Old talk: 2006 · 2007 · 2008

---

Contents 1 Notice of ANI 2 Date delinking arbitration 3 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking 4 Private Eye 5 Temporary injunction in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking 6 RfArb comments 7 Re: "Scanner" 8 Thanks! 9 Midwakh 10 Comment 11 Sassoon 12 Thornycroft family 13 Notice 14 Warning 15 Let's get back to Sassoon! 16 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 17 A favor 18 Help please 19 Injunction 20 User :Cacarlo92 21 Za'atar 22 Counter proposal on chronological linking 23 User:Gazpacho returned as User:WillOakland, considering unblock 24 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin on a blocking spree 25 Sassoon again 26 MediaWiki:Bad image list 27 Delinking controversy 28 Build the web 29 WP:Build the web (2) 30 The Random article link 31 Template:Awesome 32 Falafelmeister 32.1 Sockpuppetry 33 WP:UNINVOLVED policy 33.1 Colour advice 34 Hello back 35 Please refactor 36 Don't delete protected images 37 Authorization 38 Burying the hatchet 39 You don't have permission to edit in my userspace 40 Sh! vs. SH! 41 actually 42 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking 43 Krankenhouse Project 44 User:Galassi 45 My pleasure 46 Wikilinking on dates 47 Proposed Arbcom Motion re date delinking 48 The Planets 49 Help at United Arab Emirates

[edit] Notice of ANI

As required by policy, I’ve filed an ANI here for your repeated censoring of my posts. Greg L (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the great MOSNUM date delinking debacle, enjoy your stay and don't forget to tip your waitress. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yippee! -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 09:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Date delinking arbitration

I've started a request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Date delinking which you may wish to comment on. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Private Eye

Thanks ;) DWaterson (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

The following temporary injunction has been passed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking;

Until this case is decided or otherwise directed by the Arbitration Committee, all editors are instructed not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles, including but not limited to through the use of bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise. This injunction is entered as an interim measure and does not reflect any prejudgment of any aspect of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RfArb comments

Without reading deeply (at all) into the situation, and just reading the RfArb as it currently stands, I think you did a great job making your points respectfully and intelligently. Bravo. I hope everything else across the ocean is going wonderfully; on a not-really-related note, my friend from Massachusetts moved to London a week go for a year-long job (having never been to Europe before) and is loving it. Also having never been, I'm quite jealous of her (and you). -- Mike (Kicking222) 05:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike, that's very nice of you to say so. (My advice: don't read deeply into it, it's a mess!) Please tell your friend I said welcome, and to drop me a line if she feels like having a coffee some time - moving across the world is a big jump and it can be pretty intimidating in a new city when you don't know anybody. Cheers, -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 12:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "Scanner"

Oh thanks; I have read all his works. Of course, Dick there is just riffing off a definition of insanity as "doing the same actions over and over and expecting different results," which he would have heard taught during his real life re-hab stints. But, anyway, I keep the short tale of Leo's friend in the back of my head, because, when told as a fable, people get the underlying concept right away. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for the help on the Poe thing. It seemed pretty logical to me, but I don't have the tools to move over a redirect, so I appreciated your help on it. H₂O Shipper 22:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem! And just in time for Edgar Allan Poe to get featured, I see. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 10:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent! I really couldn't figure out why it didn't redirect to EAP, but I'm glad it does before Poe is featured. H₂O Shipper 12:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Midwakh

I'm not, this pic originally appeared in the cannabis smoking and the cannabis pipe article and is clearly noted that it has cannabis it. Just ask the author of the pic. Zachorious (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it didn't. I suggest doing your homework. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 13:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

In my non-expert experience, things like [1] which you describe in [2] are best brought to WP:AE since it is dealing with enforcement of the injunction, not presentation of past evidence. MBisanz ^talk 13:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, I removed the hyphen because hyphens are not needed after -ly adverbs, it was not a grammatical error. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It's called a suspended hyphen. Look it up. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I know what they are, thanks. The hyphen is not needed because an -ly adverb implies linkage with the modified word. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. In future, when it comes to "improving" other people's comments with your opinions on style, I suggest you ask them first. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 16:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sassoon

