User talk:Tothwolf

Your Edits on Eggdrop

Great job! --BarkerJr (talk) 03:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Denied/January 2009#Tothwolf. SoxBot X (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

template:IRC clients edit

Hi,

Can you provide a test case for the problem you were trying to fix here? Navbox templates shouldn't need blank lines (or comments) to fix formatting errors. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I had the same problem with all the IRC nav footer type templates. I also put all the templates into the Internet Relay Chat templates category so you can see all 4 of the nav templates there. The problem that kept popping up is the nav templates would have no whitespace below the last section 's text and the top of the navbox. If you included two newlines in the article, it would display with whitespace between the section text and infobox. Wikibots kept eating the extra whitespace and replacing the two newlines with a single newline. The workaround had been to include a comment between the two empty lines in the article. Adding an empty comment to the top of the navigational templates and removing the extra newline from the article body accomplished the exact same thing. I'm currently still working on these and plan to do some major cleanups and merge the IRC footer type templates, so if there is a better way to work around this display bug let me know so I can merge it into the templates. Tothwolf (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

...and I see you've removed the comment that I added that fixed the problem. Look at mIRC and look at XChat. I'll wait on putting the comment back and removing the extra newline from XChat until after you've looked at these. I'll finish cleaning up the formatting on the other articles in the meantime though. Tothwolf (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge this is by design; adding newlines to the template itself causes whitespace when navboxen are stacked on top of each other. If you'd personally prefer a bigger top margin on {{navbox}} then you could add something to your skin preferences which would tweak that; however, "fixing" this on a case-by-case basis is obviously suboptimal. Let me know if you ahve any questions / suggestions. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

When I tested this case it didn't cause problems for stacked infoboxes. I'm well aware of how templates work and what unintentional whitespace will do to stacked infoboxs. I fixed a number of those last week. In this case, empty comments are stripped, it works around the problem quite nicely. I wish I could claim credit for the idea but I can't. Try it for yourself: {{IRC clients}} {{IRC footer}} Tothwolf (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. This definitely isn't right. At any rate, it needs to be fixed centrally in {{navbox}} rather than once per template. I'll try pinging someone who might be able to help. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So you see how it "fixes" it? There is definitely a problem in a template somewhere. Tons of navboxs use the comment workaround exactly how I did in these. I'll leave comments in the IRC navboxes for now since they fix the problem and don't hurt anything else. When I go to unify the IRC navboxes I'll probably keep a comment at the top of the template for other purposes anyway. Tothwolf (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've pinged the main contributors to the {{navbox}} base logic. While I can't argue that "tons" of navboxen don't use this workaround, it's far more practical to get this fixed centrally. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(←) The reason the comment line seems to fix the problem is simply because it adds an extra white line in addition to the whiteline in the article; and two whitelines force a <P> into the code (while one whiteline is ignored). That is indeed by design and not a bug in navbox. We could put the witheline in navbox itself, but that would potentially break stacking in derivative templates that already have such a comment, either intentional or not.

Ultimately, the best fix would be to add a whiteline in only the top navbox, but there is no way to tell wether a navbox is on top. It could be done in javascript, adding a margin in only the top navbox. But such a change needs consensus in WP:VPT or Mediawiki talk:common.js and I'm not a bog fan of adding javascript for such a trivial problem. — Edokter • Talk • 14:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it better to let templates which have pre-compensated for this by adding their own newlines "break" while fixing the core problem? I imagine the vast majority of navboxen do not currently attempt to work around this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like most navbox templates don't work around it actually. I've been going over some that I thought did and it turned out they were transcluded after other templates used in the External links section in articles. Those other templates must have included one newline, which combined with the newline in the body of the article then forced the <P>. Tothwolf (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to msg.

Thanks for letting me know. It wasn't really important; I just needed to take out some trivial/biased info (which I easily redid).  :) SKS2K6 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick notice

Sorry for editing. Ribeka&Presario —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribeka&Presario (talk • contribs) 17:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you help?

Hi there. I think I've seen your name pop up in AfD's and/or COI discussions. If you have a second can you please give me a hand with an active incident involving multiple Gliese IT SPAs? -- samj _in^out 15:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really sure what I could do. I noticed the photo changes myself last night but wasn't really sure if I could be objective in determining if they were COI/Spam or not. I saw that Gliese IT had been edited by a number of users, including one brand new user, so it didn't seem too unusual that those editors might be trying to link that article into more of the existing articles. It looked like people were actively trying to build a new article (which with the way things seem to work now, is very difficult). I decided I'd see what others did with the photos and if no one changed them back I was thinking about changing the acer one back later this afternoon. The new photo just didn't seem to do as good of a job showing a netbook because of the camera angle. The acer photo shows the keyboard so you can get more of a feel for how small the laptop really is. Tothwolf (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, never mind - I'm dealing with it. Cheers. -- samj _in^out 16:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You were out of line today on Nottingham Forest AfD

My nomination of the article for AfD first of all did not do anything to disrupt Wikipedia, nor was it an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia, nor was it an attempt to prove a point. There was sound rationale for my nomination, as plenty of other editors noted - specifically see JohnCD's reference to precedent. Yes, I have had a negative opinion of Wikipedia, but I blanked my thoughts on that because my opinion , while not completely changed, is changing, and I have continued to make constructive edits, what's more I have demonstrated collaborate spirit even in dissent (see the log for Poe Elementary School, Houston as well as my interaction with Whisper to Me) and have cheerfully accepted and learned from others' comments (see my response to Post Oak on the Nottingham Forest Talk page). Your comment referring me to WP:POINT was not only not relevent, it was uncalled-for, and dredging up an old deleted comment of mine from my own User Page is a biased attempt to discredit me and smacks of wikistalking. I respectfully but firmly request that you edit your comments to make them more neutral. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, because of the incivility issues, I have opened a Civility Complaint at WP:WQA, thanks. Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

