User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 14

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Pigsonthewing's editing privileges are suspended for one year. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 18:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with the decision, you've been blocked for a year by Cbrown1023. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How utterly, depressingly predictable; and how utterly disgraceful. I have nothing but base contempt for this charade; for the mendacious promulgators of the palpably dishonest smears made against me; and for the clueless overseers who lack the wit or willingness to see through them. I see that no attempt as been made to remedy the ownership of the Composer and Opera projects, which pretends that there is a consensus against the use of infoboxes, when the opposite is provably true. And I note that Leonig Mig (talk · contribs), who called me a cunt, and a prick, and admitted stalking me, is still free to edit and abuse me unhindered. No wonder I say that I'm entirely justified in concluding that he exhibits no good faith. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just back from a week in Cornwall; still grimy, smelling of salt & hung over from a long drive. But I wondered, a few minutes ago, when your sentence was up, and verily, here you are back. Welcome. 'Scuse me whilst I upload some pretty helicopter shots. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back—MJCdetroit ^(yak) 00:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back Andy. Adambro (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. -- The Anome (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a welcome back from me too. Great to see you back. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  14:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed you tried adding classes to a few of the data lines in {{Infobox Secondary school}}. For this purpose you can use "class10 = ", "class11 = " rather than spans. This should work properly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm not sure how that would work for the first one I tried, class="fn org". Please fell free to implement that change, so I can see how you did it. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 23:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at this. Can you confirm if you're getting the expected results? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - and I can see what you've done, so will be able to use the same technique elsewhere. Very helpful, Thank you! Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 25 August 2008

I added a few ParserFunctions in {{end date}}: if the hour parameter is set, it'll create an ISO 8601 date-and-time; if it is not, it'll be created as an ISO 8601 date one day in the future (a bit of a cheat, but still). Check out ...Baby One More Time and the calendar file it creates. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate your contribution, but the problem with that is, without CSS, the text is presented as 8 March 1999 (1999-03-09); which makes no sense. The "exclusive-end-date" requirement in hCalendar is a mess. Even experienced microformat developers use it wrongly, on the microformat wiki! I called some time ago (issue dated 20 January 2007) for publishers to be able to mark up an inclusive end date, with parsers instructed to convert it to an exclusive date when exporting it to iCalendar or other relevant applications, but so far the cabal which runs microformats has shown no interest in dealing with the problem. Toby Inkster, though, in his Cognition parser, does, I believe, allow inclusive-end-date mark-up (though I can't find that documented - I'll drop him a line). Also, the second publication date on ...Baby One More Time is not really an "end date". Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I realised that as soon as I saved. Until it is used inclusively, we might have to deal with one or the other. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dtstart (start date) is required in hCalendar; dtend (end date) is not, so I suggest we continue to just mark-up start-dates until this matter is resolved. Another alternative (supported in ISO 8601) is to use 1999-03-08 24:00:00 for the above end-date, though some would see that as adding undue precision. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think so too. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also my post of 21 August 2007 on "Resolving the exclusive-end-date issue" on the microformats-discuss mailing list. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't know much about the hCard microformat I was wondering if you would mind adding the appropriate tags to the {{Infobox LDS Temple}} and the {{LDS Temple compare}} templates since they use the same data as the {{LDS Temple list}} template you edited. I think it would be especially useful in the Infobox template since that is placed on the article for each individual temple. Thx in adv --Trödel 18:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Please use {{Birth date}} for dedication dates (I assume that they're considered the official "start" of the temples, rather than the ground-breaking date?) where possible. That may also require some template tweaks - note the effect it had on Chicago Illinois Temple.

I'd also recommend adding a 'coordinates' column to the comparison page. That way, the whole lot can be exported as KML, viewed on Google maps, etc. Welcome to the world of microformats! Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented the hidden and class codes for the dedication date in the Infobox template itself rather than on the "data template" that way we don't have to update all of the templates. I'll also take a look at the coordinates template to see if we can implement the metadata there as well. Can you review what I have done to make sure it implements the microformat correctly -- Trödel 19:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - I gave the wrong template; the class you need is bday, but I've changed that, and it's working fine, now. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thx - do you know why the & #160; code is in the {{Start date}} template - if it serves no purpose I'd prefer to not include it. Ditto on the "()" around the date - one span code would be better I think :) -->Trödel 19:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said: {{Start date}} is for hCalendar; use {{Birth date}} or {{Birth date and age}} in hCards - the former allows YYYY and YYYY-MM formats, as well as the YYYY-MM-DD required by the latter pair). The brackets and nbsp are needed for when CSS is disabled - try it! Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude!!! That is the coolest stuff I've seen in a long time!!!! Check this out link to map I'm so glad you let me know about this microformat stuff. Is there some way we can have it use different icons for the different statuses of the temples?? TIA --Trödel 20:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm rather proud if it ;-) Please help, by spreading the word. I don't think I can help with the icons, though. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet! I've been watching you and Trödel's back and forth on this... I agree that this is cool stuff! A few months ago, I added coordinates to all the LDS temple data pages with the hope that I could do something like this, but I didn't quite know how to get it to work.

