Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) →Your misunderstandings of policy: !nosign! oscar |
192.121.113.79 (talk) No edit summary |
||
Line 547: | Line 547: | ||
::Ignore your persistent fucking up of the encyclopaedia and attacks on me, and just improve the encyclopaedia? Clever advice there, yeah. Fucking genius you are. So, you believe that "idiot" is grossly offensive, do you? [[Special:Contributions/192.121.113.79|192.121.113.79]] ([[User talk:192.121.113.79|talk]]) 00:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC) |
::Ignore your persistent fucking up of the encyclopaedia and attacks on me, and just improve the encyclopaedia? Clever advice there, yeah. Fucking genius you are. So, you believe that "idiot" is grossly offensive, do you? [[Special:Contributions/192.121.113.79|192.121.113.79]] ([[User talk:192.121.113.79|talk]]) 00:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::Well I do admit people have said "fucking genius you are, mate" at the end of a gig, so I'll take the compliment as it comes. Anyway, I care about my family, kids, job, recording studio, writing online encyclopedia articles is distant in importance, arguing about who said what on them is probably below whether or not I should have muesli or granola for breakfast tomorrow, and I hope everyone sets their priorities in the same way. It's only the internet. What would [[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda]] do? [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 00:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC) |
:::Well I do admit people have said "fucking genius you are, mate" at the end of a gig, so I'll take the compliment as it comes. Anyway, I care about my family, kids, job, recording studio, writing online encyclopedia articles is distant in importance, arguing about who said what on them is probably below whether or not I should have muesli or granola for breakfast tomorrow, and I hope everyone sets their priorities in the same way. It's only the internet. What would [[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda]] do? [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 00:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::Too childish to reply properly I see. [[Special:Contributions/192.121.113.79|192.121.113.79]] ([[User talk:192.121.113.79|talk]]) 00:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:27, 16 January 2016
Hello
I notice you deleted this template on 19th November: Could you advise me please on how to protest this TFD, as it looks decidedly dodgy to me.
This was debated first in February this year (here), and closed (No Consensus) in March with 4 keeps and 2 deletes (3 with the nom).
It was debated again in September (here) and closed 23 Oct (again as No Consensus; 5 keeps and 3 (or 4) deletes).
Then it was proposed again about a week later, got 2 votes to merge, was relisted on the 10th (Nov), got 3 votes from previous participants to delete and got a non-admin closure on 18th Nov as a Delete.
I feel this was inappropriate because:
- There were 9 keeps to 6 deletes (3 were repeated) overall, and 2 for mergers; that isn't a consensus for “delete”.
- There were 2 votes (a delete and a merge) that look like sockpuppets (this and this).
- The other Merge vote clearly said “Not okay with 'delete without providing a replacement that clearly indicates to everyone else that this editor's edits may be reverted'”, though this is precisely what has happened.
- The delete opinions varied between “too harsh” and “not harsh enough” (which generally suggests things are about right)
- A number of editors thought it should be incorporated in a more comprehensive banned template, towards which nothing appears to have been done.
- We operate on the notion that once something is decided it stays decided for a decent amount of time (per this), so re-listing after 10 days and closing on 3 repeat votes looks to me like gaming the system.
Thanks, Xyl 54 (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Xyl 54: The recommended venue for challenging a deletion discussion is a Deletion review, though recent consensus has decided that due to a lack of inactivity, TfDs can be "closed" as delete by non-admins and put in a holding pen, so the deletion is also an endorsement of Primefac's non-admin close. I also thought Opabinia regalis, who voted "delete", gave the strongest argument, and others argued the template was unnecessary and inflammatory. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW, the recommended venue is that one only after talking to you about it here:
"Deletion Review should not be used: [...] when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination"
. LjL (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)- I missed the discussion but would also support the delete rationale of Opabinia regalis, in case you need more voices, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ditto; I can't see any circumstances in which this particular combination of sneering and stigmatisation would ever be appropriate. ‑ Iridescent 15:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW, the recommended venue is that one only after talking to you about it here:
- Xyl 54, a few brief points, as to not clutter the talk page. If you bring this to DRV I'll provide a more in-depth response.
- The first discussion was in 2012, not 2015.
- The "no consensus" result is one of the acceptable reasons for a speedy renomination.
- I took into account all of the discussions, including the TfD for {{banrevert}}. I didn't count the !votes, but rather took the merit and strength of each argument as part of the whole.