SPA

I added the SPA template to his statement because it is a single purpose account. Look at the user contribution as you did mine. If you like to link to edits of mine you want backed up fill free. 16x9 (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw his edit history. That doesn't mean that user is a SPA out to spam wiki. Many users start out editing on one or two articles they feel strongly about before branching out to work on other things. A better question might be do his edits add anything constructive to the article? From what I see, he slowly build the article up. Most spammers don't take the time to do that, they are interested in getting their link out there and that's it. Some might create an elaborate page offline and post it in one go (although normal editors sometimes do this as well). Tothwolf (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I read the template and not make up my own mean. I understnd the template to mean the user has not edited in other topics besides the one being discuss which is in the case. I didn't call him a spammer by including the template. But make what you will by googleing the username and ucoz [1], seems fishy. 16x9 (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Putting quotes around his username to prevent google from matching random words, I get 22 hits, many of them Wikipedia content or sites using wiki feeds. [2] Tothwolf (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference I missed

Which article and reference are you referring too? 16x9 (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

For starters, grab a copy of Blogging for Dummies
by Brad Hill
ISBN 0471770841
It has been out quite awhile so you should be able to find either a remainder or used copy really cheap. That book alone covers a good number of CMS options and they even included a chart on the back cover listing features/benefits of different CMS software. There are other books too, but I know some of the CMS software/platform articles that went though AfD are listed in that book. Tothwolf (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wild claim

You could have sourced this material yourself and I consider the way you treated Meskalyto to be very inappropriate.

Source what material? I have found no reliable sources. How did I treat Meskalyto any in way inappropriately as I have NEVER spoken to him. 16x9 (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Antwort

It's ok, no harm done. Acebulf (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Internet Relay Chat games

My mistake. A tool I used brought up that page since it falls in Category:Online games, and I tagged it too quickly. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mind, I just wasn't sure if it fell within WP:VG's scope. I just created the category the other day so I could categorize a handful of stray articles (but there are probably more of these too). Tothwolf (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: User categories, irssi, mIRC

Replied on my talk page. – ABCD✉ 07:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, already had it watchlisted (I do that when I leave a message). Tothwolf (talk) 07:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Has there been any updates on this situation? I've periodically checked the talk pages of the parties involved to keep up on what's going on. I've also been watching WP:DRV. So, just wanted to check up on this category stuff. Killiondude (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion on Black Falcon's talk page is pretty much where the discussion left off. VegaDark didn't respond to my last comment there and I'm not sure if he will anyway. Right now it seems like people are waiting to see what MZMcBride wants to do. MZMcBride is currently dealing with ARB stuff so he may want to wait until after that is resolved. As long as these had been in a backlog, there probably isn't much of a reason to rush any of it at this point anyway. Tothwolf (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure MZMcBride doesn't wanna deal with it... I've talked to her on IRC about it when you initially contacted me and she doesn't like dealing with these kinds of issues (from what I've gathered). Not to say that she won't, but from what I've gathered I'm not sure she will step into this. I don't know her very well though, and this is the first time I've talk with her. Killiondude (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Her? (chuckle) Well, with the ARB mess that got stirred up, I don't blame him for wanting to try to avoid this can of worms while that's moving forward. He already has enough to deal with at the moment :/

Have you been following the other category DRV that was opened on the 24th? While most of the category stuff is pretty cut and dry, they can occasionally get very controversial. Tothwolf (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Um. I thought MZMcBride was a female based of their IRC nickname as "Marybelle". But once I asked another user, I found that you were right in saying "him". I fail. No, I haven't read other discussion on there about categories. I'll check it out in a few minutes. Killiondude (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, rule #1 of IRC, never attempt to pin down a gender-specific pronoun based solely on the person's nickname ;) Tothwolf (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

