User talk:Gimmetrow: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:11, 25 January 2009 editSteve (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users18,235 edits →RE: Edit warring over project banner: informing of AN/I thread← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 23:11, 24 September 2024 edit undoRedrose64 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators272,774 edits →top: fix last edit
(991 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Not around\|date=2 January 2024}}
	<!-- <center><div style="text-align:center;width:60%;padding:1em;border:{{{border\|solid 2px gold}}};letter-spacing: 12px;background-color:blue;color:white;font-weight:bold">On indefinite vacation</div></center> -->		<!-- <center><div style="text-align:center;width:60%;padding:1em;border:{{{border\|solid 2px gold}}};letter-spacing: 12px;background-color:blue;color:white;font-weight:bold">On indefinite vacation</div></center> -->
	{\| style="float:right;"		{\| style="float:right;"
	\|-		\|-
	\|]		\|]
	\|align="center"\|~~<br /><br />~~]		\|align="center"\|]
	*		*
	*		*
	*		*
	*		*
	*		*
	*		*
	*		*
	*
	*
	\|]		\|]
	\|}		\|}

			== Unwelcome ==
			Since apparently the community accepts talk page bans, the following <i>people</i> are unwelcome to post here in any manner.
			* Kww, Malleus, John, Nuclear, Merridew
			This ban includes any other accounts they may hold.
			If any of these people have something to say to me, their reprseentative must contact me first through "email this user" and obtain my authorisation.
			Their represeentative may not post here on their behalf either.
			] 12:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

			== Return of sysop user-right ==
	==ignoring consensus==
	Gimmetrow, you have no consensus to support your elimination of agreed text. ] <sup> ]</sup> 04:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
	:If you want to add the sentence that says "There is a strong body of opinion...." you need to have a reference. None of our references say that. Whitehead says that the name Catholic Church has been the official name since the time of Council of Nicea and continues through to this day and the latest council, Vatican II. He explains the preference of "Roman Catholic" by Anglicans and some modern day folk. Please read what he says before you insert a sentence on that subject. Our sentences must match what sources say. :-) ] <sup> ]</sup> 04:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
	:: None of your references say that the "official name" of the church is "Catholic Church", so if you want to add that, you will need to provide references. Also "Roman was rejected" without qualification is not supported by the references. This is not subject to voting. I'm sorry it comes to this. When there is an editorial conflict, one way of resolving it is to state literally and exactly what the source says, and not expand on its meaning. I was hoping after all this time you would do that. ] 04:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

			Hi Gimmetrow. Welcome back. I have returned your sysop user-right, and I do hope to see you around a bit more. As always, there's lots to do! As I mentioned at BN, if you could use the ] for the birthdate references, I am sure that will help people in the future. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 13:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
	== RFA ==

			== Meg Foster date ==
	Under what premise would you think I would succeed at RFA? I pretty much just run ] and produce ]s. I have very modest experience at chasing vandals and such.
	:Yes, there are times when I could have expedited the proper functioning of the project if I had the ] powers.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 06:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

			Sure. I know Google Books (and more generally Google) gives different results for different users, but if you insert the string ''"Meg Foster" "May 14, 1948"'' on Google Books you should be able to locate it. Obviously if you want to remove the date of birth or want to mention only the year of birth on the basis of privacy concerns you are free to do it, but the reference is certainly correct. ] 08:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
	== ] ==

			== Welcome back ==
	That user is making abusive unblock requests. Please change the block settings for that IP address to "anon. only, account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page" -- ] ] 14:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

			I noticed in the administrator's newsletter that you are again an administrator, and I wanted to thank you for resuming your service, and to welcome you back. ] (]) 01:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
	== Not blocking for blanking a talk page ==
			: I swear, I'm talking to walls in here. ] (]) 00:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
			:: What do you mean? Are you asking me into the latest CCI thing? ] 06:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
			:::No :) I was just frustrated that no one does what you did, and few seem to be paying attention. I type 'til I'm blue in the fingers ! ] (]) 10:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
			== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
			]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 22:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

