Jump to content

User talk:TFOWR

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Melonite (talk | contribs) at 19:34, 11 May 2010 (Warning: Potentially violating the three revert rule on David_Cameron. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Archive box collapsible In a perfect world I'd keep threads in one place; in practice if you post here I'll probably reply on your talk page unless you ask me to reply here. If I post on your talk page I'll almost certainly add it to my watchlist, so reply where-ever you'd prefer.

New username, new talkpage strategy. If you post here, I'll reply here. If I post on your talkpage, I'll watchlist your talkpage to look for replies there.

If you're wondering why I'm advertising my complete inability to speak Polish, it's because I've edited an article on pl.wikipedia and there's a small possibility someone from there might want to discuss it with me, and that they follow the redirect at pl:User talk:This flag once was red to this talk page...

Likewise for Portuguese - I posted a machine-translated message in Portuguese.

There is, of course, a whole range of languages that I can speak with near-zero proficiency - I wouldn't want you to think that I'm especially unskilled in Polish and Portuguese. To be honest, I'm not even particularly good at speaking English: I lurch between English and Scots with all the alacrity of a Glaswegian in toon fe the nicht.


Welcome back!

I was happily surprised to see your page active on my watchlist when I checked in this afternoon. Nice to see you around again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyewberrymuch! It's good to be back! Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 18:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same here! Cheers, Amalthea 18:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! TFOWRThis flag once was red 13:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, TFOWR! Your talk page come up on my watchlist and I saw that you were the one who had edited it, so I thought I'd drop by and say, "Howdy and welcome back!" Talk to you later! • CinchBug • 23:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just popping by to say welcome back, very glad to see you again. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 18:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CinchBug! Hi Spitfire! Thanks for the warm welcomes! TFOWRThis flag once was red 18:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

...for rv vandalism to my user page, and welcome back!  Chzz  ►  21:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Good to be back! Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 13:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good one!

[1] Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 13:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! I shouldn't have used rollback; I null-reverted myself (page remains at your edit) to clarify why I was reverting the IP. TFOWRThis flag once was red 13:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About Egypt

what do you mean?[2]."not convinced by this edit"...
[3]- Do you think I wrote a nonsense?.Sentinel R (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!
It was because you changed a link to an article about religion in Egypt so that the link was now described as being about religious violence in Egypt. I couldn't see why you'd done that - because you didn't leave an WP:Edit summary. If you have a reason for the edit, re-do it - but leave an edit summary so that other editors can understand why you made the change. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 13:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a sectarian violence In Egypt. I think that people coming to this page about Egypt - will be interesting to know about this fact. It is clear,the article, that I created recently, and it needs to be finalized. But this is not critical. As regards the edit summary - in fact, you can seen in the history of where I added this section. Do you think that it was not done correctly? which section you propose?.Sentinel R (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but the article section was about the general topic of religion, and the article linked to was also mostly about the general topic. If there was a section within Egypt about sectarian violence then that could be linked to the sectarian violence section of the Religion in Egypt article.
The WP:Edit summary is the text you can add when you make an edit - it helps other editors understand why you made a particular edit.
Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 14:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had a look at Glasgow's article and it does a similar thing to what you (I think) want to do? It might be an idea to keep the current "Main article:" link to the Religion in Egypt article, and add another "See also:" link, like in the Glasgow article - this second link pointing to the sectarian violence section of the Religion in Egypt article? What do you think?
Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 14:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"and add another See also: link, like in the Glasgow article - this second link pointing to the sectarian violence section of the Religion in Egypt article? What do you think?" - This is good idea.I think that the compromise reached.Regards.Sentinel R (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I think it's important that there should be a clear link to the main article - but a "See also" link would be useful too. Glad we reached a good compromise! Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 15:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and good work! TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Designate

