User talk:FT2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FT2 (talk | contribs) at 08:51, 15 June 2009 (→‎Concerning the deletion of the "John Todd (occultist) page: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

  • Archived talk page comments: /Archive
    Closed topics are archived to approx. July 31 2008.
Current discussion summaries
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)


 


Wikipedia IRC channel: [1]

Services Link: [2]

Others: society -- religion -- studies -- research -- ap -- asa -- terminology -- emo -- med

RFPC draft

A/guide: WP:SIR, Wikipedia:Canvassing | Contribs tool: [3] | plainlinks: 'Span style="plainlinks"'

Hashes of evidence


Best wishes

  • Offered without further comment on the particulars of this matter, but with thanks for your service to the projects: My best wishes to you, FT2, where ever your road may take you next. ++Lar: t/c 14:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seconded. Thanks for your service in a thankless job.--Tznkai (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  :( I look forward continuing to work with you on SPI nevertheless! -- lucasbfr talk 16:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The entire incident is unfortunate, as others have said, but looking over your track record, it's clear that you, probably more than anyone else in the past year, have helped this project in so many ways. You've not received nearly enough credit for the non-Arbitration work you've done and I sincerely hope that this incident doesn't deter you from doing further much-needed work around the project. All the best. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • +1 You know my feelings already. All the best, Majorly talk 20:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sixthed :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles

There is a tremendously interesting article that needs to be written, Solar storm of 1859. You might also like SS Edmund Fitzgerald, a famous ship that was apparently sunk by a rogue wave. Jehochman Talk 16:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been checking my article work! I remember Rogue wave :) Let's go check how it's doing. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She sank in Superior when the gales of November came early. [4] - Epousesquecido (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasant message

Hi FT2.

I originally contemplating saying this all privately, but then decided publically would be better. I then considered posting it on your Request for Comment, but decided that there are already enough useless and redundant statements on there. So I chose to say this here.

It is a great shame that people have lost sight of the excellent work that you have done. You devoted a large amount of your time in the past year to improving Wikipedia via the Arbitration Committee. Regardless of the fuss that is now being kicked up regarding you, you have clearly been a benefit to the project, and I hope that you can continue to be so in the way that you were prior to your resignation.

I wish you all the best, my friend.

--Deskana (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very same sentiments. Time is a valuable thing, most especially when it is donated. Thank you. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

best

G'day FT - I left you a note (and an award) which TS has removed (see User_talk:Privatemusings#Peter_Mandelson) - I wanted to apologise unreservedly if you felt that my comment was kicking you while you were down - it was intended as a light hearted, smile-inducing comment - and here's the substance of it;

I think the best foot forward for all (and I largely agree with the reasons you've outlined) would be for you to step down from checkuser and oversight too, and I expect that's under consideration at the moment. Give it some thought, because a clean break's a good one :-)

best wishes anywhoo dude, and no doubt our paths will cross anon :-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, PM, I think that's ridiculous. We can have a presumption of guilt for the arbitration committee if we like, but the idea of a generalized presumption of dishonesty gets to something more offensive. There is no proof here, just claims that FT2 must have known more than he let on regarding someone else's actions. The evidence is sufficient that FT2 apparently doesn't feel he can fully dispel it in the minds of the community by himself. Personally I think it is entirely plausible, and even most likely, that FT2 was more focused on the substance of Damien's accusations -- the accusations that led to Gerard's use of oversight, not vice versa -- than he was on this subsequent issue, and hence that his comments were forthright. In any case the main traction here, from what I can tell, is a result of wider concerns that FT2 basically showed a tin ear to community concerns and his obligations as a political figure. One interesting aspect of Wikipedia for me is how few of us don't occasionally show a tin ear in our unfiltered comments. However, nothing I'm aware of suggests he has in any way abused any position of trust to support such further accusations of distrust against him; in fact I think there is a wide assessment that FT2 has done very well in his positions, with the only issues arising on the Arbitration Committee. Mackan79 (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no worries, Mack - it's clear mileage is going to vary, it's just my view on things..... Privatemusings (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland article names: Request for Remedy 2

The case was closed on 2009-01-04. Attempts to achieve consensus regarding Remedy 1 began shortly thereafter. It is now 2009-01-18, and no consensus has been achieved. Will the ArbCom now proceed with Remedy 2, please? -- Evertype· 10:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seemed to be the most active proponent of this idea, which seems to have faded somewhat, I was wondering if you had anything that could bulk out the part marked with the {{expand}} template, specifically, instances where material was obscured or should have been obscured from search engines (ie situations which would not have occurred if the proposed noindexing policy had been in place). I'd like to move the proposal forward, but there's quite a lot of detail that still needs to be added. Happymelon 17:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

91.108.197.117 caught in your rangeblock

Could you take a look at the unblock request of 91.108.197.117 (talk · contribs)? Best,  Sandstein  19:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tl

Regarding your recent edit to this template: I thought the point of {{Tl}} was that it didn't have the tt format, as opposed to similar templates such as {{Tlx}}? Given that this is a highly used template, I don't think it's a change for the better. PC78 (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Figured it was intended to be consistent. if I'm wrong, revert it for sure. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with PC78. Any chance of a reversion? Thanks. neuro(talk) 22:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - forgot it was protected! FT2 (Talk | email) 22:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

The Teamwork Barnstar
FT2: for your dedication, commitment, and teamwork in ensuring Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations became a reality I award you this barnstar. Thank you so much for your help, without you I would never have been able to get the merger completed. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 00:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to US Airways Flight 1549

I wanted to bring to your attention this edit you made to US Airways Flight 1549. You added the following code to the bottom of the page and I wanted you to know since it seemed like you may have wanted to put this somewhere else.

<!-- Start of "Preview <references/>" --> <div id="PreviewReferences" style="border:1px solid red; background-color:#FFEEEE;padding:2px 5px 0 5px;"> <tt>Preview <nowiki><references/> (based on VirtualReferences.js by :de:User:ParaDox):</nowiki> <references/></div>

Zntrip 04:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a previewer, it's not perfect, sometimes it dumps junk code in the text. I usually spot it, this time I didnt. I see you removed it, thanks! FT2 (Talk | email) 04:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr Re : Bishzilla

The request for arbitration named above has been declined as superseded by motion :

  • Bishzilla (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished for her conduct in this matter. She is advised not to block users to force further discussion or action on an issue, nor to increase the pace of an issue, and not to take administrator actions with respect to disputes in which she is involved. Bishzilla is warned that any further such incidents are likely to lead to the suspension or revocation of her administrator privileges.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Mailer Diablo 14:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Hello, I just wanted to alert you of this change that I made to an SPI case, and ask about it, as, before I made the change, the TOC on the main page was listing everything as under the Nrse case. Although, I Still do not think this was the best edit to make, as now the other sock cases, along with this one, are not listed in the TOC, so I'm sorry if I screwed things up further. This message shall be delivered to the others working on making the main SPI page work.— dαlus Contribs 23:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still need the arbitration templates at the top of this page?

Hi FT2, I just want to make a polite suggestion that since you've resigned from the Arbitration Committee, you probably don't need those fancy pink templates of committee affairs at the top of this page. Obviously you can keep them there if you want to, but it kind of clutters up the page and at this stage seems to lack any benefit. Let me emphasize that I'm not trying to rub salt in a wound: I do appreciate that the last few weeks have been stressful for you, and that your time on the committee was mostly to the community's benefit in spite of the recent brouhaha. I'm just thinking that retiring that pink template would clean things up visually and might help you "move on" if that's helpful to you. Crystal whacker (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC) I say the foregoing even though I opined that you should resign from the committee. That opinion, and my saying that your time on the committee was mostly to the community's benefit, are mutually compatible statements, and I stand by both. Crystal whacker (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leave "as is", thanks; I'm obviously still quite interested in arbitration matters and cases. Thanks for the ask, though. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to FT2 for the wonderful ideas on the talk page of WP:Article Rescue Squadron. The AFDs you mentioned were excellent. thank you. Ikip (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you have been inducted into the Article Rescue Squadron's Hall of Fame

See the new little Life Preserver at the top of your page?

Coding:

Feel free to add more articles saved awards to your page, and to award other people this award too, for saving articles from deletion on Wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More of the same I'm afraid

[5][6][7]

Nothing new. Fainites barleyscribs 22:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking into another vandalism/sock case this week; can this one be handled by ANI? FT2 (Talk | email) 23:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one looks fairly obvious. I'll get onto it this weekend. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. they're not that troublesome in that they're easy to spot and revert but they are easiest to spot by someone familiar with this sockmaster. 82.69.73.181 (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) That was me. Fainites barleyscribs 17:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same indef. bannee [8]. Different IP. Probably just having a go when travelling.Fainites barleyscribs 22:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same old...same old...[9].Fainites barleyscribs 07:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. [10]Fainites barleyscribs 21:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[11]. I seem to be using your talk page as a dumping ground for a collection of diffs here FT2. Many apologies. I suppose if this continues the pages could be for registered users only. Fainites barleyscribs 21:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another to add to the collection [12]Fainites barleyscribs 19:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[13] Fainites barleyscribs 20:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC) [14] Fainites barleyscribs 21:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC) [15]Fainites barleyscribs 21:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seven out of ten from Buffalo. Fainites barleyscribs 21:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since pointing out the above, the editor has registered as this [16].Fainites barleyscribs 22:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I first mentioned Buffalo here at 21.06, 29th March. PAMom first contributed at 21.34, 29th March.Fainites barleyscribs 22:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well PAMom seems to have disappeared but instead we have this character. Amazing eh? Fainites barleyscribs 21:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I give you this one? Now vandalising Mike Bickle [17] Fainites barleyscribs 21:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser usage

Hello, in the middle of last year you displayed the stats for checkuser usage here and i was wondering whether that was a once off or there will be another some time in the future. Given that there are elections for the first time in regard to users having this tool, it might be worthwhile doing one again say 1 month after the users are elected? Best 211.30.23.89 (talk) 08:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me - extra eyeballs and all that :) FT2 (Talk | email) 13:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any time

... can you evaluate the proposal WP:Page movement, whether it should be tagged policy, guideline or essay. This is your kind of thing, right? I originally proposed this because there nothing in policy pages legitimising WP:RM, which surely there should be given the weight of consensus on wikipedia for the process, and nothing (last time I checked) prohibiting cut-and-paste moves. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you have time to look over this now? Pwutty please? :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 02:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam links

Those were not spam links, but clips of various recordings. What you view as spam is probably not spam to other, more well-versed people. Sorry to disappoint you. DinosaursLoveExistence (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recordings are clips of well liked music. But numerous links of multiple recordings, all to one business' download site, is inappropriate usage of "external links" on Wikipedia. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jvolkblum carries a note by you, dated 24 February, indicating that you were "still reviewing." Given the age of the note, I suspect that you are no longer "still reviewing," but that this item has receded below the horizon on your "to-do" list. Since the time of your note, I've added several new suspected socks to the report. If your note is stale, please update it, but please excuse the intrusion if you are truly still engaged. --Orlady (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in voicing your opinion on the AfD. I suggested merging it with Erotic sexual denial before discovering you have done exactly that two years ago... Owen× 20:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and still in agreement; I've posted there. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user requested unblocking, having been affected by one of your hard IP blocks. I didn't think that her contribution history was sufficient for IPBE, but maybe you could take a look, since you know what kind of abuse is being prevented. Mangojuicetalk 13:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - IP block exemption seems fine here, the users edits predate the vandalism and seem to be of good standard. Thanks for checking. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

88.108.128.0/17

While I have some idea why you blocked this blocking a significant chunk of tiscali UK for 3 months without onwiki disscussion is not acceptable. If I don't hear back from you by Oh call it midnight UTC I'm going to assume you are not arround and will pull the block.Geni 21:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're mistaken. It is, and has been. The main reason it wasn't done in the past was that too many other users would be caught by a hard block. That problem no longer exists, and hasn't for a long time; a relatively small number of ranges used by prolific or persistent vandals are hard-blocked for extended periods and have been since 2008, precisely because WP:IPBE allows that to be done without disruption to logged-in "good faith" editor access. That said, I agree this should probably have been labelled a {{checkuserblock}}. I'll run it by other checkusers to confirm, though, as you have raised a concern. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting defintion of without dissruption you've got. Rather than being able to click edit and begin editing you have to get an admin to agree to make you IP block exempt. Given the fairly small number of people in the ipblock-exempt group and the number of editors who would come through a /17 range of one of the UK's largest ISPs it's pretty clear that most editors don't bother.Geni 15:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The block was, of course, checked for collateral issues. Some 50 accounts and IPs have been blocked in that range, in the last 30 days, of a nature warranting the action. That said, I have passed the matter to other checkusers. One point is off wiki, and sent by email to you, for reasons that should be obvious. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the amount that comes through that range 50 is likely pretty close to background. Yes I know there are ah special circumstances but the raw numbers don't really help your position.Geni 17:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this block, it's a checkuser matter, and I will be reinstating it. The collateral damage is unfortunate but it is a trade off. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking is governed by WP:BLOCK not Wikipedia:CheckUser. If you want to block a large range of a major ISP for a significant length of time (and well who hasn't wanted to do that with AOL from time to time?) you take it to WP:AN/I like anyone else. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#88.108.128.0.2F17 would be one option.Geni 17:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser results are an allowable reason for a block, the block was entirely within policy. See you there. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment on Unban proposal requested

Hi, I have opened an Unban request on behalf of Jvolkblum and others, which also includes a ban request on Orlady, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal for unban, apology, amnesty for Jvolkblum and related others, and topic ban for Orlady. User:MBisanz expressed interest in hearing your views. doncram (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where this ended up, but I ran across it when adding speedy-deletes to two redirects: Nathan folefac and Nathan A.Folefac were both redirects to User:Nathan Atem Folefac. Looking at the edits to that page, and what links there, it seems that User:Weeklimp, User:Weillr, User:!!House Down!!, and others may be involved... - SummerPhD (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DystopiaSticker again

As a follow-up to your warning to DystopiaSticker (talk · contribs) here for disruptive POV-pushing, he has added defamatory, falsely sourced information to Talk:Keith Olbermann. Here is his edit and my response. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting follow up

Regarding this clear warning, I think you may wish to do some follow up investigation. Tonight I've returned from a week-long bereavement absence to find a notification/request from another editor. Being that you were the helpful admin earlier, I'm punting to you.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Rochelle discussion notice

New Rochelle problem discussion notification: I've opened a new discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Long-running problem with respect to New Rochelle area articles.

This relates to the 4 part proposal i opened on March 26, which was closed on March 27 and archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187#Proposal for unban, apology, amnesty for Jvolkblum and related others, and topic ban for Orlady.

This is a courtesy notice to all parties who had more than a one word comment in the previous discussion. I think it is a problem that won't go away, and I hope that you will be part of the solution, whether or not you and I have agreed previously. I hope that we can at least clarify the problem, if not immediately agree upon a solution. If anyone thinks this is inappropriate canvassing, I am sure they will express that. I don't anticipate too many separated discussions on this topic, but if this one is closed and a new one opens, I'll probably notify you again, unless you ask me not to. doncram (talk) 03:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clue-ness, etc.

I responded briefly in the thread at wp:ani, that I think your dismissal of me was uncalled for. I'd rather not digress very much there. But I do take offense. There has been too much dehumanizing, too much meanness, running through the Orlady enforcement of the New Rochelle area articles and editors, that i do think it is time someone spoke up, and pointed out apparent unfairness. I don't see where that shows i need to get a clue.

Also, you invoked wp:Clue, but I suspect you mean something else by it than how it is currently defined. Currently, wp:clue redirects to a short article with main statement:

"Wikipedia is not a democracy or an anarchy. Wikipedia is a cluocracy. That means that disputes generally are, and should be, forcefully resolved in favor of whoever has the best reasoning - not in terms of rhetoric but in terms of knowing what works and what doesn't."

I am only trying to bring out good reasoning, to describe a big, longrunning problem and then eventually to get to a solution. I simply don't get your point, if it is to suggest something else. doncram (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, it appears to me that FT2 meant what he said. Your arguments are not productive and clueful, but instead are disruptive to the functioning of Wikipedia. Furthermore, in spite of your protests to the contrary, your practice of disseminating negative comments about me throughout Wikipedia's talk spaces leads me to believe that your current campaign is about me. Please give it a rest. --Orlady (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration - Unjustified ban of users

I have filed a request for arbitration regarding recent bans of user accounts from which no activities could be found that dispupt Wikipedia. The arbitration request can be found here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Block of editors related to sockpuppet Jvolkblum You are not mentioned as an involved party, I send you this message as a courtesy for your information, and I hope that your opinion there can contribute to solve the issue. Thank you! doxTxob \ talk 23:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So soon

[18] Fainites barleyscribs 15:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user was affected by one of your rangeblocks. I've granted IP block exemption, based on his edits on other Wikimedia projects (over 2K edits, mainly on de and de.wiktionary). I'm letting you know in case you want to double check, but I'm pretty confident about this one. Mangojuicetalk 18:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DreamHost

Thank you for your input at DreamHost. I provided a corroborating source to verify the Debian source you didn't like the smell of. The SPA responded by deleting the original source and re-adding some dated negative information in violation of the neutral point of view (it leaves the article quite negatively balanced). I would appreciate any additional involvement you can provide to help resolve the dispute. I should also note that there is a pending mediation case and a related unresolved (and now stale) incident report at WP:ANI. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify

You did intend to list me as one of the users needing to be checked here, right? Inferno, Lord of Penguins (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a precaution against future problems on this case. I'll explain in email due to WP:BEANS. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sent a reply as well - thanks for that. Inferno, Lord of Penguins (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second - couldn't you do this case yourself? According to Special:ListUsers, you're a checkuser. Inferno, Lord of Penguins (talk) 05:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, you already did a CheckUser...that's how you got all those other names. Never mind! Inferno, Lord of Penguins (talk) 05:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and update

Thanks for the work on Disruptive IP on Talk:2009 Pittsburgh police shootings. I think the user is back though. Please see the recent work of 216.183.185.100 (talk · contribs). TharsHammar Bits andPieces 17:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same user. If needed, seek semi-protection of the affected pages, or admin input at ANI. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input, I am going to raise the issue again at ANI. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 17:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BLP flowchart 2b-no$.svg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:BLP flowchart 2b-no$.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Colds7ream (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I was going to block her! No fair! Sigh... I guess I'll accept that you beat me to it, fair and square. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We both spotted it. In an unusually close feat of timing you posted to the user talk page, then were going to block, I posted the block and was about to click "ok" on the talk page note.... FT2 (Talk | email) 23:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's uncanny how awesome we are. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Bullshit

I thought you would be interested to know that I nominated Bullshit for AfD, since most of your arguments about Red Cunt Hair, also apply to it. ... MistyWillows talk 07:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. To me there seems a difference - one literally appears to have no capability for an encyclopedic article beyond definition and examples of usage, but the other may well have (apologies for the expression) a richer usage and hence considerably more that can be said about it that brings it into the realm more of encyclopedic topics. In other words the problem is that for Red Cunt Hair there may be literally almost nothing significant that can be said beyond "this is an expression meaning X, as used in reference citations P, Q and R". FT2 (Talk | email) 18:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Re-opened

As you are an editor who had been involved in the Afd discussion of Jennifer Fitzgerald, I'm here to let you know that I re-opened the discussion on the article to gain a stronger consensus. After some discussion with a few other editors I agree that I may have closed the article too hastily and that further discussion is necessary before a final decision is made. Best wishes, Icestorm815Talk 19:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another BW fan

here. Fainites barleyscribs 12:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC) and hereFainites barleyscribs 13:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're at AN

Well, rather your use of oversight here. The discussion is here. Thank you.  GARDEN  19:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've responded there. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's happening here? Is it time to take down the expansion tag? AGK 22:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email footer

Hi FT2 - Just to let you know I've undone your edit. This sort of stuff definitely needs consensus. I don't see how the fact that "checkusers can see but other users may not be able to judge" is at all relevant here. We all know users are emailing people and we all know the text of the message. One other user has already commented on the relevant talk page and I hope we can discuss this and reach an agreement before any re-additions to the page are made. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I've sent you a couple of email messages without receiving a reply. Are you receiving them? I'f you'd prefer not to deal with the situation I understand but I need to know so I can find someone else to handle it.   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email for you

Hi FT2 - I've sent you an email. Grateful for your views. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Labrador retriever at Peer review

You were the significant contributor at Labrador retriever during the article's GA review (Talk:Labrador Retriever/GA1). The article is now up at peer review, please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Labrador Retriever/archive1. Cirt (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Starting to get some feedback comments, as well as an automated review. Cirt (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will read it when I have a moment. It looks interesting. Do you think it has a chance at FAC? It's a significant article in that topic area, and likely to be high popularity/high interest to readers due to its nature, so it might be a good target for that. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I think it has a chance, but it does need some work. Cirt (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey dude... long time now talk. Can we discuss why you swapped the black Labrador w/ the yellow Labrador picture? I believe that the Black Labrador picture (as the introduction to the article) is a better choice for several reasons. Primarily because the black Labrador is the primary and most popular colour of Labrador, it was the breed standard for many years, and when one sees a picture of a black Labrador it automatically denotes "Lab". Erikeltic (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification archived

A request for clarification concerning a Arbitration Case which you were involved in, "Scientology (2)", has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. Should you still have questions in relation to this case, please feel free to make a new clarification request, contact a Clerk, or the Committee. For the Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Appeals process" has also been archived now, at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests. FTAC, Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the deletion of the "John Todd (occultist)" page

I recognize that there are problems with BLPs, but this guy is said to be dead.Canifis (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems with that statement though - said to be is the first, and apparent lack of any historic notability the second. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]