Oh, what's your angle of interest in the Sassoons? Are you interested in Siegfried at all? Fancy joining the SSF? :-) Quite often I see the word SASSOON in big letters and my eye is immediately drawn to it, only to find it's an advert for the hairdresser. Deb (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've always liked Siegfried's poetry, as well as Wilfred Owen's! I came across File:Sassoon family tree.jpg and had been wanting to play with the family tree templates for a while, so this presented the perfect opportunity. :) -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 13:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thornycroft family

I'm pretty sure Teresa's name should be spelled Theresa. Deb (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. That's late-night tiredness in action. Thanks for the spot, I've fixed it now. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 13:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I know it's no big deal, but I've got some handwritten letters sent by Mary and Theresa (before Theresa's marriage). Deb (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, neat. I don't think I can one-up that; the closest I can get is having first editions of The First Men in the Moon and The Island of Dr. Moreau by H.G. Wells, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. :) -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 21:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Very impressive, nonetheless. I haven't got any signed works by Siegfried. Deb (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ha, only published, not signed! I just looked up how much a signed first of The Island... costs - found one for $46,000. I can but dream! Cheers, -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 22:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

You may want to make a statement / explain your behavior here. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

This is unacceptable. Removing comments on workshop pages from users in good standing (regardless of content) should be left to the clerks. You removed content which the clerks wouldn't even remove - Whilst repetivitve, the comments simple aired the views of Lightmouse. Should you remove any more comments from the arbitration pages you'll be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering how unlikely it is that someone else will spam the discussion in such a fashion, that's hardly going to happen. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 14:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Best not to give them an excuse, though. Deb (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Let's get back to Sassoon!

In your research into the Sassoons, I don't suppose you have come across the surname "Pilcher" in any junior branch. We have, for a while now, been trying to trace a Pilcher who claimed to be Siegfried's "cousin". Deb (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Not that I've seen; however you could take a look at the Sassoon family tree in this issue (15MB PDF) of "The Scribe" magazine ("Journal of Babylonian Jewry") that I came across, and see if he's mentioned there. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 18:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Elections in Northern Ireland List of Soviet computer systems Stratum spinosum Elections in Iceland Serbian proverbs Elections in Austria Elections in the Republic of Macedonia Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi Jet age Thyroiditis Elections in San Marino Andorran parliamentary election, 2005 Ventilator 202 United Kingdom general election, 1831 Galaksija Plus Naubakht Iranian presidential election, 1980 Elections in Slovenia Hex dump

Cleanup Niš Staff of office California gubernatorial election, 1982 Merge Acclamation Sassoon Geosynchronous satellite Add Sources Geber Shawarma Fairuz Wikify Oman Air Electoral calendar 2005 Inna lillahi wa inna ilahi raji'un Expand Patronymic Vermont gubernatorial election, 2006 Brent East by-election, 2003

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A favor

Could you check out this addition and possibly get some others to review it, too, to confirm whether or not the adjective is NPOV? I really don't have the time or the desire to fight the biased anti-ID POV warrior cabal. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Er. No. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 22:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Help please

I hope that you will please take look at the articles listed below and advise me of their suitablity to remain: Shearling for the reasons I outlined in talk page. Geier Hitch There are conflicting claims for the origins of the Geier hitch. The article in general appears unverifiable.

The general quality of the article and its suitability for inclusion. Especially see the first entry to see where the editor was coming from. Already there have been claims of animal cruelty regarding this hitch, which is most certainly a hoax.

No suggestion has been made as to how this hitch was applied and removed from an angry bull in the era that this was supposed to have taken place, etc. Cgoodwin (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you've chosen to ask me this; I'm afraid I don't have the time or inclination. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 10:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Injunction

Was wondering if you had an opinion on this series of edits [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] (this last one actually broke the link and format, but left the syntax mostly intact). Not sure if this should go to WP:AN/AE or if we should ask an arbitrator. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

To be honest they all look okay to me - he's clearly working on improving article text rather than just running articles through a script, and I think it's understandable that he didn't link dates in the new text he wrote given his position on the issue. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 12:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User :Cacarlo92

Hi Earle, you told me a few months ago at ANI that if the above user was still causing problems with images I could contact you. Well, he's still causing trouble and making a general mockery of our fair use system. He clearly didn't learn much from that month long block. Could you please take another look. Best. — R² 18:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly. I've blocked him indefinitely for that reason. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 18:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply. — R² 19:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Za'atar