One thing that I was hoping to see (when I added the coordinates) was Google Maps' "Wikipedia icons" to appear over each temple, but that doesn't seem to have happened. Do you know if this will enable that feature? – jaksmata 22:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your illuminating contributions, I think you deserve this:

		The Wikipedia Spotlight Barnstar
		For your work with the hCard microformat making useful information even more useful. – jaksmata 22:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Thank you. I think that Google Maps refreshes its Wikipedia data every month or two, so you'll have to wait for the next update. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your recent switch of the Bach cantata template to use '|' instead of dots looks ugly in my opinion. I'd like to revert, but thought I'd check with you first. Was the switch due to some new global standard? Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's to improve accessibility and semantic meaningfulness by marking up what is clearly a list, as such, rather than characters which are read out ("one dot two dot three dot...") by the kind of assistive software used by, for example, people who are blind. If you wish to propose stylistic changes, please do so at {{flatlist}}. Thank you.Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its really ugly for those of us that can see. Is there a way to change the delimiter character back to a dot but still allow for the use of the assisteive software? DavidRF (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know; but I did say: If you wish to propose stylistic changes, please do so at {{flatlist}}. Also, your accusation of spamming is both false and unacceptable, per WP:AGF and more. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, confusion about the fact that Pigsonthewing and Andy Mabbett are the same person. I'm not used to these user redirects. I didn't think the editor was responding and I thought Andy was a third party. Sorry. Thanks for responding to my questions. DavidRF (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, look, I'm famous: User:Kleinzach/My sandbox#POTW, [1], [2]. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user talk page referred to above was deleted, at the request of the user, on 30 August 2008. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only to reappear at [3]. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

• Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 22#Convert founded dates to template
• Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 22#Convert release dates to template

I'm pretty much on it. Just doing that BC thing first to get it out of the way. I propose to wrap the founded parameter in a redirect: this is because

1. Birth date looks silly
2. There is a categorisation process for establishment dates, which can easily be retrofitted.

Rich Farmbrough, 17:50 31 August 2008 (GMT).

OK; that seems like a good idea (I'll adjust the template documentation once you've started). Thanks. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 17:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better still - I'll request the addition of class="bday" to {{Start date}}, which also allows YYYY and YYYY_MM dates. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:{{infobox stadium}}

Hi,

What tools are you using to inspect microformat output? I can confirm that after the recent change the template was outputting semantically correct HTML, so it may be that there's an error in your tools. Please note that "fn" and "org" are two separate classes, so fixing them using an underscore or a non-breaking space evidently wouldn't be correct. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use "Operator", but I also viewed the class names in the raw HYML source. I know that underscores and nbsp would be incorrect in HTML; but I wasn't sure how Wiki mark-up, or the template itself, would render them. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Midland Metro route maps, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

: I moved it to a template, then realised that it was already a set of templates, but couldn't undo the move. Sorry for the mess-up :-( Andy Mabbett (aka Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 23:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now redirected to Midland Metro, where they content already appears. Andy Mabbett (aka Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 23:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The chrtitle parameter is not deprecated. It is still used to change the title of the Chairman field. The owntitle parameter has been introduced so that the "Owner" and "Chairman" fields are not both affected by changing chrtitle. – PeeJay 10:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure looks depreacted ([4]) to me. Andy Mabbett (aka Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 17:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously not looking properly then. As you can plainly see by the template's source code, label7 now uses owntitle, while label8 still uses chrtitle. – PeeJay 13:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , your changes to coord is making it shown on the page twice Gnevin (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's not wanted (some prefer it), change display=inline,title to display=inline; the ability to do so is one of the advantages of {{coord}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 20:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks Gnevin (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot too ask, is there a way to hide the big blue globe? Gnevin (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awful, isn't it? I don't usually see it, because I have disabled JavaScript in Firefox. You could ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. BTW, I should have added that display=inline is the default, so may be omitted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you help me fix the coordinates? If you just convert the templates to {{coord}}, none will notice that they are wrong. -- User:Docu

I haven't "just converted" to coord; I've also fixed coordinates. Instead of just fixing coordinates, you could also convert to {{coord}}, the template which supersedes coor *, with additional functionality and user preferences for display. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 22:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least Ploshchad Tukaya (Kazan Metro) is still broken. If you replace {{coord}} with {{coor title d}}, you can learn why. -- User:Docu

Nonsense. And stop adding links to headings. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 23:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you look into your edit at Prospekt_Pobedy_(Kazan_Metro) and try to fix it yourself. I don't want to fix it for you just to find myself being reverted. -- User:Docu

If there are any specific point which you disagree with, or do not understand, please say so. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 13:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I fixed it myself. -- User:Docu

I apologise that my telepapthy is not sufficiently acute as to be able to read your mind. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 13:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You broke it once more btw. -- User:Docu

An article you created, John Downer (disambiguation) has been nominated for deletion. Please see WP:MOSDAB and WP:PROD for how to contest this if you wish to do so. Boleyn (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was wondering if you'd consider shortening your custom-user-signature? It is currently 2/3 of a full line long (at 1024x768 res):

Andy Mabbett (aka Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions

which seems a bit more than necessary! That's all :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider it but i) why is that a problem and ii) how would you suggest I do so? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 18:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); talk; contributions — is a fair bit shorter and removes some redundancy. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be shorter, but it would leave the words "talk" and "contributions" linking to different targets, depending on which user they refer. That's a breach of web accessibility guidelines. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 18:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One would think that the context is sufficiently clear. Long signatures make discussion threads clutered, especially in edit view. When weighting the benefits of a contributions link (who ever clicks on that?!) and a talk page link (maybe slightly more useful, but only saves one click) versus the added clutter, at least my priorities always tip the scale towards the shortest possible sig. --Dschwen 16:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, your signature is convoluted and makes it hard to read the text. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Reply to all] I've shortened it. I find the inclusion of "talk" and "contributions" links useful in others' sigs, and consider mine a courtesy to other editors. However, as stated above, including them with no indication as to whom they belong is an accessibility issue - the context may be apparent to a sighted person reading the page, but not to someone whose software lists links separate to the body of a page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could always change your username to match your actual name WP:CHU. That would make it pretty obious and would get rid of the need to pipe. Crispness (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for deleting my duplicate post on WP:Help Desk. The page didn't load properly the first time so I reloaded. But seems like it was saved the first time too :) Chamal ^Talk ± 12:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your message about Template:Documentation/preload. I think I'll leave it be, at least for the time being. (I hadn't realized the page was currently under discussion.) Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Please feel free to contribute to that discussion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 12:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[5] and [6] I think you may be missing a "|". I reverted the article in the meantime. Moondyne 00:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary was "use coord to add Geo microformat(s) and enable user preferences for display format; add hCard microformat - see WP:UF". I have no idea what that means and have read WP:UF and am none the wiser. Would you mind sharing with a simpleton like me, what these css classes actually do? Moondyne 00:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nichalp sorted me out. Cheers. Moondyne 08:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now fixed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be unused apart from one articel. {{Locate me}} on the talk pages seems the way people have gone. IF it is used probably needs to be an {{ambox}} of {{fix}}.Rich Farmbrough, 14:58 9 September 2008 (GMT).

