User talk:Tbsdy lives/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Catholic template

~~{{Tb|Debresser#Template:Catholic-cleanup}}~~

I just now saw that you posted on Template_talk:Catholic-cleanup#Template_categories and that the message on my talk page was just a notification. I have copied my comment there, and propose to keep discussion there. Debresser (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you doing this to me?

Please. You have me in tears. I'm begging you, please stop coming after me. Nothughthomas (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not coming after you. If you wish to edit Wikipedia, you need to stop referring to AGF every time someone disagrees with you, because ironically that is not being asked for in good faith. You must also discuss the facts being referred to on talk pages and not make personal asides, or anything of this nature, because this is quite unpleasant. I have nothing against you, incidentally, but your editing so far could be construed as disruptive. I'm sure you do have things to contribute to Wikipedia, but not at the expense of other editors. I notice that you are taking a wikibreak, that might be a good idea for a while if you are currently crying! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Gee, it sure is crowded in here

User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo

Just sayin', is all. Josh Parris 05:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you concerned your talk page will slow down the bot? Forgedaboudit. Just whack the appropriate templates on here and in the next 24hrs all will be tidy. Josh Parris 09:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There will be some teething problems no doubt, but you'll only have to figure them out once and then it will be like clockwork.

I took a long wikibreak too, and things sure have changed. BLP, heavy bias towards citation, a lot more process. It's getting kinda professional around here. Josh Parris 10:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI - Binarygal's latest

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.—Ash (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerning your suggestion about Binarygal, all of that will only if she's amenable to reason -- & she's not, no matter how loose the definition. It's time to act decisively, so I blocked her until she decides to be reasonable. I do hope that time comes. -- llywrch (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

OTRS

Yes, you should consider volunteering. You've got plenty of experience and are not volatile, I think you'd be good. See m:OTRS/info-en recruiting or email Cary Bass. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shell providers

In this most recent edit diff, you commented on a thread a week old after the principle editor had been blocked for disruption of the same discussion page (consequently s/he is not in a position to respond). I note you are re-factoring other's comments, as inappropriate re-factoring was the main reason an editor was indefinitely blocked on the same discussion, this is probably inadvisable even if you believe it meets RTP.—Ash (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Correction, I note that the editor in question has recently been unblocked (User talk:Hm2k#Request accepted).—Ash (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If by "refactoring" you mean I fixed the indents, then I stand guilt as charged! Sheesh, fixing indents is not a big deal. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it is no big deal. As I said before, in this case as another editor was blocked for re-factoring in the same discussion then re-factoring in this case is "probably inadvisable", as in I'd advise you against it, I'm not telling you not to do it. Go knock yourself out if that's what you want to do. Note that correcting indentation levels is specifically discussed in WP:RTP and appears to be the most relevant guideline to point to.—Ash (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, well, I'm glad to see you agree. If it makes it easier to work out who is saying what, I'll continue doing it! As you say, it's not a big deal. If anywhere says not to do this, I'm a bit surprised (certainly I don't see anywhere it says not to do that on the RTP guideline...) but in this case common sense really rules the day so for once I'll go with WP:IAR. Especially as the original editor refactored inappropriately, whereas I just changed indent levels to understand conversation flow. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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

AN/I on User:Threeblur0

I have restored the discussion on User:Threeblur0 at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Threeblur0 and have added new commentary. --Beirne (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You

It's so nice to see you back, you have no idea. :) I just sent you an email, and congratulations. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Slim! I've replied on email :-) Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Same, and seconded! Good to see you around these parts again! – Clockwork Soul 04:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Clockwork :) Feels good to be back. Going to get back into things slowly with wikignoming, but will hopefully eventually get back to article contributions. I'm research Oracle to update Oracle Database... yay :-) - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

welcome home, ta bu :-)

you're back in action! :-) - do you have any energy to chat through some stuff about explicit imagery? (per your recent close on that terrible idea of yours, an/i) - or maybe I should just buy you a drink? - regardless, it's good to see you around, and I hope you're well..... best, Privatemusings (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey PM, good to see you! Sure, I'm happy to chat about it... wouldn't mind a drink actually some time, but I'm about to be a dad again in the next two weeks, so I might be hard to catch! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't found AN/I, btw... just AN. Good idea I thought at the time! :-) Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

well I blame you for both.... so there!!!.... - I saw the news about bub - big congrat.s once again! (it's more important to catch the little one, than to catch you, no? - my money's on Jan 19th ;-) - I'll try and organise a meetup for feb. and attendance is compulsory - if you can't get out, we'll just have to do it at yours :-) take care Privatemusings (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I'm going to probably see my own explicit imagery. But 25th is the date we have scheduled in for the c-section :-) I'll see if I can make it, but I suspect that I might be otherwise occupied, which is a bit of a pity really :( Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Pssst!

Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem pablo_hablo. 12:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh awesome! And into the see also section it goes. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Re WP:EUI

Hi Tbsdy and a belated welcome back although there is still some recent posting to your old talk. Anyway, I'm asking that you rv your un-bolding edits to this article as the first 22 points were my original sub-page prior to its release into the wild world of WP. This rationale is explained and documented in the fine print at the end of the lede paragraph. Please grant me this favor godfather ;) hydnjo (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Addendum: Oh, and shouldn't you be gettin' off this list. Cheers, hydnjo (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for indulging my !modest sense of !ownership ;) hydnjo (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Request

I moved it to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Adminship. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Databases!

Hi Tbsdy lives, and thanks for joining the Databases WikiProject (and especially for tackling the Oracle Database article!!!). Although the project only has a few people working on it, there's plenty to do, and we're excited about increasing the quality of database-related articles. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help! Clifflandis (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Unfortunately my efforts on that article are a bit slow going at the moment. Commenting on WP:AN/I is easy, finding time to write articles is not. Especially when I'm up until late learning about Smarts Service Assurance Manager and their IP Availablity/Performance Manager suite. Did I mention that my wife is going to have a baby in the next few days? :-) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikignoming x2

Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 33#Need a Bot for a Job ended up with me generating a list of idiosyncrasies at User:Josh Parris/Redirects from incorrect names, that if cleaned up will allow a bot to blitz through the category. Josh Parris 05:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah... bummer. Looks like I need to look for another gnomish task. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hold on... how do you mean "cleaned up"? What do I need to do? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's not self-explanatory then I need to go back to school for remedial English classes. Seriously: read it. If it's unclear, contact me. Josh Parris 09:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, it talks about section templates and redirect templates, some of which are listed at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Redirect_pages Josh Parris 09:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that one's weird. I don't know why {{R from incorrect name}} was used there. Was Warren E. Hearnes ever called Betty C. Hearnes, even in error? I think not. Turns out Betty Hearnes is the married name of his spouse. So {{R from incorrect name}} is inappropriate (unless there's a Betty Cooper Hearnes or Betty Hearnes floating around). Betty seems to have been written about in the article, so a redirect is appropriate assuming, at this point, an article asserting notability can't be constructed. {{R with possibilities}} would be useful; looking at Category:All redirect templates, {{R from people}} seems to also be appropriate. A bot could never figure that out and fix it. Josh Parris 10:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the template text isn't displaying. Sorry, that one's beyond my ken. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Betty_C._Hearnes&action=edit shows it on the page 'tho. Josh Parris 11:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Fascinatingly enough, someone's gone off and constructed a separate page for Betty Cooper Hearnes. Go figure? Do you have stalkers? Josh Parris 13:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a possibility. If that's the outcome, stalk away! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Adminship

I tried to post the following response to your question at AN, but two admins have decided to prevent discussion there. "While precedent is to allow admins to retire, then come back and take back the tools, or even to resign the tools but then get them back without reference to the community, such practice does little to enahnce community trust in or respect for admins. If you want the tools there is a community process available. Use it. DuncanHill (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)" DuncanHill (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion wasn't prevented, just moved. Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Adminship. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It was prevented at the original location and moved to a much less visible place. Not your fault. DuncanHill (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone is at fault here. It was moved the correct place. Nobody was hiding anything. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No, your original request was for input on whether you should just ask for the tools or go for another RfAd. AN was much more appropriate for that. If you had no intention of going for RfAd then the Bureaucrats' board was the appropriate place. DuncanHill (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that it looks like MBisanz decided that you didn't need any extra input, and to make the request for tools on your behalf. Again, not your fault. DuncanHill (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping that's all I needed to do :-) Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