Adding in foreign translations of words is not standard. It's perfectly valid to remove them. We do not include the French, Italian or Chinese names for the thing in question. Also, please don't revert my edits without a proper explanation. I'm not a vandal and don't deserve to be treated like one. Thanks.Grace Note (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe your explanation at all, because you left the Arabic translation in the lede of the article. This article is continually vandalized by politically-motivated editors removing either Arabic or Hebrew/Israeli elements of the article, but never both. I've seen nothing to suggest that you are anything different. I suggest that in future, if you wish to ensure you don't appear to be a vandal, you use the talk pages of articles to discuss deletions you make from them. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 13:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Counter proposal on chronological linking

Please share your ideas at User:Kendrick7/Summary of the Date Linking RFCs. -- Kendrick7^talk

[edit] User:Gazpacho returned as User:WillOakland, considering unblock

Hi there. You indefinitely blocked Gazpacho a bit over a year ago for sockpuppetry. He evaded that block and returned as User:WillOakland. I have indefinitely blocked that account, however, he does appear to have edited to the encyclopedia's benefit under that account, and I am considering an unblock. What are your feelings on the matter? Is there additional information of which I should be aware? Thanks in advance. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. He actually left me a message here when he reappeared; at that point I took a look at his edit contributions and decided not to take any action, as he seemed to have genuinely turned over a new leaf. As far as I can tell that's still true, so I think an unblock would be in order here. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Works for me, I missed that in my review of his contribs. Thanks, off to unblock. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

He appears to also be editing under the IP User talk:76.22.74.141 per [11]. Anyway, I have brought up a new concern at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Okay_removal_of_warnings.3F. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin on a blocking spree

This goes back to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive514#User:Ghagent and User:Ghchat pages are being used for Myspacey-type chatter. I just blocked another 5 and made mention of it and your original blocking at ANI. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sassoon again

Would you by any chance be interested in writing a short piece about your research into the Sassoon and/or Thornycroft families for our journal? (There's no payment, of course, just the "glory" of having your name in print.) Deb (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's a very nice offer. I didn't really do much research, I have to say - just translation of other people's work on compiling family trees into Wikipedia format. If you're still interested, I'm sure I could put something together - how many words would you need? -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 18:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] MediaWiki:Bad image list

Can you add Rope bondage to the allowable articles on File:RopeMarks at BoundCon 2008.jpg, thanks. Exxolon (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Y Done -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 18:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou. Exxolon (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Delinking controversy

Thankyou for your message on Dabomb87's talk page requesting him/her to Please respect the date delinking injunction. I've replied on the same talk page to Ohconfucius' comments. I accept that the degree of linking in articles should be debated and modified, and particularly with regard to the linking of dates. What vexes me is an apparent lack of courtesy from some contributors and their presentation of opinions as if they were facts. Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Build the web

All right, I see you're not going to even attempt to be reasonable about the marking of the page as a guideline. But the "nonsense" meant that one of the pages it was supposed to be in "dynamic tension" with no longer exists, and the other one isn't in tension with it since it now includes it. Please at least remove the non-existent one (I don't want to get into 3RR trouble). And if you insist on retaining the other one (which also seems nonsensiscal to me), update it to its new name (WP:Linking).--Kotniski (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Build the web (2)

I can't follow Tony1's ensuing comment about your edit summary, but your response to my comment was outright bizarre. I suggested taking the interpersonal issues to ANI and talking only about what to do with the page. (I think it's generally accepted that WP:TALK applies to guideline talk pages. Correct me if I am wrong.) And then an admin comes and claims that, in the complete absence of other rational arguments against merging the two pages, it must still be wrong simply because Kotniski in his over-enthusiasm has been forum-shopping? Hello???

If you really think there hasn't been enough discussion, I don't understand why you are fighting against the attempts of one camp to bring it back on track.

Oh, and just in case it's really necessary: I was being sarcastic. I thought the words "complete wiki domination" and "crime" should have made that clear. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There's been so much hyperbole associated with this discussion (the phrase "complete denial of natural justice" springs to mind, I forget who it was) that it is almost impossible to distinguish sarcasm. That's not your fault, but it does mean that you need to work harder to make it obvious that you're not being serious.