I was guided by comments at User talk:The Anomebot2#Hmmm..... Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for the tip. I'll stick to coord now. De728631 (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank-you. --Alan (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please double check your conversions to {{coord}} and fix pages you broke (e.g. [7], [8]). If there are any specific points which you do not understand, please say so. -- User:Docu

I don't understand why you insist on being so obscure. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are specific points about the two edits you do not understand, please say so. -- User:Docu

Please check in detail the way you convert coordinates:

1. [9] is broken as your conversion removed type and all other parameters. In addition, the region parameter has stray elements. To fix it, you should either reverse your edit or apply {{coord}} according to its documentation (if that works).
2. [10] is broken in the same way, besides that you converted 43.5881 to 43°58'81". To fix it, you should either reverse your edit or apply {{coord}} according to its documentation (if that works).
3. At [11], your conversion removed the display in the article's title. To fix it, you should either reverse your edit or apply {{coord}} according to its documentation (if that works).
4. At [12], your conversion removed the display in the article's title. Besides, you add "source:enwiki", which isn't intended to be used in EN-WP. If the coordinates came from WP-NL, one could use source:nlwiki. Please see WP:GEO#source:S to learn how it works. To fix it, you should either reverse your edit or apply {{coord}} according to its documentation (if that works). -- User:Docu

For the benefit of other readers: Docu (talk · contribs)

I've numbered your examples. At

1. I reverted your edit, in which you described in the edit summary (quoted in full) as "coordinate test", and where you introduced a template which you yourself have said should not yet be used on WP-EN, and for which there is no consensus. At the same time, I converted from a deprecated template to its accepted replacement, {{coord}}; as you know, these templates use the same parameter set. I made no other change [13]. Any supposedly "stray" elements (which you fail to identify) were already there. Reverting my edit would reintroduce a non-standard template, contrary to your own advice.
2. Ditto. [14]. Your allegation that I converted a decimal value to DMS is false. The data is exactly the same as it was before your inappropriate edit.
3. You changed {{coord}} to a deprecated template [15]. I reverted that change, but kept the parameters you had added [16]. The coordinates are now on the infobox; it's matter of personal preference whether they also go on the title line; and not for you to enforce. Nothing is broken, so there's nothing to "fix". Reverting my edit would reintroduce a deprecated template, contrary to consensus.
4. You again introduced the non-consensus template from #1; only this time you did not indicate that you had done so. Because its format is non-standard, conversion is not so straightforward, so I followed the link it created to GeeoTemplate, and copied the coord mark-up from there. I believe that - the source attribute - may be a feature which you introduced. Nothing is broken, so there's again nothing to fix; and reverting my edit would reintroduce a non-standard template, contrary to your own advice. You comment about "learn how it works" is unwarranted, pejorative and unacceptable.

Now that you're familiar with the facts of the matter, kindly refrain from making statements here, or elsewhere, that I have "broken" things when I have not.

You also insinuate that {{coord}}, or its documentation, may be faulty, If you have evidence of that, you should produce it, to allow others to find and apply a fix. Otherwise, please do not spread FUD.

Also, while I have your attention, please stop introducing new instances of deprecated templates such as coor *. You know full well that {{coord}} is to be used instead, and your edits appear to contravene WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand the issue at hand. The coordinates on the pages you edited worked fine prior to your edits and your edits resulted in either incorrect coordinates or lost information.

1. If you look at the page prior to my edit you will realize that the format prior to my edit was incorrect [17] and my edit using {{coordinate}} repaired this. The editor probably imported coordinates from a page using {{coordinate}}, e.g. "type=adm2nd|region=ES-AS-AS-CV" should have been "type:adm2nd_region:ES-AS". You are entirely mistaken that {{coord}} uses the same format as {{coordinate}} ("as you know, these templates use the same parameter set"). {{coordinate}} uses "named parameters for type/region/globe etc." as you noted in your summary just a few days ago [18]. Given that {{coordinate}} produces working coordinates, it's preferable to apply that format instead of hasty conversion. Coordinates entered in this format can easily be converted by bot.
2. There is no need to describe in detail a minor fix to a page. You can easily see the full details in the diff. Besides, the template in use prior to my edit enabled us to identify that the coordinates were incorrect.
3. In this infobox, all coordinates are used in the same way. By not using "display=inline,title", you are creating one in a set of 2000 that is different. Besides that, if you convert from {{coor at d}} to {{coord}} you should used that version of display according to Template:Coord#Superseded_templates. If you don't understand that part of the {{coord}} documenation, please ask on its talk page.
4. If you don't fully understand the parameters such as the source parameter, it's preferable that you refrain from doing mass conversions. For the reminder, please see 3.

Given the way you convert templates, it looks like you are reverting my edits improving things just to make a point. All coordinates worked prior to your edits and you chose pages I edited while there are are several 10,000 instances of the same templates. Besides that, you are using the conclusion that you have drawn in the meantime to tell me what you are assuming that I should have done before.