			== Good article reassessment for ] ==
	So for future reference, if a final warning is issued, and that warning is immediately blanked, what's the further action here? How are other editors supposed to rely on escalating warnings and so forth if previous warnings were deleted by the warned editor? Thanks. ] (]) 19:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
			] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] ] 01:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
	: Admins look at the page history. My point is that ] only edit after the final warning was to blank its talk page. If that's the last edit made, there's no point blocking the account as well. If the account does the same article edits again it will probably be blocked as a spam account. ] 19:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

			== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==
	== ] ==
	If you think it's unnessacry, challnage it and improve the issue that caused
	it to get placed.

			<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
	There is a justifcation for inclusion of archive.org links, but they need to
			<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div>
	i) be more clearly identified.
			<div class="ivmbox-text">
	ii) be 'obtainable' , as parts of archive.org are filtered by some ISP's.
			Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y\|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data\|2023\|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	] (]) 21:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

			If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx\|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
	: Hmm, No consensus for this.... And IRC disscusion seems to suggest archive.org is stable enough...
	So Apologies and thanks for the rollback :) ] (]) 21:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

			</div>
	: Re filtering , Some parts of archive.org are filtered in the UK, because of a 'censor' filter that blocks certain types of content
			</div>
	which are 'questionable' in the UK.
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1187132049 -->
			==] has been nominated for merging==

			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>] has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. ] (]) 03:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	:It seems that for whatever reasons archive.org gets passed through it, because it's cached something
	that flagged the filter, because the filtering list is not public and for technical reasons, sometimes entire sites get filtered even though they do not of themsleves host 'bad content'.

			== Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder ==
	] (]) 21:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

			]This is a reminder that established ] provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.{{pb}}Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at ]. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the ].{{pb}}Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — ] 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
	== Question ==

			== "]" listed at ] ==
	How do you report a person on here? ====== <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			]
	: What exactly do you want to report? (I think I can guess which editor this might refer to.) ] 22:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 2#WP:BRRRRRD}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ]] 17:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

			== Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C ==
	Yes but i never reported a person at all on here ===== <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	: Question is - what do you want to report about this person? (Oh, you might want to use <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> rather than =====, if you're trying to make a signature). ] 22:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

			<section begin="announcement-content" />
	When that user put Kevin and Danielle are engaged but they are not http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiEUGG6IkGk 22:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:''] ''

			Dear Wikimedian,
	: Well, that's par for the course. I'll keep an eye on the article. If the rumors are unsourced they probably go against ]. If so, just remove the unsourced rumors citing that policy. In some cases, though, if certain rumors keep coming back, there might occasionally be a valid reason, so you could ask for a citation by adding <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki> after the phrase or posing the question on the talk page. Hope that helps. ] 23:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

			You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
	I have proof that they are not engaged well accutally two proofs how do i add those 23:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the ] to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
	: What are they, and I'll take a look, but why does the article need to say this, either? ] 23:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

			The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please ].

			Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
	You know for proof http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiEUGG6IkGk and http://www.theinsider.com/news/1439313_The_Insider_Gets_Personal_with_the_Jonas_Brothers 23:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" />
	I tried one time to put a source for a diffrent person but i failed eva <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			] 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
	: OK, well, the article now doesn't say they are engaged. Does it really need to positively say they are not? ] 23:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:RamzyM (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Election/2024/Previous_voters_list&oldid=26721206 -->

			== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
	Nevermind okay whats a sandbox on here 00:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)~
			]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 23:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

	: A sandbox is a page where you test wikicode or "play around" to get something to work. One such page is ]. ] 00:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

	Is this website and answers.com the same? 00:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	: They are different sites. However, answers.com mirrors a lot of Misplaced Pages content, so it's almost always circular to try using it as a reference here. ] 00:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

	People always say that answers is more reliable than this site 00:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

