User talk:Writ Keeper/Archives/10

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You're smart (er than me)

Any ideas? Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013#Header error. I don't think I broke anything, but if I did please quietly fix it without telling anyone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's just easier to get rid of all the fancy ifeq/switch crap and just type in the stupid message by hand. I remember when I was a boy they just had a coordinator type in a new message at 00:01 UTC whenever a deadline passed. Kids these days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Cool; I tried fiddling with it, but I think one of the templates (the one that determines where within a given span of dates the current time falls) has an error in it. Speaking of thankless jobs, I saw this thread on BN and am thinking about running for 'crat, since renames are a thing I'd consider doing (well, the only thing among the crat jobs, really, but still). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Do it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, that wasn't a suggestion or a request, it was a command. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The question

Hi Writ Keeper, I don't usually do this, but I'd like to say that I think your answer to question #7 (by Epicgenius) is excellent. :) Good luck! Acalamari 23:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Heh, thanks, Acalamari. It's what I feel. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

OK

OK, no problems. Anyway I thought it was Trevj who brought it up. Quis separabit? 00:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Heh, well, he's the one who pinged you, but I did bring it up first; I didn't have your full username in mind, so I just said "rms", and Trevj was supplying the full username. Not sure why it needed a ping, but whatever; I guess there's no harm in letting you know that you were mentioned, even in such a relatively harmless context as this. I would've told you, but again, I wanted to avoid the appearance of canvassing. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm very sorry about that. It wasn't a deliberate ping, more just a link in case participants there were curious. I'll give such actions fuller consideration in the future. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 06:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Little crat

Moral support for cratship. "I'd like to think I'm pretty" is good reason. bishzilla _ROARR!! 18:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC).

See, now I'm tempted to go back in and edit my nom statement to say "I'd like to think I'm pleasantly aromatic." Bad influence. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

['Zilla sniffs the little user. (Careful, Zilla, FGS don't inhale him! It'll only make you high again! [1]) Pronounces judiciously: ] No comment. bishzilla _ROARR!! 20:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC).

• I just noticed two things. a. "Except that, y'know, I didn't resign because of Eric's block, as I explained above". I think I've had to make similar statements in the past. Sometimes there is some density on the other side of the conversation spectrum. b. Writ Keeper. WRIT KEEPER. You've been wanting to be a bureaucrat since the day you got here, didn't you? Keeping your little writs, while the rest of us are trying to write for keeps. I should have seen right through you all those years ago in DC, and why did we never have a beer? We didn't, did we? Bishzilla, those trains running yet? Drmies (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • • Trains, what trains? Who am I, Mussolini? Or was it Hitler who was fêted for getting the trains to run on time? Very likely both of them. Oh... right... [dimly recollects.] Young Darwinfish got grounded because of absence of trains to the North Pole. Right. Sure, trains running, storm has passed. Feel free take northern train to pocket. Vänligen, bishzilla _ROARR!! 14:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC).
  • Whereas you've only put up with me since the day I got here to bide your time until the perfect moment to use that pun came along, haven't you?

    Seriously, though? Sincerity mode? No, becoming a 'crat was/is not at all my long term goal. I saw that thread on BN, wherein they suggested that they could perhaps use more 'crats, and decided more or less on a whim to try it. It's not a job that appeals to me particularly. (I mean, just the name! "Admin" sounds so...sexy, like you're doing important stuff! "Bureaucrat" sounds like you're filing A23 forms into cabinet B6 and bingo, you sunk my battleship! I'm pretty sure any kid that tells their mother, "Mommy, I want to be a bureacrat when I grow up," is legally obligated to be left for the wolves.) The renaming thing is a thing I could and would do; ever since I helped Hafspajen with his username thing I'd been thinking about that, but it's like one of three jobs that the 'crats do, and not the biggest one at that, and the other jobs hold no real appeal to me. (Plus, they've said that they're eventually going to take away renaming at a local level, which sounds like a fantastically bad idea, but that's another story altogether.) But, they said they needed help, so I thought, "eh, what the hell", decided to give it a shot, and here we are. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

    • That's such a boooring story that you're probably the right man for the job. Here's your video in terrible quality; better audio here. That's right. 17:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration templates

Thanks for fixing the Jclemens edit I did. I actually thought I hadn't saved it (just previewed it). When I realized I was wrong and the "documentation" thingamajigger shouldn't be there, I was about to remove it, but you beat me to it. One of the problems I've found (among many) since becoming an arbitration clerk trainee is I think it requires a deeper understanding of how templates work than I have. Do you have any suggestions about how I can learn more about such things (assuming I ever find the time)? Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I figured it out through a combination of Help:Template (the help page here) and mw:Help:Templates (the help page on mediawiki). I think the mw one is probably more useful. What happened here is that it looks like there's some sort of standardized template for arb case requests, and that you copied and pasted the code of the template into it, instead of substing as is expected. What those <noinclude></noinclude> tags mean is that whatever's inside there (in this case, the doc template), doesn't get inserted into the page along with the rest of the template when it's transcluded or substituted; it basically marks stuff that only shows up when you're looking at the template page itself, not when the template is placed in other pages, if that makes sense. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. That's not what happened, though. David, who opened the case, did whatever he did. He removed certain things properly, but also removed other things he shouldn't have removed. I was just trying to correct it, but the doc stuff clearly didn't belong. I should've seen it in preview, but for some reason I screwed up that part. I've been making minor errors along those lines lately because of being distracted by my real life, which muddles my brain. Yesterday, I blocked a sock without putting a reason in the block form (don't think I've ever done that before). I unblocked and reblocked with a reason. Ah me.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

What I find funny is someone flying in out of nowhere claiming to be so "involved" that they need to open an ArbCom case. It's like certain editors out there on ANI, jumping into every discussion with their oh so reasonable look how policy based my comments are commentary. I hear one howling now. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

