User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Bunney

No there wasn't. There was an edit conflict. Sorry I thought I'd restored everything you'd done, eg ibox etc. Ericoides (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins (radio presenter)

Please don't carry on adding or discussing the full date of birth for this person, as you did with these edits. As you are aware, the policy at WP:DOB forbids this - although I accept that you disagree with the policy, or feel it does not apply in this case. It does apply, and should the article survive its AfD and your reinsert discussion of the exact date, I'll invoke WP:BLPSE to topic-ban you from the article. Please regard this as your warning to stop the additions, as required under that guideline. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You're threatening to block me for discussing something? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm threatening to topic ban (not block) you for contravening WP:DOB. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You're warning me not to reinsert something into the article, 'which I haven't put into it for the last two years. You're also threatening action against me for discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You need to completely leave this topic alone, and if you won't do it voluntarily, you'll be made to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You're also threatening action against me for discussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.- the possibility of a topic ban under WP:BLPSE is being discussed here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Too late. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

"You're threatening to block me for discussing something?"

Given that you've interpreted "discuss" as "publicise the contested content regardless", then I think that would be entirely appropriate. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done no such thing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andy, considering the current fuss on AN, would you consider offering to take Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) off your watchlist for the next six months and steer clear of it as a gesture of good faith? I'm sure that others will now keep an eye on the article and reach an appropriate consensus. Considering your good standing it would seem odd for this not to be resolved in a collegiate manner. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Given that the subject has repeatedly made personal attacks against me on the article's talk page (for the record, as he has done off-wiki also), and the failure of other editors to remove them in a timely manner, no, I will not stop watching the article and its talk page. I will, though continue my practice of not making any contentious edits to the article, but instead making proposals on its talk page. If you can see a recent edit I have made to the article which you feel is questionable, please provide a diff in order that I may reassess it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This would be such an example. I agree it is inconsistent of this person to refer to his birthday on the radio, then insist reference to it is removed from WP. Nevertheless it is his right, supported by WP:DOB which his inconsistency does not trump. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No, that would not be such an example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the problem, PotW. You asked me for an example of an edit which I feel is questionable. I gave you one. Of course you're not going to agree with me; what experienced editor deliberately makes edits which they themselves feel to be questionable? The problem is that you firmly, passionately believe you are right and no amount of persuasion by anyone else is going to change that. The only thing that can change your behaviour is the combined opinion of your fellow editors which (apart from agreeing that your block was a poor one) is pretty unanimously against you on this. It might be that the rest of us are the ones who are out of step, but you need to consider the alternative. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I asked you for no such thing. I asked Fae if had "a recent edit I have made to the article which you feel is questionable". Further, I said nothing about what I feel to be questionable. And no, opinion is not "pretty unanimously against" me (your caveat notwithstanding). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you refuse to take the hint, I have blocked you, under WP:BLPSE, until such time as you agree to leave the topic alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Ouch, a block seems harsh, particularly considering the odd !voting pattern seen on the AFD should make any experienced administrator pause. I was about to suggest that if Andy feels the talk page comments relating to himself are a problem, there may be a happier resolution of taking an intermediary (such as a trusted administrator) to deal with these matters and thereby avoid this looking too personal. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in the "odd voting pattern" and whatever factors you suspect behind them has anything to do with the fact that PotW's activities on this article have been persistently disruptive, over several years, as described quite well here [1]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the evidence you point to, it seems to date from 2010. Personally I keep in mind Standard offer as a guide to common sense. I would certainly look at recent behaviour but anything older than six months looks like a grudge match and anything over twelve months should be ignored as users have the capacity to learn and improve as do our own policies. I would support an unblock and would prefer to see a better stab at collegiate discussion for such a well established contributor before resorting to the final blunt hammer of blocks. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the poking has gone on long after 2010 and as recently as two weeks ago. See [2][3] [4][5]. Pigsonthewing has been repeatedly told to drop it by multiple editors and administrators, and every year I hoped he had, but every year we are back with more responses to Twitter greetings as "evidence".Slp1 (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs, very helpful. I note that none of these examples is part of any pre-existing recognized dispute resolution process. We appear to have gone from sudden discussion on AN to a block without any of the alternatives being tried. If the dispute has been going on for more than 2 years, I would have thought RFC or similar would have been highly appropriate so at least we would be pointing to an established consensus that Pigsonthewing was in contradiction with. Perhaps rather than having this discussion embedded in the running AFD, such an RFC should be run now. It may well be that Pigsonthewing might even offer to create the RFC proposal while avoiding any further apparent drama relating to this BLP. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

