Open main menu

Helllo can you help me edit and clean gramatical errors that exist in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad hazieq (talkcontribs) 19:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


On behalf of most of us at ITN, my apologiesEdit

Greetings Leaky cauldron! It's been a while. As the title notes, in my view you are owed apologies for today's exchange. We have been having civility issues for some time at ITN, and while your comments were, well, uncompromising, the reply was not what you deserved. I thank you for dropping in, as I hope for wider participation at ITN, and do not want you to feel unwelcomed. Good fortunes to you, today and every day! Jusdafax 18:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Your comment at WT:RFAEdit

Thanks - I enjoyed that. --Dweller (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


A query has been raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard concerning an issue in which you may have been involved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


Hello, Leaky caldron. You have new messages at Reaper Eternal's talk page.
Message added 15:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Σ‎Edit

I am sorry about how you were treated at WP:AN earlier today and am grateful you've been able to keep your cool. Your questions were perfectly reasonable and were distorted so that they did not have to be answered. It's unfortunate that open, honest, robust discussion is discouraged. Cunard (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I thank you both for taking a stand and am firmly opposed to this candidate. Jusdafax 19:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. 2 of the nominator's (Reaper and Worm TT) seem fine with it, but Kudpung took real exception and took it to that board. I did try to be careful about the wording, leaving it open to the nominator to comment or not but far too many people took exception and deliberately set out to undermine me with false allegations about what I "really meant" by it. I've seen enough hounding and hazing to know I don't want to be part of it, although until I considered what Regent's Park said I would have let it run its coarse. The irony is that if they had come to the RFA and endorsed their nominee in the way that Reaper & WTT have on their talk page it would have been to the candidate's advantage. I have some outline questions which I will insert into the early part of similar strongly endorsed candidates in future. I also think it would be a good idea to prevent voting for a couple of days until the community has built up some detailed question & answers. Too many of the large number of early !votes are based on insufficient reviewable evidence. Votes are too often based on the good standing of the nominator, personal experience or the vacuous, "thought he was already" or "fuck yeh", or the oppose equivalent. As for Sigma, I strongly believe it is a case of too soon not never and that he has been built up on a pedestal to a certain extent. Leaky Caldron 19:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
When I first noticed the candidacy, I was inclined to support based on the reputation of Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) and Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs). One other nominator I have not encountered before, and another I have seen exercise poor judgment in the past. However, Chaser (talk · contribs)'s question about the Conservapedia vandalism and the comments alluding to it in the "oppose" section were concerning. There was no mention of it in the nomination statements, so I believed the candidate hadn't been rigorously vetted. When I reviewed the candidate's contributions, I found a number of concerning deficiencies, so wrote a detailed oppose since by then the candidate had over 100 supports with 90%+ support.

I agree with your proposals to minimize the effect the nominators' reputation has on rubberstamping the candidate.

The comment at your ANI hazing (my bolding), "nominators are likely to watch and would change their stance if they felt the need to. Especially Kudpung and Worm who are usually dead on with nominations and come to trust them to the point that I see no need to evaluate the candidate anymore" is shocking but honest. Too many voters supported the candidate at the beginning purely because of his nominators' reputation.

It is not the candidate's fault that he was propped up as a good administrator candidate when in fact he was not. It is the fault of his nominators who either failed to vet him properly or failed to disclose the concerning issues up front.

Your questions and concerns are insightful and will hopefully improve the process so that people do not over-rely on nominators in the future. Best, Cunard (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps one solution which would probably meet with your approval would be to dispense with the nomination system altogether, and and allow only self-noms. Perhaps you would like to propose it at RfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


Due to you I will never edit WP. Thanks for helping me avoiding me wasting my time. Your conduct appalls me. (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You never have edited WP, so no great loss. Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Explaining Memorial ListEdit

Sorry Leaky, I'm rather new. I added a memorial list to help identify the unique magnitude of the disaster. I felt adding a list where readers could see the age and number of related victims would help them [readers] identify with the disaster. Sorry to bother, was only hoping to add to the page. (And I didnt copy and paste that table either. :P)

Thanks for your help and watching the Pages, just trying to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sooooo... Would it be possible to replace the name table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Ohhhhh... I didnt know about the Talk page. I hadnt even looked there. I included the table not so much for the purpose of a Memorial, but to help drive home the emotional toll that disaster took on people there. Im still trying to figure this WP thing out, so excuse the noob-ness. =P — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I found your message about the Talk page and I added a comment to the Deceased List and added a reason why I thought it was appropriate. It's not so much a big deal for me whether it gets reverted, I just figured it would help. =P (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Yardeditor

Sports Direct ArenaEdit

I have tried to discuss this on the Article talk page and provided a link with clear evidence. But no one seems interested in discussing it and seem to be quite adament to keep it as St James' Park even though this is not it's name. I thought it would be better just to change it to it's proper name, however it seems people are just happy enough to let an article be inccorrect rather than sorting it out to be correct. Robbieranger (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I've reverted the move back to St James' Park as being undiscussed and against earlier consensus. GiantSnowman 13:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Haha, yes, the (only) good thing the new sponsorship has brought? GiantSnowman 13:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I used to live in Newcastle, went to a few games and consider myself a follower; none of the fans I know are happy. Muslim players brings up a whole other issue, reminds me of Kanoute when he was in Spain. Sevilla had a gambling sponsor, he refused to wear the sponsor so had a blank shirt. GiantSnowman 13:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Yep, good ol' Ashley - with two prominent Muslim players and the World Cup in Qatar coming up, they could have targeted the Middle East market. Not any more. GiantSnowman 14:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcementEdit

Just curious. Why'd ya delete my post? GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No harm, no problem :) GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. AutomaticStrikeout 02:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


We must reach a consensus on changing every other person first. If you want to start that dialogue, go ahead, but until a consensus has been reached we must be consistent. Lexstraviex (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Uh, I'm only using the standard that has been used for every single other Chief Whip. This isn't my claim, I'm going on every other article. Want to change every other article? Let's have that discussion on the talk page. Lexstraviex (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, if you want to do that to all of them then go for it, good luck to you. As long as it's consistent, I'm not bothered. Lexstraviex (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Post townsEdit

Just to let you know that I have reverted your addition of Category:Post towns in the NE postcode area to the articles Bebside, Cambois and North Blyth, Northumberland. As shown in the infobox, the post town for those places is Blyth. A post town is a specific part of every UK address, usually shown in capitals by Royal Mail; it is not always the nearest village or town. You can check the local post towns at NE postcode area (which includes a new map and links to Google Maps or Bing Maps where you can zoom in to see the exact postcode boundaries). Alternatively, official post towns for the entire country are listed at List of post towns in the United Kingdom and List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom.

I hope that clarifies things. I have already categorised every UK post town, so you shouldn't need to add this category to any more articles!

Happy editing.

