This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tcncv. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi there. I agree with your assertion that the initial content changes shouldn't be construed as vandalism and totally agree with your action. I just wanted to drop a note that the reversions I did were when he began adding commentary directed at editors into the article, as per WP:NOTFORUM. I also noted that on the article's talk page. Just wanted to clear that up for you. Thanks for stepping in! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes. I saw that too, but would tend to forgive such and act as one of a frustrated new editor who no one would listen too. His/her primary transgression was not providing an edit summary for the material deletion, which led recent changes patrollers to blindly revert his/her edits. Note that we experienced editors also sometimes leave messages in article space – the difference is that we use templates. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib02:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Please don't misunderstand my comment -- it wasn't that I'm trying to get him blocked. I totally agree with you that such an action should be forgiven; I just wanted to make sure you understood the reason for my reverts. Thanks again. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't get why the IP had to lie about what he did. I did tell him that he removed those sections without consensus and that it was properly reverted. I would have talked to him more if only he hadn't vandalised my talk page and gave me those false warnings. That's what made the situation worse and for him to lie about his actions. I just hope that he learns from all this and next time he should bring that controversial edit to the talk page and talk about it. Momo sanGespräch06:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, perhaps the above wasn't the best way to deal with this issue. And I admit that I assumed bad faith, however, I am upset that you are aiding this vandal. Suicide bombings are not an act of warfare, they are terrorism. The continuous blanking and adding of personal opinion is frustrating. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Understand. And although I personally don't consider it terrorism when the objective is a military target, it appears that the article has set precedent that any suicide bombing is terrorism regardless of the target (same for road-side bombs). But after further review, I'll acknowledge that my opinion differs from the apparent consensus view for this article. However, Finland shooting incident is a different matter. I don't believe that incident belongs in the article and I believe it was 119.152.38.240's intent to remove the incidents from the article based on the same reasoning. After looking at what content was being removed, I believed that I understood the apparent unstated reason, which is why I went out of my way to AGF and give the editor the benefit of the doubt and pursue a path to resolution different from a block. It is never my intent to aid the vandal. If I see unambiguous vandalism and the editor has been properly warned, I don't hesitate to hit the block button. But if I see the possibility of good-faith edits, I will take the time to investigate further. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib08:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I understand also. Personally, I take no position on the Finland issue, but it seems a few editors on the talk page feel it should be labeled as terrorism. I apologize if my language was too harsh. --William S. Saturn (talk) 08:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
No Problem. And, to clarify my earlier edit, I never intend my comments as an attack on your judgment in any way, and I apologize if it seemed that way. My intent was to both drop a friendly note to the user and to let any future patrollers or admins know that this case might not be a clear black-and-white situation and may warrant more careful handling. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib08:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
No apologies necessary. I completely misinterpreted the situation and starting assuming bad faith. And I must say, your civility is delightful. It's improved my somewhat grumpy mood. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 09:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Just FYI on this. Not to continue to cause you grief (called you dumb AND made your misspelling stand- doh!), but since a discussion has formed around the misspelling, I figured it was best to leave the misspelling in place so the context isn't lost. Cheers, tedder (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I have a thick skin. Probably fixing it with strikethrough and insertion would have been a better way to fix it. It doesn't really matter though. I fixed the spelling on the BLP page too. Since spelling wasn't discussed there, I assume that one is OK. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib02:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Works for me. Yeah, I didn't think much of it, but then realized that to someone without a thick skin, or without the whole context, it might look like I was kinda battling you at various places across the Wiki. Heh. tedder (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, now I really get it. I didn't recognize whose razor you were referring to at first and was somewhat puzzled by the remarks. But after following the link to Hanlon's razor, your remarks became clear and I had a good laugh. (Thick skin no longer required.) -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib04:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Heh! Glad to hear it. It's the first thing that popped to mind when the word "conspiracy" was being used for a simply typo. tedder (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Moving left, not starting a new topic because I'm lazy (and OMG, you need to archive!). Anyhow, do you mind if I protect Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains? You declined it, but the problem with enthusiastic IP editing is this: on one hand, leaving it unprotected is good for the "anyone can edit" ethos; on the other, the constant reversions make it clear there is a caste system between IPs and registered users. Further, drive-by IPs never really get the chance to learn about reliable sources. I tend to lean towards protection on music, TV, and pro wrestling articles that are.. enthusiastically.. edited for this reason. tedder (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I understand the ambiguity on note versus decline, but was just assuming you had used it as a slightly nicer decline. tedder (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Picnic Pizza Nashville
Picnic Pizza Nashville was on the local news Fox 17 to be exact with Miranda Coeing doing a story. Picnic Pizza has also been featured in the Tennessean in the december 1999 edition with references to the first location in Hickory Hollow Mall. The Murfreesboro Post also did a story on Nicola LaMattina at the Murfreesboro TN Location In 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traditionalist007 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
It is not uncommon for local newspapers and television stations (I assume you are referring to WZTV) to include coverage of successful businesses such as yours, but this is not sufficient to meet the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. Unless you can demonstrate that the business has received significantly wider coverage, the article probably does not qualify for a Wikipedia article. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib04:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
So as to know the extent of work, and as backup for bot approval, do you have any estimates of the number of instances to be treated for the following categories, please:
Hello Ohconfucius. I haven't downloaded a recent copy of the database dumps, but a scan of the 26 October 2009 dumps should provide reasonable ballpark numbers. I made three separate scans for fully linked date triples (including ISO style), partially linked dates (day-month, month-day, month-only, and/or year), and fully-linked date triples that have punctuation errors.