A7 would apply

I retagged the article under a different criteria. Please look at the history of the article, I nominated it for AFD no one commented, it was suggested that it was nominated for csd. A7 wa a great criteria for it, when you declined it, I retagged as it has no notability whatsoever. It's not rocket science WK, if ever there was a reason to WP:IAR it would be this. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No, A7 didn't fit it at all, because A7, as with all other CSD, is supposed to be strictly defined, and "building" is not one of the things (and neither is "non-notable building" a CSD criterion). There's a time and place for IAR, but CSD of a relatively harmless article about a building, even if non-notable, is not it (well, really, CSD in general is not it). If you feel it's necessary, just wait awhile and send it back to AfD; I'll keep it on my watchlist and contribute to the AfD, so at least it won't just be you to have commented. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a specific organization inside a larger organization, it applies. I have opened this [[2]] to add it specifically. I think you are way off base here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Dude, a Gurdwara is a building. It's not the organization inside the building, it's just the building. That kind of twisting is exactly what we're not supposed to do with CSD. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

"A gurdwara (Punjabi: ਗੁਰਦੁਆਰਾ, gurduārā or , gurdwārā), meaning the gateway to the guru, is the place of worship for Sikhs" I have replied on the CSD page as it seems easier to discuss the criteria expansion and not have you getting tagged teamed here and there. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, thanks; that's certainly the right place to discuss expanding the criteria. (As an aside, I don't have any problem with expanding the criteria to include buildings; we just have to do so before nominating them.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

RfB question

Hello, Writ Keeper. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Writ Keeper.
Message added -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 16:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(Only adding this notification here because the RfB is due for closing in a couple of hours.) -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 16:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Can't you guess the purpose of the account from the contributions ? There are 14 of them in all. Darwinbish, much more active and worrying sock, 16:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC).

Thanks. Yes, I s'pose I could sort of guess. I !voted, then spotted this and just wondered why no one had apparently asked! Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 18:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

And BTW, this contradictory edit summary I've just spotted was a genuine mistake, rather than some sort of attempt at humour. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 20:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, Trevj, sorry for not answering, but I've been on a plane. Yeah, it's just a joke account, amde for humor. I'm a big H.P. Lovecraft fan. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 20:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Beat the Crat Congrats

Congrats. That looked too easy; how did they not find out about the campaign contrib... /*glurg*/ Preceding unfinished and unsigned comment added by User:Floquenbeam 18:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Hope he's OK...

Yeah, Yeah. Y'all always beat the 'crats because we actually have to do some work around here! Those rights don't flip on there own and those pages do have to be updated (grumble, grumble). In any event, welcome aboard Writ Keeper, and you'll find a mailbox on the left of the executive washroom in which you can leave our share of your contri…/*glurg*/. -- Preceding unfinished and unsigned comment added by User:Avraham 18:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC) He's probably not OK, WJBScribe got a hold of him…

Good luck to you too! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, Writ Keeper. You'll do well. :) Acalamari 18:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wholehearted Congratulations! I've always had faith and trust in you both as an editor and administrator :-) And as Acalamari said above, I'm sure you'll do good work as a bureaucrat too. Best wishes! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Wholehearted congrats also. I might even have voted support for you (.. if you could have pledged to make "bureaucratship" a non-word). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Awesome. You are now a 'crat, with over a hundred support votes. Maybe you can take the next step and become a founder. (Nah, just kidding.) Epicgenius (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Yeah, when I was first moving my nomination into mainspace, I thought, "Bureaucratship? That can't be right." But after five minutes or so of double-checking, I found that it was indeed a thing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The bureaucrat ship and all who sail in her? Welcome to it! WJBscribe (talk) 12:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Just ignore Avi's dismembered remains - there are janitors to clean that sort of thing for us.

Congratulations from me too! -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 20:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Well done, have a t shirt.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Congrats! ///EuroCarGT 01:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Congratulations and good luck! Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 11:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, thanks all. I just did my first rename, and the wiki hasn't exploded yet, so I guess it's all right? Still time, though, I suppose. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 11:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, nothing wrong and the wiki won't explode. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 11:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
      • It might if Writ Keeper manages to make 100,000 edits in one day Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
        • Lol. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 16:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Have this beer for your successful RfB. Many Many congrats for becoming a crat. Hope you like your new responsibility. Pratyya (Hello!) 05:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Precious

triumphs of language
Thank you, dreaming reigner of irony with bureaucrat headaches and a life of your own, for quality articles such as Cathreim Thoirdhealbhaigh (Triumphs of Torlough), for believing in "rules-as-limits-on-power", for distinguishing "discussion" and discussion, and for enlightening me on "badass", "yelling" and a cultural divide, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks very much, Gerda; I'm not sure that I deserve it (how few articles I've written!), but I'll accept it nonetheless. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Article writing is not everything, and improving the language of those who write articles has multiplying effects. I forgot to mention your great fishing, to end on "dreaming" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Congrats on the promotion! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 10:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Mass rollback

Hi Writ Keeper, sorry to disturb you, but your "rollback all" script is not working properly—it is only rolling back the first edit out of all of a user's contributions. Epicgenius (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, my mass rollback script just calls the rollback right, so any bug like that would likely be Mediawiki's, not mine. Can you provide diffs? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This edit was caused by clicking the button when trying to revert User:Hotcoffee 01's edits. Epicgenius (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, he had only made one edit to the page, so it looks like rollback's working correctly there. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

…Oh. I thought it was supposed to undo all of the user's recent edits. Epicgenius (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, I see what you're saying. Yes, it is supposed to do that. Well, it still works for me, so I can't really say what's going wrong for you; there's nothing in it that should be browser-specific or anything. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, I tweaked a few things; maybe it'll make a difference. I dunno. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Hey big man, can you maybe look at this and their other contributions? Too clever for me. Squank you, Drmies (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, the newer edits look legit, actually; it's apparently a VisualEditor thing. I recognize the format; looks like JSON, so rest assured that it is a thing. The earlier edits do look like the running of an unauthorized bot, but I wouldn't block or anything for what might have been test-running a script for three edits nearly a month ago. I'll keep an eye on them, but I don't see any problems of note. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
    • The user is a Google Code-In student (Qgil can tell you more) -- this looks like one of the tasks (TemplateData-related). Theopolisme (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:Philipposit