Richardguk (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Grand Central RailwayEdit

Office of Rail Regulation press release 2 March 2011 states:

"refused Grand Central's application to run services from Euston to Blackpool, which, on the basis of the information provided, failed our primarily abstractive test" D47817 (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You !vote was confusingEdit

Did you mean to oppose the interaction ban or the site ban? Tijfo098 (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

editing and citingEdit

  editing and citing
I know this contestant personally so I can assure you the information is correct. I'm new to Wikipedia (editing here anyway) so I will definitely be adding cites over the next few days although a lot of information I have got from her friends and family. My sister in law went to school with her and i know her half brother through work. appreciate you keeping wiki a safe place thanx bud Neilmcgb (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

John McCririckEdit

I am John McCririck's Agent and have just included my contact details as he requested himself that I added this. I will remake the change - please do not remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatsyMartin1 (talkcontribs) 14:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!Edit

Hello, Leaky caldron. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Buggie111 (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

? Buggie111 (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Resysoping of FCYTravis / Polarscribe and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Dennis Brown - © Join WER 20:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You may well be rightEdit

Re: your kind edit - I have been off work sick all week, including a chest X-ray, and having had a very welcome visit from a close friend today I may well have confused the days. With all best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for keeping an eye on the London Bombing page! sageinventor 21:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


This Rfacom is so ... well, I'm almost embarrassed to bring it up, how many people are going to volunteer to give up their right to vote? The only reason I'm bringing it up is that, lately, all the comments seem to be more in line with that proposal than with some of the others. Including several of your comments ... for instance, "It has been said that RFA is far too hostile and unfair on the candidate due to the aggressive challenging and counter-challenging by supporters and opposers. An obvious solution to this problem is to introduce RfA moderators." I think what most voters are doing now ... typically just picking one issue and trying to say something straightforward about it, and not saying anything else ... is about all that most voters are willing to do. If we bring in moderators, who might for instance encourage people to clarify things, or ask them not to say things or to respond better ... it's just more than most voters can or want to deal with, and I don't blame them, really ... except on the simplest issues and in the simplest cases, voting at RfA is really hard for people who don't make it a habit. I completely agree with your view that the candidates deserve moderated, competent discussion, and the fact that they're not getting it is part of the reason we don't have enough candidates ... I just don't see the voters supplying that. Your comment was one of those "last straw" comments that pushed me over the edge into offering my own take ... I thought I was going to sit this one out. - Dank (push to talk) 21:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: "fairness" at WT:RFA: sorry. I think we share the frustration that we're both content guys ... I've got a big stack of articles to review, and I can't put the same kind of time into RfA reform that I could three years ago, so I'm writing fast and not doing as much careful listening. What I'm saying is: a quarter as many people are passing RfA compared to three years ago. We have slightly fewer active editors now ... but then, there's a higher proportion of "serious" active editors now, so it might be that the number of people who might theoretically be candidates is the same. I don't mean that we're all being unfair at RfA in the sense of being mean, I think we're collectively trying our best and making reasonable decisions. But we still can't escape the consequences of the appearance of disenfranchisement, regardless of whether the net effect on Wikipedia is acceptable ... any more than it would work to argue that making it four times as hard for blacks to vote would be perfectly okay, as long as the candidates who get elected aren't racist. When people feel that their entire group (in this case, recent Wikipedians) is being unfairly refused access to the power and privileges that are available to people who happened to get here before they did, then they start acting up and stop supporting the system. That's my take on the situation, anyway. I don't think we need to ramp up the passing rate by a factor of four, I think we need to do a combination of things to address the problem: look for potential candidates, help them understand what they need to pass, make RfA a lot more pleasant and even-handed ... and we might also make the argument that for all those people getting promoted 3 years ago, it's not like they're all lounging around telling people what to do these days ... most of them aren't active, and most of them have worked very hard, and faced some difficulties in part because their RfAs didn't serve them very well. - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Special Barnstar
I just saw today that you really felt that my "blatant lie" comment was pointed at you and intended to be a personal attack. I'm sorry that you felt that way, as I was not intended to make it look as such. I do never commit personal attacks, even to users who have really made me feel upset and insulted (an example). I realize that I made a ill word selection and as soon as I saw that it would become harmful, I removed it. Take this as my personal apology (again) for the incident. I wish you well and have no reasons to commit personal attacks to you. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 18:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The reason I went back to the noticeboard was not to draw you into further debate but to highlight the erroneous statement that the discussion had been "exemplary". Any discussion that contains accusations of blatant lying cannot, almost by definition, be an outstanding example of how discussions should be conducted. I had read you apology and accepted it without response. Now that you raise it again here, it is only fair to query your statement that as soon as you realised that the comment was inappropriate you removed it. That does not appear to be the case since your initial response was to deny that it was a personal attack with an edit summary of "out of order?" [1].

It was only after the comments made by other editors, including an Admin., that you modified the offending comments. You did not accept my initial comment saying I thought it was out of order and were only convinced to do so when other editors highlighted it to you. If, as you say, "Sometimes what I write and what I think are not the same, and the message gets disorted [sic]", I would suggest that you need to think twice and write once. Leaky Caldron 12:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I didnt find my comments to be a personal attack until several users noted it to be possibly insulting, which was why I retracted it and apologized to anyone who could have felt insulted, not only to you, because it wasn't pointed at you, and it has nothing to do with the fact that one of the users asking me there to reconsider was an admin but with the fact that I'm not the kind of user who likes to go around insulting people. Anyways, this message I left here was a gesture from me, to you; not an attempt to resume this issue. Happy editing. — ΛΧΣ21 15:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


Leaky m8, I think you were being a little harsh on Carrite. I've opposed also for the same reason, but I can't see the intent of tool misuse including looking at deleted material. You may disagree, or you may be just trying to demonstrate that an RFA for the purpose of achieving a personal goal is wrong, but I just feel you were a little harsh on Carrite. I might've been a bit snappy too had I seen you rephrase the question again like that. Your oppose is valid, but I think you should ease up a bit.--v/r - TP 23:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The first attempt to answer Q8 was pure obfuscation really, seeking to selectively place emphasis on my use of the word tools in my question. Tools are advanced rights and reading deleted material is an advanced right therefore it follows that tools and Advanced Rights are interchangeable. So I clarified "advanced rights" and received a load of shit in return, namely "specious" and "Alice in Wonderland." Please see O23 and N11 who agree that his response was out of order. Someone really needs to determine (per the Coren opinion) that dredging up material for an Arbcom case using advanced rights by any Admin. is a case of WP:TOOLMISUSE, otherwise a couple of Admins., including the candidate if successful, might end up at WP:AN. Leaky Caldron 11:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for RfA conduct clarificationEdit

RE: CanvassingEdit

I'm really sorry for that. I didn't know WP:CANVASS. Please would you notify all editors for me? Sorry again.--Dipralb (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I have notified six editors about that RM, all of whom have expressed pleasure about the current title. I hope this was enough in my defence.--Dipralb (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Apart from RM, do you think F.C. Internazionale could be a good idea for the title?--Dipralb (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I think a lot of Italian football clubs (e.g. Atalanta B.C., ACF Fiorentina, Udinese Calcio, F.B.C. Unione Venezia ) don't use English words. But also Portuguese (e.g. Sporting Clube de Portugal) or Brazilian (e.g. Sport Club Internacional). Why don't we apply the required policy for these cases? You're not here to practice democracy. But I don't think it's fair.--Dipralb (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!Edit