The following shows the page counts for each page space and scan criteria.
Space
Partially linked date components
Fully linked date triples
Dates with punctuation errors
Category
2,998
142
4
File
11,876
6,747
830
Portal
18,220
7,486
1,604
Template
909
562
294
Total
34,003
14,937
2,732
The date scan expressions that I used were not 100%. For example, they didn't scan for the lles common ordinal date links like "[[1st of January]]". In templates, only hard-coded dates were detected. Constructed dates of forms similar to "[[{{{day}}} {{{month}}}]][[{{{year}}}]]" were not detected. Many of the template dates are in the doc pages or in no-include sections within the template source, so they do not appear in the expanded templates.
Of the pages identified, those having dates with punctuation errors need special attention because these are the ones whose appearance would be most affected when date autoformatting is turned off. Others dates can probably be handled with a partial-date delinking bot, such as the one Rich Farmbrough has already run. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib02:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you extend the block please at the FCPS page. We have not resolved the issue although we are getting closer. I have a feeling if the block runs out the edit war will start again. It is set to expire tomorrow. Thank you, 71.91.18.218 (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure what to do. A NPOV editor has said she will put together an article for the section concerning the edit war. The section has not been reverted back 'yet'. Should I wait for the warring to start or ask for another block now? As a side note, no one has complained of the current version of the article except for the other editor. Thanks, 71.91.18.218 (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Your contributions are welcome, but please take a look at the Wikipedia style guidelines referenced in the edit summary. Wikipedia dates are generally formatted as either "dd Month yyyy" (like 26 January 2010) or "Month dd, yyyy" (like January 26, 2010). Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (like January 26th, 2010). (See MOS:DATE#Date.) Also, date formats should be consistent within the article, and one of the two formats is established in an article, it should not be changed without good reason. (See MOS:DATE#Retaining the existing format.) Those are the reasons that I restored the prior date formats. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib00:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
My edits were limited to restoring the day-month-year format that the article had used since creation. You added some years, changed some template dates from ISO 8601 to common format, and made a few minor punctuation changes. I left those in place. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib23:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Sort tables
What ever came of User:Tcncv/sorttables.js? Yet again I have come across articles that have colspans or rowspans, preventing sortability. I think this was the bugzilla report, but what can be done to restart implementation of this extremely useful feature? Thanks, Reywas92Talk02:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm back on it. I need to merge it with other changes to wikibits.js and retest, Getting some strange problems right now, but should have that resolved soon – probably a minor syntax error or a browser cache issue. I next need to submit it for review by the MediaWiki development team, since wikibits is part of the MediaWiki distribution.
Sinä annoit mulle huomautuksen mutta se oli ilkeet ku enn tehny mitään pahaa. Vittu vittu! Mä oon homo ja panennn poiki peppuun --Juhko (talk | contribs) 12:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Would it be fair to revert back to the version that we began with before the current phase of edits began? Currently, the page represents Ism Schism's final edits, so the page does not reflect a neutral view. Because the current page is Ism Schism's view, it may be difficult to reach consensus with him/her on changes. I feel there should be more balance in the Al Arian discussion, as there are both Hussain supporters and other bloggers, whose view is represented on the current page. The language I have proposed presents both views. I also think the way the page began before today's editing was more fair. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idahoprov (talk • contribs) 04:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Tcncv- Please note that Ism Schism is not deleting well-sourced information on the article. I have left in place his view of the al-Arian matter and have only added information from new stories and the White House statement to provide the other side of the controversy. Please lock the page in a state that includes well-sourced information on both sides of the controversy - not just Ism Schism's views - if he/she continues to delete well-sourced information. Thank you!