A further process inviting PotW to comment on that Hawking guy? No. His commenting on Hawking is the disruption that's being prevented here. We don't want yet more of it, in no matter what venue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

We didn't need a formal RFC. Every year the talkpage conclusion has been the same, and every year Pigsonthewing has been told to drop it.--Slp1 (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Presumably you are not against collegiate dispute resolution processes such as RFCs in general? As suggested before I see nothing wrong with Pigsonthewing contacting an intermediary to ensure issues are raised appropriately rather than touching the BLP or associated discussions himself. Pretty much this is how a formal topic ban would work anyway. --Fæ (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if he would agree not to touch the BLP or associated discussions then I agree he should be unblocked. But that's what he was offered above and he refused, very emphatically. Slp1 (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Note also that none of the material discussed was considered, by the several editors involved, to be so troublesome as to warrant its removal, and that the 2011 equivalents were on the talk page until archived, without drama, quite recently. Not that I'm suggesting they be removed now. Note also that a 2010 BLP/N decsion deemed tweets acceptable as DoB sources; with no censure for posting them on discussion pages Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It's very disturbing to see yet another misquotation of the BLP/N decision [6] which was "The source Twitter is acceptable, but we should find better sources." Yet in 2010 and 2011 you were not back with better sources, but Twitter responses yet again. --Slp1 (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

So 'acceptable' means not acceptable? I can't myself see anything wrong with raising the matter annually on the talk page. Consensus changes. Adding the disputed dob to the article itself annually would be provocative but this has not happened, for some years now. Oculi (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue is not so much sourcing - we clearly could source the full D.O.B - but policy and precedent means we don't list it because we were asked not to (WP:DOB is dead clear on that; If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth... err on the side of caution and simply list the year). However no effort has been made to change that policy in a way that would preclude situations such as this. So even if intended as raising the issue again with new material, it has the perception of WP:STICK due to the avenue taken. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the most ridiculous block I have ever seen. Oculi (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pigsonthewing (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

An indefinite block, in response to me saying "I will… continue my practice of not making any contentious edits to the article, but instead making proposals on its talk page". That's Wikipedia policy, right?

Decline reason:

Since this is a BLPSE block, the provisions of WP:AEBLOCK apply. Please follow the instructions there. T. Canens (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

To expedite the above process I've proposed a topic ban & unblock at WP:AN; if you want to comment I, or I am sure others, will be happy to copy comments across. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not an "arbitration enforcement block". Your claim there that "Andy has said almost as much" is utterly false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, genuine error on my part there - I was confusing a comment made by another editor with one you also made. I apologise. Also; Fut. Perf. blocked you under BLPSE, which procedurally does count as an Arbitration block, I believe. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Please check your email. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Nor does this block comply with WP:BLPSE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Since there is now a very clear sense of consensus about the impending topic ban emerging on WP:AN, and its formal enactment is probably merely a matter of between a few hours and a day or so, I have lifted the block, as being hopefully no longer necessary to serve its purpose. That's of course not an invitation for you to resume editing on the topic in question. To the contrary, it's done purely in the hope that you'll take the hint this time and respect the community's wishes as expressed by numerous editors in that discussion and elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The block was not necessary - nor appropriate - in the first place, as others have pointed out to you both above and on other pages. Will I be blocked again if I defend myself on WP:AN? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You'll only be blocked (by me at any rate) if you break WP:DOB again (including on talk or project pages) or if you break the topic ban which is incoming. I'm not going to enact the latter as I !voted to support it but I assume you'll be asked not to edit the article in question or any associated pages. Defending yourself at AN or ANI is not a problem for me, as long as you keep within the boundaries just mentioned. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

And how, do you propose, I defend myself at WP:AN without editing "any associated pages"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Should you be topic banned from pages associated with Jim Hawkins (radio presenter), as far as I can see you'd still be free to defend yourself at any other page, as long as the defence didn't compromise WP:DOB. By "associated pages" I meant pages associated with the Hawkins article. Not pages associated with AN. If you cease editing the Hawkins pages, I can't see you'll ever have any need to defend yourself. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the comments below, then. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've read them, in fact I did so before I wrote the above and took them into account. They don't change my view. Andy, this sorry mess has cost a lot of upset and strong feeling, and much diversion from the productive work of editing the encyclopaedia. I won't prolong it any further for my part, and after this I won't post again here or elsewhere on the topic. For your part, I'd just ask you to consider the balance of opinion towards the questions that have been raised today. It looks likely the AfD will be a keep, which I know you !voted for. Most opinion about your brief block was that it had been a bad call. Two strikes to you. But the great majority of opinion really is that your editing at the Hawkins article and talk page showed poor form, and that you should stay away henceforth. I know you disagree with this view, but it's one shared by most people who expressed a view on the subject. Could you allow the possibility that they might be right on this one? Anyway, as I said that's more than enough from me. I'll let you have the last word. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

