Barong

undelete requests

If you do have any more, please don't use ANI for them - just ping my talk page. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 04:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

ok. ani has high readership, though ;) Barong 04:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• or mine. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Intoours111

Is this you, an imposter, someone who coincidentally makes lots of references to Scapa Flow like you do, or something else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope, not me. Could just be someone who thinks it a usual method... but I'm suspicious... Barong 09:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Formatting refs

Erm, never done it like this before - I'd always only do cited texts bit for books and only if I had more than one inline. Anyway, happy to sit back and muse on it. If you are in some bali cafe, any balinese folklore it figures in would be good to add. One of the things that surprised me is how much aboriginal folklore there is about it...be nice to balance. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

They need some further renaming. It's really about getting the whole ref out of inline so the prose is more accessible. Garuda is the obvious avian ref, but there are many; flight has appeal, to all cultures, really. As I said on ani, the Balinese are more focused on their cockfights, these days. It's about gambling, smoking and drinking with your mates, &c., but it's deeply rooted in the culture. If Dewa's cocks lose, it will be quieter in the morning for me. Of course there are many, many more. I'm involved in the local libraries, but they doesn't much cover this sort of thing. KIds books, and Sue Grafton shite for the mundane tourists. Barong 10:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Back where you Barong

{{welcome}}  pablo 10:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

glad to be back in it ;) Barong 10:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The image is just as I've always pictured you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

iz teh Singa Raja ;) Barong 09:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Iz borked?

I think my formulation was better [1]. --Two Monkeys (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

same-same, but different is an idiom here for no difference. And I wanted the diff in there. I'd not seen that Brad-diff in, I guess, 4 years. And see these. Terima kasih, Barong 12:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the diff belongs. It's just that I'd given dozens of diffs in my two earlier submissions, and I can't believe the usual suspects actually read them, so I was buggered if I was going to the trouble of adding a whole bunch this time. They can just take my word for it. Every word is true. --Two Monkeys (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't Cry for Me Argentina on YouTube. Barong 05:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A solution, if it pleases you

Hi Jack/Barong/whatever you prefer to be called now. Here is (in my view) the best solution to this whole sorry mess:

1. The argument of those that would keep the restrictions on your account is that your continued creation and use of accounts such as this one are evidence of distracting and WP:POINTy, and therefore disruptive, conduct on your part.
2. There are, so far as I can tell, no other arguments.
3. In order to mitigate that argument, you should issue a statement at the request for clarification thread, in which you resolve to desist from such behaviour. In short, you should say that you have "Made your point and will now go back to acting like Old Jack".
4. In that statement, also ask whether there is any other compelling reason why you should continue to be restricted. (In my view, there is not.) Then ask that the restrictions be lifted.
5. Restrictions are lifted. Everybody is as happy as can be. You don't go off the rails any more, ArbCom don't get more annoyed, and the community don't have to renew their stock of peanuts.

There is no reason for you to continue to be restricted, but you are in the processing of creating a very valid one. My e-mail is open if you want to talk privately.

AGK [•] 13:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I do want to move away from 'Jack'.

I was asked to create this account, rather than edit as an IP, so I did. The others, mostly Gold Hat, were just fun. To the extent that it's pointy, and I see it as more pointed, it's to illustrate that they're restricting me beyond was was long agreed. I have said that I'll not create any accounts that are undisclosed. I'm not going back to illicit socking. I feel quite poorly treated by this AC; the "finger-wagging" in February was totally uncalled for.

It's late here and I'm soon-off. I appreciate your input, here, and especially, there. I'll sleep on it and see where stuff is tomorrow. I'll write ya, too. The gist of what I want is No Restrictions, as they're a stigma. The wiki has to learn to forgive, and to rein in those who won't. Terima kasih, Barong 13:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Templates and succession boxes

Thank you very much for your help with my template project. A helpful person with a screen reader has improved {{House of Normandy}} so now I have a great model for the rest of the kings 'n' queens, and for other template improvements around the wiki. Did you see the remarks added at the Succession Box wikiproject by Brown Haired Girl? What an elegant solution. It can be used elsewhere where color is useful for some readers: {{periodic table}}. Gaah, there is so much to do. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I saw the editor fixing-up that template; they should do more and be supported. I looked at BHG's post and still don't see the need for colors; people should read the text, *that* is the content. My other concern is that the example is full of hard-coded markup and that's off. It may-well be that the styling would be in a template, which is a far lesser evil, but I'm not really familiar with that suite of templates. I also think this place has far too many succession boxes; they're appropriate for teh monarchy and such, but these things appear on endless stupid shite, too. par for the course, really. Barong 06:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a little progress, anyway. Those succession box people seem to be a stubborn lot. I will leave them to it; there are improvements I can do elsewhere without having to spend all this time convincing people first of the need. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't look at that page or those people much. But it would seem to be an area that's intent on a seriously obsessive topic. Stick around a few; you'll get email. Barong 14:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you but....