I think you should be aware that the version of the article, as it stands right now, is not the stable version which existed before this edit warring began. Parrotof Doom23:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The protected version matches the previously protected version from 19 April and substantially matches the versions from 7 April and 10 April. What version are you referring to as the "stable version"? It is substantially different from the 27 March version that preceded a spike in activity on April 1. What version do you propose? Note that rolling back to a prior version is not always done. A consensus for rollback on the talk page or significant policy violation may justify such a rollback. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib23:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
See the article's talk page. Long boring argument over the use of the long s. The stable version contained the long s. The edit war regards that, and that only. While the discussion continues (and no consensus has yet been reached), it's somewhat odd to protect the article in the state it is now in. The previous lock was so short I simply couldn't be bothered to mention it. Parrotof Doom23:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
At this point I am going to leave the article as-is and allow the RFC to play out. This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the current version. At the end of the RFC comment period (or earlier if clear consensus is reached), the article will be updated to reflect consensus. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib00:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
maybe you can help
you warned this guy about vandalism before....when I check his list of contributions, they are all acts of vandalism (some are quite inappropriate). Maybe you might know how to stop him once and for all?? his user # is 128.84.144.255
I reviewed the user's history, and yes, none of the edits were constructive. However, the user has not edited since receiving a couple of warnings. If the user resumes disruptive activities we will warn the user and may suspend their editing privileges if needed. See WP:VAN for more information. If you would like to help out with protecting Wikipedia against vandalism, I invite you to become a Recent Changes Patroller. There are a number of tools available for monitoring changes to Wikipedia, reverting unconstructive edits, issuing warnings, and reporting persistent offenders to administrators. That's how I started. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib17:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I took a look and it appears that the editor has now moved on. It the editor reappears and resumes disruptive editing from multiple IP addresses, a request to have the article semi-protected can be placed via WP:RFPP, but for now I think it best to leave the article open to all editors. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib00:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
98.14.155.233
Hello, I hope you don't mind, but I fixed your editnotice for you! As for that pain-in-the-arse sneaky date vandal, I've blocked him for a week and let the "rollback all" script loose on his "contributions". Having examined all the diffs that had yet to be reverted, I found 2 that might have been constructive. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the fix. So would you concur that it is reasonable to undo all of this editor's edits without detailed review? Some articles have subsequent activity, so further "restore this versions" will be required. I also suspect that 66.65.81.11 (talk) and 140.251.116.91 (talk) may be previous IPs for the same editor. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib00:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I would, yes. The sheer number of sneaky vandal edits isn't worth the time of looking for the one or two possibly constructive edits. I'll have a look at those other IPs in a minute... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, definitely the same person! Obviously a Barney fan. I'm already wondering if reverting and blocking is going to be sufficient, but we'll see what happens- whether he'll evade the block or keep going after it expires, I don't know. One to keep an eye on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The more I go back in history the more I wonder how long this has been going on. I'll try to find a good starting point and restore the various articles back to those points. Might lose some valid intermediate edits in the process though. Thanks for taking a look. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib01:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I just investigated the history of Barney's Big Surprise and found that almost the entire history was vandalism an general crap. I deleted it and restored it with about 10% of the history but, strangely enough, more content! I'm going to semi protect it as well since there have been no valid IP edits. This is bigger than I thought! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I'n doing this article by article- I've just done the same for Barney's Colorful World. the trouble is he makes a series of edits then switches IP, then someone else comes along and edits it so the reverting tools are useless. Madness! Rarely have I seen such a scale of vandalism that's gone totally unnoticed! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Looking at Barney Live In New York City, The 7 April 2010 version that I restored is 99.9% equivalent to the 7 April 2009 version (diff). It appears that CambridgeBayWeather (talk·contribs) has been keeping the vandalism at bay (no pun intended). I'll start restoring articles back to their mid-April version, the last edit by CambridgeBayWeather, or whatever date appears reasonable - unless you would prefer to use the delete/restore versions technique (I am not skilled with those tools - yet). -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib01:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the delete/restore method is probably going to be quicker and inflict less collateral damage on good edits- it's taking me about 4 minutes to delete, select the good edits and restore but if you want to revert without deleting, don;t let me stop you. I'm going to post to ANI to see if we can recruit a few more admins to help. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I've rolled back edits for articles edited by IPs 140.251.116.91 and 66.65.81.11 and have started looking at articles edited by 69.203.6.243. I have not checked for collateral damage though (good edits rolled back with the bad). -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib02:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Great. I think I'm going to look at a few more and then call it a night. I'll revisit what's left tomorrow. Thanks a lot for all your help. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib02:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Good evening and thank you that you have protected the Triton article, then I can go to bed now reassured. * Yawn * :) Abani79 (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I saw that you had gone through all the actor pages for for the Bleep My Dad Says article and converted the title from Bleep to $#*!. I wanted to apologize for that. When I initially expanded the article, my main concern was to link the actors to that page so that it could be found (since we can't titile it $#*!). I hadn't taken into consideration that I could pipe the link in the titles in their filmographies yet. For whatever reason, that didn't hit me until later.