This user copied one sentence from a guide to appealing blocks on the unblock request. Please either deny the request or revoke talk page access. Thanks! Thewikiguru1 (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate for me, as the blocking admin, to do so. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you want, Guru, that I hand out a copyvio block? :) Drmies (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Leacgy

Legacy (2014 TV Series) is hoax by --Sunuraju (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Onfim

Hey WK, got a problem with the syntax of the first external link--it's got all those square brackets in there. Didn't you help me with a problem like that before? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Nevermind; I'm working on a different solution. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Writ Keeper. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 21:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 21:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holidays

JianhuiMobile ^talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

JianhuiMobile ^talk 07:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

IP at India Against Corruption

The dynamic IP at Talk:India Against Corruption is continuing to bang the "legal threat" drum and isn't really saying much else that is policy compliant because, for example, their sources are useless and they're relying on original research/synthesis. I'm not sure whether it is feasible to range block and I'm pretty sure that this is AcorruptionfreeIndia editing while logged out (that user was similarly tendentious regarding the issue). Would it make sense to semi-protect the talk page for, say, 24 or 48 hours to see if we can flush out the problem? I realise that this is drastic but if range-blocking is not possible then I cannot see another way forward. - Sitush (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Sitush,I'm really sorry, but I don't think I'll have time to handle this today. (Worked late, woke up late, have a Christmas party to go to, etc. etc.) My general sense is that you're correct: repeatedly bringing up the legal issue in an obvious attempt to induce a chilling effect, even when not a threat per se, is effectively the same as a legal threat and should warrant a block based on the spirit of NLT. But I don't really know whether, if a rangeblock here is infeasible, we can extend that to semiprotecting the page. My instinct is that we can, but I would have to consider it before taking action. I'm also not familiar enough with rangeblocks in general or IPv6 blocks in particular to know whether that's a reasonable option, and so would have to consult some people for that, as well. I really hate to pass the buck to other admins (or ANI, gods forbid), because this is an issue that needs to be dealt with, but I just don't think I'll have enough time to give this the consideration it needs, and it's a situation that needs to be handled well, and with care. (As an aside, I still haven't heard back from legal about this.) Sorry. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

As I submitted that, I heard that my mom is going to the hospital (nothing too serious, but still), so yeah, the above is doubly true. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem - real life is far more important, and your mom even more so. I haven't got a clue who is good with rangeblock calculations but I guess I'll find someone if I dig deep enough (maybe there a category for this). - Sitush (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Apparently it would be a trivial rangeblock. Trivial to those that understand these things! - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Heh, it's funny, but that illustrates how different IPv4 and IPv6 are; a /64 block is about 2³² times the size of the entire IPv4 range. Trivial, indeed. Anyway, looks like the IP has cooled off on the legal pseudothreats (no "chilling effect" pun intended), and while they're not exactly inspiring confidence in their "I don't care about Wikipedia's rules" attitude, they are at least trying to discuss things, so perhaps a block isn't indicated quite yet. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holidays 2

Happy Yuletides!

Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!) Epicgenius (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Season's greetings from Santa and her little helpers

Merry Christmas from Cyberpower678

—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 22:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Happy Holidays! Hope you are having a wonderful time!

From Hafspajen (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC) 12:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Pratyya ^(Hello!) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Writ Keeper. You have new messages at Jeromesandilanico's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"Talkback"

I don't usually leave "talkback" messages, but since it's been more than a week since you posted, mentioning here that I've finally replied to your message on my talkpage. Hope it helps somehow. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		For writing the most important script you will ever install. benzband (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, Happy New Year! benzband (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year! Gott nytt år!! Hope you are having a lovely time!!!! All the best for you! Some nice beer for you! Hafspajen (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy 2014 from Cyberpower678

—cyberpower _Online^{Happy 2014} — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—cyberpower _Online^{Happy 2014} 00:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 09:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Writ Keeper

Pratyya ^(Hello!) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year, WK. Looks like you have a lot of New Year banners above; I won't do that, as it isn't that personalized. Anyway, have a prosperous year! Epicgenius (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Help Please

Hello i am Niko. i would like to know how to put wiki page links onto my userpage. For exmple a link to Kasta. Can you help me out? please? (Mudak568 (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)) Mudak568 (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Niko, welcome to Wikipedia! Linking to wikipages is pretty easy, and it's the same on your userpage as it is anywhere else. To do it, simply enclose the text you're linking in double square brackets: So, if you type in [[Kasta]], you'll get a link to the Kasta page that looks like: Kasta. You can also create a link to a page with a title different from the words you're linking, like this: [[Kasta|A good rap]] would look like: A good rap, but the link still takes you to the Kasta page. (By the way, that vertical line in that example is a pipe character; on most US keyboards, you can get it by typing Shift and \ to get |.) Does that help? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does thnk you. How are you today? (Mudak568 (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC))

I'm all right. You? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

i feel pretty bad got beat up earlier on have broken ribs so in much pain. if it was possible id stop breathing then it would hurt. (Mudak568 (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC))

Hey Writ Keeper, I was wondering if you knew what I could reply to a schizophrenic Wikipedia user whose username is Nathan Bäcker of whom appears to be having a schizophrenic episode and sound crazy on his own talk page? Stormy Nights (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Orange bar script

I was thinking of adding a note at Wikipedia:User pages#User talk notification along the lines of "Registered users wishing to add back the Orange Bar notification may do so through this script." However, since it's attached to your name I wanted to consult with you first. Would you mind? By the way, I much appreciate the script!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, no problem; that'd be fine. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Great, and it's done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Profanity and drunkenness

Glad to hear it, but now I'm wasting all this time looking for the RFAR about somebody using bad words, where Newyorkbrad responded with "Fuck off". Where was it? I can't have dreamt it, can I? Maybe a month ago? (The only thing I'm sure of is that the request was rejected.) Bishonen | talk 22:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC).