-- User:Docu

I'm sorry that you have come to the erroneous conclusion that I don't understand the issue at hand, even after I took the time to explain to you at length the true situation. Perhaps you can confirm that your edit summary at (1) and (2) was "coordinate test". If it was something else, please provide the relevant diffs. If you didn't really say "we should avoid starting to use this one, until we are sure we want it.", please says so, so that we can find out who entered thsoe words, in your name, on WT:GEO. If you didn't label coordinate as "Currently not implemented", please say so, so that we can find out who labelled created the template's documentation with those words, in an edit seemingly made from your account. If you do not do so, I shall consider the matter closed.

With regard to your numbered points above:

1. Thank you for confirming that my revert didn't break the template; it was already broken. If you repaired it, you should have said so in your edit summary, rather than just labelling it "coordinate test". If you wished to repair it and implement a test, you would have been wise to do so in to separate, and clearly labelled , edits, so that your test could be reverted separately. My reference to "the same parameter set", as should be clear from its context, was to the deprecated coor * family and their replacement, {{coord}}, and as such is correct.
2. Ditto.
3. Your use of "should" here is incorrect; "should" expresses a advisory or mandatory position, you are expressing an opinion.
4. You again make a pejorative and fallacious insinuation that my understanding is deficient, Kindly desist. You also ignore my point about the data provided at GeoTemplate.

Your claim that my reversal of your "test" edits, clearly labelled as such, is POINT is mistaken (anyone can see in edit histories that I have replaced every instance of coordinate in article space, including the majority not initiated by you). The were not 10,000 instances of coordinate, as you well know. Likewise my edits to implement a standard template in place of one deprecated by consensus. Since you were the only person opposing that consensus, the POINT edits seem to be yours. My edit history shows multiple instances of me converting other coordinates templates on pages you have not edited. Kindly desist from making false slurs. If you have any evidence to support your slurs, take the matter back to WP:ANI, where my edits, contested by you, have already been described as "fine", not least in the light of your "incivility and disruptive editing". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you try to focus on fixing the problems at hand? I wouldn't bother editing coordinates manually if it wouldn't improve things.

Even if you didn't break the pages directly or remove information intentionally, your reversals or incomplete conversions did do so.

If you insist on your edits being reversals, please label them as such.--- User:Docu

"If you do not do so, I shall consider the matter closed". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, and welcome back. Considering Leonig Mig has edited less than 100 times in the last 12 months (see here), and not at all since June, it would be appreciated if you would remove the message concerning his conduct.

He isn't particularly likely to reappear purely to start making further comments (abusive or otherwise) towards you, so disclaimers that you will not respond to him aren't really necessary. Leonig is well aware that if he does reappear and starts pestering you I or another admin will block him for good.

You're under no obligation to remove the message, but it would be a step towards letting the (now almost three-year-old) dispute go, and I would appreciate it. Thanks. Ne?l ? 10:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're under no obligation to remove the message - Thank you for clarifying that. Given his previous, intermittent, but long-term harassment directed at me, and other admins failure to take any meaningful action over it, I'll leave it there for the time being, and see what happens after I've been editing for a month or two. Thank you also for your welcome. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, if you do note any harrassment, please let me know via my talk page, or via email, and I'll take action. I am unsure why this could not be done without the message being on your user page, but you may do as you will - the message doesn't broach any guidelines, although it isn't particularly constructive. If you do eventually decide to remove it, in the spirit of letting old feuds die, that would be wonderful. Ne?l ? 10:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I shall do. I've never been party to any such feud; just the target of openly-admitted harassment and abuse. I'm not sure why admin action couldn't be taken to prevent that; period. But there you go. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You add another section marked Stalker on your user page,and you will be blocked (Again) for it. I will bring this up with Neil. SirFozzie (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you immediately went and re-added it, I have blocked you for 24 hours. SirFozzie (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no personal attack on my user page. You have exceeded your remit as an administrator by reverting my user page to your preferred version, then protecting it; no surprise there, as that's exactly what you did, in 2007. Your recent claim that there was consensus them is demonstrably a lie; just as the above dialogue and subsequent comments on [{WP:ANI] ([19])show that there is no consensus for your authoritarian action now. I will ask you again the questions whch you refused to answer then:

What is it that you object to? Me pointing out that Leonig Mig rejected of my offer of mediation? He did do so, as shown at that link. Or do you object to me pointing out his statement that he was stalking me, and that he called me "a cunt"? Or that he called me "a prick"? Or is it that his abuse continued in June 2007 .

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that coming off a yearlong block and immediately going out of your way to resume a feud with an editor whom you had prior disputes with is unacceptable. Please do not resume or continue this behavior. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right; but since I haven't done so, your post is redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock reviewed|1=Overuse of powers by involved admin; no Personal attack; see Tagishsimon's comments on WP:ANI (link below))|decline=I have read the discussion you link to below. While it is true that one user thought the block was inappropriate, the consensus at that discussion appeared to be that your actions were inappropriate and that a block was reasonable. — [[User:FisherQueen|FisherQueen]] ([[User talk:FisherQueen|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/FisherQueen|contribs]]) 11:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)}}

Tagishsimon's comments on WP:ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pigsonthewing_blocked_for_edit-warring_personal_attacks

[The first half of this comment has been repeatedly removed by another editor]

1. Wikipedia policy states clearly that "this guideline [WP:AGF] does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary".