I'm only apologizing because I am not one of those editors who feels that $#*! should be censored (isn't it already?) and keeps going around changing the titles from $#*! to Bleep. I find that very frustrating. It happened only once on the actual Bleep article page. I found that once I mentioned it on the Bleep talk page, it stopped. Hopefully that will be the same now for the television pages like 2010–2011 United States network television schedule since your comment there. Sorry again about that, and thanks for following up on those pages. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: Risen
So, why didn't you blocked this IP user for removing{{fact}} template feom text which obviously needs citing. How about that, hm ? Sir Lothar (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
My error. My intent was that rather than continuing to protect the article, finding an acceptable source for the citation-needed tags would resolve the issue. As you can see, I searched for a source for the wrong tag. (The linked sources may still resolve some of the fact tags.) I have now semi-protected the article for another week. As for blocking the IP, you hadn't requested that. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib01:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
To request a change, please (1) place a request on the article's talk page that clearly identifies what is to change (you will need to be more specific on the date), (2) show consensus for the change, and (3) add {{editprotected}} to the request to bring it to the attention of an administrator. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib22:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I know what is needed. I'll try to get the consensus on the talk page for that article, and submit for changes. --Skol fir (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello Tcncv - I've suggested you extend the protection of this article indefinitely as the edit wars are likely to reopen as soon as protection is dropped, and that the article will suffer from even more imbalance once those wars escalate and the article is relocked. I believe that the article should continue to be managed through consensus. Thanks. Regatta dog (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand your reasoning, but page protection should generally be kept to a minimum and indefinite protection should only be used in extreme cases. The {{editprotected}} mechanism is in place to provide a temporary path for implementing changes, but that is not Wikipedia's normal mode of operation. There are still a couple of weeks remaining in the current protection cycle after which the page will be unprotected we'll see what happens then. Having initiated discussions of the relevant issues on the talk page makes a case for compelling other editors to participate there. They can still be bold, as part of WP:BRD, but once directed to the talk page, continuing to edit without participating can be considered disruptive and dealt with appropriately. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib04:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed you reverted the last edits I made in the article. Although I completely understand why the article needs to be protected against vandalism, the last edits I made were to revert vandalism by HCPUNXKID. If you look into the edits he made, you can clearly see he removed sourced material that supports information in the article, in line with previous edits. Kindly check if it can be undone.
I think you misinterpreted what I did. Your latest changes are still intact. I was attempting to compare your version and HCPUNXKID's recent version of the article, but the rearrangement of the sections prevented the diff from yielding useful results. To solve this, I temporarily saved a copy of HCPUNXKID version of the article rearranged to match your version. That change was immediately undone. This allows this comparison to show what content differences were present. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib23:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem. However, I will comment that I believe that may be using the term "vandalism" a bit too loosely. Having a difference of opinion on article content does not make the other editor's actions vandalism, and calling it such is just going to put roadblocks in the way of constructive dialog on the issues. Please try to continue the discussion on the talk page and if needed, follow some of the steps outlined in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib00:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Apologies
Sorry for getting in the way here. We were facing several vandals on several articles and I was trying to keep up. The edits were so fast I couldn't protect the pages myself. That, and I'm still inexperienced in page protection. Thanks for your help. Tiderolls00:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Greetings Tcncv - just a quick note regarding your edit at Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. While your edit was correct, you wrongly refer to the version by Timmy Jr360, who has been changing it from the 19th to the 20th. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
After a look at the summary, I see how it could be misinterpreted <grin>. Perhaps "Revert residual unsourced changes by user Timmy Jr360 to long-standing facts by user Timmy Jr360" would have been clearer. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib23:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Lee Camp
Hello, please explain to me why the current Lee Camp wording in regards to his international play for the England u-21s is unacceptable. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.232.230 (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was objecting to the embellishment of the facts. The cited BBC source stated in the lede, "A crowd of 55,700 saw Pazzini score after just 25 seconds with a stunning strike to record the first official goal at the new ground.". In the "as it happened" section, "Who will be the first man to score at Wembley? Italy's Giampaolo Pazzini after 25 seconds. His thunderous long-range strike flies past Lee Camp, taking a slight deflection off Anton Ferdinand on the way." In the account you added "Camp gave up a goal on a weak shot from outside the penalty box mere moments into the match, giving him the dubious distinction of being the first goalkeeper to concede a goal at the new stadium." The questionable commentary included "weak shot from outside the penalty box", "dubious distinction", and to a lesser extent "mere moments into the match". A better statement might be in the lines of, "Camp gave up a goal 25 seconds into the match, making him the first goalkeeper to concede a goal at the new stadium." We try to leave commentary to the professionals. I think your latest edit is closer to the mark.