  Hopefully we can both agree that there were some unnecessary remarks made by both of us (and plenty of others), and that it is best to move on. AutomaticStrikeout (TCAAPT) 17:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, just to be clear, the "thoughtless" remark was directed at the way in which the opposition to my idea was expressed, not the opposition itself. There was plenty of thought involved in the reasons for why it might be a bad idea, but the way these reasons were expressed is what encouraged my attitude. AutomaticStrikeout (TCAAPT) 17:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
You've been around long enough to know that WP can be a hostile place. You wanted to be an Admin. a few months ago, IIRC. I've explained why "exasperatingly naive" is fair comment and stand by it. You should have known better from your previous experience and I'm not responsible if you feel excessively criticised by a dozen editors because they find your ideas daft or whatever. Leaky Caldron 19:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2013Edit

We'd like your opinionEdit

A question for people who commented in the RfC at "Probationary Period" and "Not Unless". (Or feel free to reply on my talk page, if you prefer.) (This was to make it official, I know you know already :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

CCHT digestsEdit

Dear Leaky, Thanks for your interest in this, but please see my latest response to Bbb23 about accuracy disclaimer. So, thanks but no thanks re WP:RSN. Sorry to have wasted your time. Freezing here in Cumbria, but probably not as bad as in the North East! Cheers, Laplacemat (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Leaky, Thanks for your response. As for the warning, it did seem a bit strong, but I imagine being a WP admin. is a thankless task. Since I retired, I take these things like water off a duck's back. As for the CCHT, I don't necessarily believe that what is on the digest pages is inaccurate, but when they have put their own disclaimer on there as regards vetting of facts, I think that must make us wary. The VCH pages, when they are done, are a different kettle of fish: they will have been vetted thoroughly and will be fully referenced and published - in print as well as online (in 15 vols) (but so far, only 2 drafts have been done). See the difference here: 1)Digest: 2) VCH draft: . But please feel free to take this to a WP:RSN if you think it'll stand a chance - I think that what is on the CCHT digests website is probably more accurate than the data gleaned from local newspapers and a lot of amateur local history books published in the 19th Century that seems to be the standard fare, but potentially not as accurate as already published, peer-reviewed books and journal articles. If the WP article citation could have an additional note saying something like "(Provisional data)", that might do, but I doubt it would be allowed. The citations to the digests will have to be replaced on WP with the full VCH ones as they come out. It's a pity there's no sign of a VCH project for Northumberland, although Durham are active, I think. Using unpaid volunteers as in Cumbria is an experiment that might help elsewhere. Cheers, Laplacemat (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Leaky C, Had already deleted links to CCHT before I got your last message (there were only c6 sites affected). I can in no way speak on behalf of the CCHT, so these are just my own two pence worth. As I said to Bbb23, I don't see how WP can link to the CCHT digest pages given the disclaimer about lack of verification of accuracy that currently exists. I'm ignorant of the level of accuracy expected from WP sources beyond what I've read of the guidelines. WP seems to want published, refereed, reliable secondary or 3rd-party sources if poss. The digests are not those, I think, as regards 100% reliable? A key question is whether Wikipedians think that the disclaimer (to see which you have to click on a link on each digest page : is a) enough to pass a WP reliability guideline test? eg: "unpublished sources are not considered reliable" & "standards of peer-review and fact-checking" etc. b) prominent enough to be seen by WP users? I must admit I'm doubtful on both counts unless WP accepts a "provisional data" caveat to the citation or some such. Anyway, I wouldn't spend too much time on it, if you go ahead. Sorry to hum and hah about this but since Im a newbie, you'll have more idea than me about what WP finds acceptable than I have, I'm sure, so you'll have to use your judgement about it. No Match of the Day, so off to bed. All best, Laplacemat (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Leaky, Many thanks for your effort and trouble in doing this. I've got just one or two comments: 1) "scaring the editor" is a bit strong and also untrue: I had already seen reverts by other editors (of the "Ambleside" and "Appleby" pages, I think), pointing out that the "See also" refs to the EL were incorrect and had started to remove others before Bbb23 (rightly) intervened. Suggest "issues were raised by other editors leading to the removal of .." instead. 2) The phrase "and has been vetted by University of Lancaster" is incorrect. That is my phrase to Bbb23, written before I saw the CCHT disclaimer on the "Digest" pages. The dislaimer says just the opposite ie: that the info is from volunteers and has not yet been checked for accuracy (an essential requirement of the CCHT mission). Suggest replacing it with a phrase like the following: "and has been compiled from a standard set of sources based on training and guidance from the University of Lancaster to be found here: ." 3) The next sentence ("The future expansion...") is too ambiguous. I think we should be upfront about the fact that the VCH project will include the vetting of the facts given in the CCHT Digests to a an even more rigorous standard. Hope this helps, Leaky, and thanks again. Laplacemat (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Leaky, Will add CCHT ELs in dribs and drabs, with an explanation on each article Talk page and a link to the WP:RSN archive (as suggested to me by admin. Bbb23). I'm really grateful for your help with this, Leaky. Although I said above that the VCH are not active in Northumberland, it's probably because the Northumberland County History Committee has already produced a 15-vol. local history ( ) finishing in 1940. So you lot over there have already been through this process - only took c120 years & was started off by a Cumbrian! See: John Hodgson (antiquary). All the best, Laplacemat (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Prince HarryEdit

It is written by an NBC contributor and is a reliable source. And the source indicates that the trip is "an official visit on behalf of England". If you feel that the wording needs tweaking go ahead, but I'll ask you to discuss on the talk page instead of edit war. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please confine your comments to the article rather than snarky comments about editors and their nationality. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Please don't condescendingly lecture me or anyone on Wikipedia. Regardless of how right or wrong I may or may not have been about the content of the article, that is no rationale for uncivil comments about an editor or a nationality. At this point I consider this matter finished until you or I find a different source, but if you wish I'll be glad to take it up at WP:ANI. Cresix (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I can back up my claims with your edit history. You just added one more uncivil comment to that history. This matter is over. I am now asking you to stop messaging me about it, and I will afford you the same courtesy; should you be tempted to continue messaging me needlessly, you might wish to read WP:HUSH. And I will not hesitate to go to ANI. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
*Talk page stalker* Leaky hasn't made any comments about yours or anyones nationality, he made a comment about a poor american source. WP:AGF needs to be applied here. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 20:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
That was the point I tried to make on their TP. Anyway, even if I wanted to comment on the editor's nationality I would not be able to - it is not indicated on their User Page. No worry, a reliable source has been found and I can ignore the WP:THREATEN personal attack "If you do that again, I will report you" message. The ANI threat is a terror for children, not for me. Leaky Caldron 20:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

cart --> cratEdit

thx. the dangers of auto correct! --regentspark (comment) 00:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013Edit