I didn't claim that it's wrong because Kotniski has been forum shopping. My point, which you have clearly missed, is that the poor response to said forum shopping has simply added weight to the evidence contradicting the claims Kotniski has been making. Good luck trying to take the interpersonal issues to ANI; because of the forum shopping, they're pretty tired of hearing about it. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 18:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it helps to discuss these interpersonal issues at all. My point is that they must not be discussed on WT:BTW because that makes it impossible to find a consensus. I don't think your recent actions on the talk page are directed towards finding a consensus; their effect is to prolong and exacerbate the off-topic discussions. This is in the interest of Locke Cole, because no consensus means preservation of the status quo and because of your administrative action (editing a protected page) the status quo is what Locke Cole wants. Kotniski and Tony1 are trying to get the discussion back on track, but Locke Cole simply refuses to talk about anything substantial, instead creating an atmosphere in which we are extremely unlikely to attract new editors with fresh ideas. That is not constructive at all, and you seem to be supporting him in that.

I agree that there was no clear consensus for merging, but that is completely irrelevant for the question whether it should be done. I think the best solution would be an RFC from which the main combatants of this absurd dispute are banned. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hans, after a few hours away from the screen, I grasp what you're saying. The interpersonal issues suckered me into participating in them in the wrong place, which is something I really didn't want to do - a while back I swore off the whole BTW issue, and somehow I've gotten drawn in again. I personally feel exhausted from the arguments of the no-everyone-agrees-except-you pro-merge side, which also happens to be exactly the same group of people on the opposite pole of opinion in the date delinking arbitration. That doesn't help; the bad mood of two months locked in argument without an resolution has leaked to BTW from there.

Were it not for that arbitration already existing, I would have probably long ago tried to get an arbitration on this issue. And yet it doesn't seem that the issue over BTW could be tacked onto it, because it's a different issue that happens to share some of the same philosophical basis. I think I have to agree with your proposed solution.

Overall, this is an annoying situation, for everyone, and I'm going to try to step back a bit. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 04:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I am glad you took it the way you did, even though the way I put it didn't really help. I really appreciate your reaction. Now I only wish we had an admin willing to police the page so that everybody stays strictly on topic. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Random article link

When I was trying to find a way of expressing my thoughts about "browsing by chronological adjacency", I had in mind the exchange with Locke here about using the Random article link instead of clicking a year-link. So it turns out that the argument has been put forward and debated, albeit in a rather jocular fashion before. But there's no reason you should have known that. I'm quite content with your actual amendment as I think it expresses what I intended better than I had put it, although I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't draw attention in your edit summaries to my bizarre way of thinking :) --RexxS (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for letting me know :) I was feeling a bit grumpy when I wrote that edit summary due to a recent exchange on the RFC workshop page. Cheers, -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 18:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Awesome

I have better - a button above the edit window that generates --NE2 06:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That is indeed awesome. Template:Awesome -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 06:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Falafelmeister

The editor was trying to delete an image that you've worked to retain in the article (less than a month ago). You've blocked the same editor as an SPA. The SPA essay (it's an essay) recommends that new SPAs be handled quite differently from what you've done.

1. How did you determine he was an SPA after 6 edits?
2. Where does policy allow blocks of new SPAs?
3. You were involved. Even were the block justified, you were the wrong admin to perform it.

Please bring your block to the administrator's noticeboard and ask to have it reviewed. Jd2718 (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The history of the article Za'atar is one of continuous politically-motivated vandalism, often involving throwaway accounts. Falafelmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is yet another. I stand by my actions. If you want the block to be reviewed, feel free to ask for it yourself. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 11:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You've declined my request, and I respect that, but disagree. However you've not answered the questions I've put to you. I insist. Jd2718 (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry

Thank you for researching the multiple identities of Falafelmeister and putting "them" out of business. I expect this will benefit the articles that have been under attack and make life a little easier for the editors trying to hold the line. Good job. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You're most welcome. The most recent incident gave me a sense of déjà vu, so I decided to take a little time and investigate. It should be fairly straightforward to deal with further instances now. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 23:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:UNINVOLVED policy