For this rare example of my use of Ericspeak in lieu of Bradspeak, see this vote. For a couple of other examples, see the links in this thread. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It's more effective when it's rare, isn't it? Thank you, Brad. May I ask how many thanks you got for the edit? (The original one, not the slightly later one you link to there.) How interesting it would be if we could see a recipient's thanks log. Bishonen | talk 23:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC).

You can see a user's thanks log, just not what edit they were thanked for. Making reasonable assumptions, it looks like only 2 people thanked NYB for that edit. Plus whatever humor barnstars or other on-wiki appreciation he received. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about thanks, but I got two barnstars out of it, not that I'm counting or anything. :) On the more general issue of rude language, I suppose I'd say "there's a time and a place for everything." The arbitration pages are rarely the place for that, but once after six years of service I decided it was an IAR occasion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(TPS) What!? A public thanks log!? With time stamps!? That's the last time I f***ing thank anyone! Thanks, Floquenbeam. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

As a sidenote, Wikipedians seem to be surprisingly unfamiliar with the fact that obscenity, vulgarity, and profanity are three different things. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

ah yes, but then we're not all Wikipedians are we.. ? (allegedly) Martinevans123 (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, but

now I've made a mess of it. Would you please look at my Talk page again? (Sorry to bother you.) --Hordaland (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Nah, no worries, I'm happy to help. I've replied there. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!!!! :-)

You are a life saver, thank you very much. I will take your advice and I will come to you in case I have trouble. Thank you for your help and understanding. Michael Crichton Stephen King Talk 22:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hello, it's me again and I have a question. I had just finished reading the instructions on Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple and I'm confused on both step 7 and step 8 and here is a copy a paste of those two steps:

7. Users with many edits should log out of their accounts to ensure the rename is carried out properly.

8. Check back on this page periodically to answer any questions that may arise regarding your request. Please be patient. It may take a few days for your request to be completed. If you do not answer any questions, your request may be declined due to no response.

My question to you is how will I be able to answer any possible questions, as mentioned in Step 8, if I have to log out of my account, as mentioned in Step 7? Please reply when you have a chance. Thank you. Michael Crichton Stephen King Talk 14:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the idea is that, for accounts with many edits, it can take the system some time to go through and reassign all of the edits to the new name, and staying logged-out makes that a bit easier. But that's only really important during the process of the actual rename; if we have questions for you, we'll ask them before we start the process, so logging in to answer them won't hurt anything, as we won't have started it yet. It's not that you have to log out immediately once you make the request. And to be honest, it's probably okay for you anyway; I think that instruction is more for people on the order of thousands of edits. Anyway, I wouldn't worry too much about that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay thank you again. Michael Crichton Stephen King Talk 15:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Your welcome and thank you again for changing my username. You've made my day a great day. :-) THANK YOU!!! Hitcher vs. Candyman Talk 17:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course, my pleasure. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on List of Auburn University people. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mr. Bureaucrat, we can do without your sneers. It's bad enough that I have to "touch" an Auburn article without you making it worse. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

wikien-bureaucrats

I just got a mailing list subscription request from you that I'm 99.9% sure is you, but just to verify, can you please email me to verify the address? Thanks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for explaining to me what "OP" meant at ANI. I thought the editor meant IP, as these letters are very close to each other on the keyboard. Epicgenius (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, no worries; it's understandable. All the same, though, it's generally not a good idea to modify other people's posts, even when there is an obvious typo. It's usually better to ask them to clarify/fix themselves if needed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the advice. Epicgenius (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for having invited me to the Teahouse

Hi, Writ Keeper! Thank you for having invited me to the Teahouse! I will be happy to check it out! :) Ginesfanego (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Good, glad to hear it! Let me know if you have any questions of me in particular. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Dave006 / Honest-john

Could you remind or guide this user as to what he's supposed to do? Currently he seems to be using both accounts simultaneously. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, he's probably still automatically logged into the old username, and because of SUL, the software automatically recreates the old username for him. Not much to be done, other than dropping him a note on his old talk page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hi Writ Keeper. For once, I come to you with a procedural, rather than a technical request - can I get you to cast your eye over the unblock request at User talk:Route20? I'm happy to accept their appeal, but could use some advice regarding the renaming process - given that they apparently want to abandon the username Nhwxtracker and use Route20 instead, would it be more appropriate to:

• Unblock their Route20 account and block Nhwxtracker instead (and request that they list the blocked account on their userpage)?
• Leave Route20 blocked and encourage them to request usurpation of the Route20 username from that account?

I'm not sure whether the rename request would be accepted, so if you wouldn't mind answering with your bureaucrat trousers on, I'd be grateful.
Of course, things are further muddied by his focus on U.S. Route 20 - I don't think the username policy specifically prohibits this, but it might be something to factor in. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably the second option is best. It's certainly something they're allowed to do, given that they own both accounts, assuming that they can still log into both accounts to prove that they do. As far as the username is concerned, I don't think it's a problem, as Route 20 isn't a company or anything; there's no rule against usernames that make you look like a single-purpose account, only ones against promotional or role accounts. What they need to do is make a request to WP:CHU/U as Nhwxtracker and then log into Route20 and make a confirmation edit to the same request, to prove that both accounts are theirs. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

So much wisdom in one so young... Thanks, have passed the recommendation on. Yunshui 雲‍水 20:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmph. Not as young as I was a couple days ago. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Your Comments at LoS' Talkpage

Hi Writ. You said, on Jan. 16, "Heh, I know that's an option, but if I do it on my own initiative, it'd likely be overturned quickly, which will leave none of us any better off. Patience. ;) (I also am not planning on being particularly available over the next 24 hours, which would not be good for such a thing.) I'll look into it, though, at least." I took this as an expression that you would look into it, and then get back to me. Do you plan any action at this time? It doesn't seem like it would be such a big deal to me. When Spartaz and Beeblebrox did the action in the other direction, they didn't even bother to leave a comment at my talkpage. It was non-issue, button flick action in the other direction. So why should it be moving mountains to reverse? Anyhow, let me know something, so I can go on to the next thing if I must. Colton Cosmic. 22 January, 2014, 14:21 UTC.