	: It depends on what part of answers.com you mean. It should be obvious which parts mirror wiki pages. The question-specific parts can be better, although they too sometimes derive from wiki content. But there are parts which are authored, and if the author is a notable expert, those pages can be cited as the self-published work of an expert in the field. ] 01:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

	==Block==

	Not that it really matters, but why the block on ? ] \| ] 00:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
	: Mistake. Saw it at AIV. Already undone. ] 00:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
	::I had a declined tag on it... no worries, tho. Just curious. Carry on. ] \| ] 00:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

	== Sorry man ==

	Sorry 'bout my vandalism report. Just was trying to help but I shoulda looked up the rules and such. ] 05:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

	==Articlehistory bluelinked ==
	Someone has done it again: ] ] (]) 11:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
	: Re-deleted now. Gimme, someone at ] is pushing for automatic use of {{t1\|reflist}} over <nowiki><references /></nowiki>. ] (]) 17:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

	== ArticleHistory and DYK stuff ==

	Hi Gimmetrow, I haven't heard from you about the stuff we discussed in the past about making {{tlf\|ArticleHistory}} put DYK/GA and DYK/FA articles into a category, and by now the discussion at WT:DYK is archived; I figured maybe you were too busy to get a chance to look, so I'll just paste the code I was thinking of directly here. Here is what I was thinking of:

	<pre>{{#if:{{{dykdate\|}}}\|
	{{#ifeq:{{{currentstatus}}}\|FA\|]}}
	{{#ifeq:{{{currentstatus}}}\|GA\|]}}
	{{#ifeq:{{{currentstatus}}}\|FL\|]}}}}</pre>

	This is probably not the exact code that would end up being used (because there's a lot I don't know about how AH works and things might need to be tweaked around) but should hopefully give you an idea what I'm trying to do. The first line would identify articles that have been featured on DYK in the past; the next lines would identify articles that are also currently good or featured content. If this works the way I intend, it should not affect the FAC or GAN process, and the people who work in those projects should not even notice a difference.

	Would something like this work in the AH template?

	Thank you, ] <small><sup>]</sup></small>/<small><sub>]</sub></small> 14:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
	: Of course something like that would work. I thought I said so in the WT:DYK discussions. ] 15:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
	::I might have missed your comment; my apologies. I have been away for a bit, and of course at the same time this discussion was going on there was some other stuff hijacking the page and taking up everyone's attention. Anyway, if you like, would it be ok if I discuss with the DYK people what kind of articles we want to include (for example, if delisted FAs and whatnot should go in the categories) and then get back to you with a final idea of what code should be added?
	::Thanks for your quick response, ] <small><sup>]</sup></small>/<small><sub>]</sub></small> 15:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

	Hi Gimmetrow, when you implemented this, it looks like you may have forgotten the <code>Category:</code> for the FL case. The code currently just adds a wikilink—<nowiki>]</nowiki>, see eg ]. However ] doesn't seem to exist either. ] (]) 08:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