Yes, I saw you around recently and was remembering our work together, I should not be talking to the IP really as he is a block evading sock User:HarveyCarter who used to come a lot disrupting Brown and saying he was autistic, but I can't be bothered with tagging him today, good to see you. Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I wondered if anyone else would make the connection between a Carphone Warehouse IP and edits to Jack Wild and UK politicos! Sad to see something never change! I've adopted a new policy with socks - I'm no longer going to WP:SPI unless they're really disruptive - if they want to troll talk pages (and the main article is semi-d...) all power to them. It should give future readers a good laugh if nothing else. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 19:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is sometimes a good policy. I will archive the discussion when I can, as its excessive discussion for a talkpage and it is getting large. Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sure - I don't want to suggest anything contrary to WP:NOTAFORUM - it was that policy that prompted me to mark the thread as resolved - the original issue was addressed, and the IP wanted to drag out the discussion without discussing anything that would add value to the article. TFOWRThis flag once was red 19:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is going to be a very interesting time in politics for a while, We are used to the simple majority situation and to get to watch then having to work together is going to be interesting indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I was talking to my (11 year old) niece on Thursday about when the results be out, what would happen, etc. It's a good first election for her to pay attention to, precisely because it's so unusual.
I understand the Tories and Labour position on FPTP (it's served them both well thus far) but I do wonder whether this will make either party more amenable to electoral reform. The last general election I voted in was in New Zealand, and both Labour and National (Tories) seemed quite happy with PR - and both Labour and National remain the dominant two parties...
Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 19:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes very good for people to understand a bit more of the process, PR will take a vote of the people to get it in. The question is do the people want it? Personally although I do like collaboration I would not like to see issues preferred by minority parties implemented because someone needs then to form a government. The winners in the PR issue will be the liberal democrats so giving it to them to get into power is a double edged sword indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the Lib Dems will be the only winners - I suspect the Greens etc will be quite happy too! It does make for interesting governments - in NZ Labour had to cosy up to the Greens, "the Progressives" (Old Labour), and NZ First (kind of a centrist BNP if you can imagine that...) In the next government, National (Tories) had to keep various junior parties happy as well. And the Maori Party happily hopped between the two, so it stayed in Government even though the government went from Labour to National.
Your point about "the People" is well made: PR isn't something most people (outside the Lib Dems...) care about: I think there are more pressing issues, but if we don't start thinking about it we'll be left wondering "what happened?" the next time there's a hung parliament!
Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 20:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hes blocked and the forum discussion is archived. I reverted his Jack Wild edits, that sure is a sad story. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three cheers for the Mighty Parrot! TFOWRThis flag once was red 20:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. I have had a fair few run ins with the carphone dynamic IP. We don't seem to have a way to stop such accounts from as you say troll talk pages and being unable to edit but such accounts are disruptive, I should have ignored him. Personally I support only accounts and no IP edits, that would go a long way to stop many of the vamdalism and socking issues but it might make it a tad quiet. Best regards TFOW, nice to see you again. Off2riorob (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right back atcha! Sadly, I agree almost 100% with your point about IP editors. Maybe flagged revisions would help - but it's not something I've looked at enough to have an opinion on yet. Part of the reason I took an (unannounced, unplanned) wiki-break was the hassle of socks using dynamic IPs...
...anyhoo - great to see you again! No doubt we'll edit-conflict with each other again soon!
TFOWRThis flag once was red 20:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rain man indeed, as you saw I though I would make a report, it is good to make one every now and again to get confirmation and bring it to peoples attention and then when you shout sock and start reverting him people remember, recently he reported me to ANI bt it only lasted about five mins and he got blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm trying to stay away from WP:SPI but figured I'd pile in! I've tried WP:AIV and WP:ANI in the past, and SPI does seem the preferred approach - but it's not hugely fast... the IP is already blocked, but I suspect the registered account will either survive a day or two longer, or Harvey will get bored and create a new account (or simply use a new IP address). Sockers don't ever seem to get bored - part of me has to admire their stamina, though I suspect they have special qualities that I probably wouldn't want...! TFOWRThis flag once was red 22:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this is funny from his talkpage Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:-) ... though I think Harvey suffers from "understanding issues", so clicking the link may not reveal as much as we might hope... TFOWRThis flag once was red 22:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha ha..ROFL..Full agreement there, you take it easy I didn't realize you have had six months away, don't burn yourself out again. I was just looking, my last talkpage comment to you was way back in October 2nd. Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Hi. Just wanted to tell you that User:Ariana310 has also summarized his points at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ahmed_shahi. Tajik (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for letting me know. I'll keep an eye on the discussion, and nudge administrators to take a closer look. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 22:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi

Protection is a good thing. If you get any more disruption from unconfirmed accounts we can protect your user pages. Off2riorob (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - it's something I've been thinking about. I'd be happy to avoid protection unless their nonsense here is disrupting other editors unduly (e.g. if I'm about, I'm happy to either revert or just mock them, but if I'm not I appreciate other people will have to clean up the mess so short-term protection may be a better option). I could care less what some anon IP thinks of my sexuality (I'm not Jason Donovan ;-) )and I figure it's better for them to mess up my talk page or user page than an article.
One thing I noticed today was that articles I'd linked to on my user page suddenly became vandal targets - that's something I'm going to look at fixing over the next few days...
Cheers, and thanks for keeping an eye on me pages!
TFOWRThis flag once was red 23:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Harvey-I'm-not-a-sock-JackWildFan seems to have been blocked - for being a sock. I'm flabbergasted! Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 23:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no its clearly not me..As I said, protection is a good thing, my talkpage is protected until July and that is a good thing, my user page is indefinitely protected, it stops disruption and harassment. You will enjoy it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holywood56

I can tie it to Opal, because it is almost certainly Special:Contributions/89.240.131.49. Anything you can show me to tie it tighter to Nimbley6? There has to be more than one Wikipedia editor using Opal.—Kww(talk) 23:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUCK, mostly, I'm afraid - editing patterns (same articles - Scotland, pop music (especially Scottish bands), Scotland == Scotland but England == UK, spelling and grammar). I'm about to bow out for the night, but I'll have a dig through Holywood56's contribs in the morning for more detail.
Incidentally, it was more as an FYI - I decided not to go to WP:SPI and see how Holywood56's edits panned out - they had been editing for a while (since January), and I've only just got back from a 6 month wiki-break - I figured they may well have become a half-decent editor in the intervening time (obviously they haven't ;-)
Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 23:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead after review. A large heap of G5 deletions as a result.—Kww(talk) 00:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that conclusion, FWIW. Amalthea 01:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viral

Brown-do you think we should get it fully protected? Off2riorob (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the wrong person to ask - I tend to view protection as an absolute last resort. Right now it doesn't look too bad - there's a bit of too-ing and fro-ing, but it's all good. I've personally reverted TreasuryTag (an editor I have utmost respect for), albeit I did add a ref in response to TTag's edit summary.
Right now I'm not too happy with the suggestion that he has resigned - someone's added a term finish of 2010, which I understand the reasoning behind, but my preference would be to leave it blank until, you know, his term actually has finished!
...naturally, my view on protection may change! I'll ping you once I change my mind ;-)
Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is ok as it goes, I also don't think we should add term end until it actually has. Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.wordmagazine.co.uk/content/gordon-brown-resigns-skys-adam-boulton-loses-it-with-alistair-campbell totally amusing. Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey! I rarely see Sky, that was a real eye-opener! I suspect Labour (and bruisers like Campbell, in particular) have had much longer to come to terms with the result - the Tories are only just beginning to realise they didn't do as well as they'd expected... TFOWRThis flag once was red 23:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He totally lost it didn't he. I agree the Tories had only one good option and that ws a majority and now the situation is sinking in. (its exciting and amusing to watch them all scheming) Good morning. The alt text was removed without explanation in an edit by pointer, I just replaced what I could find. I think we added it for the GAR. Some people don't like it but I think for removal at least a discussin is in order. Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought I remembered doing some alt text in the past - it was with you, on Gordon Brown. Damn, I feel silly now! Never mind, keep up the good work! TFOWRThis flag once was red 13:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy helping me?