On a side note, please take a look at the Wikipedia bold, revert, discuss cycle. If you make a change, and another editor reverts that change, it is best to start a discussion to try to resolve the issue. Simply repeating the same change over and over is unproductive and may get you into trouble (see WP:EW and WP:3RR. Thank you. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib00:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
OnePt618 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
I did nothing wrong. I want to know why i can't put something up and then it keeps getting deleted. I can take down the deletion anytime i want. Yall did this to me months back and i am back for revenge. Oh, yea this isn't a threat just a promise. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senior2011 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm disappointed to hear that you appear to have no intent or working constructively within the system. I was actually interesting in finding out what your sources were for the article. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib15:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Brea Police Department Content
Please HELP-
I am asking for your help with this matter, I read you postings and it appears you are reasonable and understanding.
The information in regard to the shooting incident is factual however I understand that Wiki is supposed to be neutral it deserves to be posted because it did occur and has to do with the Brea Police Department. Perhaps it can be re worded- could you take a go at it so that it can be presented as information.
Additionally their was a CA State law passed based on what happended to Chad MacDonald and his involvement with the Brea Police Department, as information it should be known, perhaps you have a better way to re word them- both pieces of info were referenced the shooting by the pres release from the Brea Police Department.
Please inform and help it would be greatly appreciated
I am only one voice whose opinion counts no more than anyone else's, and in this case, since I am not familiar with the subject matter, I am not in a good position to propose a rewrite. I suggest taking this to the article's talk page and proposing the addition there and working with the other editors to find a solution that covers the facts in the case, and attempt to also cover differing points of view in an unbiased manner. (You will need to set aside your own opinions to do this.) Be sure to back up the material with reliable sources (such as mainstream media coverage and official reports). If you and the other editors cannot reach an agreement, invite other to participate using some of the avenues described under WP:Dispute resolution. Good luck. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib01:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Re: your question
Oddly, I don't see any contributions from the IP you listed at all. You might mean a similar one. Anyway, since the affected user has received IP block exemption, if there's sufficient acting up, the IP in question can just be reblocked and it oughtn't affect the user at all. - Vianello (Talk) 02:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, when I look at it through your link I see it fine. Odd. I think I may have just somehow input it wrong. Anyway, by all means go ahead! (Sorry for not complying with your talk page guidelines by the by, missed those as well) - Vianello (Talk) 03:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I think Electronic body music could be protected for more than one week. Maybe one month. The disruptive IP is continously "promising" to continue vandalism (see [1] where he makes this stament). You can see how disruptive he is also in the history [2]. Thanks . 89.139.161.224 (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Understand. But we generally prefer to start with shorter protection periods and will re-protect the article for progressively longer periods if the disruption resumes and another protection request is submitted. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib00:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Longer protection WITHOUT Future Pop. It doesn't belong in this article. Why can people not understand this fact??? It was NEVER a part of this article! Future Pop is a completely separate genre! I never saw nonsense like this! Vandalism? In your stupid mind! That's typical for the English WP and its stupid users. Too stupid for discussions, to stupid for facts, to stupid for logical connections. I'll come back in a week. And i'll never give up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.71.131 (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
See the requests you dealt with for upcoming TFAs - they should be [move=sysop], not [move=autoconfirmed]. Thanks! Connormah03:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the bug again, but the Constantine II protection should be set to expire on the 20th as it's TFA for the 19th. Connormah04:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello TB. I've adjusted the protection on the TFA articles to conform to standard practices. Sorry about that. Just to clarify, was your note "Should not be sysop?" referring to the protection level or to my incorrect handling of the broom? I admit I'm imperfect and am open to constructive criticism. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib04:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah the Should not be sysop? was in reference of the protection, because I always see that admins add it. In any moment I tried to criticize your admin work, just were a general comment. I know that you are not perfect, neither do I, just read this comment that surely has bad grammar. TbhotchTalkC.05:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I had requested the temp semi protect of this article. Now User Langston Bonasera has put unreliably confirmed character Jo Danville back in with a bunch of blog and gossip sites as citations. Would you be willing to look at this, since I cannot log in at work to address the issue (and LB doesn't listen to regular editors anyway...a bit more to admins)? Thank you. Trista (user Triste Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Trista here again. User Langston Bonasera is now using various questionably reliable websites to place on the CSI:NY article that Stella is definately leaving to head up the CSI lab in New Orleans. This user refuses to follow rules at all, either using these cites as refs, or copying their own DVD covers and uploading them under free use rules, regardless of how many times they are politely asked to stop. If they do not just ignore direction, they respond in a rude fashion. May I politely request your help? As I stated before, they will not listen to regular editors registered or not, and barely to admins unless threatened with blocking (and don't pay much attention at that). I personally think a break from Wikipedia is in order for this person, but that is not my decision to make - and I also admittedly am ticked off because they seem to think rules do not apply to them. Help, please? I'll look for your answer here. Cheers, Trista (user Triste Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Nice assertion of authority
Nice assertion of authority, bitch. Now let me tell you what I think. We do not know much about Ellimmichthyidae. It was not studied yet so we are we assuming extinction? How about you all find a source that it is extinct? If we never saw one but we saw a fossil doesn't mean its extinct. Read the article about logic. --173.12.139.209 (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe the existing references are sufficient. They and everything else I find refers to the fossil record. I find no references implying active populations. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib00:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Keio University
For Keio University, I think that this IP user (149.142.75.234=149.142.75.229=169.232.190.64=149.142.75.49 and more) is biased against Keio. The consensus of the last discussion is to only put ARWU to the ranking, not to ALWAYS delete much information. They are all sourced by reliable sources and there is no reason to delete them. I do support Wikipedian05, but not IP user (149.142.75.234=149.142.75.229=169.232.190.64=149.142.75.49). Please change it to the previous version. Thank you.