1) I've talked to MZMcBride on IRC, and he doesn't plan on reversing his closure (even once his arbcom case ends), so if you are planning a DRV, you may as well do it now. 2) People aren't going to put off depopulating and deleting these categories indefinitely just because there are discussions about a possible DRV, so don't feel blindsided if these categories get deleted if you continue to wait to file one. 3) I'm fully aware of the differences between IRC clients. A category for users to ask for help about different features on a non-wikipedia computer application is an extremely bad idea as non-encyclopedic, and would set horrible precedent to keep other categories. See here for related precedent to delete. VegaDark (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(break)
I assume that this is a follow up to the discussion on Black Falcon's talk page.
1. I've not heard from MZMcBride myself yet. The courteous thing to do would be to let him deal with his ARB situation before opening another can of worms. (The fact that people are using IRC for discussing this specific issue is both ironic and troubling due to the lack of transparency.)
2. The only person who is pushing for these to be "upmerged" is you. Are you then planning to go after Category:Wikipedians who use XChat too? If it comes down to it, there will be a DRV and although you seem to have already concluded it would go in your favor, I'd suggest you step back and take another view of this situation because you aren't looking at the full picture. Note that if it does take a DRV to deal with this, it will make it crystal clear that you are indeed violating WP:POINT.
3. Clearly you are not familiar with the differences in IRC clients or you would not have continued this line of discussion once things were made clear on Black Falcon's talk page. Wikipedia has no precedents and I can see no reason for a precedent from the list you linked to. In fact, I see no IRC client software in that list at all. (Note that Spamcop isn't even software, they provide a DNSBL service.)
Rehash: The Category:Wikipedians who use irssi, Category:Wikipedians who use mIRC (and Category:Wikipedians who use IRC) categories were depopulated and not in use when you originally proposed that they be upmerged/deleted. (Note that right now both categories are smaller than they were due to Userpages already being upmerged into Category:Wikipedians who use IRC.) I've since fixed the userbox templates and added documentation on how to use the categories on the category pages themselves. At the time you proposed they be merged/deleted they were indeed underused and not very helpful. This is no longer the case.
This is getting to the point of WP:STICK and it's using up the free time I normally devote to working on articles...
--Tothwolf (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Enacting a closure pursuant to a valid XfD is most certainly not a WP:POINT violation. And yes, I do plan on nominating the XChat category for deletion eventually. As stated before, the fact the category was less populated had the template been working properly (less populated, not unpopulated - else I would have just deleted the categories as C1) has nothing to do with the rationale provided in the deletion debate. Therefore, no circumstances have changed which would make deletion of the categories improper. I'm going to give you a courtesy heads up right now that I will be performing the merge pursuant to the valid UCFD in 48 hours, unless a DRV on this comes up in which case I will hold off to see how that turns out. Once again, this has nothing to do with WP:POINT - I simply want to see categories I nominated for merging, that was closed as merge, be performed in accordance with standard Wikipedia procedures. VegaDark (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason the categories were populated at all was due to a handful of users who had substituted (subst:) the templates instead of transcluding them (and this is something that still needs to be fixed, actually, and if someone wants to fix this I'd not mind temporarily removing the new category code from the templates). Had you checked that you'd have noticed that for yourself.
Wikipedia is based on consensus. There was never consensus to merge/delete these categories. The UCFD discussion for these categories had two participants, you and one other person. This is not consensus and WP:SILENCE applies here.
What I see in auditing WP:UCFD is you and a handful of others attempting to set a precedent and rid Wikipedia of what you consider to be "useless user categories". Consensus on how to handle most user categories has never been determined, and is not defined in the WP:USERCAT guidelines nor anywhere else. There is even a note to this effect on the USERCAT talk page and WP:UBM. Your actions in this regard are a violation of WP:POINT.
Re your 48 hour threat/deadline, I'll give you a courtesy heads up right now that attempting to pursue this in that manner is a quick ticket to an ARB incident report. The overall issue is much larger than just these two categories and if you are going to make threats the larger issue is going to come to light and a lot more people are unfortunately going to be pulled into this. Do you really want to open that can of worms right now?
--Tothwolf (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The close was correct and will not be overturned (by me, at least). Though, you're free to try Deletion review. Having individual categories for each IRC client makes no sense, a view that the community agrees with as demonstrated by the debate in December. Either move on or file a deletion review. Threats of Arbitration or any similar silliness will not be tolerated. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for following up, I'll move forward with the DRV. I understand your position and I wanted to avoid making any other issues for you right now. I disagree with your view on having these categories, but we can't always agree on everything can we? :)
I made no threats, I have attempted to point out the obvious for VegaDark as there appears to be a lack of objectivity in this and a number of other category deletion nominations/discussions. Tothwolf (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So when exactly were you planning on submitting this DRV? It's been over 3 months since this UCFD was closed, and over 5 days since you agreed to take this to DRV. As mentioned before, there's absolutely no requirement that an XfD closure is put on hold even during a DRV, let alone when someone is merely contemplating filing one. I've given you ample time and notice regarding the enactment of the UCFD closure, and threats of filing an Arbcom incident report against me if I do so aside, This will be the final notice I give you, which has already been much, much more that is required or expected of someone, and I am 100% confident that any such complaint would find me 0% at fault for any wrongdoing. Therefore, I will give you a full week since you originally agreed to bring this to DRV- about a day and a half from now- before I start perfroming the merge in accordance with the closure, if a DRV is not listed by that time (I'll also note at this time that it was innappropriate of you to remove the cfd tags at the top of each category in question). I hope to see one filed before then as to avoid having to repopulate the categories in the unlikely case the closure is overturned, but if not, so be it. VegaDark (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: your threats [3] [4], I've done nothing wrong. If you feel you need to bring something to AN/I or Arbcom, I certainly can't stop you. I'll note that Arbcom is supposed to be the last step of dispute resolution so I (and I imagine others as well) would find filing any sort of Arbcom complaint highly inappropriate. VegaDark (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh I assure you that is in no way a "threat". You do not have consensus for those changes and continuing to assert that you do when you in fact don't doesn't change the fact that you don't. Do you want to invite the ~450 editors who chose to use these templates/categories into the discussion? That would absolutely guarantee consensus. Tothwolf (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

To save others from having to dig (and because of your complaining elsewhere), here is a direct link to the UCFD discussion in question.
One "!vote" and one drive-by "per-nom" vote from an RFA hopeful does not make for "consensus" and re your earlier argument [5] on Dank55's talk page, if you are using UCFD in that manner then you are treating it as an extension of WP:CSD and that is also improper as that is in no way getting true consensus.
--Tothwolf (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are arguments to be making at DRV. I've encouraged you time and time again to file one. VegaDark (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You and I both know DRV isn't the place for this discussion. It won't get enough traffic to get a real consensus. I have no doubt you would like for it to go to DRV for that very reason. Do you want to go the WP:RFC route and do a poll? Tothwolf (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you don't want to use proper Wikipedia procedures to contest the closure since it is very unlikely to be overturned (since, there was in fact nothing wrong with the closure, either procedurally or substantively. You simply didn't like the result). It sounds like you take issue with the very process of DRV. Can't help you there. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't have a problem with DRV, but the way you are trying to force your way even though you know you don't have consensus has left me no choice but to bring someone else into this. Just FYI, you just violated the GFDL in deleting those two categories vs installing the redirect template. Check the edit histories for yourself. Tothwolf (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean someone other than ABCD, Black Falcon, Killiondude, MBisanz, DGG, David Eppstein, Dank55, and myself? Are you going to keep going from person to person until you find someone who agrees with you? VegaDark (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(FYI, one of your links is broken)
No, I think its time we move to formal mediation because informal has long since failed. As for your links above, some of those discussions did not initially involve you until you decided to involve yourself. There is nothing wrong in talking to someone you trust, which is something I've often done with MBisanz and DGG in the past. I also knew from past experience both David Eppstein and Dank55 would be impartial give a straight answer. I don't think you realize I was about to move forward in taking this to ARB before I spoke to David Eppstein. Btw, I don't take kindly to wikistalking. I don't follow you around posting wherever you post and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop. Tothwolf (talk) 05:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw this and thought I would give my opinion. I think you should either go to DRV with this one or drop it. DRV is the process designed to review CFD closures and none of the alternatives you have suggested seem appropriate. Just a friendly note, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That is likely to be the next step and I've got a draft of a DRV that I've been working on. I'm not sure if you went though the tangled mess of discussion that happened elsewhere but there is much more to this issue than just what was discussed on this talk page. I doubt the larger issue will end with just the DRV for these two categories but for now that will likely be the next step. Tothwolf (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Prosystem help thanks

Thank you for your help with the Prosystem. Jack of All Trades ~Wolf~ (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Books-box

Template:Wikipedia-Books Hey, this is my favorite new box! Don't forget to add these new templates to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books#Templates :-) RichardF (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Love Books? Use {{Wikipedia-Books}}

Replied at User talk:RichardF#Templates for Wikipedia-Books linking
--Tothwolf (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Links on Internet Relay Chat Services-Article

I answered on my talk page. Thanks for your initial notice on that issue! Yarcanox (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Layout

OK, you're right. I found another way to prevent for extra lines. thx for that link. mabdul 17:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Mabdul#Article layout
--Tothwolf (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Abuse Filter (YouTube)