Good to see you but I think your user page says "I formerly edited as user:Jack Merridew and some others ;)." It made me laugh as it is one of the largest understatements in Wikiepdian history. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

css

I started making some tools at toolserver, but they're ugly as hell. I basically created the entire thing yesterday, so it's very new and unpolished at the moment. Feel like sprucing them up with some fancy css styles? See here. —SW— ^confer 15:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Made some improvements, but the voting matrix table needs some work. Any suggestions? —SW— ^comment 20:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI 2

Serving a dual purpose (since notification of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continuation_of_Editing_from_125.162.150.88_.28Jack_Merridew.29.2Fbarong was omitted) - the point is well made that you should try harder to be just that bit more civil. It's hard when you're pissed off - sometimes, in that sort of situation, I find drafting a comment offline and then having a cup of tea helps. At any rate, as a rule of thumb, if you're the least civil person in a discussion, you should try and dial it down; and you should be particularly careful with edit summaries, since they can't be struck. You've got the chance of a new start here - please try and make the best of it. regards, Rd232 ^talk 00:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently ...

ANI is for " … death threats, bigoted attacks, threats of violence, legal threats, and other cases where immediate action is required …," which came as a surprise to me. I mean you certainly wouldn't deduce that from reading it. pablo 12:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI is for WP:DRAMA, for mudslinging, for little people to feel important. It is not part of dispute resolution at all. It's Wikipedia's 24/7 cluster-fuck of participation. It's got an XFD link at the top; know anyone feeling POINTy? Best wishes, Barong 12:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Cut it out..

Barong, I know you're frustrated that the restriction is going to remain in place, but all you're doing is proving everyone's points. Especially since you've pulled this routine before with the JM account.. SirFozzie (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You people are feeding the trolls with your points. Your restrictions are bullshite, and everyone knows it. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Barong (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This account was scuttled (email-blanked, the password scrambled). The password that was exposed in now-deleted/oversighted edits is not what I finally scrambled it to, so there is no danger of it being taken control of via that exposed password. The account is now sul:locked, thus the block is not necessary. There is no doubt that this anon is me. See User talk:Jack Merridew#unblock, and wp:A/R/Cl.

Decline reason:

There's no harm keeping the block in place, considering. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

125.162.150.88 (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It pisses me off ;> It serves no purpose other than to tar me. Score keeping. Read the linked discussion. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Barong (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

'unnecessary blocks should be lifted (unnecessary restrictions should be, too, but that's not what this template is for.)

Accept reason:

I'm happy to keep unblocking globally scuttled and globally locked accounts, if that somehow makes it more likely you'll eventually choose to stick around. Of course, it looks like you and (for lack of a better word) your detractors are both being somewhat intransigent, which makes that less likely, but there are things I can control and things I can't, and I'll do what little I can where I can. Floquenbeam (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd support local unblock, seeing as sulutil:Barong makes the account unusable anyway -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam, nicely put. Sadly, I think this has turned into a lose/lose situation, when a bit more flexibility on both sides could have brought about a much better outcome -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

BsZ: There's something about online communities in general, and Wikipedia in particular, that make lose/lose situations much more common than they are in real life. I don't have a sociology background, so I can't figure out exactly why that is, but I'm convinced that if all of us were working together in the same building, and could see each other, and would risk a punch in the nose for saying some of the things we say online, that 90% of the intractable conflicts we have here would resolve spontaneously. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I've been working in online communities for a good number of years, and I wholeheartedly agree -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Me too. I would rather have been wrong in the ANI discussion, but it looks like I was right: this has turned into another Peter Damian case.[2] Whatever the mechanism — social? psychological? — that throws up such chains of events from time to time, it seems like once they've started, they have to run their full course. :-( Motives are not necessarily the same, but the result is exclusion and exile. I don't know if you remember the Peter Damian case — depends how long you've been here — but in that, there was self-serving dishonesty on the part of an arbitrator. Here, in the JM case, I think there was merely — merely..? — a failure of imagination.[3] A case for Hanlon's Razor. Bishonen | talk 20:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC).

Motion regarding User:Barong

By a vote of 9-2, an absolute majority of the Arbitration Committee has voted to pass the following motion:

The restriction on using multiple/alternate accounts on User:Barong, formerly known as User:Jack Merridew is modified as follows: User:Barong is directed to edit solely from that account. Should Barong edit from another account or log out to edit in a deliberate attempt to violate this restriction, any uninvolved administrator may block Barong for a reasonable amount of time at their discretion.

However, because the account Barong has been globally locked as compromised, the person who edited with that account is directed to contact the Arbitration Committee with the name of the new account they wish to use in place of Barong.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 22:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Hello, this is to let you know that I have requested at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#User:Barong that the above motion is carried out due to apparent editing from a different account.--5 albert square (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Username...

Wow - nice username. :-) Barong. Shame it's not going to be used now. --Merbabu (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)