- I did overlook the merge option, but in looking back there was no consensus as to where that information should be added. Fortunately, the original text is preserved in a note by Scott, so that discussion can still continue somewhere (maybe on the talk page of {{banned user}}).
- At the end of it all, my decision came down to the fact that the delete camp had a more compelling argument than the keep camp. Primefac (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- First, thank you, one and all, for replying.
- Ritchie: I had wondered about deletion review but thought I should take it up with you (as the deleting admin) first.
- I take your point about endorsement, but (even if an impartial acceptance of a better argument then translates into wholehearted support of that position) that would still have been 8 editors in favour of deletion (7 if we discount the sock-puppets) to 9 for keeping, which isn't even a majority, let alone a consensus.
- On the subject of Opabinia's argument, it was her comments in September which I interpreted as thinking the template was not being harsh enough.
- Primefac:I feel I am missing something here; Scott's note refers to this as an “unpleasant template”, placed by people “claiming to represent the community”. And the close was that it constituted “harassment” and “gravedancing”.
- One of the arguments for deletion with T:BMB was that it was being used willye nilye (it had 149 transclusions; is that a lot?) while T:BR was under the hammer because hardly anyone used it. Was there any evidence that either were being used for “gravedancing”? I didn't see any presented.
- On the subject of harassment, I notice our policy on that says it is “unacceptable to harass a user … who has been banned..” (though I also note that was added en bloc with this edit, which is ironic, considering). It also describes harassment as making editing “unpleasant for the target”, or “to discourage them from editing” Well, isn't that exactly what we are seeking to do with people who persistently disrupt the project? I'm kind of concerned that this decision is labelling efforts to deal robustly with persistent dickheads is being regarded as harassment.
- Is the problem here that we aren't actually serious about WP:BMB? Because I thought JamesWatson's observation at T:BR (that making a banned users editing a waste of their time is a deterrent) was a good one. If having this template is seen as sending the wrong message, I'm wondering what the right message is, and I'm wondering what message is being sent by deleting it.
- As for the speedy renomination, it just seems wrong (esp. in the light of DPAFD; it wasn't as if there were no comments from any editor besides the nominator); the only purpose seems to have been to pull a fast one, particularly as the three delete votes were all from people who had already contributed.
- Finally, if T:BR was also deleted as being redundant to T:BMB, we've now deleted BMB as well; and as there were some suggestions to incorporate the reasoning for it into another template, it seems premature to delete this one until that has been done. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Xyl 54: I'm not really here this week due to travel IRL, but just for reference, my September comment was supposed to be sort of a joke, and I think this template is horrible. Not really anything to do with "harshness" - it's both unpleasant and ineffectual at the same time. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Opabinia regalis:: Thank you for clarifying that; I really got the wrong end of the stick there, hey? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Xyl 54: I'm not really here this week due to travel IRL, but just for reference, my September comment was supposed to be sort of a joke, and I think this template is horrible. Not really anything to do with "harshness" - it's both unpleasant and ineffectual at the same time. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Looking back on this, I wouldn't have minded a reply to the queries I raised here; but, what the hell...
- Just to let you know I have raised the one issue at WP:Harassment and opened a discussion on the other at Template:Banned user if anyone wishes to comment further. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Ten years
Thank you for ten years | |
---|---|
of service for this hilarious project, with an ample supply of music and understanding! |
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Congrats! That is an impressive run. HighInBC 16:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Seconded! Alvin would be proud of you. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC) But, in the mean time, here's a-hunka-hunka-burnin'-luv for ya!!