	== Recent block of vandal/ Protection ==

	Hallo, I don't not whether you know already, but for the recent vandalism at ], ], ] and other articles, see ], ] and ]. Serafin also used an UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH based IP for edits at ], see ]. As he has now created 200-odd accounts mainly to vandalize the articles mentioned above, I suggest to full protect them, as other editors have been driven away already, leaving the field to Serafin's incarnations, which should be excluded effectively. -- ] ]  09:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
	: Thanks for the Protection of articles.-- ] ]  04:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
	==Talk page==
	You have twice removed content at ] that was agreed upon at the talk page. user Richard, user Xandar and myself have agreed to the use of ]'s book, a source who meets ] and is an includable POV per ]. If we have omitted any POV's please come to the talk page and provide a link, we can include them. Thanks. ] <sup> ]</sup> 03:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
	:Gimmetrow, I am going to complain about you at the administrators board, you are clearly POV warring. I have clear talk page evidence to back up my use of Madrid, I was making changes that were discussed. I placed the info on the page and have asked the others to view it, they can not view it because you have omitted it with '''zero''' talk page discussion. ] <sup> ]</sup> 04:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
	:: You have continually reverted me without discussion, removing verifiable sources with contrary views. Enough is enough. ] 04:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
	:::I have not reverted you - please provide the diff to support such an accusation. ] <sup> ]</sup> 04:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
	:::: How many diffs do you want, Nancy? ] 04:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Gimmetrow, thats not fair, the first two are my reversions of your POV edit warring with me after I inserted material that was agreed upon on the talk page. The others are your insertion of material that no one agreed to on the talk page, one of them is to an opinion piece in American Ecclesiastical Review that also ran a counter opinion, you inserted one opinion and left the other one out, how is that NPOV? ] <sup> ]</sup> 04:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
	::::::: Funny. You had included the opinion which agreed with you but refused to allow the counter opinion which did not, yet apparently that was NPOV? And I did not remove the one opinion - I was happy to have them both. Enough is enough with the obstructionism, Nancy. ] 05:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::Yes, because it was the opinion that cited the same facts as the only source used by worldwide Catholic media to explain the name of the Church. The other opinion had no corroborating source to support it. However, because you objected, I eliminated the opinion figuring it was unnecessary only to find you inserting the opposite opinion! ] <sup> ]</sup> 05:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::: "No corroborating source"? You've been provided with multiple sources saying the same thing. A couple years ago I spent months at that article arguing for the page to be at Catholic Church. When someone on your own side is telling you the article appears biased on the point of "official name" and "Roman was rejected", it's a good sign that it is at least biased, if not wrong. ] 05:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::::First - I am not on any "side". I am following Misplaced Pages policy, agreeing with page consensus and using ] references that are the only sources that discuss the name of the Church, are in English language and are used by Catholic media to explain the name of the Church - Media that has bishop and vatican oversight like ] and ]. Being cited is one of those qualities noted by ] as evidence of a better source. Whitehead is cited by the two most respected Catholic media publications. The only thing I have been provided with to the contrary is being pointed to are things that ] and ] do not allow us to use as references - like Defteri's mention of Pius XII's one instance of using Roman Catholic when he is talking about what "others say" in Humani Generis. ] <sup> ]</sup> 08:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
	I greatly appreciate your responsible editing on the Roman Catholic Church article - thanks! Some of us need to stand up to the blatantly biased and unacademic POV crap that the polemicists insist on including! ] (]) 04:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

	:Could either of you please provide another POV that I keep asking for? How is it POV to include the only sources in existence that discuss the name of the Church, that are not opinion pieces in a magazine? ] <sup> ]</sup> 04:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

	Might this be useful to your discussion? --] (]) 15:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
	: Perhaps I've misunderstood or missed the part that would help. Could you explain? ] 17:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

	== Discussion at ] ==

	Hello Gimmetrow. In case you have not been explicitly notified, see which mentions you. ] (]) 16:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