The Signpost: 08 April 2013Edit


I'm sure you do understand the references i made on Thatcher's talk page! I was trying to be a voice of compromise over there, but at the same time elsewhere, i have also been researching several other aspects to do with Thatcher (not yet covered), for inclusion when the fuss died down. I gotta admit, the more I searched, the more I found it hard to suppress my (long-held) anger. I also gotta admit my "links" were pretty twattish for an article's talk page, and far from the "voice of reason" - I'm going to stay away from the discussion, until I've calmed down, and until I can add some really useful information. Thanks for giving me a swift (but gentle) kick in the nuts! Hillbillyholiday talk 11:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010Edit

I am contacting you because you have participated in prior discussions at the above article, and it would be appreciated if you gave your views on an current dispute. One editor wants to add a gallery of images for people who declined to stand for the leadership. Another editor objects on the grounds that doing so puts undue weight on the people who did not participate. -Rrius (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013Edit

User:Oikawa00 and coEdit

I spotted your MfDs about the 5 related accounts' talk pages, and opened an SPI. It's a bit unconventional, as there has obviously been no mainspace disruption, but they're clearly the same person, and are just as clearly WP:NOTHERE. SPI is here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013Edit


Seriously, have you seen [2] looks like an attempt to enforce one variety of English on articles it doesn't belong to. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 15:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I contend that this is not an attempt to enforce one variety of English. Please feel free to join us in discussion on my talk page. Many thanks. Inglok (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm also interested to know the reason you reverted my edit. Please do have a look at my talk page. Many thanks. Inglok (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2013Edit

Nomination of 1894–95 World Championship for deletionEdit


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1894–95 World Championship is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1894–95 World Championship until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the one which was won by Sunderland. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: your post on my talkEdit

Yes, the lack of nominations does tell me something: I didn't have incoming email enabled as I thought. Since fixing that oversight, I have received several nominations. Obviously, I have no jurisdiction over what you do elsewhere, but I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to refrain from posting anymore negative messages on my talk page. AutomaticStrikeout (TCSign AAPT) 13:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I have raised your reversion of my link to Jamie Cope for discussion in the relevant Talk pageEdit

I have raised your reversion of my link to Jamie Cope for discussion in the relevant Talk page,here. Tlhslobus (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013Edit

The Signpost: 13 May 2013Edit

The Signpost: 20 May 2013Edit

The Signpost: 27 May 2013Edit

The Signpost: 05 June 2013Edit

Pardon my ignorance,Edit

but what do you mean by redtop style?--Launchballer 11:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Source: [3]. That was on the page but it seems to have been removed. I don't know about consensus, though - I just created the section.--Launchballer 12:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for correting in-correct categories! Bruno Russell (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013Edit


Any explanation for this? - Amaury (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Choudary FYIEdit

The Signpost: 19 June 2013Edit

Michaels exit on BB14Edit

Hi, I just wanted you opinion on how he should be noted in the noms table, people are thinking he was Evicted so I just gave up and let them do what they want. --MSalmon (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013Edit


I didn't. There were five references there, all to newspapers. What's wrong with it?--Launchballer 11:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess that's one way of looking at it, but whereabouts on WP:NEWSORG (or otherwise) does it say that those papers weren't reliable enough? It does say the less-established the outlet, the less reliable the information is - the Daily Star is very well established, so it would seem very reliable. Our mission (and I apologise if I seem patronising) is to report information neutrally, so that shouldn't really be a barrier.--Launchballer 12:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I still can't see it, but I won't be re-adding it.--Launchballer 14:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Out of interest, is "On Day 13, the Daily Star contested Gina's claims of having copious amounts of disposable income, accusing Gina of living in a council flat in Islington, North London" any less of a BLP violation?--Launchballer 18:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


I didn't originally create the facts and figures for CBB, I just moved them from the CBB housemates page to the main page as I thought it was useful information. I've checked on each of the series pages and all of the information added is correct. I see why you've taken it down though not being properly sourced, however on each of the series pages the nominations and eviction percentages aren't sourced either so how do we know they're correct and true? Just making a point that you can't remove some accurate unsourced information but keep others that might not be as accurate. (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013Edit


I won't be revert it back, but I don't think this change qualfies under WP:REDACT because its removal has not disrupted the discussion and has not been obviously quoted anywhere else. Perhaps it would be better if AS did a strikethrough of the comments? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If I decide to remove an ill-advised comment of my own before it starts controversy, why would you restore it and then start an argument over it? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  18:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

User talk:MiyagawaEdit

iPhone or iPad? Viriditas (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


All I saw was that he was welcomed on 29th June, a non-existent user page and an almost empty talk page, which scream 'new user'. Sorry about that.--Launchballer 21:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013Edit

F.C. Internazionale Milano PrimaveraEdit

Why don't we move F.C. Internazionale Milano Primavera to Inter Milan Primavera? IMHO, we should move the page.--Dipralb (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013Edit

The Signpost: 31 July 2013Edit

The Signpost: 07 August 2013Edit

The Signpost: 14 August 2013Edit

Newbiggin by the SeaEdit

I would appreciate it if you would stop removing my text from the above page re. Peter Thain. If you require evidence of his achievements, a simple Google of the name, with the addition of the word 'casting' will provide numerous pages of information. Anything else you may require, please ask instead of acting like the entire page is your personal property and deleting anything which doesn't suit.

(----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fshhh (talkcontribs) 00:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013Edit

The Signpost: 28 August 2013Edit

The Signpost: 04 September 2013Edit

The Signpost: 11 September 2013Edit

The Signpost: 18 September 2013Edit

The Signpost: 25 September 2013Edit

The Signpost: 02 October 2013Edit

The Signpost: 09 October 2013Edit

The Signpost: 16 October 2013Edit

The Signpost: 23 October 2013Edit

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library NewsletterEdit

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013


by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013Edit

Regarding Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship/Lugia2453Edit

Apologies for editing the discussion. I accidentally forgot that it was archived now. Sorry! TheTriple M 22:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 November 2013Edit

Disambiguation link notification for November 10Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited W. D. Flackes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Antrim (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 November 2013Edit

W. D. FlackesEdit

I made a few edits, some based on WP:IMOS, the Free State was 1922, so I adjusted accordingly. Also removed the cn tag for British. Murry1975 (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Privy CouncilEdit

WP:BLP? What on earth are you talking about? How on God's earth is that a BLP violation? Is saying that they were members of the PC verifiable? Yes, of course it is. Is it neutral? Yes, of course it is. Is it original research? Clearly not. Do we add the category to articles about deceased people who are (by definition) no longer members of the Privy Council? Of course we do. Being removed from the Privy Council does not mean one was never a member of it, any more than being dead does. Like many people who mis-cite BLP as a catch-all to remove things they don't like (almost as common as mis-citing WP:OR for similar reasons), you appear to be using it to push some sort of agenda, although for the life of me I can't work out what it is. Nevertheless, as I have neither the time nor the inclination to argue with misguided editors who clearly don't understand either the letter or the spirit of the policies they cite, I shall refrain from readding it and refine the category when I get around to it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks noted
Ignorance of WP:BLPCAT noted
see also [4] by an acknowledged expert in British parliamentary matters
That the editor is also a WP:ADMIN noted.