How long will it take for this false accusation to be removed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest dropping a note with the link to a friendly admin unconnected with the AfD discussion, though keep in mind that such allegations are often made but not redacted as in themselves they contain little detail and are not necessarily intended as personal attacks. Take a chill pill and if you do comment about what how you would like a topic ban to work (often it seems to work better if the 'accused' says nothing), if it is supported at AN, then you may want to start off by acknowledging the importance of Privacy of personal information and using primary sources, how you intend to fully comply with it and be seen to be complying with it.

I would advise dealing with the topic ban proposal against you for now and then later, separately, complaining about any harassment you feel you have received in order to avoid muddying the waters. If the relevant article talk page discussions are removed from view in line with an interpretation of BLP, I assume that this may well remove any allegations made about yourself. Remember Wikipedia is a big place, I would recommend taking this article off your watch-list and limit yourself to how often you look at this stuff; others can monitor the situation and you don't want it to distract you from far more valuable work elsewhere. Cheers Fæ (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. for taking the time to offer advice. I note that, meanwhile, further such false allegations are still being made on that page, along with false assertions of what I have supposedly said, on other pages - far worse than anything I have said on the talk page of the article in question; and certainly far less true. I have already explained why I shall continue to watch the article (more specifically, but inseparably, its talk page). As to personal info and primary sources, I note again that I did not put anything on the article's talk page which was not already widely publicised by the subject, on his public and high profile Twitter account, linked to from his BBC profile page, and which no other editors saw the need to remove, until routine archiving (in the case of the 2011 edits, not until after almost a year). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Kindly, the person making the accusation on the AFD has reworded that comment after I challenged it. --Fæ (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but though my name has been removed, the false accusation remains; and has been repeated, by the same editor and others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits

Andy, have you been repeatedly posting this person's dob on Wikipedia, despite their stated wish that their dob not be published on Wikipedia? That's been so often repeated over the last day or so that I took it as a given. Or are you asserting that that behaviour is not harassment? That is, which part of my accusation are you opposing? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have posted evidence, citing the subjects own, publicly-available and widely-advertised (linked to, from his BBC profile) Twitter account, to refute his apparent claims that we had his DoB wrong. That most certainly is not harassment. Rationally discussing the public comments of a notable, public figure in the context of writing their biography is not harassment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It's my view that that is harassment, Andy. Reasonable people disagree on this point. (See Malleus' response to my comments you link to above.) I advocate very different behavioural norms, toward our readers, our subjects and each other, than many other editors. I'm not alone in that view, though. These differences in opinion are surfacing more frequently lately, it seems to me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You're entitled to your view. You're also wrong. You are not entitled to make statements alleging that I have done what I have not. Your claim that "his birth date in the article [has] been persistently re-added" is also false; his DoB has not been in the article since 2010. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I've just re-read slp 1's summary near the top of the current AfD discussion. Assuming there's nothing misleading there, "his birth date in the article [has] been persistently re-added" is true. And it seems you've been pushing on the talk page to include it. Why do that when the subject would rather you didn't? Even if policy allowed it, which it doesn't appear to, what makes you want to do this against the subject's wishes? Doesn't the fact that it distresses him mean anything to you? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

"Assuming there's nothing misleading there" - There's your first mistake. As I have just told you, his DoB has not been in the article since 2010. I note that you have removed a comment from my talk page, in which you said "If that's not the case, I'll strike the comment". Since the allegation which you are making is both based on hearsay, and false, you should not only strike it, but remove it completely. And you're changing the subject: the discussion was your false allegations of harassment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I changed that post because I re-read Slp1's summary. My position is based on the links in that summary, not hearsay. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Anthony and Andy, can I suggest taking a break from drilling into this matter on this user page? If there is new evidence, I suggest it is carefully summarized on the AN discussion about a possible topic ban. I think Andy's response on AN is close to taking what would be acceptable voluntarily restrictions, so I hope an informal outcome can be reached rather than a formal topic ban; this episode seems overly vitriolic to me, it is disappointing to see so many experienced editors indulging in unnecessary unsourced allegations and hurtful claims, but I guess that's just my thin skin. I'm going to take this talk page off my watch-list for a while and it might help if others thought about the benefits of following suit. --Fæ (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding unsourced allegations, I'm relying on the links in Slp1's summary mentioned above. I've unwatched this page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

