User talk:Tide rolls/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

Blanking

Thanks for your recent inquiry:

Blanking - I've requested an explanation for your removal of the IP header. Discussion does not take place in edit summaries. Could you point me to said discussion? Tiderolls 04:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

With all of the nonsense being done in violation to my article, I removed it without a direct response to you. For that, I apologize and did not mean to disrepect you in anyway, even though I'm being disrepected and my patience is wearing off. However, this has already been discussed and resolved. Therefore, I've decided to move on and be productive after originally considering to "retire" from the IP to avoid these individuals. A message I left and received on another talk page, gave me a change of heart for the time being, therefoe returned to make another attempt (a "fresh start" if you will). My messages to past users on my talk page is in an effort to avoid them so there is no more conflict of interest as there has been. None of them slow down long enough to actually communicate with me like an adult, they just take it upon themself to vandalize my talk page and make ASSumptions. I'm not here for them. And I am not working on "their" articles they watch, so there is no need to be in contact with me anymore. Their egos/pride about being on my talk page is what this is all about. The only difference from the names on their talk pages they have, is the text/words between each. So when they see something "different", they feel threatened and afraid over the "unknown". It's all rubbish. Now, about the IP, that notice is already at the bottom of all talk pages. I am also the only one editing from it, and the "Shared IP" tag is actually incorrect. Therefore it has no place on the/my talk page. It has also been discussed and resolved/dropped more than once, so I do not want to "fight" about it anymore, with all due respect. It is not hurting anyone not having it off. Should I retire, or it become "public", I will be the first to notify someone or post it on my talk page like a responsible editor. But I will not continue to explain myself. People find this as disruptive when I stand up for myself or claim I have an attitude, but it's just me trying to move forward and avoid the drama. Not only that, they are causing problems such as Wikihounding and making up "hit list" rules that don't exist nor that I'm even violating. I think they have a guilty conscience and their motive is to seek some kind of revenge to silence me when I'm not the one doing anything wrong. Perhaps I'm playing devil's advocate for all the IPs who get wrongly mistreated, but they should back off and spend their time doing something productive, not ganging up on me. If you can eventually look through the clouded judgments and smoke screens, you'll see they are actually the ones in violation. In fact, every time I've been right, and they didn't "ruin me" or get their way on the noticeboard or my talk page, they have only gotten more angry. They are adding to the fuel, they are the one trying to make invalid points. Perhaps human nature, but my motive isn't to be right, it's to be civil and ignore them (disengage). They are making that difficult to do. These are my contentions of course, so I trust you won't assume I'm casting blame or "attacking" anyone specifically. It's just been my observation and experiences. At any rate, best of wishes and take care! :) Happy editing... P.S. Oh, by the way, the fact I've killed these editors with kindness before is also driving them to be inappropriate as well I believe. This "hit list" is all in their heads. It's a fabrication. Good day/night! FYI: I don't have the topic handy, but the prior discussion is on the most recent/current noticeboard topic, I think, and the one recently closed. I don't care to return to it since I'm trying to be productive on here and not cause problems or be "right" and "win" like they are. I've moved on, I think they should too. All this negative attention is doing on one any good. So much for "good faith". 99.129.112.89 (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This may offer you useful advice WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• 99*, you're wrong on so many counts (and, ever so deftly, avoided answering my request). Be that as it may, I don't tilt windmills so we probably will not cross paths again. Regards Tiderolls 05:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the person who "resolved" that, he came in saying we or I was an IP bully (not sure if it was a blanket statement) [[1]] We are trying to have a discussion here [[2]] regarding this. I am still considering clarifying whether WP:BLANKING should still show shared IP as something an IP can't remove because that's a small part of why we're here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Notifications box replacement prototypes released

Hey Tide rolls; Kaldari has finished scripting a set of potential replacements available to test and give feedback on. Please go to this thread for more detail on how to enable them. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Tacky

