to make it worse. --Smashville^talk 21:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty obvious this was going to happen eventually. What an odd blowup over nothing. --barneca (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban

I want you to reconsider this topic ban on me from Barack Obama related articles. But since you won't do that, I suggest that you instead issue a topic ban to User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Previous topic ban request at WP:ANI found here. This is an overwhelming amount of evidence: edit-warring and personal attacks. There is so much evidence against this person that people were refusing to read it, because it's too long. Since then, within days after the John McCain campaign began to mention Obama's links to Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), LotLE went to the ACORN article and substantially reduced material about members of ACORN who have been indicted and convicted for voter registration fraud. [6][7][8] This was a whitewash of the article to protect Obama. He immediately started revert warring to protect his version.[9][10] When a newbie reverted him, LotLE immediately accused the newbie of sockpuppetry in violation of WP:BITE. [11][12] (note edit summary] This removed material that had been in the article for four years before LotLE came along. This triggered an edit war between several editors. LotLE's bias on this topic has led to long-term disruptive editing patterns.

If I'm to be topic banned for what I did, then please carefully consider all that LotLE has done. Extensive compilation of diffs for evidence at WP:ANI here. Recent diffs posted above demonstrate that he has not changed and has not learned anything. He continues to start and participate in edit wars. He continues to be hostile and accusatory toward those who disagree with him. This is surely not what Wikipedia has in mind for a collegial and constructive atmosphere. If I must be topic banned, then LotLE should be topic banned. Curious bystander (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just heading out the door. I did see this, and will reply tomorrow. --barneca (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As you surmised, I won't lift your topic ban myself; I'm comfortable with my decision. As I've also said multiple times, you're more than welcome to seek a review at ANI or someplace similar.

Sarah Palin and Barack Obama are quagmires. I honestly don't know what the solution is for articles like that, or even if there is a solution. To be brutally honest, and expose my "fascist" tendencies, if I had my way, many of those articles would be full protected until after the election, with the only edits being made thru {{editprotected}} requests on the talk page, and about a half dozen to dozen people from all sides of the political spectrum would be topic banned from each article, including several of your nemeses at Barack Obama and many of your compatriots. Yeah, I know, "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and all that, but IMHO it isn't working. But my solutions aren't going to fly. The best I can do, in my limited time, is try to moderate the most eggregious POV warriors I happen to see. At Barack Obama, that meant you; at Sarah Palin, that means the liberal antimatter versions of you. Because I topic banned you, does not mean I'm in charge of Barack Obama; I don't have the time to police it like it deserves to be policed.

At substantial risk to my sanity, I reviewed the entire ANI thread again, and the diffs you provided at ACORN. Although I do have some issues about LotLE's edits, in general they do not rise to the level where I would consider a topic ban necessary. At an article like Tree, that might be disruption, but these articles are such cesspools that I actually find some of his edits to be reducing disruption, rather than inflaming it. You've been around long enough to know I'm not the final say in this, so your next step is up to you. --barneca (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

LotLE is editwarring again, making a false accusation in his edit summary here. A topic ban for LotLE is overdue. Stop making excuses. CB was topic banned for a lot less than this. WorkerBee74 (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I will give this information the attention it deserves. --barneca (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Can i ask why u made those changes please? I think the article was better before you changed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.165.150 (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

76.212.57.95

Still problematic. edit-warring Enigma ^message 05:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Reblocking for longer. Dynamic IP, though, so don't get your hopes up. --barneca (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

About Threeafterthree

While you have a right to your opinion, if you thought Threeafterthree was willing to discuss or explain anything, that was the opposite of my experience.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. --barneca (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

RonCram

A few days ago you warned RonCram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) that he would be blocked upon any further mentions of lawsuits,[13][14] in connection with his claiming Worldnetdaily would sue Wikipedia for calling it an unreliable source. He recently did just that.[15] This is a courtesy notice that I filed an AN/I report on the subject, here.[16] Thanks, 08:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – you probably noticed, but the editor has been blocked for 48h - Wikidemon (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I'm sorry Wikidemon, I forgot about this thread (dealing with another one and got distracted). Glad it's resolved, I would have blocked for about the same if I had been paying attention. --barneca (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for the advice, not at all patronising. Totally understand. Nick carson (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

FN MAG discussion

The IP you mentioned is not new. He has a dynamic IP, one of which has been banned. He's sock puppetting and it has been discussed with him on one of his IP's. Please don't jump down our throats for maintaining standards. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Then please let people know. Can you point me to where this banning took place? --barneca (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. It's here: [17] --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. First, he's blocked for 12 hours, not "banned", and second, he was only blocked because you guys started calling his good faith edits vandalism. Poor form, really poor form. --barneca (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Now here's a reference thet proves me right, just don't know how to put it in the article. http://www.air-defense.net/index.php?index=20&num_art=201

Hope that I am NOW allowed to make a contribution without being called a vandel!