Hi,

It is likely we are going to do a test run for 2 weeks with the following parameters. (to gather stats and an overall feel of wether this wouls work in general)
Sites: Youtube
Actions: Warn, tag
User Group: Non-Autoconfirmed (New and anonymous users)

We will be removing youtube from the XLinkbot revert list for the duration of the test. If I recall your main quam with a filter was it applying to regulers users, I hope this addresses your concerns. Cheers   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have the relevant pages and discussions on my watchlist and have been keeping up with this from the very beginning.
My original concern was your proposal that links to The Pirate Bay were a problem due to the The Pirate Bay trial and needed some sort of filtering/warning. The regular expression for filter 155 still has not been changed to remove those either. I've mentioned to you a number of times that I won't make a judgement on whether or not Youtube links are a problem as I've simply not had to deal with them too much yet. What I said is if they are being blindly reverted by the bot for all non-autoconfirmed users, then that is a potential problem, particularly if that has not been previously decided on via a consensus means, such as an RFC. Tothwolf (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Rizon

I have blocked the IP that removed the material for a longer period, next time they will get a much longer block. As it is only this one IP this time I am reluctant to semi protect it until and unless that situation changes. I will watch it also and let me know if other IPs start the same pattern of vandalism. Mfield (Oi!) 16:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Mfield#Rizon
--Tothwolf (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

About ithildin

You stated at multiple points that ithildin would be still commonly in use. I got interested in that ircd and googled a bit for it and wasn't able to find any other page about it than ithildin.org itself, which seems down. I searched a bit more and came across one server name of darkmyst.org which contained "ithildin", connected and noticed it runs an ithildin server. So this is at least one place where it is still used, but still I think that the net doesn't have any valuable information about this ircd, especially as there is virtually no other site talking about it and the main page down, makes it hard to list it on wikipedia as there are no real sources. I am just attempting to talk to those darkmyst people to find a bit more of the whereabouts of this ircd (Update while writing this text: at least there still seem to be some developers around. I'll ask them if the page will ever be back online). Yarcanox (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: I just managed to talk to one of the people involved into it. He assured me it's still maintained and noticed the web page being down (and is probably going to fix it now). So it seems to be pretty clearly still actively developed. Yarcanox (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

For whatever reason their web server seems to be somewhat intermittent. Sometimes it works, sometimes it is down. There is also no reason or "rule" where older or unmaintained software should be excluded from Wikipedia, particularly a comparison list article about the different types of IRC server software. Tothwolf (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This was also never my point (to get it removed). I was just curious if it should be treated as deprecated or not (as some users claimed this) :-) Yarcanox (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't see a reason to treat it any differently. I try to give them all equal weight but it has been tough sorting it all out. Tothwolf (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

An article you contributed to maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you

This may help you:

Finding sources which mention the topic of this article is the very best way to avoid an article being deleted {{Findsources3}}:

Find sources for Nuvola: google news recent, google news old, google books, google scholar, NYT recent, NYT old, a9, msbooks, msacademic ...You can then cite these results in the Article for deletion discussion.

Also, there are several tools and helpful editors on Wikipedia who can help you:

1. List the page on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.

2. At any time, you can ask any administrator to move your article to a special page. (Called userfication)

3. You can request a mentor to help you: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.

4. When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. These acronyms don't need to intimidate you. Here is a list of acronyms you can use yourself: Deletion debate acronyms, which will help you argue that the article should be kept.

If the page you edited is deleted, you also have many options available. Good luck! Ikip (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron invitation

Hello, Tothwolf. You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. Ikip (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

moved from user ikip:

Thanks for the greeting I was already familiar with ARS, I just tend to work on stuff as it crosses my path and I'm able to spend the time on it. Right now I've got a ton of stuff on my plate though. Tothwolf (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

your welcome. thanks for your work on the novula article Ikip (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Mibbit

On May 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mibbit, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

File_talk:H1N1_map.svg

Thanks for resolving the situation at File_talk:H1N1_map.svg. I'd issue you a cookie or a barnstar, except I've never looked into how to do that, so I don't know how. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, it looked like quite a mess there with half of the archive process reverted by Cluebot. Tothwolf (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent template edits

Per your recent edit[6], there is no need to perform this change, as {{Web-RFC}} redirects (and never did anything else) to {{rfcurl}}. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 20:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There's also no point in changing bare RFC links to the template, as this even increases the server load for no additional benefit. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 07:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually it does not increase the "server load" to use a template vs the 'RFC xxxx' built-in. It actually might be slightly more efficient because of how the MediaWiki parser works but I'd have to go look at the current version of the MediaWiki code to be certain. Once the page is stored, it doesn't matter anyway because the parsed version is cached. I suggest you read both Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles as both seem to be applicable here. Tothwolf (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with you performing the changes, just pointing out you may well be wasting your time on edits that have no obvious beneficial effect. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 14:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame Award

Congratulations! Notice the little rescue floats at the top of this page now? Ikip (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd been meaning to look into setting up those templates, thanks. I may move them to a user template with a few other things I've been meaning to add to my talk page. Tothwolf (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Cluebat

You never had a true clue-bat did you? Certainly not one of the flying mammal kind. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Mine is more of the Lart variety and someone seems to have borrowed it and failed to return it. Tothwolf (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hee hee. Wasn't me or the otters. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For successful launching what appeared to be a snowball argument that saved the {{R from other capitalisation}} template, I hereby award you this barnstar. Your arguments were both impressive and persuasive. Well done! ThaddeusB (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't sure if it could be turned around after the original TfD but once all the facts were out in the open it seemed to clear up much of the confusion. Tothwolf (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your hard work on the IRC articles that I nominated for deletion, Ten Pound Hammer, his otters, and his clue-bat offer you the Editor's Barnstar. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Most of these articles still have a long way to go. I'm looking forward to rewriting and expanding many of them. Tothwolf (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Bobstar

For your valiant efforts which resulted in the rescue of the alt.binaries.slack article from deletion, the denizens of the newsgroup alt.slack hereby award you this Bobstar: Bobstar Flair (Original Bobstar) I'd upload the image directly to Wikipedia, but it would probably be deleted as a personal image and because of lack of usefulness to Wikipedia itself. Praise "Bob!" --Modemac (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm starting to wonder if it might actually be a good idea to expand the article to cover all of the alt.slack newsgroups. Tothwolf (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppetry and conflict of interest