If you have something of genuine use to say, please do so. Otherwise you should play by your own rules and assume good faith, and avoid personal attacks. I understand that you and I may have different opinions on a certain situation; however, I find it unacceptable that you ignore unfounded allegations against me. Smurfmeister (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

AGF is a two way street, Smufmeister. Tiderolls 00:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - but when someone's first act is to call you abusive, it makes it that bit harder. Smurfmeister (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Please, please learn how to indent. Whenever you sit down to your keyboard think of our readers. They don't care who thinks who is "abusive" or a "cockhead". They want reliable, informative articles. Tiderolls 00:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop making unnecessary digs. What makes you think 'our readers' care whether a post is intended or not? Also please stop ignoring the point. I DO care about being described as abusive - I've done nothing to deserve it, and whether it matters or not to other readers is irrelevant. They can worry about accusations made against them, not against me. Smurfmeister (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Right now your behavior is the point. If you cannot see that I'm trying to help you perhaps you should move on. You're not convincing me of anything other than your intransigence. Tiderolls 00:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

BEHAVIOUR. Is it really that difficult a word? Smurfmeister (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope. And neither is behavior. Tiderolls 00:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. You fail to understand that articles are separate from talk threads, and that civility builds accuracy because of the collaborative medium of Wikipedia. Great judgement you have there. - 110.20.126.106 (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Ashwani Kumar

Living person was sacked not he resigned voluntarily. Made this only change.

http://www.timesnow.tv/Debate-Bansal-Ashwani-sacked---1/videoshow/4427176.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.9.76 (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Your source says "forced to resign", not "sacked". This may be an employment of euphemism by those in a position of power, but that would be a subject of discussion for the article's talk page. My advice would be for you to start a new section on the article's talk page to determine what language is supported by consensus. Regards Tiderolls 00:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Topchef5050

Help! We've got one of those annoying editors who insists on making unexplained changes to the various Top Chef articles with no edit summaries. Most of them are manageable, but the edits for Top Chef (season 4) are out of hand. The show does not rank order the runners up (no first or second RU), and we usually list them alphabetically. The editor persists in ranking one chef over the other, then adds a note in text that he is the first runner up and not to edit her changes. Meanwhile, her edits include removal of appropriate links and restoration of spelling errors, along with the POV rankings. They're at 3RR now, so I'm going to go tag their talk page, but would you mind having a look and maybe adding a bit of gravitas to the situation? (Caveat: I recognize I haven't handled this the best way I could have, but an earlier request for help got no response, and I got frustrated. If I have to take a block for it, so be it.) Thanks! --Drmargi (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Drmargi. Topchef5050 has been editing disruptively for some time and I do not think they will stop. Consequently, I have temporarily blocked that account. Thanks for your attention to these pages. Tiderolls 01:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Tide. I get so weary of editors like this one who follow the elimination shows, devote themselves to the tables but nothing else, and ignore policy over and over. You got more response in a few minutes than I've gotten in months. Am I OK to restore the verifiable version? --Drmargi (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave the editorial decision to you. I would caution against the appearance of edit warring, though. Is there no Wikiproject associated with the article you could approach for help? That would be my advice, for what it's worth. Tiderolls 05:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think of that. Let me look into it. Thanks!--Drmargi (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The block is over, and she's back at it. She seems to have unilaterally declared first and second runners up, something the show doesn't do, based on her interpretation of the judges' (highly edited) comments. Talk? IN the article, but not on the talk page. I am getting some minimal response on her talk page, but nothing getting us much of anywhere. Sigh! --Drmargi (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust. What is it about these elimination shows that they attract this particular sort of editor? --Drmargi (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps they do not experience the disorientation I do when the words "reality" and "television" are used in conjunction. Tiderolls 18:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Wei Huang

On the page Wei Huang, the last name (Huang) is supposed to be before the last name (Wei) because this is the proper way for a name to be written if it is in Chinese. Instead of Wei Huang, the name of the person should be Huang Wei.

I need to know if I have permission to make a change and if I'm given permission, how can I change it?