Leaky Caldron 17:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Next matchday scenariosEdit

Hello! I invite you to a new discussion on the matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Next matchday scenarios. Ivan Volodin (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for disturbing you again. Thank you for participating in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Next matchday scenarios. I have proposed a conclusion that addresses concerns of many participants regarding reliable sources. Unfortunately, you haven't replied to my questions regarding your position on NOTNEWS, so I couldn't take it on board. But obviously open to further suggestions. Would appreciate a comment. Ivan Volodin (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2013Edit

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election voteEdit

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

RFPP noteEdit

Hi Leaky caldron, I had to move your RFPP request (which I've granted) from the "Current requests for reduction in protection level" to the "Current requests for increase in protection level" section. I'm wondering if the misplaced request was the result of a Twinkle bug, as another editor did the same thing, again with Twinkle. Just letting you know in case it looked as though I was editing your request! Best. Acalamari 18:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It must stem from the renaming of the protect/unprotect headers on RFPP itself; two weeks ago, those two headers still had their old names. I must have missed when the change took place and only recently noticed it. :/ Acalamari 18:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for finding that. I found this edit and this discussion, with the latter revealing that there have been other bugs with Twinkle and RFPP. This particular problem doesn't appear to have been raised there, though, so I think I'll do that. Acalamari 18:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Striking out that last part; it was mentioned, I just didn't read far enough down. Apparently Twinkle gets confused with the move-protection that the article has in place. Acalamari 19:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 December 2013Edit

Wikipedia OligarchyEdit

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-12-04/Recent_research#oligarchy. Of possible interest. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


Just did it again, claiming that she finished 12th in the public vote because there were 12 campmates --MSalmon (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Help, I can't do this on my own! --MSalmon (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
And it has started again by different user, not going through it again! --MSalmon (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013Edit


Not being a Democrat is a 'quirky notion' now? Ruude!--v/r - TP 19:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Kafziel arbitration case openedEdit

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 29, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 22:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


I don't want to drag this out on the Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013 thread, so I'll follow up here. You are almost certainly aware that some have expressed concern that the Wikipedia editing environment is sometimes hostile, and that may be a factor in the low percentage of women editors. While I am very familiar with your user name, I don't know the first thing about your opinion on this issue.

I happen to oppose the position espoused by EllenCT. As stated, it is a quota, where the quota is set equal to the proportion of the target in the population. I personally think such quotas are, on balance, not the best way of achieving laudable goals. As I noted, I am not a knee jerk opponent of all quotas, I have seen working examples of quotas, which were set well below the representation proportion, and I felt they worked fine in those situations. I do not know whether Ellen was espousing that there be some lower limit, and the current proportion is the opening bid in a negotiation, or whether that number is non-negotiable, but I now realize that my reaction to your comment is not dependent on which of those is the case.

What I object to is the dismissive nature of the claim that the proposal is nonsense or nonsensical. There is a rich history of the use of quotas in many aspects of life. I think there are people of good faith on both sides of the arguments. I think it is possible to respect proponents of proportional quotas, even though I think they create more problems than they solve. However, I think disagreement should be stated with a specific identification of reason for opposition, rather than a dismissive "nonsense".

I do think some people make proposals that are so absurd they do not deserve a reasoned response, and mockery is justified, but this isn't close to being such a situation.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick:Instead of "reading into" what you think my criticism is, why not just simply read the OP's actual proposition. It states "I would like to see the number of women arbitrators meet or exceed the number of female editors". It is palpable nonsense since the number of female editors equals many tens of thousands and the size of Arbcom is 15. It the OP wishes to correctly define what they mean, quota, percentage, fixed allocation, whatever; then a sensible debate can be had. Leaving it as it stands is sloppy and deserves to be ignored and not speculated on further until it's corrected. I am amazed and never disappointed at the number of editors like you willing to jump to assumptions about fellow editors opinions when a glaring erroneous statement of fact is staring you in the face and you either fail to spot it or worse, actually assume you know what the fuck it is intended to mean. If you care to share your insight into the OPs actual suggesting please do so, or better still, ask them to clarify what they mean, rather than (a) assuming you know and (b) dragging me over here with a thinly veiled accusation of making personal attack. Leaky Caldron 14:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, that just makes it worse. I concede I did not read it closely enough. Like many people, I not only assumed she meant proportion, I didn't even notice the error until you pointed it out.
Do you honestly think she meant it as literally typed?
Maybe because I've often managed to type something that turned out to be the opposite of what I meant, by missing a "not" or something similar, I appreciate it when some asks, "Are you sure you mean X rather than "Not X"? Kudos to you if you've never managed to make a similar error.
If she literally meant that, then I agree it is nonsense. I'll give 1000-1 odds she didn't mean it. Which means you chose to be rude, instead of helpful. Do you think that helps the project?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick:I'm wondering if you read anything at all, other than the word "nonsense" and my username associated with it, from which you managed to come up with an accusation that my comment was a personal attack against the OP's views on the subject. If you had read ALL of my comments you would have seen "However, assuming Ellen means a proportional representation, where does it end?", for example, or my remarks about other minorities or later, my tacit support for woman AC members because I happen to think they might be more suitable than Anglo American, male Admins. who are typically (IMO) full of their own self-importance and test the patience of editors with their alpha-male pompous posturing. It took me 4 attempts to get my response above correct, I made 3 minor mistakes. How did I know? I read and re-checked it. We only have words to work with here, no facial expressions, no inflections of voice. If an editor is seeking to make an important point on an important topic in a high traffic area it is absolutely incumbent on them to pay attention to what they write and any subsequent discussion. I totally dismiss your accusation as quickly as I dismiss the credibility of any editor who criticises another without having understood the exact point being made. I don't think I help the project, nor do I think that I hinder it. Leaky Caldron 15:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I seem to be unable to express my point in a useful way, so I'll stop.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick:When you arrive as unprepared as you admittedly did and so eager to criticise don't expect that your point is going to be well received. Leaky Caldron 16:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014Edit

Chuka Umunna talk entryEdit

No personal details were included. If I am wrong please tell me which particular detail you find personal. I believe it is relevant to point out that Mr Umunna runs a constituency office that seems to be operating to mislead the public. Why would it be irrelevant to point this out? Wikipedia is about getting to the truth, isn't it? Thanks Matt Stan (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry, I did post personal details about myself and I can completely understand that you had no evidence to show that I had given myself permission to post such personal information about myself or that I was not in the process of harassing myself. The Wikipedia guidelines on personal information in the link you gave are quite clear: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." I'm sorry that I completely misunderstood this Wikipedia guideline and your wisdom in this regard should be publicised to show what a highly superior person you are. Thanks for taking the trouble. Matt Stan (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is completely out of order to publicise that the office of a highly public figure publicly gives constituents misleading information. I realise that this MP is justifiably far too busy to ensure that his office is operating reliably and efficiently. Matt Stan (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

And no doubt many people will find it adorable that you are acting as a censor for the UK Labour Party. Well done! Matt Stan (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014Edit

What you taking about?Edit

  What you taking about?
What are you talking about? I am only being factual Wikime32 (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Your revert of Chloe Smith's pageEdit

Could you please explain / discuss before just reverting? I was adding factual specificity to the article, but you gave no explanation when reverting less than 5 mins later? I trust you're not simply using a bot to do your edits (seeing as how your user page has such a dislike for 'cabals' and 'low criteria for adminship' - closed shop much?)