There are no links in that summary, or elsewhere, showing harassment, or that the subject's DoB has been in the article since 2010. Your allegations remain false. You have no evidence for them. Remove them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but I intend to challenge any false allegations made against me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure when it became clear that the subject didn't want his full name and DoB in the article: I can't access the article talk page history or the OTRS notices. The edit summary at 19:21, 9 September 2009 is pretty explicit, but I think I count you inserting his DoB four times after that, once after he's told you explicitly his birthday is "none of your damn business." And I gather you've been pushing on the talk page to have the DoB restored to the article.

That's harassment. It's not driving an axe through his front door or boiling his bunny but it's harassment. The whole experience has been trying for him, obviously. From the start. You have not helped the situation. I'd like to see you face that. I'd like to see some gesture from you to indicate you notice the effect this kind of thing can have on a real person. I'd be impressed by that. And I'd appreciate it if you'd blank this once you've read it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

[Snip lists of edits made in 2010; available in history should anyone want them]

"That's harassment" - no, it is not. There are no links in your list, or elsewhere, showing harassment, or that the subject's DoB has been in the article since 2010. Your allegations remain false. You have no evidence for them. Remove them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the assertions you're challenging are "He's been saying he doesn't want his birth date in the article for years and it's been persistently re-added" and "the article has been used to harass the subject for years." Is that correct? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've just re-read this and I think our problem is a different understanding of the word "harass." I'm using "(1) : to annoy persistently (2) : to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for, especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct" from Merriam-Webster. That's what you and several others have been doing the the subject. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop wriggling. Remove your false and unacceptable accusations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I won't remove them because they're not false. It's a shame you don't see that. I won't be responding here again. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

In the article, and more recently the talk page. The subject certainly feels that he has been harassed for six years, and he blames all of Wikipedia for this. --Pete (talk) 05:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins (Radio presenter)

I just wanted to pop by and ask you, as a favor, that you not edit or interact on the talk page of this article. He continues to be upset by the article and by you, and I see no reason for us to agitate him further. I've personally gone through and checked the article and found it to be 100% accurate. He still insists that it contains errors but refuses to tell me what the errors are. So. Anyway, it'd probably be best all around if you just avoided the topic, thanks! --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see my response to a near-identical invitation, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andy, related to Jimbo's request, I can see you have started making small amendments to the Hawkins article. Please take a step back and reconsider your approach. There is a danger of this affair becoming about you rather than about the BLP article. I fully respect your concerns that totally unfair allegations have made about your involvement on this article in the past, and if this becomes a current problem then you should complain in the usual way. However considering how much unnecessary drama has been created, it seems unwise to prompt yet more attention along with the likely claims that this has become a personal issue rather than a technical one about Wikipedia policies. Many eyes are on the article and we should be able to trust the community to make good decisions about how to handle improvement or policy compliance. Stick to the higher ground and leave the handbag throwing to those that enjoy wasting their time with that sort of thing. Cheers, --Fæ (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I assure you that all my edits are made with due consideration. I have not complained about unfair allegations, which would be subjective; but allegations which are untrue. I again invite you to show a diff if you can see a recent edit I have made to the article which you feel is questionable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I thought they were unfair and I agree some are untrue. I'm not going to dig into details as I have run out of cheap handbags and don't want to throw around the few I have left. I hope we get a chance to chat at a wikimeet soon so we can commiserate each other on the profound failures of the Wikipedia community we have created. Cheers, --Fæ (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I would respectfully second (third?) Jimbo and Fæ's requests above that you voluntarily withdraw from making edits to the Hawkins article. These edits to the article are of course entirely unquestionable and backed up by a respectable source. It's not the content of the edits that I question but I do question the wisdom of you being the person to make them. It gives the appearance of some kind of campaign of continued interest in him by you which is really not necessary. As is pointed out above, there are now plenty of eyes on that article. You are of course within your rights to carry on editing there unless blocked or banned. But in my view it would be helpful to the project as a whole if you restrained yourself from doing so. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I refer you, too, to my earlier answer. I also invite you to restore my "entirely unquestionable" edits, which as you rightly note, were "backed up by a respectable source". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Very occasionally an action which is correct, justified by sources, defensible in policy and procedurally in order is, in fact, the wrong thing to do. This was one of those cases. You have facts, precedent and logic on your side. And yet, it would still have been the judicious thing to do had you restrained yourself from making the additions. Would you now be willing to undertake a voluntary, self-imposed decision to make no further edits to this article or its talk page? For the good of the encyclopaedia? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