To make my position clear, I don't think that retired admins should get tools back just by asking, ever. They should be removed on retirement, and only given by RfAd. I must say also that in your particular case the mismatch between your memory of the events at the time of your last retirement, and that contained in the logs is of some concern. I do wish that you would go the RfAd route. DuncanHill (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It was quite some time ago, much has happened in my life. I genuinely forgot that it had happened in the way that it did. However, I understand your position but it seems to go against the opinion of many. By and large I don't think admins are abusive. At one point there was some trouble, but having looked at the noticeboards and other areas lately it looks like that is all cleared up now. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is probably covered elsewhere, but if an email is set up on your old account, why is it not possible for you to request a new password?—Ash (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I blanked my email address. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back to the mop. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see that you've been dismissed, common sense as well as Tbsdy lives :-) hydnjo (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back indeed! ^_^ - Alison ^❤ 04:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Alison :-) Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You weren't an admin before in the first place!? I could have sworn that I saw the cyan highlighting on your name for a lot longer... Anyways, ~~may God have mercy on your soul... er I mean,~~ congrats on getting the mop back! The Thing _{Vandalize me} 15:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... I didn't ask for it back till recently :-) Thanks! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for keeping an open mind and posting some new questions. I appreciated your politeness. Anyway, I didn't get to answer your questions. But I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to put them to me. Take care. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 21:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You're back!!!

Man, am I ever glad to see you! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Good to see a few people remember me :-) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see old faces around back on Wikipedia, as always. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 17:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Mailer, feels good to be back :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding user Onefortyone

Hi, Tsdy. Apologies if this is not the best place for this, but here goes. I see you have become involved in an incident concerning user DocKino (who I only know through Wiki). I believe his actions were prompted by the tactics of a troll, namely 141. I made a personal prediction that any recent new editors might be goaded into making inappropriate comments, and/or 141 would look to 'reel in' new unsuspecting catches to support his side of things, like user Baseball Bugs. 141 has not disappointed.

I first read the Presley article back in 2006. I began editing around then, and I think 141 was already involved in arbcom disputes. He got a few slapped wrists, and appears to have pushed others over the wiki edge. It was soon clear that 141 had some kind of agenda. His edits were not just generally negative; they often concentrated on prurient and sordid claims and details, eventually encompassing - by actual claims or reference - to homosexuality, bisexuality, incest, receiving a 'blow job', and more besides. All these relating directly to Presley, and none of which are remotely considered worthy of mention in any other encyclopedic article. Cleverly, he made some acceptable edits, always useful to highlight and show to unsuspecting onlookers when attempts were made to expose his hidden agenda. Recently, the Presley article had been dead in the water for months, except for editing by user ElvisFan1981, 141 lay in wait, ready to pounce with his criticisms and agenda-driven remarks, and he succeeded in driving another worthy editor way. At least, that was until the fresh air blew in PL290 and DocKino, editors it seems who are amenable to collaboration and the pursuit of an FA tag.

In challenging 141 about his editing intentions and claims, 141 has clearly exhibited severe symptoms of trollism. He often ignores criticsm and rebuttals; he reverts to previously tried (and rebutted) responses; he continues his tactics in the face of obvious vexation and distress of other editors and his behavior has driven away many existing and potential editors. One could argue that he enjoys this in true troll fashion. I can think of only one other, editor StevePastor, who is still around, and he has taken matters with 141 further than I have. Unfortunately, it seems arbcom look at specifics and not the bigger picture regarding 141 - he likes to bamboozle others with reams of cherry-picked wiki material.

141 will, in troll-like fashion, argue that he has been attacked, but he will make no reference to the disruption and frustration he has caused that has precipitated any attack. I imagine at the end of a recent spat with 141 that DocKino would have been slumped in a chair, probably worn out, frustrated, but glad to have made his point on a particular issue. I also knew that 141 could find some way to hit back, just to push DocKino over the edge. This kind of thing has been tried before. And he did push DocKino, with his specifically chosen quote about Presley dying after using the toilet; the puke, the constipation. The details of any provoked misdemeanors are significant, but it's the bigger picture that surely counts here?

User PL290 posted this for 141. I have had contact with editors by email over two years, users rendered sleepless with anger and frustration about 141's behaviour. I have shown prospective editors the discussion pages. Everyone agrees that he is a menace, inspite of attempts and appeals to work with him, to use his resources in a collaboative manner. He may make noises of complaint, pity and appeasement, but history shows he always reverts to type. Thank you for reading this. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 08:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So is the observed behaviour only occuring on the Elvis Presley article? If that's the case, then it would make it easier for me to investigate. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about recently, but he has been involved in the Randolph Scott and John Lennon pages, to do with sexual claims. These have not gone down well I gather. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 09:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have had a brief look at User talk:Onefortyone, and while I haven't delved into things deeply I have a disturbing hunch that although his edits haven't been perfect, they haven't been totally unacceptable either. In fact, from what I can see, he has always been unstintingly polite and I haven't yet seen him make a personal attack, but I do notice that he has been the victim of sock-puppetry and uncivil comments. Indeed it does seem to me that he has tried to keep to the topic - if anything my impression is that he has conceded a fair amount of ground to others, even though he clearly isn't happy doing so. I also observe that he does try to cite reliable sources, and in fact he gives an excellent disposition of what is and isn't a reliable source on his user page.