We all have our political opinions, but please keep them out of wiki editing unless you've got facts to back it up - i.e. unless you're actually contributing new content yourself rather than censoring other peoples' :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the above talk page, I should mention I intend to revert your revert unless you give me reason not to - this is meant to be your 'right to reply', but from what I can tell you just 'fire and forget' your edits. Would really like to discuss with you first but maybe that is not your style...

Weidenhammer Packaging GroupEdit

To explain myself on this: While an editor may have an undeniable conflict of interest, one that in this case resulted in an indefinite block on username grounds, the article they create may nevertheless be on a notable subject. I undeleted the article not to reward them—as I had already blocked them by then, they couldn't edit it anyway—but to let Wily work on bringing it up to our standards, as he deserves to be allowed to do.

If there hadn't been a username issue, we would have asked the eponymous creator account to adopt the usual arm's-length posture dictated by the COI policy.

I hope this explains things. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. Daniel Case (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer rightsEdit

Hi Leaky - may I pick your brains? What to do about a young editor with article review rights, whose occasional/sporadic work has picked up since a recent snowed RfA, and who is struggling in that area and doesn't seem to know it? And who has only just written their first article which was rejected for basic WP:NN reasons but which can be seen was a mess; frankly horrifying as a sample of a finished article from someone reviewing those of others? Do I tactfully tell him so? The talkpage shows that it seems this pickup in activity is due to the RfA and his reviews seem to be exclusively of articles by new users (that's my worry). I don't mind getting involved but feel I need some advice to sort this out carefully and constructively: I'm not involved in reviews and have had nothing to do with him before. Anyway I've drafted a note but thought I'd first ask someone more sensible than I am....Any help appreciated. Thanks and all the best Plutonium27 (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Plutonium27, Are you talking about me? -(tJosve05a (c) 23:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Plutonium27, I suggest you discuss the issues with the editor concerned, using diffs and references to policies and guidelines where appropriate. Stay calm, be polite and discuss your concerns even-handedly, without making actual or perceived personal attacks. Leaky Caldron 23:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014Edit


...for that! Cheers, LindsayHello 15:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkshadow1990/Living for the WeekendEdit

Hello Leaky caldron. You've nominated a bunch of pages in Darkshdadow1990's user space for deletion. (A list of the 21 Darkshadow MfDs can be seen in WP:AN/RFC). I was thinking of closing all these debates. When I checked out the one named above, I noticed that Darkshadow1990 was actually making one or two large content contributions to the main article. For instance here on 30 October. It appears that most or all of his material is still present in the main article, so people must have found his change worthwhile. People have different approaches to content development, and while this one is unusual, he seems to be following through. How would you feel if I closed all these MfDs as Keep, on the basis that the userspace copies are being used for an encyclopedic purpose? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 January 2014Edit


Hey, are you sure you want to but in at a 'crat discussion referencing the wrong policy and threshold? SoV is running for admin, not 'crat... Just a heads-op :-) --Randykitty (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppet?Edit

Hi. I see you voiced concern about multiple account abuse at User talk: Perhaps you might want to review and comment on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MariaSemple. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014Edit

The Signpost: 29 January 2014Edit

Thank youEdit

For leaving a question at my RfA. I have replied there. Please let me know if you have any further questions, either there or here (if you reply here, please consider pinging me through WP:ECHO). Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


Re [5], what do you mean "the editor has identified"? Where? Who?

Also, WP:TPO clearly states:

  • Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons or banning policies.
  • Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism.

The rant - aside to being a one bullshit lie piled up on top of another - not only is evidence that some person or persons (style very much suggests plural) are engaging in insanely creepy stalking behavior and harassment, also contains links to personal information and constitutes a form of outing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship.2FPiotrus_3.E2.80.8E_edit_warring. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

How come you were in touch to my IP address? Don't ever comment on me or my edits again. I have no interest in knowing what you have to say about it. PEACE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

ani commentEdit

Could you diff the specific edit you're referring to here [6]? NE Ent 19:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

[7]. The edits were not contiguous but if you scroll to the bottom you'll see the discussion. Every word and phrase dripping with snarling superiority, hostility and aggression. Leaky Caldron 19:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014Edit

The Signpost: 19 February 2014Edit

The Signpost: 26 February 2014Edit

Thank you!Edit

Your input to my question on the Village Pump, how to search for a word within articles, was given extremely fast and helped me on one of my Wikiproject Biography projects. I was trying to find other people who have died from vasculitis, which was a new cat I created after Harold Ramis died... Not only that, but I was able to clean up an article about a children's author (Miriam Schlein)... Thanks again! Juneau Mike (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


Replied to you at my talk page. Pakaran 23:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


There's not even a link to go to, the way you reverted me to.[8] Much less a user to link to. See that? At least use proper brackets if you want to link to something. Yeesh. Cheers. Doc talk 11:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


alternative: never disappointed
Thank you, editor simply going for competence and high qualification even in Wikipedia politics, for tirelessly fighting vandalism, for precise spelling, for a clear view, for "I am amazed and never disappointed at the number of editors ... willing to jump to assumptions", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 782 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Four years now, and still less disappointment every day (at least as long as I look away from arbitration) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Five years now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

GA reassessmentEdit

Anjem Choudary, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration request motion passedEdit

An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

The motion reads as follows:

  • By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014Edit

The Signpost: 12 March 2014Edit

A cupcake for you!Edit

  I know we haven't gotten along in the past, but I would like to change that. I would like you to have this tasty cupcake, in a hope that we can interact with each other more pleasantly. —cyberpower ChatOnline 02:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Elle the SportEdit


Are you filing a sock puppet investigation for user:Sport of Sri Lanka Elle and User:Elle(Sri Lanka)? Regards, -- Whpq (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014Edit

The Signpost: 26 March 2014Edit

The Signpost: 02 April 2014Edit

Don't miss one of my pictures in this edition ;) - DYK that the pictured church is named for the first union between Lutheran and Reformed protestants in Germany, and known for 38 paintings of the Rubens school? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Witchhunting for socks!Edit