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sockpuppetry case You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tothwolf for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Conflict of interest It's been suggested that you may have a conflict of interest regarding Eggdrop. Please read the applicable guideline, WP:COI. Editing articles about topics which you are closely connected with is strongly discouraged, mostly because it is difficult to remain impartial and to edit in a neutral manner.   Will Beback  talk  21:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks, I'm very much familiar with WP:COI. You need to be aware of the fact that User:Theserialcomma‎ is harassing and stalking me both on and off wiki right now and has just opened a bogus SPI against myself and another member of WP:WPIRC. They also left a bogus COI template on my talk page yesterday as well. User:Theserialcomma‎ is quite angry for my calling them out on their bad nominations at AfD and has begun stalking my contribs from User:X!'s toolserver contrib graphs. This is probably worthy of AN/I at this point and a number of people suggested starting an AN/I thread yesterday when User:Theserialcomma‎ began stalking my edits but I had hoped to avoid additional drama. If you feel I may have done any edits that are not NPOV on anything on Wikipedia please let me know so I can correct them. Thanks! (I've watchlisted your talk page so you can follow up here, it might be better to keep the discussion thread together.) --Tothwolf (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your reply. If th4re is aharassment then that should also be dealt with. However I don't see where you address the issue of COI. So let me ask you directly: are you connected in any way to Eggdrop?   Will Beback  talk  22:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC) As I've said, if you or any other editors feel I've made any edits anywhere that are not WP:NPOV, please let me know. Tothwolf (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC) You have refused to answer the question of whterh you have conflict of interest regarding Eggdrop. In light of that I presume that you do. You are negaged in edit warring over dubious sources, which is itself a problem. Please follow the guideline at WP:COI, which calls upon you to avoid making edits directly to the article. Instead, bring your concerns about the article text to the talk page and ask other editors to make the changes. If you continue to act disruprively in regard to that article you may have your editing privileges limited.   Will Beback  talk  22:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Please start an AN/I thread for me. I'm sick and tired of the trolling and abuse from User:Theserialcomma‎ and this isn't helping. I absolutely have not edit warred with this person, please see [7] and Talk:Eggdrop. You should note that several other admins are very much aware of this situation. I will be happy to provide additional diffs but please stop posting replies to this thread to my talk page and keep the discussion thread here intact. Tothwolf (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure why you keep moving this to my talk page since it concerns you, not me. I've moved it back here so that the discussion can be kept intact, as you wish. If there are concerned people who are watching your talk page then it'd be helpful for them to see this too. But you haven't denied having a COI, which is apparent with a mere Google search, and you haven't explained why WP:COI doesn't apply in this situation. There is a posting at the relevant noticeboard: WP:COIN#WP:Outing hypothetical question. Please respond there.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC) I didn't "keep moving" anything. Each time you replied I moved your reply back to the full thread as you tend to split up discussions across two talk pages. As I've said on COI/N and above, I'm very much aware that I have to maintain a neutral point of view when working on articles. If you find someplace where I've grossly misrepresented something in an article then let me know, otherwise this is a non-issue. Tothwolf (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Usenet flood

 Erledigt at User:Tothwolf/Usenet flood. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks! Tothwolf (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it better to restore and move so that the edit history is preserved? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, never considered that... I've always just cut and pasted the deleted content, and provided a copy of the deleted history when necessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't even checked the edit history until now. Could you restore the history so it'll be intact once I complete the rewrite? I still wish those who participated in this particular AfD had just added sources and expanded it since even Google books turns up a ton of material. Tothwolf (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

 Erledigt -Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Cache

Hey Tothwolf. Thanks for your message. I wouldn't worry , 1,100 is nothing to the job queue. Rich Farmbrough, 20:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC).

Replied at User talk:Rich Farmbrough#Infobox Software Tothwolf (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:MIRCStats_sample_screenshot.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:MIRCStats_sample_screenshot.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

File:MIRCStats-logo.png

I have tagged File:MIRCStats-logo.png as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. Otherwise, it will be deleted in seven days. Melesse (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI

I have opened this discussion regarding your conduct. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

*-lines confusion in IRCd article

I started some discussion on the current organization of the configuration information (jupes, *-lines) on the IRCd article. Would be nice if you added a small statement what you think about it (or if a cleanup as I stated there is advisable at all but I don't think that's really the question). Yarcanox (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:IRCd#Very strange organization regarding the *-lines - what to do? --Tothwolf (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of IRC clients

WHy did you remove the cliets tha are covered in the comparison of im clients? that doesn't mak sense! This comparison only tests if it has spartian support or not! and why do not put in this comarison? only because they are able to handle other protocols? shouldn't we remove opera also (I mean it is able to handle the hypertext transfer protocol!) mabdul 13:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Because we can better cover those in the IM client comparison article. I'm about to add a bunch of missing table rows for other IRC clients, then reformat the tables, then then greatly expand them. The size of the article is going to roughly double and covering all IM clients (which we were only covering about 4 out of maybe 16-18 that support the IRC protocol) would be unworkable. Browser-addons and plugins I don't see a problem with, they don't have their own comparison article and tend to be limited strictly to IRC so aren't really a "multi-im" client anyway. Do you have the WikiProject's talk page on your watchlist? We've got a ton of work to do ;) --Tothwolf (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I did the best I could to incorporate your two edits into my own, sorry if I messed anything up. -Pyro3d (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Your editor (browser?) seems to have added a blank line between every line in the article. I can strip those out without too much trouble and merge any changes though. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

DMDirc

I just came across the article of this client (which I already watched a bit longer) and noticed some people voted for a deletion but finally there was no consensus. Does that mean the article might now aswell be put back as stand-alone article and expanded? Or what exactly is now following after it just being turned into a link to the comparison page?

I personally think that the client is notable because it is already more complex and better evolved than some of the well-known ones, e.g. XChat, and as it has already mentioned on nearly all important IRC news sites it's just a matter of time until it really gets popular (and it's IMHO anything but not notable). But does it make sense to attempt to work on that article again if there's no consensus whether to keep it or not? 87.176.250.242 (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

- I obviously forgot to login when posting this question. Yarcanox (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is notable too, the problem is that it is borderline when going by a strict interpretation of the notability guideline so right now it might very well end up at AfD again if it were unredirected. I had planned to merge it into the larger article that will cover all these clients and when we can find enough references we can split it back out into its own article (which I imagine won't be too long if it remains popular). Have you been following the WikiProject's to do list and talk page? Things are about to get very busy. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Confabulation (neural networks)

Re. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confabulation (neural networks)

In light of all the " has made few or no other edits" stuff at the top, which I think was added after you voted, can you check back on that one? Smells like socks to me.