JFK01 (talk) 04:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
It is normal practice with content disputes to protect the current version of the article, unless there are clear policy violations (which is not the case here). This is not to be taken as an endorsement of the protected version. I am not a subject matter expert, so I am not going to select one version of the article over another. To restore a particular version of the article, you will need to propose your preferred version or suggested changes on the article's talk page and establish a consensus for that change. You can then use the {{editprotected}} template to request that the change be applied. Be sure that the change request and support for that change is clear. Someone will then come along and process the request. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib05:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I've requested full protection, in response to your rejection of the request for partial protection, with more evidence of a long-running dispute, and contrasting it to the parallel dispute at Tea Party movement. I can provide plenty more evidence. --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Category: American Nazi Collaborators.
Please merge the categories 'American Nazi Collaborators' with 'American Nazi collaborators' The lower-case 'c' is the only distinction. Thanks. Painstaker (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
You can do that yourself. Simply edit the pages and change "[[Category:American Nazi Collaborators]]" to "[[Category:American Nazi Collaborators]]". Please be sure to use a descriptive edit summary so others can see why you are making the change. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib05:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the message on my talk page regarding Talaris Institute. I went ahead and reversed my speedy deletion. Would you like to decline the speedy? Presumably the nominator will send it to AfD, but that will still give the author time to try and bring it up to WP:CORP. Regards, — Kralizec! (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Sure. I was borderline on whether to decline, but I think a run through the AfD review process is justified. I also saw that the editor was blocked for deleting the notices, but has requested unblock. Could you take a look? The user appears to be a good faith editor who is encountering a few bumps in the learning curve. Thanks. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib02:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. It's located here: [3] Thank you. ROBERTMFROMLITALK/CNTRB02:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Grammer
Ok i am sorry to nitpick about minor grammatical thing, but u said "I am generally one who lean" but this is not the correct grammar becos u should say "i am generally one who LEANS" becos this will make the subject and verb agree and things of this nature. If u need more help with grammar and things like this, pls leave a note on my talk page. thx--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Indef block of IP
Hi there. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of what I have copied below:
02:06, 28 September 2010 Tcncv (talk | contribs) blocked 98.87.101.17 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Vandalism-only account)
I was the person that asked for the block, and I agree with blocking him, but I would limit it to a week or two, as it is an IP rather than an account. It's your call though.
No problem. By the way, why is 31 hours so popular? I don't get it. I could understand 24 or 36 or 48, but one day and seven hours seems odd. Care to read me in? Sven ManguardTalk02:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe because it causes an extra moment of thought. Maybe it's because it prevents the editor for returning "same time tomorrow". My preference is mainly due to the latter. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib02:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
If only the system could handle minutes and seconds. "You have been blocked for 4 days, 17 hours, 31 minutes, and 2 seconds." lol... BTW I like your reason. Sven ManguardTalk03:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you please talk to this person? I am trying to talk to them about there undo's of my edit but they are just doin what ever they want to do. Is there a rule that says Hangul names have to be at the top of an Infobox? 41.210.55.157 (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI: You blanked an entire page by reverting an edit made by another editor who had just reverted the page blank. Here's the diff. I wish Huggle was better about such things, but alas...
(Grin) Thanks for fixing it. It seems that Huggle usually detects this, either showing already reverted or "do you really want to...", but I guess not in this case. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib01:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
My pleasure. BTW I think I've done it twice in two days. I catch it immediately because when it gives me the confirm action pop-up I just know something went wrong. Ah well, have a good day, and keep up the good fight. Sven ManguardTalk01:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and Tcncv, I just want to let you know that I knew it was an accident and wasn't upset. I think I just made a wiki-mistake myself like 30 seconds later lol. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye out for the next time I get a warning. I wonder if I have been hitting the space bar (Huggle key for next article) and windows is applying it the a just-constructed confirmation pop-up. Its a theory. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib02:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
How much vandalism is acceptable for high profile BLPs? How much do we need to justify protecting a BLP, especially during an election season? It is ridiculous to turn down protection because "only" three vandals have hit the page in a week, especially for high profile BLPs.--TM00:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
When I look at the history, I look for a pattern of abuse. If I see long-term steady abuse or a significant uptick in short term abuse that is likely to continue. What I saw here were several apparent unrelated hits from a now-blocked registered user and two single edit IPs (not counting months-old activity). I do not see evidence that leads me to expect continued vandalism. Increased visibility due the upcoming election may draw more traffic and and an increased probability of disruptive activity, but we can deal with that if it occurs.
I'll watch-list the article and add protection if I see more vandalism, but do not believe it is necessary at this time. I will add a note to th RfPP entry inviting another admin to review and override as they see fit. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib00:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Because we are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There will always be some disruption. Most we simply revert, warn and ignore. Implementing additional measures such as protection is a judgment call that weighs the need to protect the encyclopedia against the open editing philosophy. BLPs have a lower tolerance for disruption, but in my opinion it has not reached the level that requires protection. Others are welcome to disagree. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib01:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I am sure you noticed, Courcelles (rightly) protected Jill Stein until after the election. I hope you will be more WP:BOLD in protecting high profile BLPs in the future. Thanks--TM04:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Lockerz
Do you have an agenda for maintaining this page? Please remember admins can not use their administrative power to gain an advantage in a dispute. Iksnyrk (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Nope. I make it a point to keep my administrative actions separate from any opinion I might have on the subject. As for the Lockerz article, A request for semi-protection was posted to the administrator's noticeboard, and on review I noted that several recent IP editors had been using the page as a forum for posting unsourced allegations of wrongdoing about the company. I have no opinion regarding the company, but such content was not consistent with WP:Verifiability ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"). For that reason, I semi-protected the article, which blocks IP editors and new accounts, but not established accounts such as yours. If you have material that you believe should be included in the article, and WP:reliable sources to back up that material, I suggest you take the matter up on the article's talk page. If you you have differing opinions with other editors, see WP:conflict resolution. Thank you. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib02:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I put up a neutrality tag on the page, and it was promptly removed. I did this so we can actually get some sources for Lockerz being illegitimate. While I agree that there have been some careless edits recently, I believe that in order to stay unbiased, the opposite side of their "legitmacy" must be included. I cannot create a Talk page because it is protected, and it seems like there is always a tremendous struggle keeping this page out of the hands of biased editors. The current page is extremely biased and should not be protected in order to stay in line with Lockerz' corporate agenda. Iksnyrk (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I have unprotected the article's talk page so you are now free to start a discussion. Both the talk page and the article were protected about a year ago after the Lockerz had been created multiple times with content that did not comply with Wikipedia guidelines. The talk page should have been unprotected once the articled was successfully started. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib14:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking that might possibly have been a bit premature. There had been some edit-warring, but we had all stopped to allow Daedalus to explain their objection. I normally hold myself to 2RR, so I wasn't going to make any more changes, and I also asked the IP to back off (and they did). So, on the whole, I think everything was under control. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
~~~ has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at ~~~~~
Would you consider changing this to a semi-protection? The problem atm is the socks and IPs, it appears. I understand why you'd put on full protection, but given the nature of IP hopping as is, I have little confidence that one week will do anything to get these IPs to discuss rather than force revert. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. I appear to have mistakenly applied a semi-protect when I intended full protection. When I reviewed the history, I saw some edit warring between several editors it did not appear to be a clear case of IP disruption. In those cases I believe full-protection is preferred so as not to give the confirmed editor an advantage over the IP. I'll review the case and related discussions when I get more time, but I have no objections to you (or another admin) making what you judge as appropriate adjustments to the article's protection. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib17:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I have looked through the contributions[1] of this IP read the warnings on its talk page[2], and I have also seen your header for the block enforcement[3]. I believe a longer block would be more wise, as it appears this IP has done NOTHING to help this wiki. I am currently thinking a block of at least six to nine months would be a good idea. The reason why I would advise such a long block is because I know nature of these edits, who are performing them, and also where they are being done. All of this valdalism is being done as a joke by the students of the school Preshil, at the school for the entertainment of themselves. I know many (nearly all) of the students names that are edited in.
I also know that now the students of this school have been valdalising these pages for seventeen months now[4], it is NEVERgoing to stop, until the network at the school changes the asigned IP addresses.
P.S. I could not seem to make an internal link to the block log, help on that would be appreciated, thanks.