I take the latter view, and have (or had, prior to the current autocratic actions by one admin) a statement to that effect on my user page. That statement contains only factual summaries of the above. It contains no personal attack and makes no claims or assertions which are not supported by the cited evidence. The use of the term "stalk" is User:Leonig Mig's, not mine. Though a few admins oppose it, others support my right to include it; one using the phrase "a well referenced summation". The claimed "consensus" against it had never been demonstrated. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A) Agree to no longer add the section, to your user page, to your user talk page, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. or B) The next time you add it, I will block you indefinitely until such time as you agree to A). SirFozzie (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you reconsider. Firstly, the above is new text; perhaps you should read it. Secondly, if you block me for making a legitimate defence of my actions, and legitimate criticism of your heavy-handed actions, you're likely to be subject of action yourself, for again exceeding you authority (or at least you would be, if sense and justice prevailed). I will give you no such undertaking, not least because no Wikipedia policy requires it; and there is no consensus for your proposed, draconian, course of action. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, you leave me no choice. When you are ready to drop the Leonig grudge and be a responsible editor (and not add it, or anything like it again), please state so on this page. Until then, you are indefinitely blocked. SirFozzie (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the page is now protected 48 hours, because you just will not let it go. SirFozzie (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have unprotected the page early, to see if you are willing to agree now. If so, I am willing to unblock you when that agreement is made. I ask you to note the ANI discussion which concurs with my actions here. SirFozzie (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

?I have noted the ANI discussion; here are some quotes, all addressed to you:

• This is in my view a deplorable block and a deplorable block report, a completely wretched administrative action.
• Sir Fozzie has provoked an edit war
• The notice itself is entirely composed of Leonig's words.
• The block is entirely partisan, precipitate, arrogant, ill-considered and petty.
• you need to step back and let another admin handle this.
• You should unblock entirely and defer to an uninvolved admin
• indef blocking and edit warring with him (by someone who was previously involved prior to his last ban) is hardly the way to start

Tell me how that "concurs" with your actions?

I also note that you have still not answered the questions which I put to you in 2007, and repeated above; and that you continue to make bogus claims that consensus supported you in 2007.

The material you have removed from my talk page, and for which you then indefinitely blocked me on the supposed basis "User continues to insert Personal Attack on his talk page", contained no such thing. If you disagree, please tell me (and everyone else reading) what in that material constitutes a PA? In what way, do you think, could that material be rephrased to remove what you see as a PA? The evidence I included was in a numbered list; please fell free to simply cite the number(s) of the relevant item(s).

In doing so, please note that WP:AGF tells us that:

It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith.

The implied and only logical corollary is clear: alleging bad faith motives when there is clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith is not a personal attack (Unlike the several PAs made against me under your post on WP:ANI, about which I see that you and other admins have - again - done absolutely nothing). Do you perhaps believe that the evidence I have provided, of "bad faith motives", is not clear?

I note that as well as removing the list items which refer, in policy-abiding terms, to the editor involved, you also removed the final item, which refers to no other editor, but merely cites a WP policy. In doing so, you rendered my remaining comment meaningless making me appear semi-literate. Why did you remove that item? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, first off, let me say, if I removed excessive information from your user talk page, I'll do the right thing and say: "My fault" and apologize unreservedly.

Now, as for your other point, except for the comment calling you "Pigs", which may or may not be a personal attack, depending on how you feel about that, there are no personal attacks in that section. In fact, the only thing that seems to have picked up any steam as a personal attack, other then the Pigs comment, is from one of your supporters.

You have picked quotes from the vast minority in there. While there is dissent, consensus does not have to be unanimous. would you like me to give you a head count of who supports and who does not support your actions here? You have seemingly declared to the world "What I agree with has consensus, and what I disagree with does not.", and that's just not the case.

Neil/Fish & Karate even states below that while he prefers to talk things out with you rather then be proactive about removing the personal attacks, the consensus is that until and unless you agree to keep that section out of the future, you will not be unblocked. It's that simple.

I reiterate what Neil/F&K has said. The encyclopedia as a whole can use all the good editors it can take.. but until you take the first step and cease bringing up old grudges, there's really nothing for you here. SirFozzie (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your apology, albeit conditional. Please reinstate the material, forthwith, and undo the block resulting from it.

You think the following are not personal attacks: Reference to me as an "ultra-patient vandal"; fallacious allegation that I have "no problem using inflammatory language and personal attacks when it suits him"; "he cannot cope with people disagreeing with him. When they do, he flames them, which he's been doing both here and, I believe, on Usenet, for a very long time."; "He cannot get along with people who even mildly disagree with him"; "This sort of attitude is not appropriate"; "I think this is probably a case of Wikipedia is not therapy"; "My first thought was that maybe he was some high school kid"; "Even the most stubborn mule (or pig)"?

The quotes I have picked are not "the vast minority"; you claim consensus, but have none; just as you did in 2007.

Once again, you have failed to answer reasonable and specific questions put to you. Please do so now, or I (and, no doubt, other readers) will assume that you're deliberately refusing to do so. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stated that if I removed MORE then your personal attacks on Leonig, then I apologize. I do not apologize for following the consensus that your edit-warring in the section regarding Leonig is disruptive and a violation of WP:NPA.

As for your claim (again), that there is "no consensus", on removing the section Andy, even the last administrator who came here and declined your unblock request stated there was consensus, and since then, it has only If you're going to dig your heels in on this, not sure if there's anything more here anyone can do to help you.

As for your demand to be unblocked, so far, again, the consensus is, as Fish&Karate stated, that until you say that you will not add the section on Leonig any further, that you will remain blocked. Just like last year, I'm not going to engage in argumentum ad nauseum with you. You will simply remained blocked. SirFozzie (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you have not restored any of the material which you removed from this page, wrongly and in excess of your authority. Please immediately restore any and all material which you do not consider to constitute personal attacks. Otherwise, I shall assume that your conditional apology was not meant.

The material you removed contained no personal attacks, as was explained in that material.

The unblock-decline comment, ill-judged and innumerate though it was, was made some 90 minutes prior to your indefinite block, for which there is still no consensus.

Fish&Karate made no statement about consensus; he merely described what is likely to happen.