- Cake! Yum! Anyone fancy a pint? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Scott runs that doesn't he? I've given him a prod. (no, a prod, not a prod, pay attention at the back) As well as Wikipedia, I've been at my day job for ten years and my eldest son turned 10 this year. I recall 2005 was a very busy year for me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- 2005 sounds like it was a busy year! The internet was so different 10 years ago, so many big sites like Uber and Instagram didn't exist and YouTube and Facebook had just been created. It makes you wonder what online life will be like in 2025, what activities/sites will emerge that we'll spend our time on. Liz Read! Talk! 19:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Noticed your question to Scott. How'd you find out? It was supposed to be a secret. :-) I see you're already in. Otherwise I was going to give Scott time to respond, and then invite you myself. I've looked back at some stuff you've done over this decade, and you have certainly earned the honor (pardon me, honour, as I see you're British), FWIW. Sometimes I think that anyone who is still hanging in there after ten years of Wiki-madness and continuing to edit with enthusiasm has earned some kind of recognition for sheer endurance. Seriously, welcome! --Alan W (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Congrats Ritchie333! Cheers! VKZYLUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 09:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Noticed your question to Scott. How'd you find out? It was supposed to be a secret. :-) I see you're already in. Otherwise I was going to give Scott time to respond, and then invite you myself. I've looked back at some stuff you've done over this decade, and you have certainly earned the honor (pardon me, honour, as I see you're British), FWIW. Sometimes I think that anyone who is still hanging in there after ten years of Wiki-madness and continuing to edit with enthusiasm has earned some kind of recognition for sheer endurance. Seriously, welcome! --Alan W (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
sockpuppetry
This conversation should belong somewhere else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Did you realize that the anon user is a sockpuppet? what a same Fakirbakir (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
|
Austrian Empire conflict
Hello user:Ritchie333, perhaps a doublure, but I would like to bring the following to your attention: The material is not well sourced and verification has failed in the past. See talk:Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. The text was added in April by a confirmed sockpuppet of user:stubes99, namely user:balcony. It has repeatedly been re added in May by another confirmed sockpuppet of Stubes99, user:prudoncty. The text should therefore be denied on the grounds of wp:deny alone. Consensus was reached in the past that Hungary was a part of the Empire of Austria from 1804 to 1867 (save 1848). user:fakirbakir was inappropriately summoned to the discussion by user:KIENGIR Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Fakirbakir (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. All of this constitutes bad behaviour and I don’t think any block of non-autoconfirmed users is necessary. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- aham, You dear Gerard von Hebel are cooperating with a notorious banned user. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I won't comment here anymore, I think Ritchie has had enough of us. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Hebel: What you say makes sense (the article is on the "Austrian Empire" after all, the formal union with Hungary coming later), and the version I protected on is not too different to your version here. I singled out Fakirbakir particularly because between them and the IP they've made 7 reverts in the past hour, which is too many. Two points I need to make, Deny recognition is an essay for vandals, which is not what this debate is about, and any uninvolved administrator can call sanctions on anyone edit-warring - "my edits were right" does not work as a defence. If the edit war continues amongst registered editors, I would be inclined to full-protect the page for a shorter period and spell out exactly what consensus is in black-and-white on the talk page so no editor can be in any doubt what it is. I appreciate my background to the topic is limited, based on reading the background to World War I in the Imperial War Museum for instance, but I feel that's a good thing as it stops me being accused of obvious bias. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- OK,user:Ritchie333 Thank you for taking notice. One more question. I invoked WP:DENY because the original authors of the text I removed (again) were confirmed sockpuppets. The denial was directed against THEIR text and not against the people (KEINGIR and Fakirbakir) that are reintroducing it now. If that's not the right procedure, could you tell me what protocol I should use to clarify that contributions by sockpuppets should not be restored? Thanks! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Hebel: What I meant was WP:DENY is not the right essay to throw into a conversation. I would say Edit warring and Consensus are the best policies to use here. If a point of view is being repeatedly inserted into an article against a prior consensus, then it can be worth getting a broader appeal via the Administrators' Noticeboard which gets a lot of traffic and institutional memory. I did notice that discretionary sanctions are enforced for Eastern Europe, broadly construed, which sort of fits Austria-Hungary, so that might be a way of resolving the disruption for the long-term. Kirill Lokshin was involved in the original case and is still around; maybe he can suggest some ideas. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks user:Ritchie333, I'm afraid that past experiences with this particular subject have made me somewhat edgy. I had heard about the Eastern Europe, but it's good to have a link now. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Guys, these content was an old content, heavily referenced, I read and cared about related topics in the summer and was totally amazed everything was removed a clear alternate history you introduced! I did not know about any sockpuppets since that time. Your argumentations fails then, becuase originally not sockpuppets put the information. What consensus you refer on continously? I did found any consensus and it is IMPOSSIBLE wince Hungary was never legally part of the Austrian Empire. So if really someone made consensus on this, it was a clear mistake!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC))