Sorry, forgot to sign 81.245.169.130 (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do me a favor and don't just re-add it again. Technically you are still blocked, and editing right now is giving them ammunition to just revert your edit with no discussion. Just come back in 11 hours, and I'll defend your right to discuss this on the talk page. Also, even if you weren't blocked, you're now edit warring, and could technically be blocked for that. This is not a clear cut question; BlanchardB on your talk page seems to be making sense, please talk to him there. --barneca (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What does "Edit-warning" mean? Can I still talk to you via this page? Francly I am getting sick of this: It is not just about the fact that the whole of Europe knows it means "Mitrailleuse à Gaz"' anymore. That has become immaterial. You tell me to talk to BlanchardB on my talk page. Makes litle sense to me, he claims to know French better than I do (It IS my mother-tongue). Do I have a talk-page? How can I, I am not even a registered user with a nickname (Or whatever you call that). That always seemed childish to me (Judging by nicks as: Nukes4Tods!). Whatever, if just wanting to make a contribution has to result in this, then: No thanks, not for me anymore. Sorry, no hard feelings (At least not towards you, that other bunch seems to be either drunk or psycho). 81.245.169.130 (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Replying on User talk:81.245.169.130. --barneca (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello,

Sorry to post on here but the thread for WP:ANI has changed and I just wondered whether all was resolved now? I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia - If I don't hear otherwise I'll assume this is the case. Thank you, Cuckoosnest (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Cuckoosnest

No action was taken, and the thread on ANI has been archived. Disappointing, but that happens sometimes. You don't need to apologize for posting here; you're welcome to post on my talk page as long as you stop saying things critical of CCSC or any of its members. I've had more than enough of that. If you can avoid that subject on Wikipedia, you're free to edit. If not, I'll likely block you myself for repeated WP:BLP violations, and at least that will get lots of peoples' attention, and while they're screaming "admin abuse", perhaps they'll also review the situation. --barneca (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine, understood, thank you. I do reserve the right to comment if personal insults are posted or I am misrepresented. Also, with the greatest respect, and my hands are now tied here – I think that 'saying things critical' should equally apply to all.

Thank you for your time Barneca, and best wishes,Cuckoosnest (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Cuckoosnest

Fair enough. --barneca (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Just some friendly help

Hi Barneca. This post has nothing to do with anyone else, or any hot topic under discussion. Is it ok for me to just ask you a noob-style question? I've been trying to figure out how to archive my talk page the way you do. I used to just delete things from it as they became "deprecated"... but I can see now that deleting stuff from my talk page isn't the best thing to do. How do I archive it? Is there a way to set it to archive automatically? And how do I get that cool "archive box" icon you've got? Petemyers (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pete. I must admit, when I saw that you had posted to my talk page so soon after Cuckoosnest, my heart sank a little. Very happy to see the subject.

I archive my talk page manually, using a "cut and paste" method. Other people use a "bot", an automated script that comes around periodically and archives threads for you. Both methods are discussed at Help:Archiving a talk page. If you want to do it like i do, follow the directions at "Cut and Paste Method"; if you want to try the bot, I think there are directions at that same help page, but I've never done it so I can't help you more than that. I think it's pretty simple, though.

As for the archive thingy, I got that by putting this code at the top of my talk page:

{{archive box|
*[[/name you chose for first archive|what you want to display on your page]]
*[[/name you chose for second archive|what you want to display on your page]]
*etc
}}

Those are the basics; let me know if you need more info after reading the Help page, and I can help you out. In extremis, let me know and I'll archive it for you. --barneca (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. And thanks for the offer to do it for me, but, to coin a phrase "If I don't do it myself, I'll never learn." (Which, I'll admit, isn't entirely helpful... I've written two 3d graphics engines simply because I've been too stubborn to bother to learn how to use someone else's!) Petemyers (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedily deleted page speedily recreated

Sorry Barneca, another question I'd like to run by you if I may... I've a feeling Haiku_All-in-one has been speedily deleted and then recreated again. I put my reasons on Talk:Haiku_All-in-one. Can I get your thoughts on that? I'm not sure where I'd report such a thing, or if I'm supposed to report it?Petemyers (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You can see if it's been previously deleted at Special:Log; enter the page name at the "title" block. More easily, If there is no article at that location, previous deletions should show up in the edit window. if there is an article at that location, you can click on "See all logs for this page" in tiny letters at the top of the history page. You can't see the deleted content unless you are one of the chose few.