I note your refusal to answer my questions. I invite any other admin to answer them. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer them, Andy. The material may or may not contain personal attacks (it's borderline based on various people's reactions), but it DOES rake up old feuds, which is not necessary, nor beneficial to the creation of an encyclopedia in a collegiate atmosphere. SirFozzie is under no onbligation to restore any of the material he removed, and, frankly, I do not believe any of it needs to be restored. I believe SirFozzie has disengaged from the matter entirely, which I think is a good idea. I really, really would like you to let this go, and move on. This isn't a battleground - you won't "win" if the content is restored in any part. None of the content is of any benefit to you, or to Wikipedia, whatsoever. If this is not a full enough answer, please rephrase your questions below. fish&karate 11:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your comment and mine, in the following section, seem to have nearly coincided. I understand that you are answering my recent, not the repeated 2007, questions, and are referring to the material removed from this talk page, and not my user page. The material on this page was not added to "rake up old feuds", but in defence against the ban for the material on my user page. I am entitled to defend myself, am I not? That material in itself makes clear that it, and my user-page my comments, are not PAs. I will refrain from responding further until you have had chance to comment on my proposed compromise; feel free to reply to both that and this comment, there. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. While I do not agree with SirFozzie's actions, preferring to try and talk you round, understand this: the comments you continually wish to reinsert are not helpful, and accomplish nothing. Seriously, what benefit do you think they have? Leonig is barely around (around 20 edits since June, and less than a hundred in the past 12 months), and if he does resume pestering you in any way, I will indefinitely block him myself. I don't understand why, when you are such a productive editor in every other way, you insist on hanging onto this old grudge. Yes, what Leonig said about you was rude, abusive, and wholly inappropriate. But it was two years ago, and it seems that you remain unable to let it go.

If you continue to insist on your right to display the test in question - and note you have no such right, as you do not "own" your userpage (see WP:USER) - then you will remain blocked. It's against my better judgement, but there are a number of administrators who disagree. Should you have an issue with SirFozzie's actions, the correct route is to submit an email, listing your concerns politely, with a minimum of commentary, and providing sufficient references, to the Arbitration Committee (see WP:ARBCOM for contact details).

My advice - which I hope you will take - is to let this matter drop. Agree to leave the text off your user/user talk/any page, and return to what you are good at (namely, editing the encyclopedia). (sorry for any confusion - I've just changed my username from Neil) Fish karate 09:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful comments, which I shall consider. I have never thought that I "own" my user page in the sense which you mean, though it is the place for me to express my views within policy, which is all that I have done. I do think that I have already addressed several of the points you raise in the material I wrote in my own defence which was removed from this talk page yesterday by the admin whom it legitimately criticised; and which, it seems, I shall am being prevented from restating. Please see the edit history for details. As for the age of the issue; the editor concerned was making PAs against me right up until just after my last edit here a year ago; in terms of my time editing Wikipedia, that's about four weeks ago. As usual, no admin action was taken against him to prevent recurrence, and his comment remains live for all to see; alongside several earlier PAs from other editors. I have no faith at all in the collective ability of ARBCOM or the majority of admins to deal with anything related to these issues. Haven't ARBCOM already found that the editor concerned is not here? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Andy, in terms of your time, it's a little under four weeks, but for everyone else, it's over a year. I say again, if he does return and harasses you for any reason, I will personally block him. You do not need to put any kind of message regarding your opinions or plan of action regarding Leonig Mig to be on your userpage for this to happen. Leonig's comment only remains live to see because you continually try and bring it up; were you to let the matter drop, it would soon fade into obscurity. However unfair you believe this to be, it boils down to a choice of A or B:

• A) Agree to let the matter drop, namely cease posting old links of Leonig's conduct towards you for no good purpose. You will be unblocked post haste, and can go back to helping make a better encyclopedia.

• B) Do not agree to let the matter drop. You will stay indefinitely blocked, and both you and Wikipedia will lose out.

There is no option C. Which will you choose? Nobody needs to see you apologise, or ritually abase yourself, or any such rubbish, just agree not to post this sort of stuff again, and either I or SirFozzie (whoever sees it first) will unblock you. fish&karate 10:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt response. I'll await SirFozzie's reply to my last comment in the preceding section, before I comment further. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The abusive comment from August 2007 remains live for all to see, regardless of my actions or otherwise; and did so through my year-long absence, even though an admin (one who has recently and wrongly admonished me for a perceived PA, commented below it. For that year, it was on a page linked to at one hop from my own user page, by other editors, again in my absence; and high in the search results for my name, on Google. Please don't try to lay the blame for that at my door. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the discussion in one place (ideally, below); jumping back and forth leads to fractured discussion. Which August 2007 comment are you referring to? fish&karate 13:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to your comment ("Leonig's comment only remains live to see because"), in the place where you made it; and referred to this August 2007 PA, as described above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose a compromise. Under duress, I will not reinstate the disputed text to my user page, nor elsewhere; nor will I make any similar reference, by name, to LeonigMig, nor link to diffs of his abusive edits (at least not until and unless there is general consensus that it is legitimate to do so, or unless his abuse re-occurs).

The material removed from my talk page by SirFozzie (which I would again remind people is different from that on my user page) be reinstated, as he has refused to answer my questions asking for a justification for its removal. It can then be debated by other editors, as was my intention when I wrote it; and removed only if other editors can make a case against it.

In the light of his refusal to answer those questions, his partisan comments on your talk page, and in the light of others' comments on WP:ANI regarding the inappropriateness of his involvement, SirFozzie should be barred from interacting with me in regard to this issue; and should instead allow other admins to intervene if they deem it necessary.

Personal attacks made against me on WP:ANI (listed above) should be removed and their makers advised not to repeat them.

All of this is negotiable.

What say you? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, formatting a response. Five minutes. fish&karate 11:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Andy, for this. Most of this is agreeable, although there are a few issues.

Based on your proposal, you seem to have agreed not to restore the contentious text in any way, shape or form, until and unless Mig resurfaces and resumes attacking or harassing you. This is fine, although I would ask should this happen, you do so once, and once only, and post it to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. You could even let me know first, as I will take action without the text needed to be restored, as I am very aware of it already.