What a bizarre assertion. I refer you, yet again, to my earlier answer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy; the guy is upset with your interaction on his biography - whether or not you feel you have harassed him, he feels like he is being harassed - and this is the critical concept. Even though you are now making fairly innocuous edits to the article it is still amplifying the problem. As a Wikipedia editor you should display restraint and understanding; by walking away from this article for good. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for his feelings; further, as noted above, he's had them for about four three and half years before I first edited the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

More than four highly experienced editors have requested you back off the article - and yet you tenaciously refuse. Over the most minor of content. As an editor on his BLP you are responsible for his feelings, to the extent that if your editing is causing upset (for whatever reason) the adult response is to step back. Right now your refusal to back away looks a lot like a childish point scoring exercise rather than the mature response to a real life situation. I had a minimal level of respect for you up to now, but that has been stripped away entirely by your recent actions; to the extend that I would say you are far too much of a risk to allow near BLP's in future.--Errant ^(chat!) 20:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for his feelings; further, as noted above, he's had them for about four three and half years before I first edited the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

That's irrelevant - because you are persisting the current issue. You. Take some damn responsibility - because the refusal to take any at all is what is most disgusting about your actions here. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Not only am I not responsible for his feelings, but there appears to be nothing of merit in what you say here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If I may respond to a point made earlier about innocuous and verifiable edits. I spent five years as a night cabbie, and I drove twelve hour and longer shifts, doing far more driving than the average. I soon learned that it was all very well to comply with the law and the regulations and be in the right and so on, but if some other driver, for whatever reason, ran into me, even if I was in the right, it was still a very expensive and embarrassing and uncomfortable right. And I'd be off the roads for days or weeks until the cab got repaired.

Sure, maybe the light is green and I can power through the intersection, looking neither to left or right. But if some galoot is running the red light or driving with their head up their bum, or texting on their ipad, it does me no good to be in the right. Can I offer, very humbly, my suggestion that sometimes it pays to look and to listen and even if you are exactly correct, if there's a pantechnicon bearing down on you with JIMBO on the vanity plate and a squad of police outriders, it might be the best course for all to gently apply the brakes and stop at the green light? --Pete (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

To extend your analogy; I drive carefully, but I don't let "some galoot" keep me housebound. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure. But it might happen anyway. Neither you or I can control everything in our lives, and the real outcome might be the result of random happenstance or someone else's lack of coffee or whatever. The real power on the Wikipedian streets doesn't belong in the policies, and if enough editors, backed by Jimbo himself, think you are being a dick, they'll run you off the road and leave you to bluster. I've been there, I didn't like it, I looked inside myself and found a better person. Or so I like to think. Anyway, I feel more comfortable with myself. Happier. I like to think that everybody strives for happiness. --Pete (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I reached that stage a long time ago. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You're a good person. You do good work. You've been subjected to great difficulty by a BLP subject. I understand why you might have a chip on your shoulder and might not want to let this go. But I beg you to rise above it. Walk away with dignity. For whatever reason that you'll likely never be able to understand, the poor man has a problem with you editing his article. He expresses pain about it. Neither you nor I fully understand why. So be it. Let him go. Please.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I do 'not have a chip on my shoulder. Hawkins has a problem with (almost) anyone who edits the article; and has done so for about three and a half years before I first did so; he's simply singled me out, presumably because he found me on Twitter and/ or because I use my real name. He also has a problem with you; I do not see you offering to refrain from commenting. I note that you simultaneously offer me an option and seek elsewhere to enforce your preferred answer to it. You speak disparagingly of me there, without having previously bothered to solicit my comments on the matter. You - and others - are unable to identify any recent problematic edits to the article by me. I'd expect better treatment from someone in your position. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you've been annoying towards him, and that a topic ban would be entirely warranted. I also think it would be better if you just stepped back with dignity. I've been in email conversation with him and while he doesn't agree that the article should exist at all, and therefore has a problem with everyone who might edit it, he doesn't have any particular problems with me or several other people as far as I know. I find his position unreasonable, but I also find no reason for you to continue provoking him. Again. please stop.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm further disappointed to see that you've ignored most of what I said in order to simply reiterate what you posted previously. You've also been in e-mail conversation with Hawkins and have reached a conclusion, without bothering to ask me for my view of the situation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