Sorry, I simply forgot. Anyway, I discussed it with Spartaz via email, and they said that they wouldn't stand in the way, so I've restored your talk page access. As I said on Lady's page, you need to let go of the past and focus on what you're going to do going forward. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for closure

Would you consider closing Wikipedia:ANI#Proposal please? It's been open for quite a while, and the consensus is clear, yet no uninvolved admin seems to want to close it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but I can't do it right this second (even though the consensus does seem to be clear, I'd still rather take the time to look at the whole discussion). If I don't close it in the next few hours, feel free to smack me upside the head via talk page again. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's more a case of "I don't want to keep bumping the thread to prevent archiving, as I suspect that'll put admins off even more" than a super massive rush. I completely agree that you should read the whole discussion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

ANI Closure

You closed WP:ANI#A charge of wikihounding**, but forgot to log it at WP:RESTRICT. Could you do it now? Also the closure doesn't indicate any fixed length for the interaction ban, but on the talk page of the concerned editors (User_talk:Lukeno94#Interaction_ban_enacted & User_talk:Jaggee#Interaction_ban_enacted) you say it's for three months. Could you modify your closure to reflect that? Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, done. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for closing contentious discussions

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For closing the community sanctions for Bugs Bunny, Medeis, and The Rambling Man thread, as well as other contentious discussions with great care and sound logic I hereby give you this barnstar. Keep up the good work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Interaction ban confusion

I'm not sure whether you're the re-closing admin or just the messenger for this note, but I'm badly confused by this edit — is there some sort of "you can talk to each other" exception to the interaction ban? Please note that I'm not personally concerned; my only participation has been to unblock Bugs on procedural grounds. Nyttend (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

*sigh* Bish, you were right. Nyttend, as far as I know, the interaction ban was to prevent Bugs and Medeis from interacting from TRM, not to prevent them from interacting with each other. I don't really know, since I wasn't the one to impose it, although I'll admit I didn't word my message as precisely as perhaps I should've. I'm frankly not in particularly good shape to be ruling on this at this point. So, don't take my message as a literal description of the interaction ban, and I would probably say not to act on anything if in doubt. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. What little I knew about the situation was from reading closures several days ago (around the time of this), and as I'd not participated in the original ban discussion nor in the post-enactment review of whether it had been closed properly, I didn't realise that it wasn't meant to be a three-way interaction ban. Nyttend (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

That's right, it wasn't. This is the interaction ban, as formulated by Georgewilliamherbert: 1. The Rambling Man is banned from any interactions with Medeis and Baseball Bugs, indefinitely. Baseball Bugs and Medeis are banned from any interactions with The Rambling Man, indefinitely. These bans include article, talk, wikipedia, and user space, without exception. No mention of the others or their actions shall be permitted. These may be appealed to the community not less than one year after they become effective.[3] Don't worry, Writ, it's quite clear on the editing restrictions page,[4] and the parties themselves obviously aren't going to be confused. Bishonen | talk 13:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC).

See following section. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Really? I'll assume that you're experiencing genuine confusion, The Rambling Man, and explain on your page what the relation is between these two sections. We needn't clog up WK's page any more, and also you've made it more fully clear on your own page that you suspect both Medeis and me of being in bad faith. It'll have to wait a little, though, till I've taken care of some RL stuff. Bishonen | talk 08:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC).

Not at all. I'm experiencing genuine one-sided implementation of an interaction ban that has been in place and without confusion since 15 January. All subsequent chatter has been about the second option, nothing to do with the interaction ban, an interaction ban which has been violated not once, not twice but three times, and in such a pointed fashion (why did this specific editor have to make this specific edit moving all text besides mine despite the fact it rendered subsequent conversation confusing, why did this editor need to run to an admin to say what they'd done, then why did this editor need (once again) to comment on my edits?). Don't rush back, just don't. It's clear that there's more to this. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Please pass along

Could you do me a favor and tell TRM to look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Australian_Open_Tennis ? There were duplicate nominations, so, as usual procedure, I closed the later nomination. Since there were already votes on the duplicate, I copied the non-redundant ones to the earlier template. TRM voted in each, so I didn't copy his statement, but he may want to comment again or further at the earlier nomination. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

On second glance, this edit shows he's aware. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Medeis, you're not supposed to mention TRM. No asking other people to pass stuff along. Please see the green text in the section above. I see that neither Jc37 nor Writ Keeper put the exact terms of the interaction ban on your page, or the pages of the other two, but rather left you to dig them out of a (now archived) ANI thread. I think that's a pretty good excuse for your mistake, so I strongly urge all admins to not block Medeis over this. I'm going to try to simplify things for you and the others by copypasting the interaction ban terms to all your pages. Bishonen | talk 21:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC).

F.Y.I.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd like to bring this to your attention. As a person who has been Wikihounded a number of times before, I do not take it lightly, especially when the editor in question has neither a policy nor a guideline he can cite to justify his reversion, simply his impression of "common practice". I would ask you to take notice of this situation, and intervene if and when it becomes necessary to do so. I have asked the editor to stop, and if he does, all very well, but if he continues, I would like something to be done about it, if at all possible. Thanks. BMK (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The editor in question has once again begun following my edits. He had never edited Arsenic and Old Lace before he showed up to revert my edit, which was within policy. I must ask that you warn this editor that his behavior is bordering on WP:WIKIHOUNDING and can result in a block if he continues. BMK (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Please advise the above user to avoid personal attacks in edit summaries as he has done here and here, and in edits such as this. Looks like a full tilt is occurring. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

TRM, you are in no position to advise anyone on behavior. Period. You are a disgrace to the Wikipedia admin corps. BMK (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Honestly, neither of you is better than the other (nor I than either of you) at behaving "appropriately" (whatever the hell that means), so just drop it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• Luke, indeed. BMK, you seem to be looking for (yet another) block. Cool down. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, we're giving friendly advice now? TRM, give up the bit. BMK (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Seriously, from someone in your current position, I'll take that as a compliment. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• TRM, that really makes no sense at all, even if meant as an insult (as it clearly was). There's no way that it parses to make sense. You know, I've reached a personal determination of your worth as an admin, as I have expressed above, but I've not done so for your worth as an editor. Please tell me that the lack of clarity in your statement isn't typical of your work as an editor. BMK (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Please. Stop. If you have anything else to say to me, say it to me, not via Writ Keeper's talkpage... this is becoming incredibly tedious. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Y'know what? I'm sorry to leave you high and dry like this, BMK, but I'm going to pass on this one. (Briefly, though: please don't indulge in insults against people who aren't me on my talk page. That goes for everyone.) I'm feeling a bit burnt out by recent events, and so would rather not have to deal with a thing like this. I could go on, but I won't; it doesn't matter, and I doubt my musings on people's behavior or my reasons for requesting 'cratship are particularly interesting. Bish owes me one, you might try her; she strikes me as reasonable. Though, on reflection, apparently she and TRM are in a snit on my talkpage, so maybe not. Floq owes me one too, but he's on Arbcom now, and doesn't deign to associate with the issues of lesser mortals. Maybe Drmies or someone, I dunno. Someone that's not me, please. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Someone rubbed my lamp.

Regarding BMK and RS: RS needs to stop uncollapsing navboxes and BMK needs to stop collapsing navboxes until there is a clear consensus somewhere. Until then, the status quo is not going to kill anyone. Wikiproject consensus doesn't outweigh sitewide consensus, but it outweighs individual opinion. It's not stalking/hounding.

Regarding BMK and TRM: Do I understand correctly that two people who have each been here for 9 years, have each made over 100,000 edits, and each of whom obviously has the best interests of the project at heart, are incapable of behaving like grownups with each other? Here, use this: User:Floquenbeam/BMK vs TRM cage match, argue til you're both blue in the face, just don't expect others to pick a side when you're both acting silly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't give a toss about BMK, just that calling people ASSHOLEs and generally using personal attacks to get his own way needed to be discussed, that's it. Seemed like he was on full tilt, determined to lull me into discussing interaction ban and topic ban nonsense which had no bearing on the matter at hand, but thankfully several other editors who clearly care about him had a quiet word. Not at all interested in your cage match goading, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My apology...

...for my incivility on your talk page. BMK (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

You seem stressed out bud... Perhaps a beer will help calm your nerves. Anyways, I wish you the best! Technical 13 (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi. I sent you an e-mail on Jan 31. Did you get it? Bishonen | talk 05:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC).

I did, but I was travelling that day and couldn't respond immediately, and I kinda forgot about it later. I'll reply in a bit. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Point

I take it, but seriously, the links provided were all wrong. Most AN/I lurkers won't bother even checking, or understanding the context. Given there's been a call from yet another incompetent editor to provide me with a symmetric ban (which would now be punitive) I am obliged to respond at the board. I'm staggered that there's so much empathy for an editor who made so many personal attacks on me. I could be accused of lively and argumentative discourse, but I never resorted to anything like "freakish obsessive", "Crazy", "troll with no life", "basement-dwelling Brit-twit", "obsessive eccentric". If we now intend to allow editors to go full tilt and insult people like that, just because they don't like the way a discussion is going against them, we might as well turn the lights off right now. Good luck. (By the way, I truly believe that the readers at AN/I etc need to be informed as to the active positive contributions that all the lurkers have made, if someone is prepared to claim they need to be judged on the quality of their contributions but don't actually improve the content of the encyclopaedia, it should be noted. This isn't Facebook or Twitter, we shouldn't be here exclusively to talk about things). Finally, please note that the user being so ardently defended has used his talk page to attack me once again, calling me an abusive obssesive. I'm sure you'll tell me, once again, to step down, but you should be aware of what you and the others at AN/I are defending. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Man, I don't know Tenebrae from a hole in the wall; I'm not defending them at all. (As an aside, they are blocked, so you can't really say that they've been allowed to go full-tilt.) I don't think I've yet told you to step down about this or other things, so I'm not entirely sure why you're lumping me in with "the rest", but that's whatever. I'm not trying to get you to stop defending yourself; it's just that you're doing it in an unnecessarily aggressive way. Yeah, maybe people's contribution patterns can be a useful datapoint sometimes, but their editing patterns don't invalidate what they said. If the thread was about NE Ent, then that last addition would've been relevant, but it's not, so it wasn't. I know that "comment on content, not contributor" is a tired cliche, but it does have some value on occasion, and I think this is one of those occasions. Pointing out that NE Ent doesn't make many mainspace contributions doesn't make his argument in this case any more or less valid, so when brought up in a rebuttal, it just looks like a petty attempt to belittle your opponents. It's just unnecessary; I can accept that you feel that it's actually relevant, but a) I'm not sure how many people would agree with you, and b) in any event, it looks like a simple attempt to belittle your opponent rather than address their position, which is all-too-common a tactic on Wikipedia and the Internet in general. Even if that wasn't your intent, we still have to be sensitive at least to some degree towards the appearance of our actions to others. And I'll add that I didn't have a huge problem with your post at first (the "at least do it competently" was unnecessary, but whatever, there's been worse); it was the second part about their contribs you added later that was the problem. By all means, call out misquoted/misleading/bad links or poor behavior, and do it with rhetorical flair if you like. It's just that going on to belittle another user and his general contributions is not also fair game.