The material removed from my talk page by SirFozzie will not be reinstated. It is, in essence if not in appearance, a further repetition of the Leonig Mig material removed from your user page. This ties in with the first proposal; the text - or any text similar to it, broadly interpreted - is not needed. Whether it amounts to a personal attack is a matter of judgement, but wholly irrelevant.

I will ask SirFozzie to refrain from any administrative action towards you in future. He is a very reasonable man, and I would imagine this will not be an issue. A formal ban is neither necessary nor productive - a request should suffice.

As regards the comments on the Incidents board (WP:ANI) - upon agreeing to all the above, I will archive the WP:ANI thread, to remove the content, as a courtesy. I would appreciate it if you did the same to the various content mentioning Mig that remains above.

Is this acceptable? fish&karate 12:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify - restoring the material - or anything broadly similar - a further time, in any Wikipedia location, outside the agreed (unlikely) circumstances would see your indefinite block restored. fish&karate 12:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The material (or something broadly similar) is on this page as I write, first entry, together with various provocative comments, understandable in the heat of August 07 but not in the cold light of Sept 08. Occuli (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict]] Addressed below. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed a compromise, which you thank me for, and which you say is "mostly agreeable"; and I have offered to negotiate. Your response then seems to be to discount all my suggestions, and merely require me to comply with SirFozzie's original demand, albeit with a new requirement thrown in (which I would be happy to comply with, if agreement is reached). You want me to refrain from defending myself, even though no-one has given a good reason why I should not to do so, and you want to allow PAs against me to remain, unremarked, in the archives. Perhaps you didn't realise the implications of your last post in this way, or that it in no way resembles a compromise, so I'm asking you to reconsider. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I would imagine this will not be an issue" pardon? [20] Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither link you give shows SirFozzie interacting with you in any way, nor do they show him taking any kind of administrative action towards you. He is not required to avoid comment entirely. fish&karate 13:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that they did; but neither do they - and his threat of further a block - show any good will on his part. I also see that Sir Fozzie was asked to step back some 12 hours ago; and has totally disregarded that request. It seems that your optimism in this regard is ill-founded. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, who are you defending yourself from? fish&karate 13:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not who from, but against what - the false accusations of making PAs and the PAs made on WP:ANI and listed above as such; and from tendency of SirFozzi to exceed his authority as an admin. I had hoped that would already be apparent. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, you would not have been accused (falsely or truthfully) of such things if your second edit, three hours after the expiration of your year-long block, had not been to restore the material(!). You are, it seems, unable to let this issue go. Such an attitude is not beneficial to Wikipedia - this is not your battleground, nor is it anyone else's. If you wish to edit Wikipedia, at this point, you are going to have to accede to some unfair conditions. If you are unwilling to accede to them, frankly, tough. I'm sorry, but you are old enough and wise enough to know what conduct is and is not acceptable. I still can't find any real personal attacks in the WP:ANI thread, other than the use of the familiar "Pigs", which I have asked users to cease. fish&karate 13:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edit simply reverted my user page to the state it had been in before it was - surprise surprise - edited by Leonig Mig (and then usurped in my absence); and then I was falsely' accused of making PAs, as the material I wish to have restored to my talk page demonstrates. I have listed the PAs made on WP:ANI, above, in a reply to SirFozzie. It's telling that no admin has been prepared to so anything about those, or the August 2007 abuse highlighted above; which simply reinforces my feeling that I am still considered "fair game" for such abuse. I have already acknowledged. again above, that, under duress, I am going to have to "accede to some unfair conditions". Are you, who told me a few days ago that "You're under no obligation to remove the message ", now telling me that no compromise at all is possible? That I am not after all, entitled to post a defence of my actions? I'd like to be quite clear about those two points. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of an answer to this; or to my previous comment "...so I'm asking you to reconsider", please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. On the Google linking issue. I think we could probably get the Arbcom pages on that case marked so that they aren't indexed by Google. I can't think of any reason why they would need to be Googleable and we now have a {{NOINDEX}} template precisely to stop these past dispute pages showing up in search engines and tarring people's names. Were you talking mostly about the Arbcom case(s) or something else? --CBD 13:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I would appreciate that, but my point was that the PA made in August 2007 had been highly visible for the last year or more, because no admin had (and none still has) removed it. Why do you think that might be? Even then, marking the pages "NOINDEX" still leaves the PA visible on a "live" page, with the connotation that it's a view acceptable to the community. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration pages are supposed to be marked as "NOINDEX" and if there are any failures in this regard, please advise. The pages can also be "courtesy blanked" if this would be helpful. Please provide a list of the relevant pages for consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't think anyone means to endorse Leonig's comments by leaving them up there. Fish and karate? SirFozzie? Would you agree that calling Andy a 'sociopath' was a personal attack and not something approved of by the community? I think it was probably left in place just because that is the common practice for anything other than private information (home addresses, phone numbers, and the like). Even insults are most often left, both as evidence and simply to avoid edit wars over what people are and are not allowed to say. I'll take the pages out of search engines and see if anyone objects. --CBD 14:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*cough* So I can restore my user page and talk page to the way I had them recently, then? Thought not. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, that is the common practice which is most often seen. Obviously, there are exceptions. In this case I think it is a matter of 'geography'. SirFozzie isn't saying that every complaint you have ever made against Leonig Mig on ANY page needs to be removed. He probably wants them out of the user space because each individual user is generally (again, obvious exceptions) allowed to decide when to change / archive that... so complaints posted here could theoretically remain in place/highly visible forever, as opposed to being archived and forgotten about. Really, all of this info is also still posted on that same arbitration case... but people don't look at old arbitration cases as frequently as they do pages of active users. That's why Leonig Mig was told to take his attacks against you off his user page, but similar comments elsewhere were left in place. --CBD 14:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My question was rhetorical. So; why are the PAs still on WP:ANI? And why has nothing been said to all but one of their authors? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, geography. ANI is frequently archived. User space pages may remain unchanged for long periods. Thus, Leonig Mig's comments about you on his user page were removed, but things elsewhere are not. --CBD 15:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, WP:ANI is not exempt from WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Also, I'm not clear on the relevance of your reply to the second part of my question: "and why has nothing been said to all but one of their authors?". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that my user page is protected (albeit against my wishes and to a version not of my choosing); that I've offered a compromise solution; and that I've never added the disputed text elsewhere in WP, why am I still prevented from editing other pages, including those where people have asked me questions and are awaiting my answers?? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Postscript] ...and that there is no claim or evidence that I have acted improperly on any article, talk page, category-page, other-user's page, or elsewhere... Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is still ongoing on ANI, by the looks of things. Given that the watching admins have already devoted considerable time to the discussion, I think it's appropriate that they be allowed some time to ensure things are done properly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're looking into it on ANI. Stifle (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but there doesn't appear to be any live discussion there; leastways none since before my last post in the sectionProposal, above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Observation, from the Blocking Policy: "Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy." (My emphasis) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: in fact, recent additions there seem to comprise little more than ad hominem personal attacks, baseless accusations of sock-puppetry and blatant refusal to assume good faith; about all of which which the many admins editing that page have done nothing. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above debate, an its counterpart on WP:ANI have included a number of false allegations against me.