- I checked the "Ausgleich" article, and I did not found any "consensus", you debated with someone, but you did not trial regarding this. You acts are heavily ad hoc and one-sided! The article not any means can remain like this!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC))
- Thanks user:Ritchie333, I'm afraid that past experiences with this particular subject have made me somewhat edgy. I had heard about the Eastern Europe, but it's good to have a link now. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Hebel: What I meant was WP:DENY is not the right essay to throw into a conversation. I would say Edit warring and Consensus are the best policies to use here. If a point of view is being repeatedly inserted into an article against a prior consensus, then it can be worth getting a broader appeal via the Administrators' Noticeboard which gets a lot of traffic and institutional memory. I did notice that discretionary sanctions are enforced for Eastern Europe, broadly construed, which sort of fits Austria-Hungary, so that might be a way of resolving the disruption for the long-term. Kirill Lokshin was involved in the original case and is still around; maybe he can suggest some ideas. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- OK,user:Ritchie333 Thank you for taking notice. One more question. I invoked WP:DENY because the original authors of the text I removed (again) were confirmed sockpuppets. The denial was directed against THEIR text and not against the people (KEINGIR and Fakirbakir) that are reintroducing it now. If that's not the right procedure, could you tell me what protocol I should use to clarify that contributions by sockpuppets should not be restored? Thanks! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Hebel: What you say makes sense (the article is on the "Austrian Empire" after all, the formal union with Hungary coming later), and the version I protected on is not too different to your version here. I singled out Fakirbakir particularly because between them and the IP they've made 7 reverts in the past hour, which is too many. Two points I need to make, Deny recognition is an essay for vandals, which is not what this debate is about, and any uninvolved administrator can call sanctions on anyone edit-warring - "my edits were right" does not work as a defence. If the edit war continues amongst registered editors, I would be inclined to full-protect the page for a shorter period and spell out exactly what consensus is in black-and-white on the talk page so no editor can be in any doubt what it is. I appreciate my background to the topic is limited, based on reading the background to World War I in the Imperial War Museum for instance, but I feel that's a good thing as it stops me being accused of obvious bias. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I won't comment here anymore, I think Ritchie has had enough of us. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Austrian Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was semi-protected recently, but it was not enough for stopping the edit war. Can you please temporary full-protect it? 185.55.217.57 (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've locked the article for 24 hours while we can all agree what to do. If you're still getting logjams on the talk page, file a report at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Please also full-protect Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), where an edit war on the same issue is taking place. Dnakosaeiujslrksdj (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- That page was also on my radar; I have protected for 24 hours and in a minute I am going to pop over to WP:AN to get some more administrators to look at it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your commitment. Sorry I wasn't available yesterday. I have made two proposals and published them on the respective talkpages. I'm not sure that that "more than 3R" incidents have taken place on either article in the last few days, but I may be mistaken. I'm awaiting reactions. KIENGIR has published his proposal on the Hungary talkpage. Although that proposal clearly has elements that are objectionable in my view (which I have expressed) I have asked for clarification, because I'm not sure what the exact text is he proposes. I am awaiting reactions on both pages. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- That page was also on my radar; I have protected for 24 hours and in a minute I am going to pop over to WP:AN to get some more administrators to look at it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Please also full-protect Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), where an edit war on the same issue is taking place. Dnakosaeiujslrksdj (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Ritchie333, I want to notify you that an edit war on the same subject is taking place at Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) between the same editors (Hebel and KIENGIR) 95.141.47.70 (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I would say it is a very moderate things compared to what happened in the other too articles, first of all I did not found any consensus on the talk page, moreover the staus of that article is also inacceptable. Please note I did not remove Hebel's any edit, I expanded the same sources to have their valid content without contradiction, and I added a section that was removed earlier with a modified content. So it cannot be seen in a way I did something to remove someone's edit, anyway I will report it to the ANI.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC))
You've got mail!
Message added 12:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
The Avengers 12:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- @The Avengers: I have no idea what a checkuser actually does, but from my own experience running forums and websites and tracking socks and spammers, I would take an educated guess at it being the information you can see when you look at http://whatsmyuseragent.com/ or if you've got the time to read RFC2068. It's harmless to tell anyone this, somebody who's not actually a sock learns something, someone who's the bastard son of Russavia and Grawp ... well it's hardly telling them anything they don't already know is it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings
Seasons Greetings | |
Christmas! Christmas, everywhere,
|
- This card was designed by User:Samtar
Nadolig Llawen
Season's Greetings
To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia! |
Apology and explanation
I want to apologize for declining that unblock request while you were involved in it.