Of course, I respect your opinion, but I'm not convinced that the term is more than generic words without specific context.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  17:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I followed up with the person who added that, which happened shortly before I decided to comment (see their talk page). I really don't think those templates were warranted in the case of this AfD and if they are all socks, they are having one heck of a time debating each other on the notability of the topic on the article's talk page... --Tothwolf (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Those 4 users have only contributed to either the AfD, the talk, or a couple of added refs on the article - and nothing else. I really cannot be bothered to sort out who is a sock or meatpuppet of whom; more important is, there is absolutely nothing to assert notability - per the review of the references now added by Rankiri at the bottom.  Chzz  ►  18:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. Other than the one AfD participant who hasn't done anything on the article, I don't see evidence of sockpuppets. As for meatpuppets, none of them seem to have really done any "!voting" in the AfD, mainly it has amounted to lots of discussion (and heated disagreement) on the AfD and article's talk page. To be honest, I'm not surprised at the turnout of editors for a topic of this type. My issue here is there is no reason for deletion if the article can be improved via normal editing (ie WP:BEFORE) and that has been taking place. As for Rankiri's review, it has already been pointed out by someone else how he managed to miss a bunch of stuff so there is no reason for me to repeat it here. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Shell account third opinion

If you feel that the third opinion I added to talk:Shell account was based on an incorrect request, I suggest that you raise another with the issue expressed the way you prefer. Alternatively, you may find the wp:RFC process a helpful way of gaining a consensus if the wp:3O process has failed your needs. Cheers, Teahot (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't yet made it over to your talk page yet but that was something I was considering. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Linux

You might want to look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Linux#Constant_removal_of_Linux_on_Windows_image —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.119.148 (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I watch the talk page but I hadn't checked it yet today. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith

Your comments on Talk:Linux imply that myself and another editor are not editing in good faith. Please assume good faith. The fact that I choose to edit some low-hanging fruit in other articles, something which improves Wikipedia, is entirely unrelated to the issue being discussed. Using good faith edits to imply that I am editing in bad faith on the Linux article verges on personal attack. Please restrict your comments to the content being discussed rather than bring up red herrings about other editor's editing patterns. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

My comments there are valid observations and I left a rather lengthy comment regarding the issue being discussed. I call it as a I see it and I explicitly stated there that due to the edit patterns I'm seeing, I can no longer assume good faith in the case of those edits. In keeping with the spirit of WP:OWB, when an editor protests loudly (as you are now doing) and exclaims "WP:AGF" and "WP:NPA" when all I've done is state the obvious, it makes it quite clear that I was spot on in my calling of WP:DUCK. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You are implying something is wrong with my editing. Please specify exactly what. Yworo (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Right. Well I interpret your silence as meaning, "There is absolutely nothing wrong with your editing. Your edits violate no policies or guidelines and as far as I can see actually improve the articles you are editing. I don't understand people who primarily Wikignome because that's not my own personal style. I don't like what I don't understand and I was having a bad day yesterday so I generalized from something I don't like and leapt to an unfounded conclusion. I'd apologize but I'm simply too proud to admit I might have been wrong to accuse another editor of being up to no good on absolutely no evidence." Cheer. Yworo (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be making large numbers of automated or semi-automated edits from a non-bot account. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Bot policy and see if this applies. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You're leaping to unfounded conclusions again: all my edits are done manually. And now I think I'm done with you, I don't like your attitude. Yworo (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Images

The licensing updates you have made are incorrect. The screenshot includes Windows and is not free. You MUST use the correct non-free license. Yworo (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No, they are indeed correct and I'm very familiar with these templates. Go do some research for yourself on commons --Tothwolf (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I read it an I disagree. The usage is to show something running on Windows. Since it's the topic of the usage, it's not de minimus. That only applies to thing that happen to be in the image incidentally but aren't part of the topic the image is being used for. In other words, I believe you are just plain wrong about it. Yworo (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Then take it up on a noticeboard, stop trying to have these images deleted. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Yworo (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You are hereby disinvited from participating in discussions on this talk page. Anything further you can take to an article talk page or a noticeboard. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Take it there yourself. I stopped taking you seriously when you started quacking like a duck. Yworo (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:DUCK --Tothwolf (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Why a Duck? Yworo (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Because I call em as I see em. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixing redirects

Thanks for your note on this guideline. - Ahunt (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the WP:R2D guideline, why doesn't someone update the article names so that they would be the names commonly used, as in the WP:COMMONNAME policy, so there wouldn't have to be so many piped links?

List of films in the public domain in the United States

Are you sure we need to put the information in a wikitable for this list article? What else is needed for the article? JEN9841 (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, a table might be good, but it would be an enormous amount of work. After I finish up these citations I am going to want to take a break from this article for a while (as I am in the process of adding hundreds of citations). Perhaps we could open something up in namespace and recruit people to work on it. I think, once we do the table, we should be able to move that article back to List of films in the public domain and include in the table a section for the country/countries in which it is in the public domain.JEN9841 (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It was something I mentioned early on and I can see from the talk page now that a number of others have played with the same idea. I had considered including the production date/year, country where the film was produced, the producer's name, and maybe the current copyright holder's name (if not the producer). Doing a rough conversion to a table format won't be that difficult and I suspect it would take me roughly one evening to do, but filling in all the details will take some work. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symfony

Hi Tothwolf (is there a Farcas somewhere in your name?).

Your edit summary for this edit to the above-captioned page suggests that my nomination or commentary on it was not based on policy or guideline. While you may not agree with my interpretation of the relevant guidelines, the suggestion that my nomination or comments were contrary to WP:JNN is off the mark and I take offense. I'd ask you to reactor your remark, but it's impossible to do so for edit summaries. A note at the AfD discussion would seem appropriate.

^Bongo_matic 03:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.