First and foremost, I was accused of making "personal attacks": I have made none. To reiterate; WP:AGF tells us that (my emphasis):

It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith.

There is clear evidence of bad faith on the part of the editor concerned, and I have not only cited it, but have been dragged through this charade only because I did so.

It was reported that I was "accusing another user of being a stalker"; I was not; I was pointing out that the editor concerned, unprompted of his own volition, had admitted that he had been stalking me.

My requests that the blocking editor justify the above accusations have been repeatedly and deliberately ignored.

I have been accused of continuing a "feud", holding a "grudge" and carrying on a "vendetta". Again, I have done no such thing, I merely restored comprehensively-cited demonstration of the bad faith behaviour which mean that I will not respond to comments from the editor concerned. I have never carried out a vendetta against anyone; ever.

It was claimed that the disputed text "is a reference to events in July 2005 "; the editor who said so appears not to have read it, since one of the cited edits was made in August 2007.

My offer of a compromise was described as "no such thing"; I would like to know why not, and invite the editor who made that allegation to demonstrate where he has been willing to compromise.

My request that the effectively out-of-hand dismissal of my proposed compromise be reconsidered have been ignored by the editor to which it was made; who has also not replied to my e-mails on the subject.

I have been accused of "endrun around building a compromise ... with an unblock request" - since when were unblock requests not allowed?

It was said that "1%" of my edits were "the problem"; and that I'm "not to write an encyclopedia". The only dispute has been around my user page and its talk page. Not one of the other 1,200+ pages which I have edited since my return last month has been disputed; that represents well under 0.1% of my 3000+ edits in that period; yet for a single item on this one page, I have been prevented from editing the whole of Wikipedia.

As to the unsubstantiated and baseless accusations regarding my activities, some years ago, on Usenet - these are relevant how?

The above issues not withstanding: it's clear that my offer of a compromise has been rejected; and that there is no intention to allow me to defend the material on my user page by showing it to be justified. No admins have shown themselves willing to remove the unwarranted, false personal attacks made against me, either by the editor whose behaviour I catalogued in the disputed material, or by several those speaking against me on WP:ANI. Shame on them. I do not edit Wikipedia for the benefit of the small number of editors who speak so vehemently and falsely against me; but for the many thousands who benefit from my work - work of which I am very proud. Accordingly, solely in order to be able to continue that work, and very much under duress, I hereby give an undertaking that I will not return the disputed material to my user page, nor any other; save for reporting further instances of the harassment and abuse to which it was my response.

What a charade. My conscience is clear. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Sir Fozzie will keep his word?

It was curious to see Dschwen question my part in enabling the mapped display of multiple sets of coordinates, when he voted in support of Para's attempt to delete the tool for doing so, days after I had introduced it (only later did Para add his own code to it, duplicating what I had introduced); the example given uses {{LDS Temple}}, which I converted to use the necessary fields (for which I received thanks and a 'barnstar') and calls {{Birth date}}, which was modified at my request to output a microformatted date; and {{coord}}, which was introduced at my request, to my original specification. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've not been involved in this issue but I've followed it from a distance and I'm afraid that I must conclude that this block really is quite ridiculous. Whilst he maintains that the text is accurate, and I would tend to agree, I disagree with his position that this is relevant to the current work of the community to develop an encyclopedia, especially considering that Leonig Mig is not active. This text however, has existed untouched for the duration of Andy's ban and as such I can't conclude that it is suddenly disruptive. The intentions of blocks is always ultimately to minimise disruption to constructive work to develop Wikipedia. This block doesn't see to do this, instead the complete opposite and causes a great deal more disruption than the text ever did. A quiet word with Andy could have resolved this I suspect but SirFozzie's approach simply caused more disruption. I have therefore decided to unblock Andy and trust he will return to the constructive work he was doing before this latest episode. I would ask that he does not reinstate this text but will not demand this. I don't consider the text to have caused undue disruption to the project, rather this has been the misguided reaction of others to try to get it removed. I would encourage the other admins to take a step back and carefully consider this situation before re-blocking him. The ultimate question that has to be answered in choosing whether or not to block Andy is whether the apparent disruption caused by this text can really be said to outweigh the positive impact of his contributions. I would strongly suggest that is most certainly does not. Adambro (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have already undertaken not to restore the wording, so I will not do so; but appreciate you words of support. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: My user page is still protected. I would be grateful if you (or anyone else) would unprotect it). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so, but I am also bringing up this cowboy move of Adambro's on ANI. (never mind, user page already unprotected) SirFozzie (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]