I do want to explain where I was coming from though. I saw the blocking admin showing two very similar edits which to me looked like good evidence. I saw you saying there was no evidence and making comments suggesting that the user may have been blocked for "Edit warring? Incivility? POV pushing? Copyright violations? Rubbing admins up the wrong way?". To me it seemed like you were ignoring the actual reasons given and making suggestions of bad faith against the blocking admin.
When I read the ANI post and saw that the images in the article were generated using a common and standard process I immediately realized my error. I would have been able to realize it earlier if you had focused on the issues with the evidence rather than saying that there was none.
I accept my failure in this incident but I don't think I carry 100% of the failure. I am going to apologize to the user right now. HighInBC 17:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- @HighInBC: Anyone who offers an apology here will have it accepted. I offered my own apology to James here for being gruff as you described above. I wasn't assuming bad faith but expressing frustration that I wasn't getting my point across. Part of the problem is I had misunderstood that the block was a checkuser block, which tend to stick like araldite.
- The principal problem, I think, is that sockpuppetry is a secondary offence. We block socks because an account that caused previous disruption is attempting to evade a block, or is otherwise attempting to deceive, but not directly because they are socks. Generally, an obvious sock will have multiple administrators who can easily spot habitual behaviour; if you take one to AN/ANI you'll invariably hear somebody say "aww, not this again". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- I am glad you mentioned that you misunderstood that the block was a checkuser block, that does help the situation makes more sense. It seems there was a breakdown of communication at more than one point in the discussion. Peace. HighInBC 18:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you so much on working on my case and contributing on getting me unblocked. I hope I'm not asking much, but can you recover some of the pages that I have created that have been deleted by James? Articles such as Attack Attack! discography, Xeno (album). and any other pages that may have been deleted? Regards. ⍟R2me2⍟ 00:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- @R2me2: I've gone through the deleted contributions and restored what I can. Two items I left were Nicotine (song) which was deleted via a full deletion discussion, and your version of Phases (album), which was recreated by a different user as the I See Stars album, as opposed to your redirect to The Who's album. I think Phases (album) probably wants to be a disambiguation page, so deleting your contributions here was actually unhelpful, as it created extra work. Harrumph. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Bootleg recording
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bootleg recording you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- @FunkMonk: I've got to nip out in a mo (this blasted Christmas shopping won't buy itself - grrr) but hopefully if I get an hour or two tonight in front of my books I should be able to finish off the remainder of the comments (can't believe I left out Zappa, that's unforgivable!) In the meantime, I can review passenger pigeon if you think it's ready for GA as I see you've been working on and I read the article no too long ago in complete fascination that mankind could do that sort of mass extinction. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- No rush with finishing up the article, I can keep it open as long as it takes. As for the pigeon, thanks, though I'm not nearly where I want to be with it yet... Will have to read through a few more books and tie up some loose ends... I'll give you a ping. FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- If you're still interested, I'll GAN the passenger pigeon some time today... FunkMonk (talk) 11:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I can do that, fascinating story on (lack of) wildlife conservation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Cool, I've now nominated it (though the intro will be expanded later today). Should be in US spelling, but I'm not too familiar with that... I also need to add more measurement conversions, and make their order consistent (as well as standardising citations). FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I can do that, fascinating story on (lack of) wildlife conservation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Trafalgar Square
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Trafalgar Square you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Maile66 -- Maile66 (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
M62 motorway
Thanks for your input on that GAN. I have decided to close it as not listed as I feel the situation there is problematic for several reasons, including that the article itself is not ready. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- The obvious reason for failure? No mention of being enchantingly celebrated in popular song by the masterful John Shuttleworth. (Well, Stott Hall Farm anyway) Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
This case shall be suspended from December 22nd, 2015 to January 2nd, 2016.