I don't think it was off the mark at all and I've made sure to clarify my point there. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Disk operating system

Per this edit summary, I'm unsure if you know what "original research" refers to. You may want to have a look at WP:OR. I'd also point out that the link you gave is an essay and is therefore not binding; at the same time, it's the responsibility of the editor wishing to restore material to provide sources for it. If it's very important for you to keep this article, I suggest you get to sourcing it. It looks to me to be a made up concept, which isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. I'll start another redirect discussion in a few days if it remains unsourced. That's the exact reason it was redirected the first time. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I assure you I'm quite familiar with WP:OR and as such I do not see how it would apply to this article at all. There was no past "redirect discussion" for this article; you simply hijacked the article and turned it into a redirect. I can't tell yet whether your redirection of this article was just case of FUTON bias, WP:IDONTKNOWIT, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:RUBBISH, or even willful violation of WP:NPOV, but we most certain do need an article that gives an overview of Disk operating systems for platforms other than just PC/MS-DOS. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback from Thinking of England

{{Talkback|Thinking of England|Re: your recent edits}}

WikiProject Java and Portal

Great, thanks for your support, let's rock this boat man; if you've got some other TechnoWikiGeeks, point them to the secret page... --Alainr345 (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tothwolf (whatever that means...) Now that we are more than 5 supporters, I gather from the Wikipedia guidelines that we CAN proceed with the groundwork, for releasing the project and portal in the open soon. To that effect, I would appreciate it very much if you could copy your name in the List of participants page. We're missing one name there, and even if you don't fully get involved after that, you will have the great honor of being a founding member with all the bells&whistles (whatever THAT means...) Thanks,

 A l a i n  R 3 4 5
 ^{Techno-Wiki-Geek} 20:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sure the team at WikiProject_Java appreciates your recent work tagging the Portal and Project pages correctly (if you could register yourself as a team member that would be even better). On the other end, I'm not sure I like entirely the mods you did on the project Template (especially |class={{{class|}}}) and the J2EE talk page. There is an ongoing discussion here as to how the Java project should handle tagging. I don't really see the point of the project having its own Quality ratings; it could as well use (and set when applicable) the ones from project Computing. The important point is to be able to generate specific Quality-class categories so that we get the appropriate Quality by Importance stats matrix for Java articles. I modified the example test at J2EE talk page but I'm not sure that works either until the WP1.0 bot updates. I appreciate that you seem to know these matters technically better than most, but technique is not the only issue here...
--  Alain  R 3 4 5 
^{Techno-Wiki-Geek} 03:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI

I started a report at ANI. Joe Chill (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: popcon numbers

The Debian popcon link tells you that there are over 2k installations, of which ~600 actually used; the Ubuntu popcon link (they don't have the pretty verson, just the big overall table) tells you that there are over 10k installations, of which ~380 actually used.

Because popcon submissions are opt-in, this is really only indicative in relative terms, for example, it can tell you something about the population of people submitting their popcon results. In this example leafpad is less often used than joe, but also less often used than more similar programs such as gedit or mousepad. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks! I knew they were opt-in but I wasn't sure how to interpret them. That is certainly telling with regards to gedit. I could tell just from a Google search that Leafpad was fairly popular compared to some editors but I had no idea it surpassed gedit in terms of users. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was looking at the wrong column, I guess gedit is more popular in terms of actual users. Now Mousepad is somewhat interesting since it is technically a derivative/fork of Leafpad. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Z-Net

Since you relied on my arguemnt to some extent, be aware that I changed my !vote. -- see my explanation there. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Joe Chill

Hey Tothwolf, I just came across your Leafpad conversation with Joe Chill, and I am happy to see you two guys were able to resolve your differences. At first I also was a bit frustrated with his AfD nominations, but then I realized it's his implicit (or inverse?) inclusionist stance meaning that by nominating a software article to an AfD he prompts attention from people like you, Joy, me, and others to improve the articles, sometimes significantly such that they are kept as a result. In fact in most software AfDs I managed to observe, which Joe Chill nominated, resulted in keeping (or no consensus keeping) of the article. You can also call his nominations a "lazy call to arms" to make article improvements to stale articles. Perhaps a view Joe may not agree with of himself, but it certainly helped me maintaining good faith there. :) Joe also does !vote keep, etc. on other subjects and articles and their AfD. Anyways, good job at resolving it; we don't need more drama here that's for sure :) Assuming good faith, Miami33139 and JBsupreme perhaps can be addressed in a similar way, or just DGAF (a sanity-keeping "policy" :)) to their AfD comments should they become out of bounds. --Mokhov (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is actually a lot more to it than that. You may want to have a look at the WP:AN/I discussion. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I skimmed through it; I hope that drama resolves sooner than later. It's amazing how much effort goes into those discussions -- if it were all redirected to the constructive Wikipedia content building, Wikipedia would be so much better and precious. I think a half of the content the database server carry are those ANI, ArbCom discussions, and the like. The other half are the articles. Anyways, 'nogh philosophy. I hope you can get back to normal editing soon. --Mokhov (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net

Since you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination), which was closed as "no consensus", you may be interested in a subsequent DRV. Since I disagreed with the close, I contacted the closing admin, who responded, "To be honest, Cunard, I would tend to agree with you, but I am not sure if the balance of things heads to delete rather than no consensus. Listing it at DRV might be a good option here; I won't endorse or oppose the close and will allow the DRV community to decide it. Therefore, I have listed this article at DRV; if you would like to participate, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I've commented there. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of PsyBNC

Do you think PsyBNC is not notable? Probably not - still it got deleted. Is there anything we can do about it/should we do anything about it?

I mentioned some print sources here User_talk:Sandstein#Deletion_and_Notability_of_PsyBNC but it doesn't seem to convince the deleting administrator. Does it convince you? I'm too new to wikipedia to judge if this is truly not enough to make an article notable, but if you ask me, PsyBNC seems fairly popular :-/