User:AFCShandong (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, AFCShandong. You do not need permission to edit articles on Wikipedia. Discussion on the article's talk page can provide some help, though. Wikipedia policy requires proper sourcing (see WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:Citations). Additionally, you should acquaint yourself with the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) and check out Wikipedia:Requested moves. If these links are not helpful, message me here with your specific concerns and I will try to help where I can. Regards Tiderolls 21:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to look at edits on IQ reference chart

I see the article IQ reference chart has been tagged for expert review since October 2012. As part of a process of drafting a revision of that article in my user sandbox, I am contacting all Wikipedians who have edited that article since early 2009 for whom I can find a user talk page.

I have read all the diffs of all the edits committed to the article since the beginning of 2009 (since before I started editing Wikipedia). I see the great majority of edits over that span have been vandalism (often by I.P. editors, presumably teenagers, inserting the names of their classmates in charts of IQ classifications) and reversions of vandalism (sometimes automatically by ClueBot). Just a few editors have referred to and cited published reliable sources on the topic of IQ classification. It is dismaying to see that the number of reliable sources cited in the article has actually declined over the last few years. To help the process of finding reliable sources for articles on psychology and related topics, I have been compiling a source list on intelligence since I became a Wikipedian in 2010, and I invite you to make use of those sources as you revise articles on Wikipedia and to suggest further sources for the source on the talk pages of the source list and its subpages. Because the IQ reference chart article has been tagged as needing expert attention for more than half a year, I have opened discussion on the article's talk page about how to fix the article, and I welcome you to join the discussion. The draft I have in my user sandbox shows my current thinking about a reader-friendly, well sourced way to update and improve the article. I invite your comments and especially your suggestions of reliable sources as the updating process proceeds. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Imorthodox23

User:Imorthodox23, who you blocked, seems to have a serious quacker in User:176.73.158.209. Same edits just to put Georgia and associated topics on top of lists, eg [3]. CMD (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this matter, CMD. See ya 'round Tiderolls 08:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

New one

User:Spetty218. Thought it looked similar, and another user made the same observation. CMD (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, CMD. Tiderolls 21:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Schoolguy236. I can't figure out what the motivation is. CMD (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Eventually they'll get bored. Tiderolls 18:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

User:94.43.191.88 as well. CMD (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That one hasn't edited for a couple of hours; if they start up again I will block. Thanks, CMD Tiderolls 18:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Found a really old one, User:Nera456. See [4][5][6][7]. They've been suspected before, so I don't know why they're still kicking around. Did a CU I can't find turn up negative or something? CMD (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, CMD. That one's not as clear cut for me to act upon. If a CU was run there's no record on the archived SPI page. I think it would be best to bring more eyes on this one to make sure we don't chomp on an innocent. If you need help with the SPI, let me know. See ya Tiderolls 18:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate it wasn't as clearcut. It surprised me too when I saw it, and it took a bit of looking through the contributions to convince me. I'll open the SPI, feel free to comment or not. CMD (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Made one. Always worries me SPIs, that they'll provide ideas on how to avoid detection. Ah well. CMD (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There's been no action on this in over a week. Have Nera456's continued edits made the situation more clear cut? CMD (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was kinda waiting on the SPI and hadn't looked at their contribs lately. Did you request a checkuser in that SPI? I'm at work presently but I can take a look when I get home. See ya Tiderolls 14:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't remember what I did in the initial filing, sorry. There's no immediate hurry, but it'd be nice not to have another week of edits to clean up. Til has also commented now. CMD (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User:JGVR sock

Hi Tide rolls, I had filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JGVR yesterday at about the same time you were blocking User:D12Blame. Not sure what to do now. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Voceditenore. I'd let the SPI run; a checkuser might find sleepers if they exist. Thanks for your help on this. Tiderolls 12:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Okey dokey. I must say I'm quite glad to find I wasn't the only one who smelled something fishy. :). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Xu Liang

On Xu Liang, I'm having problem with updating the career statistics template (for 2013 Shanghai Shenhua one). Do you know how to fix this?