For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 20:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Trafalgar Square
The article Trafalgar Square you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Trafalgar Square for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. — Maile (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Trafalgar Square
Hello! Your submission of Trafalgar Square at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Just being sure
If Garagepunk begins editing articles I started on first, do I need to abandon what I wanted to do? I planned to start extensively editing a song called "Wipe Out", but he has since move to the page. He also commented on a nomination I made for deletion, so I am also wondering if I can respond. I apologize if this is tedious, but I am genuinely trying to move on and he is making it a little difficult. I understand editing the song page since that is his expertise, but the nomination page just seems like him trying to follow me around a bit. Anyways, I was wondering about your thoughts before I did much of anything else.ALongStay (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- @ALongStay: According to the interaction ban policy, you are okay to edit the same article as long as you do not undo their edits or comment on them in the talk page. I would say there are several million articles to edit, and I'm sure it's possible to find something he's never gone near, though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bootleg recording, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metropolitan Opera House (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
78.26's RFA Appreciation award
The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award | |
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. I am grateful you added to the humor, and helped the RFA go much more smoothly than expected. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC) |
Bootleg recording has been nominated for Did You Know
DYK for Oxford Street
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
DYK for A Night at the Odeon – Hammersmith 1975
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy Christmas!
Happy Christmas! | ||
Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |
A Night at the Odeon – Hammersmith 1975
Nice work expanding and improving this article. It is beautifully written and extremely well done! A++++ Happy Holidays! --♥Golf (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Trafalgar Square
Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Trafalgar Square
Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Weary of the Waltz, And mashed potato schmaltz
The big question looming over "Cultural references" is surely this one? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC) [1].... ah, what a fag...
- I can't find any source that says where it comes from, but then it seems to have been from an era where some songs could throw together Ibiza, the Norfolk Broads and Rule Britannia for a giraffe. Anyway, looks like this will be the next one on the pile. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Don't Waste My Time". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well at least keeping busy with articles means I won't get distracted by the odd cowboy unblock again, so it's not all bad..... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Lou Reed was often quoted as saying that the Cowboy Junkies' version was his favourite." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well at least keeping busy with articles means I won't get distracted by the odd cowboy unblock again, so it's not all bad..... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Don't Waste My Time". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
December 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fleet Street may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- [[Mrs Salmon's Waxworks]] was established at [[Prince Henry's Room], Fleet Street in 1711. It included a display of macabre and [[black humour|
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 28 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Strand, London page, your edit caused a URL error (help). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Best wishes for the holidays...
Season's Greetings | ||
Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Hafspajen (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification for December 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fleet Street, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Strand, Owen Williams and Curtain wall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
2016
Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters. |
2016 year of the reader and peace
peace bell |
---|
Thank you for inspiration and support, including two excellent GA reviews in 2015, - thanks with my review, and the peace bell by Yunshui! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Click on bell for the soft sound of peace (and jest) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Well I've achieved my aim of getting all three "red" property squares on the London Monopoly Board (ie: Strand, London, Fleet Street and Trafalgar Square) to GAN (and of course, the latter passed and ran as DYK on Christmas Day with its festive tree) and my recent contributions show large swathes of contributions to mainspace, which makes me a happy chappy. Let's make 2016 the year of "more content, less drama" and with a bit of effort, we can get every square to GA status! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Happy New Year Ritchie333!
.
Happy New Year Ritchie333!
Happy New Year, Ritchie333!
- Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Just finished review of the Music Machine article
I just finished review of the Music Machine article, and have now listed the article as G.A. I inserted the G.A. tag on the talk page. However, perhaps you could go take a peek at it to make sure that I did it just right--just so that everything can proceed accordingly. I'm guessing that the bot does the rest. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Ritchie333!
- Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Happy New Year
Happy New Year | |
Ritchie333, wishing you peace, happiness and every good thing in this New Year 2016. ツ
Fylbecatulous talk 13:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC) |
- What a perfectly delightful greeting. Happy New Year from me too, Threesie. And to Mrs Threesie, naturally. Have some blistering guitar from John Sterling and some scintillating keys from Terry Ryan: [2]. (A wonderful 1975 album). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC) What's your guess? And where is List of unusual album covers?
Your GA nomination of Oxford Street
The article Oxford Street you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Oxford Street for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Bootleg recording
The article Bootleg recording you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bootleg recording for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Fleet Street
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fleet Street you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Your edit of The Who
I completed a sentence that had been partially redacted at some time past. It didn't make any sense. It obviously referred to the dustup at the recording of a track on Quadrophenia. 'Unfortunately, the technology was not sophisticated enough to deal with the demands of the music, and Daltrey knocked out Townshend in an argument during...' "...during " what? I posted a link to the most informative and most recent interview that dealt with the fight. So what is your purpose in restoring a senseless and incomplete sentence and getting upset with the correction I'd made? Activist (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- It's simple - don't cite the Daily Mail in a BLP and edit war over it. I've seen admins (wave to John) block over this. It's also factually incorrect as the Quadrophenia film was six years later, this bit here is talking about the album. Two wrongs don't make a right! It seems JG66 has picked up the baton and fixed the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)
- Yep, I went back (and back, and back) to find the text that appeared there previously. Besides the chronology issue (late 1972 tour vs filming in 1978), the mention of filming anything just made no sense in that context.