Greetings LC, I just wanted to take a moment and suggest that you need to find something to do besides accusing everyone of being a socks of theuser who shall not be named (K U MI OKO).... No wonder the due got fed up with this place! (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Sri Lanka EllayaEdit

WP:CSD#G5 says "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block" - User:Sri Lanka Ellaya created the page, and has yet to be blocked or confirmed as a sock of a blocked user. I'll be happy to delete the page when that sock is confirmed.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014Edit

The Signpost: 23 April 2014Edit

The Signpost: 30 April 2014Edit

The Signpost: 07 May 2014Edit

The Signpost: 14 May 2014Edit

The Signpost: 21 May 2014Edit

The Signpost: 28 May 2014Edit

The Signpost: 04 June 2014Edit

The Signpost: 11 June 2014Edit

The Signpost: 18 June 2014Edit

The Signpost: 25 June 2014Edit

The Signpost: 02 July 2014Edit

The Signpost: 09 July 2014Edit

The Signpost: 16 July 2014Edit

A year and a half after you opposed my RfAEdit

I am inviting you to leave me some feedback, 18 months after you opposed my RfA. Do you still believe I am not fit to be an admin? Do you believe I have been able to improve past the concerns you have brought up? Do not be afraid of being too harsh, I am specifically welcoming criticism as I believe it is the best way to improve and I am always looking to learn from my mistakes. I am particularly looking for feedback as to whether you have objections to myself lifting the self-imposed 1RR restriction I had agreed to towards the end of my RfA. If you don't have time to comment, don't fret it either, this is nothing I'll lose sleep over. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  19:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014Edit

The Signpost: 30 July 2014Edit

The Signpost: 06 August 2014Edit

The Signpost: 13 August 2014Edit

The Signpost: 20 August 2014Edit

The Signpost: 27 August 2014Edit

The Signpost: 03 September 2014Edit

The Signpost: 10 September 2014Edit

The Signpost: 17 September 2014Edit

The Signpost: 24 September 2014Edit

The Signpost: 01 October 2014Edit

The Signpost: 08 October 2014Edit

The Signpost: 15 October 2014Edit

The Signpost: 22 October 2014Edit

The Signpost: 29 October 2014Edit

The Signpost: 05 November 2014Edit

The Signpost: 12 November 2014Edit

DangerousPanda arbitation request openedEdit

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014Edit

The Signpost: 03 December 2014Edit

The Signpost: 10 December 2014Edit

The Signpost: 17 December 2014Edit

The Signpost: 24 December 2014Edit

The Signpost: 31 December 2014Edit

The Signpost: 07 January 2015Edit

The Signpost: 14 January 2015Edit

The Signpost: 21 January 2015Edit

The Signpost: 28 January 2015Edit

The Signpost: 04 February 2015Edit

Your edit to my talkpageEdit

This edit is a little odd don't you think? I am assuming it was a mistake.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015Edit

Please comment on WP:AN#Closure review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper ScriptEdit

Hello! You have been selected to receive an invitation to participate in the closure review for the recent RfC regarding the AfC Helper script. You've been chosen because you participated in the original RfC. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. This message is automated. Replies will not be noticed. --QEDKTC 14:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015Edit

The Signpost: 25 February 2015Edit

The Signpost: 25 February 2015Edit

The Signpost: 04 March 2015Edit

The Signpost: 11 March 2015Edit

The Signpost: 18 March 2015Edit

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015Edit

The Signpost, 1 April 2015Edit

The Signpost: 01 April 2015Edit

The Signpost: 08 April 2015Edit

The Signpost: 15 April 2015Edit

The Signpost: 22 April 2015Edit

The Signpost: 29 April 2015Edit

The Signpost: 06 May 2015Edit

The Signpost: 13 May 2015Edit

The Signpost: 20 May 2015Edit

The Signpost: 27 May 2015Edit

The Signpost: 03 June 2015Edit

The Signpost: 10 June 2015Edit

The Signpost: 17 June 2015Edit

The Signpost: 24 June 2015Edit

Revert ?Edit

Hi. I suppose this was a mistake ? Dodoïste (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015Edit

The Wikipedia Library needs you!Edit

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015Edit

My RfAEdit

Pavlov's RfA reward

Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.)
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

The Signpost: 15 July 2015Edit

The Signpost: 22 July 2015Edit

The Signpost: 29 July 2015Edit

The Signpost: 05 August 2015Edit

The Signpost: 12 August 2015Edit

The Signpost: 19 August 2015Edit

The Signpost: 26 August 2015Edit

The Signpost: 02 September 2015Edit

The Signpost: 09 September 2015Edit

Harry Potter family treeEdit

Have you actually looked at the version you're reverting to (hint: you're transcluding a redirect), or the discussion I linked to? The family tree was always there; I've simply moved its source code from inside a template to the article. Alakzi (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't do back-and-forths, so watchlist my talk page if you want to discuss it. Alakzi (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2015Edit

The Signpost: 23 September 2015Edit

The Signpost: 30 September 2015Edit

A beer for you!Edit

  There seems to be some tension here, and I think it's about time we cleared the air between and get along. So I'm manning up and giving you this beer and apologizing for the bad interactions we had in the past. —cyberpowerChat:Online 18:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015Edit

The Signpost: 14 October 2015Edit

The Signpost: 21 October 2015Edit

Yamaguchi先生 RfAEdit

Hi Leaky caldron, regarding your oppose to the candidacy, I thought you might want to know that Yamaguchi先生 addressed this and noted it in the "General comments" section.

My message to you is intended as a point of information only - I am not voting in the candidacy. I also thought I'd contact you here to avoid a drawn-out discussion on the RfA page itself in case anyone corrected you over there. Best. Acalamari 20:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015Edit

The Signpost: 04 November 2015Edit

Arbcom electionEdit

If you would care to repair the damage you have done to the format of the page, I might, but only might, care to provide an answer. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I went ahead and fixed some more formatting errors in your section of questions to Kudpung. Hope you don't mind.—cyberpowerChat:Online 19:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not sure how you prefer to receive your replies, but I responded on my talk page.—cyberpowerChat:Online 19:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 November 2015Edit

The Signpost: 18 November 2015Edit

ArbCom elections are now open!Edit

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015Edit

Moved your comment re Kudpung's answer to Dcs002's questionEdit

As the sections on the Questions pages for ArbCom candidates are only for the user asking the question(s) and the candidate answering, I have moved your comment on Dcs002's question to the candidate discussion page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Kudpung. THEowner of a l l 20:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 December 2015Edit