PS Hawkins has very publicly derided you on many occasions. For example, on Facebook: "Jimmy Wales wants you to give your money to his Wikipedia folly. Bless. #whenhellfreezesover #stopwikipedia". On Twitter: "Influential Jimmy Wales has hubris-fuelled wetty because Wales's Folly #wikipedia exposed as unreliable". Both findable via/cached by Google search. There are plenty more. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I realise I'm probably the last person you needed to hear from on this but now that the AN thread is closed I wanted to get in touch. I stand by my proposal of the topic ban, and I think it would be wisest if you didn't edit at this article ant further. However the community decisively rejected my proposal and I accept that completely. As far as I am concerned, that means there is no sanction, either formal or de facto, against your past edits to the article and no warning about future conduct. I'm going to take the Jim Hawkins article off my watch list and also your talk page here. If there should be any issues in the future I'm sure there will be other people to take them up; I certainly won't be among them. In a way, I think we have reached a good enough conclusion; the JH article stays (as I always believed it should), we have a clearer message about when WP:BIODELETE applies, and the article itself is in better shape. I'm sorry if you got unnecessarily bruised in the process and if I was ungenerous or unfair in the process I apologise. Please leave me a talkback if you want me to see any reply. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk page formatting

Could you please indicate here where it states on WP:TALKO that you may change the formatting of the spacing others use when leaving talk? Fixing format errors doesn't apply to this as the formatting is not an error but a preference. In fact, it makes it more difficult to read. It's also the second time you've done it. I'll watch this page and wait for a response here or you may leave a talkback response on my talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No such permission is required. the ":" indentation causes HTML lists to be used in the markup of the web page; leaving blank lines breaks these, so "fixing format errors" certainly does apply. Removing the blank lines from between the comments makes no changes to the comments; so please stop undoing my fixes and please stop issuing invalid instructions in your edit summaries. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

"Leaving blank lines breaks these". No it doesn't. Let me show you.

Comment after a blank row.

Comment with no blank row.

Both are indented and at the same distance from the left margin.

Sorry. That argument doesn't fly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It does; if you look at the underlying HTML. The "these" which are broken are the HTML lists which I was discussing. I said nothing about broken indentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I am looking at the underlying HTML:

<dd>"Leaving blank lines breaks these". No it doesn't. Let me show you.</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>Comment after a blank row.</dd> <dd>Comment with no blank row.</dd> <dd>Both are indented and at the same distance from the left margin.</dd> You're imposing your own preferences and editing the comments left by others which is not permitted.

So what uses the HTML list elements that you should care? Talk pages shouldn't be indexed by web crawlers and screen readers don't look that deep. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't make head nor tail of what you're tying to show with your HTML; I said nothing about web crawlers, and we have plenty of screen readers who rely on us using robust and proper markup. I repeat that removing the blank lines from between the comments makes no changes to the comments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The HTML is not changed to affect anything. The content remains the same.

So you're saying between comments to the comments. Do you mean then between the comments left by individual editors as well? If so, why remove them? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

For the reasons given above. Your comments about HTML are false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Really> Your reasons above are incomprehensible and so I state that adding or removing spaces between comments makes no difference to anything and is simply a preference. Don't do it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Lang template and banner tag