If there have been editors who have been "rendered sleepless with anger and frustration", while yet another editor is "slumped in a chair, probably warn out, frustrated, but glad to have made his point on particular issue" then unless this has been caused by incivility and personal attacks I suggest that those editors should take a break from Wikipedia. Also, I will assume good faith here, but when you write that "I have shown prospective editors the discussion pages. Everyone agrees that he is a menace, in spite of attempts and appeals to work with him, to use his resources in a collaborative manner", this does seem suspiciously like enlisting meat puppets. I do hope that this isn't the case.

I think further communication on this matter should be done through WP:AN/I. As I haven't looked into this case deeply my impressions may well be wrong, but as I won't have a chance to investigate thoroughly right now I would probably be doing a disservice to all parties if I made a judgment on what is going on here, let alone take administrative action. Thank you in advance for your understanding on this last point. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding after a brief look. You can be assured no enlisting of meat puppets has taken place. I fully understand your last point, but have little confidence in taking matters any further, such seem to be the demands of this issue - and that's in spite of all concerned taking well-earned breaks from editing over the years. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 19:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Cabal membership

Your cabal membership card is attached. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, I already mugged another admin, crossed out his details with my own and posted it. For some reason they made me the Vice-President. Go figure. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

What is the criteria to approach a WP:ARBCOM ? I read that they investigate long standing disputes, but again this can be interpreted subjectively. I have been witnessing and a part of long standing dispute ( partially explained here ). I feel that admins can do little about it, since they only see a small window of time, so is arbcom the right place? Pls share your thoughts. --TheMandarin (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it needs to be ongoing, controversial and disruptive editing, else ArbCom probably won't accept. If that's the case, then evidence that attempts at resolving the dispute should be provided. For Goethean, I would suggest first filing a user RFC. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You are the second admin to suggest a user RFC. I personally try to distance ANI, RFC and discussions, but in this case I think its necessary. --TheMandarin (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Goethean has apologised now, and I am willing to work with him as appropriate if he gets into conflict. I really don't want this editor to leave, all we are looking for here is that they tone down some of their comments on talk pages. It looks like this will be the case in the future. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Playdoh, etc.

Thanks for fixing that problem. While you're at it, the editor started out as 204.140.189.201, which only made one edit, but could be worth keeping an eye on. ISP based in Santa Monica, CA, which is no surprise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No probs... not sure if I have enough time to monitor that IP :( - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the message on WGB's talk page

I have got another email from Wiki Greek Basketball - the main thing that he's concerned about at the moment is the impression given on the talk page that he is currently suicidal.

May I suggest that you perhaps rephrase it from

I have restored this section. As per our regular procedure, we protect user pages for those who are having suicidal feelings. Please call the number listed under your country's name on the following page: http://suicideandmentalhealthassociationinternational.org/Crisis.html

to

I have restored this section. As per our regular procedure, we protect user pages from those who may have recently had suicidal feelings, even if there is no current indication of this.

I must point out that this is my suggestion - WGB has just told me that he doesn't like people thinking that he is suicidal (he doesn't know that I'm contacting you about this).

For you information, here is the e-mail I've sent back to him (which also includes his last e-mail):

My e-mail to WGB

From: Phantomsteve
Sent: 19 January 2010 21:47
To: 'Apollo'
Subject: RE: Your emails to admins

WGB

If you had looked carefully, you would have seen that the "suicidal" bit was clearly dated the 10th Jan, when you had made a suicide threat.

Neither of the admins have committed legal threats or slander. YOU threatened suicide on the 10th - which is what the talk page clearly shows.

While you are right that the procedure is to email an admin requesting an unblock if you cannot do so through your talk page, it does not say about doing it to multiple admins. THAT is what was abusive - the almost-spamming way in which you contacted so many admins.

As for "You do realize that by what they put on my talk page, any checkuser can now be used and anyone can call the police and file a report saying I am feigning suicide and the police will be contacted. And guess what? All the police will care about is that two admin at Wikipedia said I was suicidal."... to be blunt, that's crap. The first thing that the police would ask is "when was the threat made", and the reply would be "on the 10th January". - and the police would say that they could do nothing. No CheckUser would inform the police, as there is no current threat of suicide.

Let me put it simply:
- forget about from the English Wikipedia for a couple of months MINIMUM.
- work on the Italian/Spanish/French Wikipedias
- work on the Greek Wikipedia - they have 47,803 articles at the moment, so I'm sure they would welcome a good article creator!
- in a couple of months (or more) contact me if you still want a chance to be unblocked.

Please note: the first thing that I will do will be to check your user history at *all* the other Wikipedias at which you have accounts.

If I can see no evidence of editing, then I will do nothing further
If I see evidence of blocks on any other Wikipedia (especially if they are current when you contact me), then I will do nothing further.

If you have shown that you have been a good editor (that means no disruption on *any* of the Wikipedia), then I will forward your unblocking request to an admin of my choosing. I think you should know me enough by now to know that I will choose an admin who has had no involvement with this issue - either as a supporter of an opposer of your blocking - so that they can look at the evidence as a totally neutral third party.

If they are happy with your performance on other Wikipedias during that time, then they can initiate a discussion at ANI about a possible unblock.

If this happens, I will suggest that you be allowed to edit your user talk page again. If this happens, I will give you further advise on how you should behave and how you should respond to other editors.

During the time away from enwiki, think about why you got blocked. One of the main criteria for unblocking is being able to accept responsibility for your actions, and being able to say what you did that was wrong - and then being able to assure the community that it won't happen again.

From re-reading the various discussions about you, I get the feeling that most editors who commented appreciated your article work - they just had problems with your attitude to others. Show us what a great editor you can be on other Wikipedias - show us that we would be foolish to let you go!

Regards, and enjoy your break from the English Wikipedia - go out and do some excellent editing on the other Wikipedias (especially the Greek one, which desperately needs good editors to create new articles).

Phantomsteve

________________________________

From: Apollo
Sent: 19 January 2010 19:21
To: Phantomsteve
Subject: RE: Your emails to admins

What those two admin did at my talk page was a legal threat and was slander. They wrote it as I was suicidal and I was feeling suicidal currently, right now. You can see for yourself at my user talk page. I am sorry that I thought you were an admin, but I did believe so. I apologize for that. My mistake.

It is painfully obvious that once an admin asked for my talk page access back that the admin Tan quickly blocked my email access. As soon as Mjroots gave my talk page access back Tan then removed it. That other admin tbsdy lives supported all this and suggested I was also feeling suicidal. He also claimed I was abusing and disrupting the site because I emailed asking for an unblock. The site itself instructs indef blocked users with no user talk page access to do exactly what I did.

To email admin and ask them for an unblock request appeal, a discussion, or user talk page access back so you can appeal yourself. That is exactly what the site instructs you to do. And this admin claims by doing that I was being abusive? You do realize that by what they put on my talk page, any checkuser can now be used and anyone can call the police and file a report saying I am feigning suicide and the police will be contacted. And guess what? All the police will care about is that two admin at Wikipedia said I was suicidal. Because those two admins of the site say it, it becomes considered a legit threat. Even though it never happened.

This whole treatment of me is just so far beyond the pale. I just want a second chance to go back to article editing. To actually have two admin imply I feigned suicide simply because I asked another admin to help me get my user talk page access back is extremely out of line. No reasonable person would consider their behavior to be appropriate. I am NOT suicidal and they put on my talk page that I am.

If I am never allowed back to Wikipedia at least I can say you tried to help me. Thanks a lot for that. I really do appreciate it a lot. Thanks. I hope I can come back to the site and I will help you with anything at Wiki if you need it. As far as editing the other wikis I will try the Italian one I guess. But I don't believe this is true that if I edit there I will be allowed back.

You know at first when I was indef blocked, the admin that blocked me told me that - just say you were wrong and made a mistake and promise you understand that and that you won't do it again, just contact me with that and I will be sure to lift your block. I did that and you know what that admin did? Nothing. And when I appealed for an unblock, they did nothing.

I think that the solution I've given him (go and edit elsewhere, contact me in 2+ months) is a reasonable one - and hopefully one he will follow.

Anyway, he doesn't know that I've contacted you about the message on his talk page - I leave it to you to use your judgement about it, and will accept whatever you decide to do (or not).

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I'm not at all concerned about the legal threat though :-) Also, he's wrong about who stopped him from emailing, that was also me, not Tan. Finally, this whole "second chance" nonsense is silly - he's had that "second chance" quite a few times. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I see that Newyorkbrad has courtesy blanked the page - was that your doing? Anyway, I've learned to take WGB's words with a pinch of salt. I've just got another e-mail moaning about what I suggested. If he carries on like this, I'll end up telling him not to bother me - I've got a limited amount of patience and AGF, and he's close to using it all up! Once again, thanks for changing the message. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, first I've heard that the page has been blanked... I'm afraid that WGB is a bit of problem. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

IP vandal

Semiprotecting every page the vandal has hit on a regular basis was not what I was really asking for. There are some useful IP edits. Just one guy who shows up every few days and removes every reference is the problem.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Seemed like a reasonable way forward. The vandalism was happening for a month long period so far, seems to be vandalism along a similar theme. I can undo - was about to note this on WP:AN/I. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I would really prefer that you unprotect the pages. There are a handful of IP editors who are good contributors. Just this one on this single ISP that can be dealt with otherwise.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No probs, done. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens page

Sorry, that change seemed to be part of an edit conflict while I was posting a comment on his talkpage.--SuaveArt (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No probs - was just curious. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

re Incivility Blocks

Here is an idea; Wikipedia:CIVIL#Blocking for incivility denotes that disruption engendered by incivility is cause for blocking - considering that the other links are examples of disruption. Incivility Blocks should be based on the disruption caused to the project (and most certainly not the target editor unless especially egregious.) My point, take that subsection and tart it up and present it as your new policy. I will sign up to it (perhaps after a few others, so not to poison the discussion...) Oh, and Hi! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable. I'll look into this shortly - perhaps after a week (talk about bad timing) as my wife is going to be having our baby on Monday :-) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

RfA talkback

Hello. You have a new message at WP:Requests for adminship/SMcCandlish 2's talk page. (Answered your query there.) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 15:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

issue not resolved

That one day block had expired by the time that you posted that it was resolved. Indeed, the rail issue IS NOT RESOLVED. If you want to help, help, otherwise do not close problems before they are finished. (LAz17 (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)).

This is largely a content dispute, I have re-resolved. WP:AN/I is not a forum for content disputes. Don't remove the tag again please. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Self-government

Talk:Gibraltar#RfC:_Self-government Guy (Help!) 11:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Until later

On the presumption this is my last chance: good luck with the birth. All that spare time you currently have (and I'm sure you don't think you have any, not with a demanding 2yo to look after) is about to evaporate. Josh Parris 12:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Unless the little fellow decides to come tonight or tomorrow, it's all happening (hopefully) early Monday! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Tadija

I've left Tadija some advice re admins neutrality. Mjroots (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'd already had a look at ANI and used the {{user}} templates on the editors named (useful template to allow investigation of editing). It's only those who are the subject of the ANI thread that need to to be notified, but thanks anyway. Mjroots (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

U+FFFD chars at end of each field in interwiki list

Hi,

Thanks for the advice, eventhough my previous bug-report is still in state "NEW" I filled a new one.

Regards, Bub's (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't realise there was one already filed. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Civility

Hi Tbsdy, I saw your question regarding Giano's "civility" at ani. Here's a link to a typical Giano blocking. It's a quick and enlightening read. Basically, Giano stands up to bullies and morons and usually wins. This has caused enormous consternation in certain quarters, resulting in a long line of bullies and morons waiting for a chance to "get" him. I also left a comment at ani, here's a link since it will be quickly be deleted. Best regards. --TungstenCarbide XIII (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. look at the particular diffs given as a reason for the block. --TungstenCarbide XIII (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I heard about that. I'm really not going to wade through all of those diffs. I should note for the record that I've had a run-in with Giano years ago when I innocently added one of his featured articles to FARC. I called it an essay, to which I was unexepectedly pilloried. So while I'm a fan of Giano's work, I've been on the receiving end myself. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Here...

		Civility Award
		I, HJ Mitchell, award this to Tbsdy lives for his attempts to implement a policy on incivility blocking and for a truly clueful, insightful discussion on the matter. We can always hope that it won't be needed. HJ Mitchell \| fancy a chat? 01:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! We should template that... as a civility barnstar. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

76.204.77.18

This is that IP that we dealt with earlier in the week. On a completely range at that, too.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What are the articles that they are vandalising? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've put a watch on them. As we can't really semi-protect, and I'm not really prepared to make an abuse report (this is sure to be ignored), best thing to do is to watch the article and if I see it in my watch list then I'll revert and block. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

And now he edited as 76.205.27.234.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry dude, my wife just gave birth so I'm not currently able to help out. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		The Admin's Barnstar may be awarded to administrators who made a particularly difficult decision.... This barnstar is awarded to Tbsdy lives, for making tough decisions and always showing good faith. On behalf of the community, thank you for your efforts.Ikip 09:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Congratulations, and all the best to you and your family, on the birth of Matthew. I hope and trust he's as cute as his dad. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 07:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Except for the Dad==cute part. Now you have the full set. Josh Parris 11:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks guys :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Congrats! You do know how to end this proliferation right? ;) hydnjo (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Profilactics? :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP moves

I just saw the discussion on AN/I. I am a little confused--just what is the current status of these pages? What is the current agreement about them? You said it's been resolved, but I cannot figure out the resolution. I don;t want to reopen if not necessary, but I am concerned about actions in this area being carried out & approved by a minute number of people--things are going much too rapidly. Please feel free to email if more appropriate/ (and not that I want to interfere with your celebrations, as above :) DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that whatever action the editor took has now been reverted, and they have ceased doing the page moves. So the wider BLP debate continues, but the temporary article incubator idea has been stopped for now. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

re: status stars

just as an FYI, this wasn't really a serious suggestion, I don't think. Pyrrhon has been following me around wikipedia for the last couple of days trying to make trouble (from an old dispute on dignity). minor annoyance, and I think he's starting to get bored with it, but I wouldn't invest a lot of time in discussing that particular point. --Ludwigs2 03:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tbsdy lives. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 03:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please undo your reversion and deletion, or I'll have to take it to AN/I. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's already on ANI. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

DRV

Please discuss this further at the DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_January_26. Ucucha 03:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

About WP:ANI#Unknown Lupus

Hello thank you for your comment there, I'll try to be patient and continue editing the Ekeko article, most of its content is from an IP and needs more sourcing and wikifying I'll try to use more the talk page explaining my changes and see if he cares to read it, but the ambiance in a previous article's talk page was extremely uncivil so I hope this won't escalate in the same way. Erebedhel - Talk 04:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tbsdy lives. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 05:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg ^(talk) 05:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fuckingeveryone who cares

What on earth led you to believe that Fuckingeveryone (talk · contribs) could be a decent editor and that you should grant an unblock? More specifically, which one of the editor's edits led you to believe that? Your action there seems rather more of a Kumbaya than that of a responsible admin. Toddst1 (talk) 07:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if that user's ID had been something benign like "Freeingeveryone", it appears to be a vandalism-only account, especially given its silly unblock request. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So far, they have not made any edits. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, s/he has moved on to a sockpuppet. Have you found it yet? Toddst1 (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting how this in no way relates to or was caused by my unblock of that account. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right about that. However, you made a bad unblock and for even worse reasons. I'm glad to have my actions examined, but not overturned without discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't overturn "your" action, I saw that they had been blocked, but then they were told (repeatedly) that they need to go to the username change page and ask to ask to have their username changed. Now how do you propose that they do that if they are indefinitely blocked? Or did you use the wrong template? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. I didn't block the user. I declined to unblock and allow the username change because the user was a vandalism-only account - which you should have noticed before considering unblocking. The username was only one of the issues there. Toddst1 (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, I'm standing behind my decision to unblock to let them make the request to change their username. Whether you think that is a "kumbayar" decision or not is not really my concern. I've told them that I'll be monitoring their edits for the next week, and if they haven't made that request that I will reblock.

Any admin may decide to unblock a user, at any time, incidentally. Of course, admins usually have a good reason for this, I thought mine was sufficient. If you have concerns, you can always take it to WP:AN/I. And of course, admins usually question other admins as well as to their actions, however they normally do it in a far more conciliatory and civil manner than yourself. But you already know that I'm concerned with the way that you conduct yourself in this regard, as I added a polite note to your talk page, which you didn't really reply to in the spirit it was posted. I find that a bit disturbing in an admin.

I'm also interested in which account you think is a sock-puppet of this editor, and I'm also interested how you know given that there isn't a large edit history. Just curious. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedian7878 (talk · contribs) fails the WP:Duck test. I'll beat you to your point that so far they haven't been disruptive. Toddst1 (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Right. So if they haven't got an invalid username, and they haven't been disruptive so far, I'm curious how it fails the duck test. Does not seem like they are similar at all to me. You might want to be careful accusing other editors of being sock puppets when you not only have no proof, but they don't even display similar editing patterns. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I opened this conversation with a sarcastic, cynical comment about you perhaps having naively optimistic views of the world and human nature, so I won't go there again. You're a newly recycled admin so I'd strongly recommend that you not overrule, revert or second guess other admins until you come back up to speed on stuff. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

None of the above has anything to do with any of the actions I've made that you are concerned about. You haven't answered my question. What part of WP:DUCK makes you think they are a sock-puppet? Also, may I refer you to WP:CIVIL, which is a great guideline you should read before you decide to start a talk page conversation with a sarcastic, cynical comment. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You haven't answered my first question above either. Toddst1 (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did. I felt that it was unreasonable for the unblock request to have been denied, with the suggestion that they go to the user rename request page when that would obviously be impossible. I also thought that your first unblock reason was rude and inflammatory. Now that I've spelled this out, it's your turn to explain why you are accusing another editor of being a sock with no evidence to back it up. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerns over tool use

I have serious concerns that you are using your adminstrative tools too hastily. In the past 24 hours, it appears that you have reversed an AFD close (I note that you realized this was an error on your part), unblocked an account being used in violation of the bot policy, and unblocked an obviously abusive username using discretion that, given the users editing history, is beyond suspect. What assurances can you provide me, and any other talk page watchers that this behavior will not continue? Hipocrite (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

AFD apologised for.
Not a bot
User has not edited since.

Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that is "no assurance". Toddst1 (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Premise is that I'm misusing the tools. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Right. 3 people have now told you that now. It would be encouraging if you took heed before this gets out of hand. Toddst1 (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel that you are beginning to harass me now. I have given you the reasoning for the unblock that you are unhappy with. with regard to the other unblock, when I unblocked Ikip this was fully discussed on WP:AN/I and it was agreed that was the best way forward and my admin decision was correct. For the AFD, that was discussed on WP:AN/I and I have apologised for acting out of process. That conversation was archived as it is resolved. I think you should leave my talk page alone now, or if you are very concerned then take these concerns to WP:AN. Thanks. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

TBDY - that you have apologized for your obvious error, do not understand the bot policy (WP:BOTPOL - "Bots (short for "robots") are generally programs or scripts that make automated edits without the necessity of human decision-making."), and that your bad unblock hasn't yet resulted in damage to the encyclopedia provides me no assurance that your failure to adhere to policy and guidelines will not continue. If you cannot grant me such assurance, I will be forced to seek further redress. Can you please assure me that you will, in the future, endeavor to follow policies and guidelines? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems a bit threatening. The unblock at the time was fully discussed on WP:AN/I. It was agreed that my action was correct. I have taken my actions to WP:AN to have reviewed by the wider community. I would appreciate it if you would discuss them there. Thanks. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Cookie

OK, you've made a few administrative mistakes recently. I'm sure you'll learn from them. Nobody's perfect! Have a cookie. Mjroots (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Mjroots (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Om nom nom. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Human Rights Believer

Wow, what a WP:DE! Thank you for fast reaction! All best, --Tadija (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No probs. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I was minded to indeff him, but you'd already blocked him. I've left a very clear warning that any further breach of the topic ban will lead to an indef. Mjroots (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Don't forget to log the block at WP:ARBMAC. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh man... I'm a bit rusty/not entirely up on process. Thanks for letting me know. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No probs, I'm still new at this myself. It's like learning Wikipedia all over again! Mjroots (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Tell me about it! I'm sure we'll both get there. :-) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha, ha! You guys are having fun! :) :) :) --Tadija (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. I take no pleasure in using the block tool. I would far prefer it if editors would edit in a constructive manner. It would be nice to live in a world where the block feature of Wikipedia is not necessary. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I don't like having to block if it can be avoided. But it is sometimes necessary for the greater good of Wikipedia. Some editors learn from warnings issued against them, some don't. Mjroots (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Just dont forget you to fix WP:ARBMAC entry for user. Be good. --Tadija (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the editor for being a disruption, not necessarily only for his topic ban. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

O, yes! You are right! Ok, sorry! :) --Tadija (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor's requested an unblock, by the way. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've granted them the unblock. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked them for another violation. Let me know if you disagree with the length; I'm still sort of new to this whole thing. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Missed that. Totally correct IMO. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

Hi. I've started a discussion here. (Actually, it's a restart of a prior discussion that went cold; you can just scroll directly down to the first post I made today in that section if you want.) Can you offer your thoughts? I think it's very important. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to review it, but it's not canvasing. Read the criteria for that offense. Nightscream (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You'd think. But I was blocked asking for the opinion of many admins about admin matters, which is why I started the admin noticeboard. I would suggest stepping carefully around this issue. Up to you, I certainly don't mind one way or another but there are others around here who are a lot touchier about getting mass delivered messages. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, taking me to WP:AN because of the above message? You can't be serious! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)