User:AFCShandong (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Scots clans IP

On User talk:24.188.32.225: Template:Anonblock is clearly for an IP number (e.g. that of a school) shared by people; but I see no evidence that this particular IP number has recently been used by more than one person. I do understand that we all want to minimize the time we waste on him, but why not just the regular Template:Uw-ablock, why a three-month vacation for (as far as I notice) no more than removing a comment illegitimately and ignoring a warning not to do this and instead removing the comment a second time, and why remove his own little farewell message (of course merely the latest of several) from his own talk page? -- Hoary (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

All valid points, Hoary; I think I considered them all before my action. Let's see. I saw the IP address was dynamic before I blocked and the template does refer to ISPs as well as other organizations. Also, while the IP address may have been used by others I saw that the highland edits had gone back months and the 24*'s recent exhibition of pointy and intransigent action demonstrated to me that a short term block would only mean we would have to revisit this situation again and again. Removing the IP's comment was just a matter of talk page housekeeping; my action was not meant as a statement that their comment was prohibited. If they had reinstated the edit I would not have acted upon it; indeed, they saw fit to portray me in a rather hermaphroditic light and I had no intention of removing that comment. Having said all that, if you feel that any changes are warranted, please proceed. I do not feel that my actions are carved in stone and are always subject to discussion and/or alteration. If I've missed something or you would like further clarification you know where to find me. Regards Tiderolls 01:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Bangalore Tamils

Hi Tide rolls, i am facing the Editing interruption problem mainly from the user Abhishek191288 on 4th june 2013 onwards. For glance please see the below information Bangalore article editing interuption 4 of this month.please see here...click

1. Bangalore article editing interuption 12 of this month ending by the user Abhishek191288 revert

please see the difference...click here.

1. Domlur Chokkanathaswamy temple article editing interuption 12 of this month

after he reverted the banglore atricle he placed pov template in Domlur Chokkanathaswamy temple. please see the diference...click here .see the present diff...click here

1. Bangalore Tamil article editing interuption 12 of this month

the same day he placed pov tag on Bangalore tamil...click here.please see the diference see the present diff...click here

1. He removed biggest functioning hindu temple called Srirangam temple from south india article.please see...

12 June 2013 of user Abhishek191288 edits only on me.plz click .the above three are interrupted on the same day with in hour diff only.The main point which i noted frm the user Abhishek191288.i dont want to say.but it seems like that .the user Abhishek191288 mentioned that he feels proud to be kannadiga.so some ethinic mentality will be a chance.see his user page...User:Abhishek191288 plz click here. see contribution mainly south india,with the above three.which is crystal clear example he has some little ethnicity .it seems.

and the main reason is he mention in more than a time i am pushing Tamil ethnicity.i never use those words at first....click here but he used those words his talk page and and he said the same thing with another user.

he placed pov tag and he called other users.see here...click here.

At present my page banglore tamil redirected to banglore page.how the redirection will applicale there.while he placing POV template he should provide the reason Pov tag also in the talk page of the particular article.i mentioned all time he never did.see here...click here.but he keep on placed the tag incompletely.see the other user domination...click here.finally he removed my article and closed it .redirect to banglore.the same thing they are doing my ...Domlur_Chokkanathaswamy_temple article.finally one user merging with Domlur and my article.i hope they will redirect that article to domlur .both article has hopeful content.but i could not expect this thig

My point is why the user placing pov tag and other like citation needed tag in all my article and edits Apart from the above in the same day with in a hour ,after i added the oldest temple info in the banglore article,then he removed the file . after he continuously doing with the help of other two users..i know the pain what i spent to gather the info.i dont want to say more than that..but i need the support from the senior editors.i m helpless now.that is my feel to say.Thank you.Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 17:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You would be able to answer your concerns by engaging the other editors on the article talk page (or their user talk pages, if necessary) as I suggested in my initial message. It is my opinion that you would be well served by listening and giving due consideration to editors that are experienced and active at that article. Regards Tiderolls 19:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Page Move