So, in summary, I think you can find a way to defend yourself without having to tack that other stuff on, too. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, Tenebrae continues to personally attack me on his talk page. It's your responsibility to act on that, given his current block is as a result of personal attacks. Secondly, maybe it's me, but I don't get this "belittle" thing. Tenebrae and I had a lively discussion. I never resorted to the personal attacks. He did, and continues to do so. That's the summary. Thirdly, NE Ent has made several errors at the AN/I thread which need resolution, I pointed them out and it was a shock to me that he wished to be judged on the quality of his contributions. The three he'd made there were incorrect, out of context and misleading. Done deal. I'm sick of dancing around the lurkers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I was just typing something up on Tenebrae's talk page as you posted this, so yeah, I agree with you there. My point is that you can point out that incorrectness, etc. without having to imply that all of NE Ent's contributions are of no quality. Obviously, the same kind of point goes for Tenebrae, which is the gist of the aforementioned post. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair, but I saw nothing in NE Ent's recent contributions that improved Wikipedia. Tenebrae, on the other hand, has been issued a "smacked wrist" despite continuing with the behaviour that led to the original block. This is becoming a joke. I never used personal attacks, he did, including "freakish obsessive", "Crazy", "troll with no life", "basement-dwelling Brit-twit", "obsessive eccentric", yet even after being blocked, Tenebrae calls me an "abusive obsessive", and it's just "oh, Tenebrae, do stop....!". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

*sigh* Well, the post I was going to write included a clear message that any repetition would result in extension of the block and/or talk page revocation, but my post was lost in one of those fucking "Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon." things (I got two or three more trying to get back here), and in the meantime, I see that JohnReaves has already posted there. So, I guess I'll just leave it for now; I'll monitor the talk page for further attacks and respond accordingly. As for double standards, I don't really know what to tell you. I don't think it's that there's one standard applied to one group and another applied to another group (though there is a bit of that, of course) so much as the simple fact that we all have our own set of standards, none of which completely agree with each other. The community has never been able to develop a single code for things like this, so we all just have to manage on our own as best we can. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I've had those fucking messages tonight too. Point is I never, ever resorted to such offensive and personal attacks, and still won't, yet the editor, blocked for such, continued to do so on his talk page. Finally, I'd like someone to actually point me to a body of work where my "inane" edits make personal attacks justifiable on a quid pro quo basis. Not your job, but worth you noting that I made several attempts to elicit a clear response from the editor in question, just to be responded to in an increasing and depressingly hostile fashion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Email

I've sent you a quick email. Nothing hugely important, just a little note/thanks regarding one of your scripts. INeverCry 19:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

BLP/BLD

Hi: Your reading of BLP/BLD seems a bit off. BLP protects living/recently dead people from baseless statements period. People's opinions concerning a BLP/BLD subject is "information" about that subject - it is information about how a subject is viewed. Wikipedian's are suppose to be avoiding such expressions of personal opinion -- because what matters is what sources say. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

In articles, yes, of course. But a post to a user talk page is a different story, and that's what this was; Eric had posted his opinion in a thread on Jimbo's talk page. I don't see any way that that falls under BLP/BDP, however distasteful. Expression of personal opinion is not disallowed in project/userspace. Now, of course the side-effects of such expression must be taken into account, but one doesn't need to invoke BLP/BDP (and certainly not AE in that respect) to do so. Not to mention that Eric didn't actually talk about the subject of the thread directly at all; he was making a more general point about suicide and our responsibility for it as Wikipedians. Was Eric insensitive? I don't think there's much dispute that the answer is yes. Would redaction of his comment be called for? A strong argument can certainly be made for it. Did it fall under BLP/AE? No. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me expand: my issue is not the goal of quashing the discussion. As I mentioned, I think a very reasonable argument could be made to redact it. But invoking the BLP AE sanctions to do so was a mistake, and a big one. It doesn't apply, and the use of AE sanctions exempts it from the regular processes that check an individual admin's authority. That was a bad move; the ends don't justify the means. It's just not BLP. That's not what BLP is for, and to use the special enforcement provisions for BLP in a case that doesn't involve a BLP violation is a misuse of them. And the fact that AE has more restrictions on how a decision can be reviewed makes it a significant misuse, as opposed to just a sort of "I filled out the BLP paperwork when I mean the IAR/do no harm paperwork" clerical error. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Your statement is still a bit unclear. First BLP/BLD applies anywhere on Wikipedia. So, if someone says anywhere on the Pedia something like 'that person is [my opinion]' or 'that persons death is [my opinion]' and it's "a controversial" statement, and they are not using a source, they run afoul of BLP/BLD. We don't want to run-down living/recently dead people with just 'shooting the crap' about them with our personal opinions (it's both unkind and unprofessional, right?). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course, but first of all, that wouldn't really be an opinion; it's an assertion of fact (based on opinion). It's still asserting something to be true (that they are, in fact, [my opinion]) that hasn't been backed by sources, and so subject to BLP. But that's not what Eric did, and that's not what Kevin invoked BLP for. Look at Eric's comment: When did WP become a psychiatric hospice? People commit suicide every day, my own father did, but the reasons aren't always what you think they are. If you have mental health problems go see a doctor, don't plaster a template on your talk page. Where is Eric saying the equivalent of "that persons death is [his opinion]" here? He's not. There's nothing in there that actually talks about the subject. It makes a general point about suicide, and how WP is a terrible place to seek alternatives to it (and he is right). What is in there that actually violates BLP? I mean, the only thing there is really the comment (and subsequent ones) about his father, but somehow I don't get the impression that that was recent enough to fall under BDP, and that's certainly not what Kevin was referring to anyway. There's a somewhat subtle distinction here, but it's an important one. Nobody could read Eric's comment and be misled at all about what actually happened to the subject, and that's the point of BLP/BDP: it's not to prevent anyone from ever getting offended (which would fall under WP:NOTCENSORED); it's to prevent us from misleading people about things that really happened in a way that will hurt real people or their family/friends/etc. Your example could mislead people, depending on the context, so it might fall under BLP, but that's not what I'm talking about, and that's not what happened here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. But I can see how one might consider it in context a disparagement of the dead (criticism) -- and it is misleading insofar as no one in that conversation knows all the things the dead did to avoid their fate (there is no reason to assume he templated and did not seek help). Finally, I will answer your NOTCENSORED with WP:NOTBLOG and WP:NOTFORUM. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, it certainly wasn't a blog; it was a conversation that Eric joined and didn't start. If anyone was in violation of NOTBLOG, it was the OP, not Eric. NOTFORUM isn't particularly relevant; that's about not turning article talk pages into discussions of the subject, rather than discussions about how to improve the article. (Though in passing, I really don't have much interest in a round of WP:SFOD sparring; none of these were mentioned in Kevin's rationale.) If Eric had asserted that they hadn't sought help, that might've been a BLP vio, but he didn't. In context, Eric was responding to the OP, who was suggesting that the deceased's use of a template meant that we had an obligation to provide psychiatric support, and that it was our fault that the deceased committed suicide. We don't, because we're not psychiatrists, and we can't actually know why he did it, that's what Eric's point was. If Eric was critical of anyone it was (again) the OP, not of the deceased. (And having a critical opinion of someone, or even expressing it, is still not inherently a BLP violation.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, we may not have found agreement but thanks for the talk. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

.