	== Notes ==

	*{{user13\|72.75.146.21}}
	*{{user13\|72.75.141.163}}
	*{{user13\|71.254.51.80}} , see also edits from 6 Sept
	*{{user13\|71.254.63.84}}
	*{{user13\|71.254.63.62}}
	*{{user13\|72.75.147.166}}
	*{{user13\|72.90.14.176}}
	*{{user13\|71.254.55.23}}
	*{{user13\|72.75.142.109}}
	*{{user13\|72.75.141.26}}
	*{{user13\|72.75.129.29}}
	*{{user13\|72.75.148.194}}
	*{{user13\|71.255.18.90}}
	*{{user13\|72.75.131.184}}
	*{{user13\|72.90.13.98}}
	*{{user13\|72.90.1.179}} + more
	*{{user13\|71.255.29.253}}
	*{{user13\|71.255.28.30}} + more
	*{{user13\|72.90.0.194}} + more
	*{{user13\|72.75.152.69}}
	*{{user13\|72.90.13.37}}
	*{{user13\|72.75.131.149}}
	*{{user13\|72.75.140.153}} + more
	*{{user13\|72.75.153.234}}
	*{{user13\|71.255.24.125}}
	*{{user13\|72.75.149.86}} + more
	*{{user13\|72.90.3.179}} + more
	*{{user13\|72.75.130.17}}
	*{{user13\|72.90.5.119}} 18 May?
	*{{user13\|72.75.154.74}}
	*{{user13\|71.255.16.103}}
	*{{user13\|72.90.12.35}}
	{{user13\|72.90.10.15}} 20 Mar 26 Mar*
	{{user13\|72.75.147.45}} 1 Mar
	{{user13\|72.75.151.149}} 6 Feb
	{{user13\|72.90.8.115}} 19 Jan 2008
	{{user13\|71.255.30.91}} 30 Dec 2007
	{{user13\|72.75.152.179}} 15 Dec
	{{user13\|71.254.63.227}} 11 Dec
	{{user13\|71.254.59.140}} 2 Dec
	{{user13\|72.75.142.230}} 22 Nov
	{{user13\|72.75.136.154}} 9 Nov 15 Nov*
	{{user13\|72.90.14.185}} 1 Nov
	{{user13\|72.90.7.142}} 14 Oct ++ more
	{{user13\|72.90.8.247}} 28 Sept

	== RE:RfA Related Question ==

	There's a couple of factors here - none of which I have access to - that would determine my choice of reaction. For one, as an admin I would have access to the deleted contribs feature (which only admins can access) which allow me to make a better judgment. the 2nd IP, given the personal attacks, would be somewhat of a no-brainer (block). As for the length, that varies again on factor to which I do not have access. If, for example, the IP showed no contributions other than personal attacks, I would make the block indefinite (as it is likely being used as nothing but an attack IP). If it shows contributions that are constructive, I would probably use a 1 or 2 week cooldown block. The first one, again, depends on factors that I cannot view, and so I am unable to make a judgment concerning the first IP. I have, however, given my rationale and personal preference for a decision concerning the second IP - I hope that suffices. ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
	::Ok, that info helps. I would indefinitely block the 2nd IP, given that it is already suspected to be the sock puppet of an IP already known for making personal attacks (indeed, having looked at the other IP contribs, that can easily be confirmed). The first one now becomes a bit more difficult. Given that several pages have been blanked by the first IP, I'd be inclined to first send warnings to the talk page (though it should also be noted that this was not done in said incident). That said, the IP has an obvious history of blanking pages and making generally unhelpful edits. though it would not be my first action against the IP (warning being the first), I would resort to blocking the IP indefinitely should the behavior continue after the warning. Thanks for clarifying the deleted contribs bit. ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
	:::Just here to comment, but admins rarely should give indef blocks on IPs. See ] for more info. In short, the same user will likely not be on the same IP for a long time, so the block would be hitting a new person. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 00:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
	:::: Perhaps you can say something about that for the same question on your RFA ;) ] 00:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Yes. I will have some spare time tomorrow to answer the question. Sorry for the delay! Best regards, --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 00:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Answered back. Now I'm pretty sure most people would have blocked both for "block evasion", but I think my "technical" answer should explain why I wouldn't on the latter one. If you need any clarifications, go ahead & ask me! --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 21:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

	== Sorry about the collision ==

	On the block of {{user\|86.137.142.168}}. I've restored your settings. ] <small>(])</small> 17:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
	: No problem. Doesn't matter. ] 17:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

	== My talk ==
	Thanks. I can't figure where it's coming from, but with UK, Ireland, Canada and India, it's coordinated somewhere. ] (]) 17:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
	: Related to ], I think. ] 17:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
	:: Yes, I see ] now, but it goes nowhere? It's on the mainpage on the 14th, so semi-pro may be needed longer? ] (]) 17:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

	OK, now I'm caught up on the two threads at AN/I, 4chan attack. So I'm not just a run-of-the-mill bitch: I'm special. ] (]) 17:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

	== Hello ==

	In case you haven't seen yet, I answered your question at my RfA. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