I seem to be getting into trouble since you've returned, so I'll blame it all on you. Joking aside - I'm about to get in an edit war I don't want. Am trying to explain to an editor that material copied verbatim requires quotation marks, and that material cited to a source must be in the source. Fancy having a look over my shoulder? The article is Quicksilver and the issue is (somewhat) explained on the close paraphrasing and source verification threads of the talkpage. Won't be worried if you don't want to get into it. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loved the Baroque Cycle! Looking into it now. TFOWRThis flag once was red 19:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good, glad you know it - I hoped you would. One of my favorites too! Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments yesterday. Since you know the author and the books don't be shy about making suggestions on the talk-page. The article has been to FAC once, and the main editor asked for help. I read Quicksilver about five years ago, and need to refresh my memory before I can tackle the plot section, but it seems to me that the themes section needs tweaking. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and way ahead of you! I added the 4 articles (3 novels plus cycle) to my watchlist yesterday! (I'm on a mission to seriously reduce my watchlist - yesterday I was savage and went from 2200+ to just over 1800 articles, so you'll appreciate that these 4 articles getting added was a major event for me!) TFOWRThis flag once was red 14:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well

I tried Wikipedia:Third opinion. Joe Chill (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I hope it works out. I notice you're discussing it at the Anime and Manga wikiproject - that's an excellent way to get additional input, and it looks like at least one other editor thinks you're reasonable and that discussion is the way forward. Let me know how you get on, and good luck! TFOWRThis flag once was red 23:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A thought...

Ever considered requesting adminship? Feel free to tell me to bugger off if you're not interested ;). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! There are now candidates at WP:RFA! No need to get desperate ;-)
Seriously, yes, I've considered it in the past and concluded that I wasn't ready. Since then I've taken an extended wiki-break, from which I've only recently returned, so my view right now is that I'm still not ready. Not ruling it out for the future, but not ruling it in, either!
...but thanks for suggesting I'd be suitable! I'm flattered!
Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 13:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being reported

That Brown has quit, according to sources . looks like he will be off to see the queen soon. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got BBC News 24 on in the background, and I caught a wee bit about "luggage" being seen at the back of No. 10. I still maintain - as do you, I'm sure - that until the Queen invites Cameron (or Clegg - might happen, I s'pose...) to be PM there should be no change. TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Report is from the standard http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23832558-david-cameron-its-decision-time-for-lib-dems.do , Yes your right it needs to wait until the actual moment. Off2riorob (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(set to resign) tonight. It is going to happen, expect Brown to make an announcement around 6 00. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that, expect the next hour to be a nightmare for you and me ;-) TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck, I have to go off line in twenty minutes and will not be back till 21 00. Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn you, you coward! Seriously, enjoy the (well earned) rest! TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not rest, study! brain exhausting thinking. I would must prefer to stay online. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mate - I was trying to undo someone who had jumped the gun, but accidentally undid a different version instead. I should have been more careful. --Dizzy hiss (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I've been dealing with this all day and I'm getting a little short - time for a break, methinks ;-) Thanks for your note! TFOWRThis flag once was red 19:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're probably out of date. The 7 pm Channel 4 News showed live coverage upto 8 pm. Gordon Brown gave an resignation speech outside No 10 about 7:15 pm and drove to Buckingham Palace - again live from helicopter coverage - and was seen arriving at the Labour Party HQ just before 8 pm. In his Downing Street speech he said that he resigned immediately as Leader of the Labour Party and was resigning as PM. We don't appear to have been told whether the Queen accepted has resignation, but Channel 4 stated that we don't currently have a PM. Pyrotec (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spotted your reversion on Scotland where an editor removed Gordon Bown as leader, that change was I think valid at that time. Channel 4 seem to think that the Liberals won't be having their meeting until 9 pm and they can't accept a Lib-Con pact unless they agree at the meeting, but Dave Cammeron could become PM before that provided if he goes to Buckingham Palace (we agree on that point, i.e. be aint PM until the Queen asks him to be). Pyrotec (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David_Cameron. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Melonite 19:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TFOWR&oldid=361531770"