In reference to your apparent attempt to intimidate User:Ohconfucius on his talk page with your "formal warning", you should be aware that such a post is a breach of the conflict-of-interest policy at WP:ADMIN. If you persist, I will take that matter to the appropriate ANI; indeed, it would be proper for you to withdraw the threat and to ask another, uninvolved admin to communicate with the user. You yourself are not permitted to make such a threat to use admin tools. This is particularly the case in view of your sometimes aggressive and personalised behaviour in the very debate that has tempted you to scrutinise the user's talk page. It is a prime example of why we have a CoI policy to guide administrative actions. Tony (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sunshine, you can do what you like. I was fully expecting you to turn up here and start your usual brand of wikilawyering, and lo! Here it is. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You have undertaken to abide by admin policy; that is the basis on which people supported your third attempt to become an admin. During those three attempts, quite a number of commentators raised serious concerns about your attitudes as being suitable for adminship. The community finally took you on trust, despite those concerns. You now appear to be confirming those concerns by demonstrating patent disregard for the requirements of admin behaviour. This is becoming a pattern in your behaviour.

If you anticipated that someone would point out your breach of admin policy, it suggests that you breached the policy wilfully. On top of this, addressing me as "Sunshine" is a personal attack. As well as the general rules on NPA, admins are specifically required to avoid making personal attacks (WP:Admin#Administrator conduct). You may notice, in the same section of the policy, that you are required to respond civilly to concerns about your administrative actions.

You may find that branding such concerns as "wikilawyering" is not well regarded if it comes to defending your brazen disregard of the policies that bind you. On this occasion, I am not asking you to defend yourself (that would be hard); merely to take the admin policy seriously in the future. Tony (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"addressing me as "Sunshine" is a personal attack" - oh my God, I just narrowly avoided spewing coffee all over my keyboard. Thanks for giving me the best laugh I've had all week. Template:Awesome -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 14:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Colour advice

Since you stalk me regularly, you must have seen the green page (I know you've seen it). Any chance you could advise me how to make the green a very light green background instead of the rather dark, solid green background that is currnently there? Tony (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Judging from Special:PrefixIndex, I assume you mean User:Tony1/Green Paper on the Governance of Wikipedia. You need to change the statement "background-color: #8FBC8F"; I generally use this Web Color Chart to help me pick color values. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 16:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will bookmark. I presume that chart gives the most stable colours for the variety of browsers that WPians use. Tony (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hello back

Hi and thanks for the very nice message. Yes, I am a sad old thing, wikipediaistically, and I've been around a lot longer than this username! I keep trying not to get re-addicted, or whatever it is, with only partial success. I'm trying to learn to walk away from things that annoy me - not that easy, but maybe a good lesson for life as well as wp. I live (and have for many years now) in Muswell Hill, but I'm not from London originally. (I see you're an authentic Londoner!) My wife is technically Cockney (London Hospital baby!) as is one of my kids ... seems odd to me but hey. I work down near Smithfield so it's a good area for bits of history, architecture, whatever ... Anyway, thanks again for the very pleasant hello. Do stay in touch. Take care, cheers, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please refactor

Hello Earle. This comment was unacceptable. Whilst everyone (from both "sides) is starting to get agitated and frustrated, calling other editors "fucking pathetic" crosses the line. Please refactor your comment. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Don't delete protected images

Hi Earle. Today you deleted File:User-info.svg

That image was locally uploaded and protected here since it is used in some interface messages like MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer and MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon. Do not delete protected images, even if they have an identical copy under the same name which is protected at Commons. And next time, please read the image description before you delete an image. The image description of this image explained why this image is locally uploaded.

I have of course restored the image and its image page, and re-protected it.

CU around the wiki!

--David Göthberg (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Crap! Sorry about that, I clearly wasn't aware of this - but am now. Thanks for the heads-up. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 22:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm also sorry; I proposed the deletion. I read the information in the image description, but still assumed that the Commons image would be used in the MediaWiki messages. My bad! I'll keep this in mind. –Drilnoth (T • C) 23:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Drilnoth: In this case the Commons image was automatically used, so there was no visible change. The same usually goes for images used in templates. But when we use an image as a background or similar in MediaWiki:Common.css or another CSS file, then it doesn't help if there is a Commons version, then the image just disappears.

But there are several problems with deleting the images here, even if there is no visible change:

• Then the local image name is not protected, so a vandal can upload a rude image here that instead gets visible.
• When we restore the original image here, then the page isn't automatically protected again. So we have to manually protect the page again. And sometimes admins forget to do that when they restore the image.
• If the image exists on Commons and is protected there, then it might seem like we instead could "salt" the image name here. (Salting means protecting a non-existing page, thus preventing its creation, or in this case preventing any local upload of the image.) But we can't trust the images on Commons, since the admins there don't know that we use the image locally here, so they might change or delete or unprotect their copy of the image. (The tools to check usage on other projects are very unstable.)
• There is no easy way to find out if an image is used in the CSS files, we have no tools that list such images anywhere. It is only if you manually read all the CSS files that you can find out. But if we have a local copy of the image then we can state in its description where we use it, and protect it.