Thank you for your input and the supporting links. (External links are fine. I'm not aware of an internal link syntax that allows parameter passing.) As for the block, it is customary for admins to manage problem IPs with blocks of increasing duration. A block one one month seemed a reasonable step after a 1 day and 1 week block. We try to strike a balance between protecting the project and not preemptively establishing long-term blocks. We also need to consider the changing nature of IP assignments. Even seemingly stable IPs may change as the originator upgrades hardware or switches internet providers.
That said, I took another look at the contribution history and the pattern does appear to be that of a school with long-term intermittent disruption and a stable IP assignment. Baed on that review and your request, I have increased the block duration to six months. If problems resume at the end of this current, the next block would likely be a year or longer, at the discretion of the blocking admin. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib00:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the extension. I can promise you that until the school changes its ISP and or network configuration, the vandalism is going to keep occuring. These students really do not care, at all. To them it is some entertainment.
Anyway, if a person at the school really wants to help Wiki that they will just make an account. Also, if the IP changes to a housedhold, then they can appeal the block.
AFC Mexborough is in no way connected with Mexborough Town/Mexborough Town Athletic FC. This club disbanded in 2001 after it was evicted from their ground by their landlords. Mexborough Town was a senior club in the Pyramid of English Non_league football. AFC Mexborough/Pocket FC are pub teams that play in local leagues. I have no problem with them having their own page but they are not and never will be Mexborough Town FC. I was involved with Mexborough Town FC and I object to these pub teams trying to claim they are the successors of Town. It is they who have vandalised the article I was trying to correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redrev001 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I've undone your warning [4], as it was way way over the top for a simple stat change (and self-reverted!). This is your last warning before I have to engrave your name in Twinkle blacklist with ugly tags that make sure you never can use it again. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh goodness, oh my gosh, I got you confused with User:TCNSV, with whom I've had multiple run-ins via Twinkle. OK, if you're not that same user, I completely retract that; I'm so sorry. Feel free to slap me with a trout. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I newer object to constructive criticism. It was an unusual 4im warning that I issued, but the account appears to be a VOA account that is gaming the system by repeatedly introducing and reverting what appear to be intentional factual errors. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib01:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
"Vandalism-only account". My initial look at the edit history showed several obvious vandalism edits such as this and this, plus several other that made more subtle fact changes, such as this and this. Each of these was then reverted. I interpreted this as the act of an editor intentionally gaming the system. However, a closer look at this latest edit actually appears to check out based on data at espn. I'm not sure what this editor's intentions are, but I think they are worth keeping an eye on. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib15:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
In retrospect and on further examination, it has now occurred to be that the editor was possibly experimenting with the templates attempting to figure out how the parameters worked and was saving experimental changes rather than using the preview function. Looks like my initial assessment was wrong and that the editor was working in good faith to fix some statistics. I'll file this incident in my lessons-learned bin. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib03:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I havent been dealing with new users for very long and in some cases I am wondering is there truly is a correct way of dealing with a new editor. In most cases new users who vandalize, or otherwise degrade pages, make additions that are obviously detracting from the article (adding "i like potatoes" to an article for example). In cases like this we simply revert the edit and issue warnings as appropriate before finally reporting the user for vandalism. But in cases such as the Henry Francis Lyte page when new editors are trying to improve the article but are doing so poorly or incorrectly I've often encountered problems. Since I prefer not to bite newcomers heads off I'll revert the edit and attempt to explain to them why. But I have come across two separate users who completely ignored my suggestions and simply reverted everything I did. By this point however I can no longer take a harder stance and revert the edits as vandalism because by that point any further edits by me are considered edit warring, meanwhile the new user continues about his business inserting personal opinion, grammatical errors and ignoring format and citation guidelines. Instances like this make the policy of "not biting newcomers" seem a bit naive. -Nem1yan (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I realize that dealing with new editors that edit disruptively is frustrating, and after a couple of warnings if often is necessary to impose a block to stop the disruption and get the editor's attention. Sometimes, as in this case, the editor may commit a blockable offense (3RR), but then shows a change in behavior before a block is imposed, such as this editor's posts to the talk page of another editor. Another administrator had noted such (here), and I tend to agree that an editor may be granted some leeway in such cases. (Blocking is intended to be preventative, not punitive.) The hope was that the editor would continue discussion and refrain from further disruptive edits. It can also be frustrating for new editors when they feel they have something important to contribute, but get hung up in Wikipedia rules and processes, and I am a WP:AGF and WP:DONTBITE believer. However, as we have seen this did not pan out, hence the current block.
As for my note to you, it was merely a formalism any you may drop it from your talk page if you like. I prefer to avoid any impression that rules do not apply to established editors. Your contributions are much appreciated and I apologize for the process taking so long to take decisive action. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib01:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