- With the Daily Mail, btw: would it not be okay to quote from an interview such as this if we needed to or, say, use a book extract appearing in the newspaper? I mean, we wouldn't use the Mail to support anything factual, quite right – but if someone gives the paper an interview or chooses to publish an extract there, it's their own words that are appearing (and they presumably vet the copy with a greater eye for accuracy compared with the standards typically applied in-house …) JG66 (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm hardly a fan of the Mail and find its usual editorial standards to be execrable. However, in this case its a well-written, unique and informative interview and shouldn't be buried because of the reporter's despicable paymaster, and then first replaced with the preexisting sentence fragment. Here's the accessible context that was removed and replaced by the earlier, far less accessible Fry book excerpt:
Both born to hold opinions and prepared to die defending them, it is remarkable that two such diametrically opposed souls have only come to blows once. ‘Ironically, we were filming Love Reign O’er Me for the Quadrophenia movie,’ chuckles Daltrey. ‘Pete was very drunk and has come at me with a guitar, then he’s tried to punch me so I ducked the punch and hit him. It was a very clean uppercut and it knocked him spark out. He still reckons that’s what caused his bald spot.’ ‘I probably deserved to get knocked out,’ sighs Townshend, tugging at the collar of a stylish black shirt. ‘It wasn’t a fight, I just stood there and let him hit me. 'What’s interesting is that he could have killed me. I went out like a light. It took me a while to piece things back together. 'It was a hell of a punch. But it was the only one – there was too much respect there for it to happen again.’
- I'm hardly a fan of the Mail and find its usual editorial standards to be execrable. However, in this case its a well-written, unique and informative interview and shouldn't be buried because of the reporter's despicable paymaster, and then first replaced with the preexisting sentence fragment. Here's the accessible context that was removed and replaced by the earlier, far less accessible Fry book excerpt:
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/event/article-2803957/The-s-Pete-Townshend-Roger-Daltrey-Pete-came-knocked-spark-Roger-Daltrey-Pete-Townshend-interview-decade-just-cause-big-sensation.html#ixzz3wCxynCGw The article deserves a better fix but I'm not going to war over it. Activist (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) At least Pete is not as big a dick as man-crush Jagger. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- But Dave Marsh's book (p.427) says "During the second day's rehearsal, after a long struggle with '5:15' ... Daltrey finally lost his patience .... Townshend snapped. He based Daltrey on the head with his guitar ... Daltrey knew how to exploit. He stepped inside of Townshend's reach and threw one perfect punch." Other books mention the incident, but none say they were doing filming, all are talking about the original tour rehearsals in September 1973, well before the film, and I believe "Love Reign O'er Me" was not played live on the first Quadrophenia tour (see the infamous bootleg "Tales From The Who"). So the Daily Mail tells us things that we already knew about from other sources, and gets a few things wrong too. Plus ca change. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- Surely not "based"? That would have been the OXO man!? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- Ritchie and Activist: is it accepted that this was the only time that Daltrey punched Townshend (as stated in the Mail piece)? I was under the impression that Rodge often got physical with him during the '60s – must've read it in a Mojo or Uncut Who special I've got here somewhere … In Who I Am, Townshend talks about arriving at Shepparton for tour rehearsals with the stage backing tapes, during what appears to be late Sept/Oct 1973, and then describes the fight much as Marsh does. JG66 (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the same incident document above and it is from that time period. There were lots of dust ups before late 1965, then Daltrey was sacked and only allowed back in the band on the condition he never hit anyone again. Until Tommy made him a superstar, I think he'd have been daft to have hit any band members as he was terrified of having to go back to being a sheet metal worker. So it was only after they became one of the biggest bands in the world that he did it, and even only then in self-defence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- But Dave Marsh's book (p.427) says "During the second day's rehearsal, after a long struggle with '5:15' ... Daltrey finally lost his patience .... Townshend snapped. He based Daltrey on the head with his guitar ... Daltrey knew how to exploit. He stepped inside of Townshend's reach and threw one perfect punch." Other books mention the incident, but none say they were doing filming, all are talking about the original tour rehearsals in September 1973, well before the film, and I believe "Love Reign O'er Me" was not played live on the first Quadrophenia tour (see the infamous bootleg "Tales From The Who"). So the Daily Mail tells us things that we already knew about from other sources, and gets a few things wrong too. Plus ca change. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Bootleg recording
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Leicester Square