--David Göthberg (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha; thanks for the further explanation. I'll keep this in mind as I'm going through the (tens and hundreds of) thousands of images that should be moved to Commons. –Drilnoth (T • C) 00:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Drilnoth (or Earle Martin): Where did you propose the deletion of the image? (I want to add a sentence explaining when not to delete images, to such nomination pages.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN; it seemed like the msot appropriate place. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added an explanation over there why protected pages should not be deleted, so others will learn too.

And yeah, when wanting something done with a protected page then Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is a fairly good place to ask. Even better usually is to place an {{editprotected}} request on the page's talk page. But if like in this case that talk page is not a good place (since meant to be deleted or moved), or you want to request something regarding many pages at once, then you can put the {{editprotected}} on any talk page (like your own talk page) and just link to the pages involved from there.

--David Göthberg (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Authorization

That’s fine. You have permission to edit that page in my userspace because I consider you a Wikifriend. Greg L (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers chum! -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 23:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Burying the hatchet

I would offer my hand in wikifriendship, hoping to change our status from 'sworn enemies'. I apologise to you for my various transgressions, sarcastic remarks, and hope we can start from scratch as fellow wikipedians. Hope that bygones will be bygones. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That is much appreciated, and I accept your offer. Likewise please allow me to offer apologies for various snarky remarks and the times I've lost my temper. Here's to working together productively in the future. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

and we were doing so well... Ohconfucius (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] You don't have permission to edit in my userspace

Darn! I guess I’ll have to retract my above authorization for you to edit in my userspace, Earle. I still consider you a wikifriend but you no longer have permission to edit on any of my userspace subpages; particularly my Delinking links subpage.

You started out just fine with this edit, which I wouldn’t have minded if I had noticed it since it fixed a needlessly inflammatory rubric. But then you had to go and abuse the privilege. You know full well that this is a resource page I maintain. Certain other users who know what kind of material I want on that page may also edit there. But this edit of yours was unwelcome. You knew or should have known that such material was clearly out of place, subverted the purpose of that page, and would be unwelcome. It amounted simple vandalism, which Ohconfucius reverted. For you to put it back in, amounted to edit warring, and is childish. So they had to e-mail me to alert me to what you were doing. (*sigh*)

Note that Tennis expert repeatedly did the same thing to that page. An admin warned him not to edit on that page again and advised me on my talk page to let her know if he tried it again.

Now, I shouldn’t have to drive my point home by making unwelcome edits on your home page (a tactic I resorted to on Tennis expert as I thought he wouldn’t *get* the concept otherwise). I know you are fully capable of understanding this concept of not intruding into others’ userspace without the tutorial; yes? If you want to put that information somewhere on Wikipedia, put it on your own userpage.

If you see something on that resource page that is needlessly inflammatory, advise me on my talk page and I’ll look into it. But, like I said, now that you’ve abused the privilege, you are no longer welcome there. Greg L (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sh! vs. SH!

Hi Earle, I left a message for you on this talkpage. Paradoctor (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Update, I think you're going to like this. Cheers, Paradoctor (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Last notification was a week ago. If you are still interested in the discussion, please comment. Otherwise I'll point the redirect at Sledge Hammer! and add a disambiguation link to Sh! Women's Erotic Emporium. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] actually

this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hummus&diff=prev&oldid=295154825

I got an admin on my side, I think his name was Peter Cohen, he said I was right and the last one http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Za%27atar&diff=295751511&oldid=295748788

I stand by what I said, I dont know if you are Israeli or American or something else. But if you had deeper knowledge in this subject, you would know that there is definitely Israeli culture theft of Arab foods and Arab culture in general society and in wikipedia articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

This arbitration case has now closed. The final decision may be reviewed on the case page. A synopsis of the final decision is provided below.