	== Getting my script to add a template ==

	Hi, there is is a ] about adding a template to indicate to future editors whether a page should be in dmy or mdy format. Your comments would be welcome. Do you know how I would code for that? ] (]) 11:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

	:Do you have any suggestions as to how to add a pice of text (in this case, a template) at the top of an article? ] (]) 12:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

	I am still struggling with my script. I have been seeking advice at ]. If I could work out the piece of code that I posted there, I could make progress on hiding quotes from the monobook script. Any thoughts would be gratefully received. ] (]) 19:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

	== Botification ==
	I had a busy day, Gimme; am just now preparing to read FAC, so I may be late. ] (]) 23:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

	== Minor promotion glitch ==

	] - Did I do something wrong here? ''']''' (]) 23:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
	==RFM==
	I began a Request for Mediation here and listed you as a party. Please sign your name here to agree to participate. Thanks. ] <sup> ]</sup> 06:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

	== Catholic Encyclopedia ==

	I am putting {{tl\|Catholic}} on these pages because they incorporate information from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and therefore should be in the appropriate category and have the appropriate attribution tag. As far as I know, the same thing was done with the {{tl\|1911}} tags. Feel free to revert my edits if you feel I am wrong. --] (]) 21:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

	==Pope John Paul II==

	:Hello Gimmetrow, We are looking for help on the ] article in order to improve it and raise it to ''‘Good Article’'' and eventually ''‘Featured Article’'' status. Any help would be much appreciated.
	:Kind Regards ]] 01:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

	== Asif Ali Zardari ==

	Hey, let me know if you consider the current version to be more appropriate. I suggest you rephrase sentences instead of removing material backed by reliable sources. Thanks --] (]) 00:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
	: You should avoid misrepresenting sources, too. ] 00:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

	::Ok, I'll be more careful next time. Thanks --] (]) 04:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Alright, I'm asking. What is the purpose of this category? - ] (]) 03:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

	== RE: Edit warring over project banner ==

	No; ''you'' explain why you insist on removing the project banner. I've looked at the page history and see that this has happened a number of times before. ] (]) 01:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
	:I've already responded. The article falls under the scope of the WikiProject, and has been tagged accordingly. The banner does more than just hand out an assessment. Now I repeat: why do you insist on removing the banner? ] (]) 01:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
	::Adding WikiProject banners to article talk pages is standard practise. I will ask you nicely for a ''third'' time (and please stop avoiding it): why do you keep removing the banner? ] (]) 01:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
	:::Because it looks horribe? That isn't a reason. Keep your idle threats to yourself; you're in no position to hand out a block, nor is one warranted. You appear to have some serious ] issues with this article. ] (]) 02:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
	::::The banner allows the project to assess the article and keep track of that assessment; it allows potential areas of cleanup to be identified (in this case the article has no image); it brings the article to the attention of potentially interested editors via the project or its numerous task forces; it gives editors a port of call should they need any advice or assistance with the article; it is, as I have said, standard practise across Misplaced Pages.
	::::I believe I have answered your question, but your steadfast refusal to answer mine is a growing concern. Please don't make me ask again, and please give me a satisfactory answer. ] (]) 02:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
	:::::I haven't failed to answer you; I have done so several times now, but you're not reciprocating. You say the banner looks "horrible", that it's "intolerable". You say it takes up about two pages on your screen, but it shouldn't. I suspect there is some kind of browser issue here that is causing a problem. Communication is the key here. Can you please upload a screenshot so I can see what it is that you're seeing? ] (]) 02:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