Please note that the template you continue to force upon me is not based in policy and not required, even in GA or FA articles. We are not allowed to force citation styles on other editors; I see no reason why this template should be different. Regarding accessibility, even ALT text is not required for FAs now. Also, I do not like you insinuating that I did not read the page. I did, and I was not swayed by it, especially since proper names (such as the names of islands or towns) should clearly be exceptions but are not noted. A third note, there is no screenreader technology that I know of that can read Indonesian better than a drunken monkey, so it won't make much of a difference. I've added the template to several more titles; if you feel strongly that each and every title should have a template, please add it yourself instead of disrupting the page. I.E. be bold. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Please note that no-one is attempting to force a template upon you; and that your false allegation of disruption is unacceptable. Your assertion about proper names is bogus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding {{Cleanup-lang}} twice while an article is on the main page, especially after the editor removing the template noted that s/he had an issue with tagging 50+ film titles but had no issue adding one template, comes across as coercion. So should I tag every instance of Wagga Wagga with the lang template, since you believe proper names are not excluded? Or how about every instance of Barack Obama, since neither first nor last name are traditionally English? My assertion about proper names is far from bogus if you look at the extremes to which forcefully tagging every instance of non-standard English, even proper names and titles, could be taken. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss issues, without Reductio ad Extremis hyperbole, rhetorical questions, or paranoid accusations. With reference to the relevant HTML standards, please cite the exclusion you claim for proper names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Although there may not be an HTML difference, there is certainly a difference for end users (both writers and readers, although mainly writers/editors). I would much rather we not force writers to put
  A {{lang|fr|coup d'état}} happened against President {{lang|id|Sukarno}} on 30 September 1965. Known as the {{lang|id|Gerakan 30 September}} movement, according to the official government position it was led by suspected communist sympathisers. As a result, many Indonesian Communist Party members, including leader {{lang|id|D.N. Aidit}}, were arrested or killed. Dutch scholar {{lang|nl|W.F. Wertheim}} theorised that General {{lang|id|Suharto}} - who later became president - was behind the coup, although this has been denied by the government.
  What little is saved on HTML is offset by the extra several minutes taken by the editor to write the templates, not to mention the difficulty in reading the code with all the extra mark up. With editor retention on the downfall, I consider labour-intensive acts like this low priority. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

• Wikidata: The next big thing? An interview with Wikidata

• Interview: Funds, fiduciaries, and the Foundation: the complex dynamics of scaling

• News and notes: Projects launched in Brazil and the Middle East as advisors sought for funds committee

• WikiProject report: The Land of Steady Habits: WikiProject Connecticut

• Featured content: Assassination, genocide, internment, murder, and crucifixion: the bloodiest of the week

• Arbitration report: Arbitration evidence-limit motions, two open cases

• Technology report: Next Wikimedia deployment already in the pipeline and details of recent performance improvements

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Louisa Ryland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Small Heath

Parade House, Monmouth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hipped roof

Stan Yapp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Witton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Science lovers wanted!

Science lovers wanted!

Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

• Arbitration analysis: Inside the Arbitration Committee Mailing List

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren

• News and notes: French language outreach, WikiTravel debate, and HighBeam reloaded

• Discussion report: The future of pending changes

• WikiProject report: The Butterflies and Moths of WikiProject Lepidoptera

• Featured content: A few good sports: association football, rugby league, and the Olympics vie for medals

• Arbitration report: Evidence submissions begin in Rich Farmbrough case, proposed decision in R&I Review

• Technology report: MediaWiki 1.20wmf01 hits first WMF wiki, understanding 20% time, and why this report cannot yet be a draft

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and

Monmouthpedia thanks you for your many contributions Andy. Please keep an eye on the points page as we will be announcing how you can watch the web stream. We have had to postpone the launch because we need the new Monmouthpedia Wifi to be in place to show off your work to people in Monmouth. If you can add your Skype name to the points page then that would enable us to contact you. We are intending to have a second phase of this competition but we wanted to make sure we kept to the deadline we had published. This will be the world's first Wikipedia town with your help Victuallers (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Tiresome warning

Edit-warring over composer infoboxes? You are back at exactly the same disruptive pattern you previously got a full one-year Arbcom ban for. I strongly recommend you back off, because otherwise I will bring this before Arbcom again, and seeing this issue together with the Hawkins fiasco of just a few days ago, I see a case for a full indef site ban this time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you stop issuing warnings over content disputes in which you are involved, especially while discussion is ongoing on talk pages; and stop ignoring the findings of the RfC which found that systematic removal of infoboxes would be disruptive. Your unwarranted and out-of-process block of me regarding Hawkins resulted in you being criticised and subsequently undoing it; and the topic ban proposal which it led to twice found no consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I find info boxes for albums quite useful. But I have always wondered why they don't include that one piece of information that doesn't really belong anywhere else - the label's Catalogue Number. It seems that some editors have an aversion to info boxes that borders on a clinical phobia. But maybe we'll see an article for that particular disabiloty one day. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox Hindu deity|Deity templates

Hello, Can you show me the afd discussion. Couldn't find it. It is used on 171 articles, why afd ? -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 15:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It's on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 17. This discussion was for a merge. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 09:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

QRpedia

Dear my friend! A few weeks ago you placed this message on a Hungarian community page. I answered to you, and I made a much better article for the Hungarian users and editors to-be. With examples, propositions, advices. I've already got appreciating messages after that. I found – and still find – this a very good idea to use Wikipedia for a practical purpose, at last. And a good way to get new editors, new articles and new pictures (!), legally arranged pictures for us. I have living plans to introduce this potentiality for our ministry of culture, some of our museums, our zoo parks and a professional journal of the educational inventions, I'm just working on this. Maybe they can spread this idea for the others. So, you can see, you have found the good man.

This was I've thought. Until now. I have plans to ask you to mediate some practical suggestions for the technical team of the Wikipedia to make this thing working more smoothly. For example: they should create a frequently used procedure to perfectly synchronize the interwiki links, because each article would have to have inkerwikis always for each other articles, mostly the new ones. Or they should manage that interwikis will be shown on the received pages, to find some more informations on other languages if the user wants. You can see that I take this project seriously. You talked me round.

And now you want to delete the template made for using and commending the new project which you have introduced for us?? Not only to place to the talk pages but delete! Completely, forever! Well, man, you missed something, now or earlier.

I will not fight for this template. I wanted to show it only a few articles, and I hoped that you will see them, and start to use them, on any way. But delete that, this is just the same for me, the QRpedia goes on without you and without this template. So I leave you, I take on this project in my land, that's all. Farewell. - Orion 8 (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Your kind response to my request of a few weeks ago and your plans for using QRpedia are separate issues to the need or otherwise for the template in question. Kindly do not conflate them; and please make your comments about the template on the TfD page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It was you who asked us to propagandize a new service. Or you asked us only make a twin article for the English one, because this is the appropriate procedure? I thought you were a supporter of this, and you would use everything to popularize QRpedia. In that case you would have proposed to find some place for a mark like my creature, not to delete it immediately. It was a misunderstanding, I'm sorry.

Shall I really move my first, personal message to a public place, on the TfD page, whatever it may be? Please do me this favour if you find it required. Over and out. Üdv. - Orion 8 (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

A thought

It occurred to me, in reviewing the discussion at ANI, that one of the reasons - perhaps the main reason - that you are so insistent about use of the Person infobox rather than the Classical composer one is that the consistent use of one type of infobox makes semantic analysis possible. Is this so? I know you have worked extensively on microformats and semantic analysis. I am a great admirer of this work, and in the debate over infoboxes, argued that inclusion of an infobox would facilitate the work of the semantic web project.

If this is the reason for your insistence, perhaps we can work out a compromise solution, which advances machine readability while maintaining what consensus on the classical music project deems optimal human readability. My suggestion would be to include both infoboxes in the article, but to comment out the person infobox so it would not display. This way the article could be easily read by both human and machine.

I look forward to your comments. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"If this is the reason for your insistence…" - It isn't. Also, your proposal is both technically and logistically unworkable. Any local consensus in the classical music project is, as has been pointed out many times, not least in the outcome of that project's RfC, and core Wikipedia policy, unenforceable in articles. Matters regarding claims of optimal human readability are best determined through measurement such as those as carried out by our accessibility and usability projects, not the asserted aesthetic preferences of individual editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Folksonomy page move

Why did you move Folksonomy to Talk:Folksonomy/old? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The obvious answer would be that Andy completely rewrote it at the time of the move. Normally we wouldn't do that for an article rewrite (we'd do it in-place), but I've seen it done. Perhaps a history merge would be the right approach here, especially as at least part of the content (the references) was preserved across the rewrite. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I noted so at the time (June 2009!), and that section is still visible, on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, ahh, folks. Is there advantages or disadvantages in having these article sub-pages hanging around? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Having the history in a revision control system really means there is no advantage. These should be history merged. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No objection from me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Marius Moutet

Hi, can you add an infobox and list his terms etc?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, yes if you can enter his terms as Minister of Overseas France and as mayor of Romans? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I've done the former - despite edit conflicts ;-) - but can't see the latter in the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

• Investigative report: Spin doctors spin Jimmy's "bright line"

• News and notes: Help-space revamp, WikiTravel RfC, and Justin Knapp scores a million edits

• WikiProject report: Skeptics and Believers: WikiProject The X-Files

• Featured content: A mirror (or seventeen) on this week's featured content

• Arbitration report: Evidence submissions close in Rich Farmbrough case, vote on proposed decision in R&I Review

• Technology report: Wikimedia Labs: soon to be at the cutting edge of MediaWiki development?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Notification

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPigsonthewing. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stories Project

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share. I found your username from the Highbeam application list.

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)