• All mass date delinking is restricted for six months
• Date delinking bots will perform in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group.
• Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is: banned for 1 year; topic banned indefinitely; prohibited indefinitely from using automation, from using any account but "Lightmouse"
• Tony1 (talk · contribs) indefinitely topic banned, placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• Greg L (talk · contribs) indefinitely topic banned, placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) is: topic banned indefinitely; prohibited indefinitely from using automation; prohibited indefinitely from using any account but "Ohconfucius"; placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) admonished for not pursuing appropriate dispute resolution methods.
• Kotniski (talk · contribs) reminded to pursue appropriate dispute resolution methods, topic banned for 3 months
• Placed on a 12 month editing restriction: Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), 2008Olympian (talk · contribs), Colonies Chris (talk · contribs), SkyWalker (talk · contribs), HJensen (talk · contribs), Dudesleeper (talk · contribs), John (talk · contribs), Tennis expert (talk · contribs), and G-Man (talk · contribs)
• Pmanderson (talk · contribs) is topic banned for 12 months.
• Locke Cole (talk · contribs) is topic banned indefinitely, banned for 6 months, and placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• Kendrick7 (talk · contribs) is topic banned for 12 months
• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) admonished for threatening to use his administrator tools to advance his position in a dispute.

Notes: (1) for "topic banned", read "banned from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions"; (2) an "editing restriction" is a prohibition from reverting any changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

For the Arbitration Committee,

AGK 20:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on this amendment to reduce John's restriction to an admonishment would be appreciated. I recall some discussion of John's involvement in more detail, but can't find it (and don't care enough to search). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Krankenhouse Project

My apologies, yes that was made in error. however, a Google news search on the correct spelling turns up nothing too. I do not oppose restoration of the article, if it meets WP:ORG. I'm happy for you to look at any other deletion nominations I've made, I do stand by them (except this one obviously). thanks LibStar (talk) 04:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Galassi

Galassi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Disruptive editing: Ignoring warning not to revert edits as "vandalism".--Law21 (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I have encountered this editor before, but that doesn't mean I'm a one-man WP:AN/I. Please take it there. Thank you. -- Earle [^t/_c] 16:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&oldid=307250923#User:Galassi --Galassi (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] My pleasure

and thanks for noticing. ; ) Tiamut^talk 13:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinking on dates

Hi. I came across a RFA on date delinking,[12] and was much surprised at the result. I remove Wiki date linking as described in WP:LINKING. ("Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words ... and dates.")

I make frequent changes by hand on this basis. To my consternation, editors have been restricted and banned for making edits that seem to follow WP:LINKING: [13], [14], [15]. Is the issue that the edits were done by a bot, or that the editors were edit warring, or that they were somehow working contrary to the spirit or letter of WP:LINKING?

I have no wish to invest time editing contrary to Wiki guidelines, or to be banned! However, I have been a webmaster for major companies with knowledgebases of 1,000s of articles, and am familiar with user's browsing habits through statistical analysis. A cross-link of the sort exemplified by Wikilinking on a date is used by less than 1% of readers. I have a discussion on my page about related issues [16].

It seems to me that both the Wiki guidelines and the practicalities of maintaining unused links would suggest that the edits from other editors that I cited above are largely correct. And your recent edit to Pizza seems to be in accord with that, too [17].

Guidance?

Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 08:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Arbcom Motion re date delinking

As a potentially interested party, your attention is brought to a motion currently being considered by the Arbitration Committee:
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion to amend Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking.

At the time this notice was posted the text of the motion read:

“

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll, Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot#RFC, and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Full-date unlinking bot indicate that Full-date unlinking bot (tasks • contribs • actions log • block log • flag log • user rights) fulfills the requirement for "a Community approved process for the mass delinking" in "1.3 Mass date linking" and the requirement for "[d]ate delinking bots [performing] in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group" in "2.1 Date delinking bots". The Committee thanks the participants for their efforts and encourages them to continue with their contructive work and consensus building.

”

This wording may have since changed; please see the above link for the current wording.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 09:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Planets

Thank you; we need more of this kind of thing. TJRC (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I try to do that sort of edit wherever I spot it's needed, which is increasingly often! -- Earle [^t/_c] 18:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Help at United Arab Emirates

Hi Earle Martin . United Arab Emirates is currently a good article nominee, and there are some issues that need to be cleared. So can you pleasde help me make it a GA article? Please respond ASAP on my talkpage. Secret Saturdays (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)