	Happy Valentine's Day
	......ten minutes too late, but still...................................................................................................................................................................... Hafspajen (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

BracketBot

I didn't alter the header or discussion, I added underneath it. I thought a talk page was for things to be talked about; I didn't alter the discussion for the approval of a bot. What else am I to do? It is adminstrator protected so where else am I to go to express my disagreement? I have been to ANI, I have put a message on the bot owner's talk page and the bot owner removed the message, the bot is administrator protected because all editors are equal except some are more equal than others, where else? All I want is the bloody bot to stand off for a couple of hours after an edit before it puts its oar in, cos in several edits which do not show up on WP history cos I corrected them, it puts its oar in right in the middle of when I am doing a preview of a {{cite journal}} or whatever, and I can't give the revision history because I had to do it again before I saved it. I just would like it to stand off a little, a couple of hours after the last edit. I am not asking to change the world. Si Trew (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: I've mentioned it twice in the ANI thread already (including in the second response to the original post), and a few others have mentioned it as well: you can turn the bot off for yourself only, without having to block it for everyone. Again, the instructions are at User:BracketBot#Opting_out. If you want to contest the bot's approval, you can, but editing that page is not the place to do it; rather, follow the instructions in the header that tell you to start a thread at Wikipedia_talk:BRFA, rather than re-editing the old page. However, given the existence of the really quite flexible and accommodating opt-out alternatives, a review of the BRFA is not going to change anything, unless the bot is actually malfunctioning. Please just opt out of the bot and let this go. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)ck

Yes that's fine and that is exactly what I shall do. Please allow me to apologise, I am not as quick as all that but I get there in the end, I am in the tradition of doing things slowly and well, so the BracketBot kinda foxes me by being so quick. I am sorry to take it to ANI it is the first time I have ever done so but I hope you understand I come in good faith (a bit annoyed admittedly). Thank you for your advice. Rest assured I did not remove or alter the bot approval at the talk page. Si Trew (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course, no worries. :) For my part, I apologize if I was a little curt with you. I know you didn't mean anything by it, and nothing you did was totally unreasonable. It's just that sometimes, if someone's going about something in the wrong way, we have to give one a gentle nudge in the right direction, and sometimes, teh second nudge isn't quite so gentle. But don't worry about it; it's all good. :) Happy editing! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

We are both in good faith and there is no problem. The thing is it tends to kinda get in the way. I am not sure that turning it off is the best; you have responded to my grumbles but the author of the bot has not — in which case he should not run a bot. I do think that the links to get to the bot are rather obscure, but that's another matter (it was only you who pointed me at the bot's page, it is not on the author's page or anywhere linked through that I could see).

It is a good little bot but it can be a bit too keen. Si Trew (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

No no, I am sorry but I must disagree. It is not about "Opting Out" of BracketBot, User:BracketBot#Opting_out but rather it should be opting in. I didn't opt in and I don't see why I should have to opt out. Wikipedia editors used to edit things without bots contantly trampling over their feet, they took time and care over them. I shouldn't have to "opt out" of that. Si Trew (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

*shrug* Well, I don't really know what to tell you about that. I see what you mean, but there is precedent for opt-out bots: BracketBot isn't the first one to operate on people's edits as an opt-out system. If anything, User:SineBot is more intrusive, and also opt-out. But that's just the way it is, I guess. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It's OK, I can live with it. Bots will get more intrusive now any idiot who knows a bit of Lua (programming language) can write one. I am just slow and old fashioned and do everything by hand (I still edit in the plaintext editor), but that is my fault: and anything that encourages others to make it easier to improve the encyclopaedia is a good thing, and undoubtedly BracketBot is a good thing. It is just a bit annoying and I wish it would not be quite so keen.... but I will live with it. Thank you for taking the time to respond to me; I am sure we both are just trying to make Wikipedia a little better day by day, I know WP:NOTFINISHED etc, but just a little bit better. Thank you for your kind and considered comments, I do appreciate that you took time to respond. Si Trew (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way I didn't mean to imply the author of BracketBot is an idiot. Just now the WikiMedia software allows scripting languages, I am waiting for a flood of bots, templates, etc by people who are idiots. Still, we cannot anticipate a moron in a hurry. Si Trew (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice edit

I thought this edit was very insightful. I may quote it, but if experience is any measure, I'll probably forget where I heard it, hence this comment. --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Web Developer

Hello User:Writ Keeper Thank you for your notes and speedy deletions. Do you understand that I am linking the orgigianl content back to the my original body of work and your speedy deletions are keeping the functionality of the script from brending the RDFa? Cya2evernote (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, no, I don't really understand what you're saying. Most of the pages you created didn't link to anything but the attribution page. Even if they did, such things are not the way Wikipedia edits are attributed; rather, the contributors to the page are attributed through the page history function that is available on every page. What exactly were you trying to do? What is this script, and what is it supposed to accomplish? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the help, cat lover. Hope you're doing well in real life.

Drmies (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm doing okay. One day at a time. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank your understanding, integrity, even wisdom, and for a job well done. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	For your mantic abilities with regards to my scripting requirements, have a barnstar! Yunshui 雲‍水 08:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)