The Signpost: 09 December 2015Edit

The Signpost: 16 December 2015Edit

The Signpost: 30 December 2015Edit

The Signpost: 06 January 2016Edit

The Signpost: 13 January 2016Edit

The Signpost: 20 January 2016Edit

The Signpost: 27 January 2016Edit

The Signpost: 03 February 2016Edit

The Signpost: 10 February 2016Edit

The Signpost: 17 February 2016Edit

The Signpost: 24 February 2016Edit

The Signpost: 02 March 2016Edit

The Signpost: 09 March 2016Edit

The Signpost: 16 March 2016Edit

The Signpost: 23 March 2016Edit

The Signpost: 1 April 2016Edit

The Signpost: 14 April 2016Edit

The Signpost: 24 April 2016Edit

The Signpost: 2 May 2016Edit

The Signpost: 17 May 2016Edit

The Signpost: 28 May 2016Edit

The Signpost: 05 June 2016Edit

The Signpost: 15 June 2016Edit

The Signpost: 04 July 2016Edit

The Signpost: 21 July 2016Edit

The Signpost: 04 August 2016Edit

The Signpost: 18 August 2016Edit

The Signpost: 06 September 2016Edit

The Signpost: 29 September 2016Edit

The Signpost: 14 October 2016Edit

The Signpost: 4 November 2016Edit

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Edit

 Hello, Leaky caldron. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016Edit

The Signpost: 22 December 2016Edit

The Signpost: 17 January 2017Edit

The Signpost: 6 February 2017Edit


Wasn't trying to trip you up in my reply, just genuinely thought you may have misinterpreted something - my apologies if you saw my reply as anything other than trying to be helpful. I recently opposed a RfA and the hassling you get is unreasonable, I don't want to come across in the same way -- Samtar talk · contribs 11:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Your voteEdit

I asked the same question. The q&a is mid-thread in Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#New Page Reviewing - Election for coordinators. Regards, Cabayi (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @Cabayi: the reply to your question makes no sense. Just because there is opposition doesn't mean we have to select only 2 from 4 at the risk of disappointing 2 who could then decide they are not wanted. It has not been thought through. Leaky Caldron 11:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017Edit

The Signpost: 9 June 2017Edit

The Signpost: 23 June 2017Edit

The Signpost: 15 July 2017Edit

The Signpost: 5 August 2017Edit

The Signpost: 6 September 2017Edit

The Signpost: 25 September 2017Edit

The Signpost: 23 October 2017Edit

The Signpost: 24 November 2017Edit

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Leaky caldron. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017Edit

The Signpost: 16 January 2018Edit

The Signpost: 5 February 2018Edit

The Signpost: 20 February 2018Edit

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018Edit

The Signpost: 26 April 2018Edit

The Signpost: 24 May 2018Edit

The Signpost: 29 June 2018Edit

The Signpost: 31 July 2018Edit

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
I can't find an appropriate barnstar, but you deserve some recognition for all your input on various apects of Wikipedia over the last few months - and not just because some of them are projects that I am involved with. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018Edit

The Signpost: 1 October 2018Edit

The Signpost: 28 October 2018Edit

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Leaky caldron. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I almost wishEdit

you hadn't said this ;) ——SerialNumber54129 19:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 31, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 21:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at WP:ANIEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 06:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018Edit


The detailed report at UAA makes admin action *so* much easier. Thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

78.26 You are very welcome. And thanks for the message - nice to feel appreciated for a change :) Leaky Caldron 18:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
So very often it feels like you have to duplicate the reporter's work. Names like "Amalgamated Lawyers LLC" are easy, but a user name such as this isn't nearly so cut-and-dried. You obviously spent a deal of volunteer time to create the report, and it was nice not to have to duplicate the work for a change, me being lazy and all.   78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for helping in the discussion at Talk:Big Brother 4 (U.S. season) very much appreciated   Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 15:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to the final vote on the bolding issueEdit

Thank you for participating in the bolding issue of the election infobox earlier. We are now holding a final vote in order to reach a clear and final consensus. Please take a moment to review our discussion and vote in Template talk:Infobox election#Final voting. --Lmmnhn (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019Edit

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Proposed decisionEdit

It's just been pointed out to me that the header says "all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section.". I was going to remove my comment, but to do so now would leave your subsequent reply out of context. I can remove both if you're happy for that to be the case, or I'll remove my own comment and you can remove yours or leave it there, or do anything else you prefer to do, it's your thoughts I am trying to keep out of. Fish+Karate 11:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes - deleting both is ok with me. Thanks Leaky caldron (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hat in the ringEdit

Yo Leeks. I think you'll find it is a boxing expression rather than a circus one. But I tend to agree with you about ever more hoops. Many thanks for that link to the Great Farini. RfA is useful after all, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019Edit

The Signpost: 31 March 2019Edit

The Signpost: 30 April 2019Edit

Rama Arbitration CaseEdit

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Previous listing as a partyEdit

My apologies for the above section stating that you are a party. You are not, I made a mistake with the template. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019Edit

Were you saying my posts were offensive and asking me to say sorry on Primefac’s talk pageEdit

Hi Leaky caldron, we’re you saying my posts were offensive and asking me to say sorry on Primefac’s talk page because I didn’t make any offensive edit on this user’s talk page, thank you. Lachlb (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Lachlb No, my edit created a new section unconnected to you. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Cool itEdit

You're not helping our cause with Katherine. I suggest you remove or refactor your recent comments to be polite. You catch more flies with honey yada yada. Jehochman Talk 19:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll be removing or refactoring nothing. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!Edit

Regarding your struck question at WP:ARC, if that were really a BLP violation, then literally any editor can remove it. However, since there would be conflicts and edit wars over that, we'd probably need a consensus somewhere, and well, ArbCom is one place to get a consensus. starship.paint (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement commentEdit

Hello, Leaky caldron,

Regarding your comment about me at Arbitration enforcement, I don't know Eric at all. We are not friends or colleagues. I don't think we have ever both participated in the same discussion. I expect, given my editing interests on Wikipedia, that if he does have an opinion on me, it would not be positive because I am not a content creator.

You might feel like it was rude for me to refer to him by his last name but I felt that he would object to me calling him "Eric" as if we had some kind of friendship. I'll admit it was a little formal but I think that is better than assuming some kind of familiarity, that we were friends. And it seemed less clumsy than using his full name, Eric Corbett. But perhaps his full name would have been a better choice. And I'd never just call you "caldron", your name is Leaky caldron and that is how I'd address you. Liz Read! Talk! 00:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Liz:Thanks Liz. I am not a friend or a colleague either. Not of Eric Corbitt in particular or anyone here is general. In the circumstances of a formal behaviour enquiry which it was, yes - it jarred. Had you been defending him it would have looked peculiar. In the UK certainly, outside of sport or the military, it is unusual these days. But if that is how you have addressed real name editors here who are not friends or colleagues then you have been entirely consistent. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

UAA reportEdit

That is very obviously not a new user. I'm not entirely sure they're NOTHERE, it seems likely it is the account of an established user who is concerned about harassment received from the subject of the AfD in which they are vigorously participating, and they therefore do not wish to associate their main account with the discussion. Hence the less-than-optimal user name. I'm not sure I can block for UAA in this situation, it doesn't really seem to violate policy, and it isn't insulting to anyone in particular, perhaps to Wikipedia mildly. I welcome and appreciate your further thoughts and input. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019Edit


the most-credible forecast. By the looks of it, this's only going one way. WBGconverse 18:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Leaky caldron".