I am not sure what do to now, so I'm asking for your advice. Yarcanox (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am sorry to interject, but PsyBNC was userfied here by the closing admin, and you can help Hm2k and others to revise it before it is moved back to the main space. Go to it and improve it; it's not like it's really fully dead. --Mokhov (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I know, but I am not sure what is there to improve - the article seems well-sourced to me. And content-wise it's hard to add stuff when you're not really familiar with the product yourself (e.g. through long-term use or development contributions so you know a bit of the technical internals). I feel a bit like the decision to delete this was wrong, but simply want to know what Tothwolf thinks of it. Yarcanox (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: There *are* some sources I might put in. But I'm wondering if it should have been deleted even in the state its currently in (and if those few book references make such a huge difference as those two already being there seem fine). Yarcanox (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I do believe it is notable and I doubt there are many who use IRC who haven't at least heard of it. The original bnc may be more notable since it was the first of these programs [8] although it would appear the website is no longer online. Even Google books (which only indexes a fraction of the computer and networking books out there) has quite a bit of coverage of psyBNC. [9]
It seems like it would be a very good idea to also expand BNC (software) as the general concept of a network connection "bouncer" is without a doubt notable. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] Even if we can't cover each software program comprehensively in its own article, we can always have a Comparison of Internet Relay Chat bouncers to detail the features and functionality of these programs where we can merge and redirect these individual articles.
The truth of the matter is, all those AfD nominations were done in retaliation because I tried to call community attention to the nom's behaviour. Some of those, such as the client stub articles, in the past I've just redirected if they were prodded as there is little to be gained from keeping them as stubs with nothing but a list of features. The nom did not like that it was possible to do this and decided to AfD them instead to make that more difficult. For those of you who have not seen it, check the RFD that is linked from the AN/I discussion as it is quite telling. A lot of people have contacted me via email, IM, etc, since I started that AN/I discussion and while I really appreciated the support and encouragement for bringing all that stuff forward, I'm still disappointed in the community for not speaking up more on-wiki because as of right now the issues brought up in the AN/I discussion are largely still unresolved.
--Tothwolf (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Since this should be publicly noted somewhere, I figured out why the RFD did not show up in article alerts. The nom intentionally subst: the {{rfd}} template even though the template explicitly says not to. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Anything we can do to stop this nonsense? are admins notified already? or do they think it's not worth interventing? Yarcanox (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I can tell you with absolute certainty that a large number of admins are aware of what has transpired (some to the point of being slightly annoyed with me due to the size of that AN/I discussion...) but I honestly do not know what will happen next. Right now I'm just trying to work with others to figure out how best to clean up the mess they made with all these AfDs. I doubt the cleanup task will stop with the small number of IRC articles as I uncovered quite a pattern of prod/AfD abuse with one of the involved editors. At least we had the article alerts bot set up and had the IRC-related articles tagged and tracked, otherwise those would have been much more difficult to keep up with... Even with the bot, it still kept me quite busy documenting the whole thing. Those editors who were directly involved in this mess all monitor my talk page and they know quite well by now that this time their actions did not go unnoticed by the community. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply at Coffee's talkpage

{{tb|Coffee}} --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

AFD

It closed as keep. I always revisit discussions. Joe Chill (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that. What I mentioned on your talk page is this is a case where software is covered well in a book, but that book is not one of the relatively small number of books that have been indexed by Google books. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

From user talk:ikip

An edit of yours popped up 'Article alerts' on my watchlist and I saw you had this [20] on your user page. I'm currently making use of several of these and if you need a hand with one, don't hesitate to ping me. If ARS had a talk page banner it too could also make use of the article alerts system as well as the WP:1.0 statistics. WP:AFC has been making use of this for quite some time so I don't see why ARS couldn't do the same. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, please pursue it, I have several huge, time consuming projects I am working on right now. Keep in touch. Ikip (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation templates

{{Tb|Debresser#Citation_templates}}

I am sorry that you have misunderstood my words, and I apologize for not choosing them more wisely

But this edit is not appropriate. Please remember to wp:assume good faith. I have long ago read and understood wp:no personal attacks. I would encourage you to do so, and read your talk page posting with it in mind.

Please let me assure you, as I already stated:

• as I have already stated: I made no insinuation.
• I made no assumption about what you would or would not see.

I believe you should redact your remark at the article talk page.- Sinneed 01:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

DAS-P2P and non-English sources

Hello Tothwolf, you removed a prod from DAS-P2P with the comment "Seems quite notable to me, try searching for "DAS-P2P". Sources are not required to be in English only." What are those non-English sources to which you are referring? And why didn't you add any of those sources to the article? (Googling for "DAS-P2P" has numerous hits on German pages, as it matches phrases like "das P2P-Prinzip" or "das P2P-Überwachungsnetz", but these have nothing to do with the DAS-P2P conference. "Das" in German is just a definite article, like "the" in English.) — Miym (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that and specifically excluded German results in some of my searches. I did however find some relevant material in Japanese and Finnish. You might also try searching in combination with IETF as there is some relation there. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I took it to AfD to get more discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Workshop on Dependable and Sustainable Peer-to-Peer Systems. — Miym (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. From what I've been reading this conference is well attended by the major players in the communications industry, some of which could be due to all the controversy over peer-to-peer file sharing and the various methods by which different communications companies have attempted to regulate it. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI note

Hi, Tothwolf, there is a thread ehere you have been mentioned hre at ANI, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Just looks like more of the same garbage from the same old troll. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration requested

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

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Jehochman ^Talk 14:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Link

In reply to your request on my talkpage to provide the link to the discussion on Amalthea's talkpage about {{Citation}}: User_talk:Amalthea#Contribution. Debresser (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have a look over that shortly. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, you have a category on this talkpage that has been deleted and revived as Category:Wikipedians working to improve CfD. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_10#Category:Wikipedians_working_to_improve_CfD. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm aware of it and plan to comment there. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

{{Tb|Debresser#Citation_templates}}

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for psyBNC

An editor has asked for a deletion review of psyBNC. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Hm2k (talk) 11:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

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

please explain your attempted outing

please explain your comments to me where you stated "Btw, Theserialcomma, how's Elvis this time of year? Any good shows?" what is this supposed to mean? i have never edited an elvis-related article, and i don't see any elvis-'theserialcomma' links in google, so i can only speculate that you are alluding to some sort of private and erroneous information that you've attained off wiki about my real identity or location. please explain what you meant or intended by those comments, otherwise i will be submitting your comments as evidence to ArbCom as a threat and an attempted outing. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

ROFL. I'm not sure how you could construe a joke (Elvis Presley phenomenon) as outing. Have you actually met Elvis? Seriously though, please do stop the trolling, as amusing as it can be at times, it is getting quite old, thanks. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

last try. do you wish to explain exactly what you meant or intended by your comments, or are more interested in drama-mongering via a further inflated arbcom report? you should probably just explain exactly what you meant so we can be done with this, since if it were a misunderstanding, i'd drop it. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)