	Utter waste of time. You expect me to take a screen shot when you can't even type up an explanation when requested? Unless you can provide an actual explanation as I requested originally, there is nothing further to discuss with you. ] 03:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
	:I've given you an explanation, and you haven't given me one. I don't want to fight you on this; if there is a problem then I would like to be able to resolve it, but I can't do that if you're not willing to help. If there is a problem with the banner then it needs to be fixed, and I urge you to assist me. Another edit war this time tomorrow will be to the benefit of no-one. ] (]) 03:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
	:: You have still failed to give any explanation why the ''template'' is needed. (If you ever did, I would probably just change the template.) But you've done nothing, so there's no point. ] 03:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
	I'm assuming that the majority of the banner is for whatever reason not auto-hiding, based on the "two pages" comment. That would be a display issue, but I have to assume it's on your side, since we've had this format for a long time without any similar complaints. If it is a technical bug, though, feel free to fix it - I hear you have a good eye for that. ] (]) 03:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

	(e/c) The template is needed for the things I mentioned above. ''Please'' stop being obstinate. You have indicated that there is a bug in the template and this needs to be fixed, but you're holding all the cards and I can't do anything about if it you're not willing to help. If the article talk page does not look ] on your screen then there is a problem, so I ask you again to please post a screenshot so that I can help diagnose and resolve it. ] (]) 03:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

	:Have you looked at the image that PC78 showed? That is what we see. You seem to have edited other talk pages without any problems with their WikiProject templates, so it looks like you have a problem with the template showing all the instructions instead of being hidden until is clicked. We can try to figure out the bug in this template to keep the instructions hidden, but it may help to focus on this content rather than other editors. —<font face="Palatino Linotype">]</font> (] • ]) 03:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

	::I'd like to give you notice that I've filed an ] regarding your conduct. The substance of your thoughts may or may not have merit, and I'm certainly happy to discuss anything regarding the project, but the manner in which you have (and haven't) been going about it has been troublesome, all the moreso because you are an admin and a long-standing and valued editor. Please look at this as a concerned attempt at an intervention. Respectfully, ] (]) 20:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

	Hi. There's an ] thread about this and related incidents over ]. All the best, ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 21:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

	== FAC page size ==
	Gimme, I've got to do something different to better manage the FAC page size; it will be over 60 by next Tuesday (compared to a historic level of around 30). Perhaps, until things normalize, I'll resume daily archiving, but I'll add my FACclosed template in the event you can't botify them the same day. Will that be OK? ] (]) 15:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:11, 24 September 2024

This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Gimmetrow has not edited Misplaced Pages since 2 January 2024. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Unwelcome

Since apparently the community accepts talk page bans, the following people are unwelcome to post here in any manner.

Kww, Malleus, John, Nuclear, Merridew

This ban includes any other accounts they may hold. If any of these people have something to say to me, their reprseentative must contact me first through "email this user" and obtain my authorisation. Their represeentative may not post here on their behalf either. Gimmetrow 12:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Return of sysop user-right

Hi Gimmetrow. Welcome back. I have returned your sysop user-right, and I do hope to see you around a bit more. As always, there's lots to do! As I mentioned at BN, if you could use the Template:Cite web for the birthdate references, I am sure that will help people in the future. Worm(talk) 13:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Meg Foster date

Sure. I know Google Books (and more generally Google) gives different results for different users, but if you insert the string "Meg Foster" "May 14, 1948" on Google Books you should be able to locate it. Obviously if you want to remove the date of birth or want to mention only the year of birth on the basis of privacy concerns you are free to do it, but the reference is certainly correct. Cavarrone 08:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome back

I noticed in the administrator's newsletter that you are again an administrator, and I wanted to thank you for resuming your service, and to welcome you back. Cullen328 (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I swear, I'm talking to walls in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? Are you asking me into the latest CCI thing? Gimmetrow 06:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

No :) I was just frustrated that no one does what you did, and few seem to be paying attention. I type 'til I'm blue in the fingers ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Featured article tools

Template:Featured article tools has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. SWinxy (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 01:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Catholic personal coat of arms images has been nominated for merging

Category:Catholic personal coat of arms images has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder

This is a reminder that established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

"WP:BRRRRRD" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect WP:BRRRRRD has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 2 § WP:BRRRRRD until a consensus is reached. mwwv (converse) 17:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PPR

Template:PPR has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Categories: