User talk:Adrignola/2010/08

Usurpation
Hello Adrignola. Could you please help me with this request? Thanks in advance. Azeez 04:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes_check.svg|15px| ]] Done. Please visit Special:MergeAccount to unify your account after logging in here. – Adrignola talk 12:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry for the mistake, and thanks for pointing that out. :) Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 12:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

redirects
Dear Adrignola,

I see that someone is re-organizing the C++ Programming book, and that you are deleting the redirects left behind.

I am happy that you are doing this under-appreciated clean-up work. However, as Wikibooks:Redirect points out, deleting redirects breaks links. People search on Google, click on the link to some page in a Wikibook that used to have exactly the information they were looking for, then they are faced with a blank edit page.

Would it be possible to hold off on deleting redirects until the next Google re-indexing, to avoid that problem? That way, even if the page has moved since the last Google re-indexing, people are redirected to a more useful page. (I hear rumors that Google re-indexes Wikibooks about once a week, so deleting redirects around 7 days after the move is fine with me). --DavidCary (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure. I wouldn't normally go out of my way to delete redirects, but these redirects were tagged for deletion, so that's why I took notice.  Had they not been tagged, I likely would have been in blissful ignorance of their existence. – Adrignola talk 22:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Question: This is an interesting point, but has other implications. (Sorry to intrude but as the one that tagged the named redirects, I would like to understand the issue)
 * I fully support some consideration toward Google (but I don't understand what guarantees or best practices should be employed in general, not in particular to these redirects). I also share the view that most of our readers come from search engines results (I did, but it is debatable if special consideration should only be given only to Goolge, even if I also share the notion that it is the most used engine). What knowledge do we have about the indexing made by Google and others? Do we know the days and depth of those indexes and do we have some sort of guarantee that they will even be updated, that would validate a special consideration ?
 * I've always acted on the notion that those re-indexes were out of our control or that we couldn't have special expectations, so losing time and effort on these considerations wasn't necessary. In other words that our cleanup tasks had no other special consideration than the usefulness to our local community. I also noted that deleted pages now have a different layout than when I started working here, for instance Law of three continue to show the destination of the redirect (even if not in a transparent way). Btw is this info displayer to all access levels ? Why aren't my delete tagging action included in the logs ? If so it permits a type of unaddressable vandalism and abuse of the project (the removing the my "last action" could be justifiable on that consideration).  --Panic (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are viewing a book, you can click the "search this book" link in the toolbox to search the book and see how Google currently sees it. Enter in the topic of choice and see which page the results direct to.  As for the delete tagging actions not being shown in your contributions history, that is because your edit to the page no longer exists (for you), in that it has been deleted.  I can, however, as an administrator, view your deleted contributions history if needed (Special:Contributions/Panic2k4 has links for me to view deleted user contributions, manage a user's rights, and check a user's IP addresses). – Adrignola talk 01:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree with Panic on this. Also, I'd like to point out that while waiting for that redirect to be deleted, it should be __NOINDEX__ ed. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 01:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, __NOINDEX__ won't work in the main namespace. It will add a page to a hidden category in the user namespace and alter the page headers, but if you add it to a main page and go to edit, you won't see that hidden category at the bottom. – Adrignola talk 02:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * IMO, if it isn't noindexed, the whole point of this is gone:
 * Joe Bloggs moves Page X to Page Y.
 * Joe Bloggs waits.
 * Google reindexes; the redirect is still there.
 * John Q Public, who is an admin, deletes the redirect.
 * For the rest of the week, people looking at Google search sees a deleted redirect.
 * Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 02:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: the wiki's configuration does not allow any page in mainspace to recognize the __NOINDEX__ tag. We have no choice but to have everything indexed. If the content is moved, however, Google should direct searchers to the new location after its index is updated. In that same vein, even if we could add the noindex tag to a redirect, the next time Google comes by and sees that tag, it will already be updating the index to the point to the new location of the content. – Adrignola talk 03:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what guarantees or best practices should be employed in general. Me either, but I see that the Wikibooks:Redirect page claims that "we always leave redirects in the old location to point to the new location". The person who has been using the WWW longer than anyone else once said that "Cool URIs don't change".
 * Do we know the days ... of those indexes If we know that most search engines re-index the internet once a week, I don't think we need to know the exact day that any particular search engine re-indexes Wikibooks -- we could assume that they all must have re-indexed Wikibooks *sometime* during a 7 day waiting period.
 * Ideally we would also give humans a chance to update their personal web pages and bookmarks as well, but some web pages go 10 years between updates, and waiting 10 years seems a bit unreasonable.
 * Kayau, would this work?
 * Joe Bloggs moves Page X which talks about "left-handed antimuffins" to Page Y.
 * People searching Google for "left-handed antimuffins" still find page X, and the Wikibooks server redirects them to page Y.
 * Google reindexes and sees that page Y now talks a lot more about "left-handed antimuffins" than redirect page X.
 * people searching Google for "left-handed antimuffins" find page Y (and perhaps, much further down on the search results, page X).
 * John Q Public, who is an admin, deletes the redirect.
 * people searching Google for "left-handed antimuffins" find page Y (and perhaps, much further down on the search results, page X).
 * --DavidCary (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be necessary to create a new speedy template for redirect pages (to differentiate and ease the administrative task of dealing with the delay) --Panic (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

None of this seems to take into account that if a page is deleted and a person goes to that page a message is shown that contains the last deletion log entry. This allows a paper trail can be left behind by including the new location in the deletion reason. --dark lama  01:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I state that just at the end of my post of 00:14, 31 July 2010, as a possible reason that it could be unnecessary to give it a special consideration. (This new information is recent IIRC I only started to notice it a few months ago) I rarely get to look at the deleted pages so probably DavidCary wasn't aware of that information, in any case in a world that seeks instant satisfaction, I can see that looking at that log entry will be a put-off for some. It is a well known fact that most people even refuse to do a search for the information they require...
 * It could even be argued that going out of our way to attempt to include that sort of people is indeed a waste of time :)  --Panic (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would take much effort to rework the query template for this situation. However, note that placing a template above the redirect causes it to no longer function as a redirect and only serve as a link.  Placing a template below the redirect and causing it to continue to work does nothing, as the template is ignored.  You can see it yourself by placing delete below the redirect code; the page is not added to the speedy deletion category.  So making and adding a new template changes nothing from the state of a redirect with a delete on it or a deleted redirect that shows the destination of the redirect if the deleting admin did not clear the deletion summary. – Adrignola talk 03:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A solution would be a template and a transclusion of the destination (the downside would be that both locations would be indexed). --Panic (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing that out, darklama. I guess I never noticed that, when I go to a page that has been moved and the redirect deleted, that there is a link I can click on to go to the new location.
 * Does that happen by default, or does someone need to manually enter a link to the new location?
 * I guess that makes this whole conversation moot.
 * On the other hand, since "Cool URIs don't change", it could be argued that going out of our way to delete redirects is indeed a waste of time :-). --DavidCary (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The link is provided if the administrator doing the deletion doesn't clear out the deletion reason box, which automatically is filled with the contents of the page (up to a point) when a page is deleted. – Adrignola talk 21:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Help Me Renaming A/c
Hi Adrignola,Sorry to put Renaming request on your page ,but I need your help to rename my account name in order to have a unified login across all projects,I wish to rename from "Wiki Prasannakumar" to just "Prasannakumar".Please help me in this regard.Thank you.Wiki Prasannakumar (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Yes_check.svg|15px| ]] Done. Please visit Special:MergeAccount to unify your login here with the login at the other projects. – Adrignola talk 02:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you ,Once again.Prasannakumar (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Strange behaviour of an image
Hallo Adrignola you recently helped me with renaming a book Question Writer 3 Manual to Question Writer Manual - and thanks very much for that. This week I have noticed that one of the images used in the book only appears properly on the screen when I am logged in (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/File:QW3_Pro_star_icon.png). When I am not logged in and to other readers(probably not logged in)only the file name appears. All other images appear to be OK. I know that this one image has a different license but there no note on the image to say the license is wrong ?? Do you have any suggestions what might be the issue - I did wonder if it was an problem with the new look Wikibooks? Hskeet (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I moved that image to Commons since it is freely licensed. When logged-out, you are viewing a cached version of a page, which tries to pull the image from Wikibooks.  Since I deleted it locally, it then shows a red link to the file name.  Logged in, you don't use the cache and it pulls the image from Commons.  To correct this when logged out (before the cached version expires), you can add ?action=purge to the end of the address of the page you are viewing.  I don't know offhand how often the cached version of pages is updated (other than when someone makes an edit to the page, in which case it's immediately). – Adrignola talk 12:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikijunior:Big Cats
I noticed that my attempt to publish a version of Wikijunior Big Cats has been removed with the comment "no spam; use PediaPress". The layout located at http://www.scribd.com/doc/2490736/Wikijunior-Big-Cats represents an effort that streches back a few years to publish Big Cats in an appealing format. This was a collaboration with various Wikibookians. At this point, I have no problem with the link to Lulu.com being removed because the book is not quite ready for purchase. However, please put the link to http://www.scribd.com/doc/2490736/Wikijunior-Big-Cats back. It is not spam. It is an attempt to make the layout of Big Cats more appealing to children. --Munchkinguy (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure. – Adrignola talk 01:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Munchkinguy (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Global SUL Lock
On the Wikversity Colloquium, you wrote:


 * A locked global account cannot log in. Adrignola 17:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That used to be true, but some time ago they changed the way the SUL lock works. An account that is subject to an SUL lock can now log in, set their user preferences, use their watchlist, etc. But an account that is SUL locked cannot edit.

Here is a screenshot of me logged in to Wikiversity today as User:Moulton.

—Moulton 19:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And to think, nobody at Meta updated that page... Not a good sign that they're working off outdated information. – Adrignola talk 19:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

CU
A notice that Mike.lifeguard gave up their CU and you have been hit. Your CU access had to revoked per CheckUser policy. — I-20 the highway  01:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And you have mail. –   01:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * it's related, so I thought I should also point out my note on the matter :-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've updated the meta page regarding the projects CU. Thanks,Acather96 (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

American Alligator
First of all, thanks for the welcome! :) I am primarily a Wikipedian, but would really like to help out here. Was this edit OK, and is this 'all there is' to de-wikifying? Thanks,Acather96 (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a Wikipedian too, so I hope you know what a talk page stalker is. :) Yes, that was good, but you might want to remove the bolding for the subject as well, since that's an item that w:WP:LEAD covers. But the page doesn't have a home yet, so when it finds one it should follow the conventions of that book. Cheers Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 03:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion and posts
I noticed that you removed/substituted completely a post that I already had replied to (I didn't remove the reply but added a note about it). I would appreciate a clear statement from you on the new discussion regarding the last intervention by Mike. Regarding a process of removal of flags when (if not validation is given) Thekohser is unblocked, due to the feud that is apparent between the two I would expect that the user will seek some retribution (I hope he doesn't but it probable and will be valid), it is up to us, not to prevent it, but attempt to moderate and prevent the escalation of the situation. Mike's action didn't help but he has been a valid Wikibookian, he has put work on the project, a middle ground will have to be found and even what has been said about the move on the CU flag, that seemed especially badly timed, will need to be clarified (and it also a situation that needs to be clearly covered in policy as it does cause problems). --Panic (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I reconsidered the merits of the comment and tried to replace it with another before a response was posted. I am not sure whether you had already replied to it or not; as your note says, the section makes sense in context.  – Adrignola talk 00:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've determined which edit was the response. I do not wish to appear to be refactoring discussion, so I have added the comment back in at your request. – Adrignola talk 03:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Since there seems to be a special state (of having the tools but by policy or personal request have them withhold), the access list on users having special rights should indicate who can have the files on request. This also has implications on the process of de-adminship, the rational is the same... --Panic (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is partially why I created the timeline at Administrators, to show who formerly held the tools. We remove administrators due to inactivity and so any of the "former" people in that timeline, if they become active again, might be eligible again.  I do not recall anyone being involuntarily removed due to abuse, so it seems like it wouldn't be necessary to create an all-inclusive list duplicating the timeline. – Adrignola talk 23:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Any Administrators (and bureaucrats) that in absence had the tool removed would be not be eligible, by the section about expectation "If an administrator doesn't live up to these expectations, they can be nominated for de-adminship. Admins who do not meet these expectations are not automatically removed: They must be nominated on Wikibooks:Requests for permissions, and the discussion must reach consensus on the matter to remove the admin." this process does constitute a discussion for consensus on the removal of the tools, until now it was not clear any the particular distinction of having the tools "suspended" without going trough this process, and many have expressed their distaste of the practice. No one made the clear distinction that is now common place, that a self "suspension" would bypass a community approved removal of the tools. --Panic (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if you would like to propose changes, the talk page of the policy or the unstable would be a good place to start. – Adrignola talk 00:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope you find this comment useful.


 * The policy of automatic removal of tools upon inactivity is one which sets up this problem. That is not a normal process on wikis, except sometimes with certain high-level privileges. Automatic removal is harmless if a removed admin can return to tool access on request.


 * In other words, it should really be considered a suspension of tool use, to protect the wiki, without any "cloud." What is a "cloud"? It means some reason to think that if the admin had not resigned, tool access might have been removed anyway. My own view is that "cloud' should also be considered suspended if the admin resigns. (I.e., any process under way might be re-activated.) The reason is that resignation under a cloud can reduce disruption and should be encouraged. Sometimes, as well, the true nature of a situation becomes clear, later, so suspending a cloud can make it much easier to resolve.


 * Sometimes a "cloud" has arisen to the point that it was reasonably clear that the tools would have been removed. With any voluntary resignation, I'd say, note should be made of any pending process or complaint, anyone could do this within a reasonable time, and a 'crat should review that upon a restoration request, and decide if a community discussion is needed before restoration. The norm, absent a cloud, would be restoration on request, restoring the status quo ante, and considerations of efficiency lead to this conclusion. We know that any active administrator may make enemies, and thus a restoration discussion is quite likely to become disruptive, even if there was no cloud at the time of resignation or suspension for lack of activity. --Abd (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * To me the removal of tools due to inactivity is primarily to keep the list pruned, to ease the speed at which a contributor can get in contact with someone in case of an emergency. It enables easier auditing of sysop activity with the toolserver tool (won't even load for Wikipedia because they've never pruned).  A lesser issue is that of security.  I am majoring in information technology with an additional focus on security and work part-time after classes locking things down at the campus (among other tasks).  When people graduate, they're removed.  When staff are terminated, they're removed.  So I don't mesh with all the people at Wikipedia complaining about security being a bogus rationale, because it's used in the real world.  I digress.  I don't believe there'd be a problem restoring upon request if the situation in which the tools were resigned was not controversial. – Adrignola talk 15:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, removal makes the seeking of help more efficient, though that can be addressed by using a noticeboard to request help, instead of directing it to an individual administrator/bureaucrat. Further, there could be a separate listing of inactive administrators. The noticeboard procedure, if the noticeboard is not allowed to become a debate forum, is probably the best and most efficient, it doesn't depend on the presence of the admin you pick to ask. (it would just be a quick and efficient way to find someone to assist, and an admin "answering the call" would just note that (even prior to decision) and close the request, and if someone disagrees, in some way, they would then query the answering administrator or go through other process to discuss the matter somewhere else. That's crucial! A noticeboard like that should not become clogged with edits, which is what happened with AN/I on Wikipedia.)
 * Given this, I don't see the value of actual removal, except for the long-term security problem. Given that problem, removal for serious inactivity seems prudent, and quite harmless if the sysop can get the bit back on request. The notice to the sysop should mention this if it doesn't! Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this, I'm trying to design better procedures at Wikiversity and it helps me. --Abd (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe another rational used for pruning inactive administrators is that the community changes over time and administrators gone awhile cannot be expected to know current community expectations, and could potentially use the tools in ways that harm the community or are no longer considered acceptable if they were allowed to keep the tools indefinitely. --dark lama  18:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There was one inactive administrator where changes in expectation lead to disapproval of how an administrator used the tools when they came back, but the community consensus was to wait out inactivity instead of removing the tools immediately. Any former administrator can request the tools again without prejudice, but AFAIK that hasn't happened yet so that part of the policy has never been tested. --dark lama  18:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

E-mail
I have e-mailed you the information about Wikipedia's Edit Filters. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu  15:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I've added them here. – Adrignola talk 15:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a copycat, and you can't do anything about it :)
I'm gonna copy what you did and add BookCats to all the Chinese Wikibooks modules. Fortunately, zh is a lot smaller than en! :-) Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 10:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I will note that BookCat was largely coded by Pi zero, however. – Adrignola talk 12:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about your tirelessness and botlike-ness. So far I've been adding bookcats (up to JavaScript now) to books, and tagging them for splitting and as stubs. I also nominated a few orphaned redirects for deletion. Then I plan to sort out all the cats - much like what you do! - and copy files to the commons. :) Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 05:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent. In much the same way, if new contributors make a mistake, I try to show them the ropes by example rather than simply dictating how things should be done.  If my actions inspire others, that makes it all worth it.  I know that si.wikibooks was so impressed by our subject system that they contacted me to find out how we set it up and for assistance.  It's also flattering when the other Wikibooks projects translate some of our larger books, such as Blender 3D: Noob to Pro (though they seem to not know about requesting the technical ability to import from here to comply with licensing...).  For some of the languages, English Wikibooks is as proportionally larger to them as the English Wikipedia is to us.  – Adrignola talk 11:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

DDC and LCCN removal
Do you intend to replace subject classifications on the books you removed from DDC and LCCN? 71.198.176.22 (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Those are instead applied using the subjects, alphabetical, and status templates, which populates this page. – Adrignola talk 19:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Note
I don't expect to be doing any more work on those old book topics. For that reason I invite anyone to consider deleting them. I am indifferent on whether they are kept or not. PullUpYourSocks (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome
Thank you for the warm welcome. --Freiberg (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

voting
Hi Adrignola,
 * I have a question: Is there an edit limit for voting? If yes, what is the limit? Thanks in advance. Srhat (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How about at least 50 edits and registered for at least two months? – Adrignola talk 21:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you :) I just couldn't find the page explaining this. Srhat (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Decision making seems to have dropped the edit and registration restrictions way back. Is this about the voting for checkuser? Are there special meta requirements? (Beyond verification of ID.) I'm thinking I'll go !vote since I do intend to become active here. With books. --Abd (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Locally we don't have any restrictions and we really don't need them. I doubt this process needs any special consideration since it is only a call for demonstrated confidence (not really a vote), since every user will be affected by the decision, therefore any registered users should be able to participate and any objection (even of unregistered users) would be considered, since it is a decision covered by our policy for consensus, with some added external requirements (due to the nature of the tool). --Panic (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Well, I actually think there isn't a page that has any requirements. Our major permissions discussions have always revolved around consensus, so bureaucrats would use common sense and discount any unregistered/new users' opinions in the discussions when looking at an admin/'crat candidate.  The requirements imposed by Meta for electing a CheckUser here forcing it to be a vote go against the Wikibooks grain, so to speak.  Meta's requirements are for a minimum number of support votes and those support votes need to make up a certain percentage of the total.  Wikis with ArbComs can set their own procedures. – Adrignola talk 01:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

CheckUser
I have restored your checkuser tools here since the project has now two checkusers again, as per policy. Regards, Dferg (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

excuse me
but weren't you supposed to suppress the redirect in 1945 The United States uses atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 10:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There's nothing that says I have to. Given that it was recently being worked on, I didn't want the anonymous contributor (who will have a harder time looking at their contributions to see where the page went) to wonder what happened to the page.  Since it has been some time now, I have deleted the redirect.  I didn't know that failing to suppress it in that move three days ago would bother you. :) – Adrignola talk 12:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Collection
Could you take a look at Template:Collection? It got way big on me, and now it chops off the word the first word in the book title (Adventist), and leads to an error page. I see this in the following sections of my book: Since you were the last to edit it, I thought maybe you'd be up to tackling the problem. Thanks! --Jomegat (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Outdoor Industries
 * Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Arts and Crafts
 * Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Nature
 * Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Health and Science
 * Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Household Arts
 * Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Outreach


 * Fixed. The manually-specified parameter wasn't properly encoded. – Adrignola talk 01:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks a million! --Jomegat (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I edited your closing sentence at VfD
Just to point out that I just edited you action on Requests for deletion, some words were out of order. --Panic (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a perfectly good word order; "the user is paying X no heed", X="attempts to reason with them". I de-redacted it (no offense to anyone involved, I hope).  --Pi zero (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "This is in line with vandalism and the user is paying attempts to reason with them no heed." to me it doesn't seem correct and takes an effort to make sense of it, but I defer to you on such things. The separation created from the action and the qualifier creates unnecessary confusion, a clearer variation would be "the user is paying, to the attempts to reason with him, no heed." resolving the problem caused by unnecessary "them"... (My rewording was "...paying no heed to the attempts to reason with him.") --Panic (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * English is my native language and so I've no doubt that some of my sentence structures might be of a complex nature. In the same vein, it is sometimes difficult for me to parse sentences composed by self-declared non-native speakers of English.  It's just one of those quirks we'll have to deal with in the spirit of international collaboration. – Adrignola talk 17:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)