It was deleted yesterday as a blatant advertisment. I've redeleted it, as it was recreated in substantially the same form. If you see articles like that which meet one of the rather narrow criteria for speedy deletion, you can put a speedy delete tag on it (WP:CSD has a list of these). If you think it should be deleted, but it doesn't quite meet one of those criteria, then you'll have to enter the hair-raising world of articles for deletion. There are instructions for creating an AFD discussion at that link. --barneca (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi Barneca, the socks of Swamilive vandalize the same few pages so frequently, that I wonder if it is reasonable to protect those articles. Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

At it again. JNW (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

depends on how frequently it happens; I hate to lock out other editors because of one pest. I'll take a look at the contributions of the two socks I blocked, see what articles they're looking at, and think about it. --barneca (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I protected 3 of them for a couple of weeks, just to give as a break on those. let me know if there are other frequent targets, if this helped or not, etc. --barneca (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I would wager what little money I have remaining in stocks that this will recur, and soon. But in the long run the disruptive edits won't stick anyway. Cheers, JNW (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Swamilive

Man, this guy is nuts and I've seen a lot of nuts on this site. Keep up the good work. I'm working late, things are slow and I'm watching the new user page. Let's see if he pops up again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: Have a cookie.

PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you for the cookie wipes crumbs from keyboard. I fail to see how anyone could possibly get satisfaction out of having their edits last 0.5 minutes, but I never took Abnormal Psychology. I may be off to bed soon, so I hope he's either stopped for the night, or someone's watching AIV. --barneca (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Cookies are excellent. Adding cake. JNW (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sustenance needed for patrolling articles.

You've discovered my weakness is food. Now, give me some cheesecake, and some coffee/toffee ice cream, and I'll do pretty much anything you ask of me. --barneca (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, not when I'm hungry!  :) We got your back in the meantime. Pour some coffee and cut off an extra large hunk of the cheesecake. Good eats on a Friday night, at least from where I'm sitting. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I really like your line of reasoning. He's blocked "for being Swamilive." Good enough for me. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

And would you be so kind as to block the talk page? He's trying to rationalize his behavior. Doesn't fly with me. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, went to bed before I saw this. I'm not sure talk page protection is necessary if certain people (hint hint) wouldn't engage him there. --barneca (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the nerve of some people.  :) Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this guy doesn't seem like a garden variety vandal after reviewing his contribs. He seems like an intelligent fellow, but he needs to play nice. I can only recall a couple of intelligent vandals; one was a really slippery cuss. One hell of a troll, I might add. I won't mention usernames, but feel free to e-mail me. I'd love to relate the story. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I always enjoy a good story; feel free to email me. I've got some opinions on our mutual friend too, but I think email is a better place for them. A bit pressed for time now, but I'll email you later. --barneca (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple of loose socks

You missed very likely Swamilive socks User:Marcus Barrington and User:The Nay No. Both repeating previous Swamilive edits. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked one, someone else got the other. As a general rule, don't count too heavily on me; my editing schedule is such that I can be editing furiously and then suddenly disappear for a few hours to a day. If you don't see me act on, or acknowledge, a request in a few minutes, you should look for someone active, or AIV. Of course, if I'm actually here, then feel free. --barneca (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User:YerYeller

Just an FYI that I've blocked him again at User:YerYellerIsBack. Cheers. Mr. Darcy talk 18:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

At least he made it pretty easy to ID the sock. :) --barneca (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What?

What the heck is wrong with you? Reliableforever (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll need a little more information than that. What are you babbling about? --barneca (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Omega

Prolly worth a CU to see if there are more sleepers in the wings. I'm on it. — Coren ^(talk) 00:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Coren, for offering to do the legwork. It's a good idea, but I just logged on for a minute and saw this and tried to deal with it quickly, but I have to leave again soon. --barneca (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI: No more to be found. — Coren ^(talk) 00:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

One just turned up at User talk:Coinopkid. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. and his unblock story is really believable... --barneca (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Barneca! Thank you very much for your support and confidence in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

OK I'll call her C

No incivilty was intended. ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)