In that case, first, the page mover was posting nonsense in claiming that the pages were created by IP addresses, and, second, the page mover was failing to use the standard options. (I remember the standard options because I corrected the case of a copy-edit article this week.) Thank you. As was said, it is a disruptive page-moving editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

left message

You left a message that you said I posted about fuel taxes. I haven't contributed to any part of this site. I use this site as strictly reference. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.180.91 (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

IP addresses are often shared over time. Click here to see the edit to which the message referred. Tiderolls

Individual page

Been a while but I will answer your comment in my talk page now that I have seen it.

One would presume you would send the same message to Sminthopsis84 as mathematically he/she has more reverts (the basis of your claim) and, unlike me, has no rationale or explanation given for them. In their Talk I do not see a warning. Both logically, by your stated motive and mathematically (by reverts) minimally it would demand equal treatment, not including in that reasoning my efforts of at least explanation which Sminthopsis84 did not provide in any way whatsoever. Since math, effort and explanation are satisfied by my case, yet you side completely by issuing no warning, warning me, and letting any edits stand carte blanch by minthopsis84 on top, the only thing left is you acted without standing within your stated reasons of action, logic, reasonableness, and/or personal/emotional bias.

Saying go to the Talk page is totally reasonable, I have no complaint; but, if you're going to demand it of one user and not the other and let all their edits stand without any revert warning as well, you acted with bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telekenesis (talk • contribs) 05:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The other party was already on the article talk page. Tiderolls 10:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

NHL divisions

FYI, the NHL themselves are using those designations, so you may want to hold off on that reverting you're doing. [8] Echoedmyron (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I saw that. That ref says the designation is temporary so I'm thinking some discussion would be warranted before changes are made. Just my two cents. Tiderolls 17:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Addendum. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey#NHL_temporary_divisional_designations. Tiderolls 17:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hyacinth

This is the first time I've found myself seriously considering a WP:CIR block against an admin.—Kww(talk) 04:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

At first I thought I was in desperate need of sleep, but they continue reinforcing my initial perception. Astonishing. Tiderolls 04:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Better to just ship it to ArbCom instead. --Rschen7754 04:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

And leave him free to break templates?—Kww(talk) 04:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If it comes to that, I will be accused of involvement issues. If you decide to, I will be supportive.—Kww(talk) 04:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The idea would be to request a desysop, even if by motion. --Rschen7754 04:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the next block, if necessary, should come from another admin, Kww. If Hyacinth continues what appears to me a disingenuous and perfunctory participation at AN/I, I will act. Tiderolls 04:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Tiderolls 04:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't want to bring this up in AN/I, but I noticed that Hyacinth suffers from uncontrolled epilepsy as he states on his front page User:Hyacinth. Confusion and amnesia can result after a seizure and I noticed that his recent answers have seemed a bit confused and unaware of the situation.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw that as well, IaOoM. It does impact my decision making process. That's one of the reasons I'm waiting on more input into the discussion before I act. Hyacinth appears to have stopped editing so I'm in no particular rush. Tiderolls 06:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Though if this is a regular occurrence for him, adminship may not be a good fit. --Rschen7754 06:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, if he returns and is the same way, I'd suggest initiating a case... there's an established pattern of misuse of tools and not answering to them. --Rschen7754 08:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Removing administrative privileges from someone for having a disability is clear discrimination. Hyacinth (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it's for not responding to criticism related to your abuse of tools, which you still have not responded to. --Rschen7754 23:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not defending myself. If it was about my lack of response epilepsy shouldn't have come up. Racial slurs against an admin don't, or shouldn't, come up in a discussion of an admin. Neither should honesty be punished. Hyacinth (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Pronouns

Using inappropriate pronouns, especially after being informed what the correct ones are, is incivility. As someone who's role and goal it is to encourage civility, you may wish to address people with respect rather than as objects. Hyacinth (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not treat people as objects, which you would know if you knew me. Tiderolls 05:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)