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Leicester Square you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Victoria League concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Victoria League, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Hasteur: I think the bot sent this to the wrong place; I did make the first visible edit, but it was via a third party request on a help desk (probably WP:AFCHD) who got the other notifications (per some of the variables in Template:AFC submission). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- The bot goes after the first editor of record in the edit history and doesn't go after the AFC submission template editor. If you think this needs to change, please feel free to propose a change at the AFC project talk page. Personally I'm opposed because we'll hit a lot more false positives by parsing out the submitter names from the templates (AFC volunteers who submit the draft but forget to replace their name in the template) Hasteur (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Surely it's better for the bot to pick one method and consistently stick to it. Having this notification appear over here and that one over there seems to be the worst of both worlds. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- The bot goes after the first editor of record in the edit history and doesn't go after the AFC submission template editor. If you think this needs to change, please feel free to propose a change at the AFC project talk page. Personally I'm opposed because we'll hit a lot more false positives by parsing out the submitter names from the templates (AFC volunteers who submit the draft but forget to replace their name in the template) Hasteur (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Invitation to a virtual editathon on Women in Music
Women in Music | |
---|---|
|
--Ipigott (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Euston Road (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Automobile Association
- Fleet Street (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Automobile Association
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Keep up the great work Ritchie! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC) |
Joe...
It's not that I particularly disagree with you.[3] There's too many proxy-using banned users on this subject matter. This (as well as the reporter) is almost certainly another, who will not be missed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Fleet Street
The article Fleet Street you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fleet Street for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Leicester Square
The article Leicester Square you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Leicester Square for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
North Circular Road & another Barnstar
This user helped promote North Circular Road to good article status. |
The Special Barnstar | |
For good works on Wikipedia. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC) |
Keep up the good work. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Death Before Dishonor (band)
You participated in an AFD on the Death Before Dishonor (band) article supporting keeping the article based on references you'd located that demonstrated notability of the band. Please improve that article with those sources. The article has sat with a reference concern tag for 3 years. --RadioFan (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Script?
[4] What was the script you used? WCMemail 20:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- That's User talk:GregU/dashes.js, quite a useful script to clear up dashes that always confuse me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Your misunderstandings of policy
[[WP: It's not at the level of being struck, for that you need grossly offensive comments. Nice to see that you realise this now. It's about time you restored the edit summary of mine that you deleted for containing the word "idiot", isn't it? And that you stop falsely accusing me of vandalism, encouraging people to undo my work, and forcing spelling mistakes into articles. 192.121.113.79 (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Just ignore them and go about improving the encyclopedia quietly in the background, ent-like. I'm gonna dance like I've got no worries (COI alert - I'm playing guitar and organ) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Ignore your persistent fucking up of the encyclopaedia and attacks on me, and just improve the encyclopaedia? Clever advice there, yeah. Fucking genius you are. So, you believe that "idiot" is grossly offensive, do you? 192.121.113.79 (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- Well I do admit people have said "fucking genius you are, mate" at the end of a gig, so I'll take the compliment as it comes. Anyway, I care about my family, kids, job, recording studio, writing online encyclopedia articles is distant in importance, arguing about who said what on them is probably below whether or not I should have muesli or granola for breakfast tomorrow, and I hope everyone sets their priorities in the same way. It's only the internet. What would Gerda do? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- Too childish to reply properly I see. 192.121.113.79 (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- Well I do admit people have said "fucking genius you are, mate" at the end of a gig, so I'll take the compliment as it comes. Anyway, I care about my family, kids, job, recording studio, writing online encyclopedia articles is distant in importance, arguing about who said what on them is probably below whether or not I should have muesli or granola for breakfast tomorrow, and I hope everyone sets their priorities in the same way. It's only the internet. What would Gerda do? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- Ignore your persistent fucking up of the encyclopaedia and attacks on me, and just improve the encyclopaedia? Clever advice there, yeah. Fucking genius you are. So, you believe that "idiot" is grossly offensive, do you? 192.121.113.79 (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)