User talk:Bfpage/archive/May 2015

archiving

GA process

Hi, you asked for feedback. First, many thanks for the review and the hard work that went into it. Since you ask, it was a bit confusing to see so much material which I think was rather intended to guide you, not us: the person who made the tool seems to have had the focus of assisting the reviewer, whereas the nominating editors need simple corrections and suggestions - do this, fix that, add a reference here, rephrase that sentence. So perhaps next time you might keep the tool's output on a page in your sandbox, and use anything helpful it came up with in your own words to direct the review? I think that's my only comment. Hope it's taken in good faith. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Why thank you very much for the feedback. I took a look at how the other reviewers 'documented' their process and thought it was too arbitrary and and subjective. Since it was my first review, I felt that it would be in my best interest to document the process in greater detail than what I saw on other pages. But your advice is well-taken. Next time, I will create a subpage for my own use to document the process so that I don't leave any details out that are described in the instructions. Have you ever done a review?

Yes, many: they are listed on my user page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Part of the review process did not suggest that wikilinks be assessed, but personally I feel that more wls would be helpful, especially to younger readers who may need to have more of the terms defined. Would you mind if I went in and inserted some wls? Feel free to revert those you feel are unnecessary.

Now about the comprehensiveness of the article: I mentioned the lack of wikilinks before. But I noticed there was nothing about tree crickets. I hope I don't sound too strange when I tell you that one of the highlights of my summers here in Western Pennsylvania are the very loud sounds of tree crickets-they go at it at about 80 dB in the evening, making it difficult to even communicate to someone standing next to you. Do you have plans to trying to bring this article up to a featured article? I would be glad to help.

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you also for your review which was very thorough. In future I suggest you stick to the things that you feel need improving and leave out the aspects with which you are satisfied. You could consider the review as a two way process designed to improve the article and make sure it reaches a certain standard. So, you could be more specific in your comments - if you find "weasel words" you object to, for example, you could specify what and where they are.

The reason the tree crickets are not included is that they are in the family Gryllidae in a different suborder Ensifera. Chiswick Chap and I have no immediate plans to take Grasshopper to FA, but may do so sometime in the future. Personally I think the gap between a normal article and a GA is more worth while filling than the GA / FA gap, which is mostly about comprehensiveness and nit-picking. Unless you think this article is un-comprehensive in other ways, how about jointly working on the article Cricket (insect) to try to bring it to GA or further? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on improving Cricket (insect) is on my talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I will be glad to help. See you on the Cricket talk page!

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Ketogenic diet

Are you reading the talk page, or are you going to continue tagging a Featured article without giving a reason? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I have stopped tagging. There is no reason to continue tagging. I have read the talk page but not in the past 10 minutes. I will do so now.

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Templates on BLP's

The template you are using states it is not to be used on BLP's.

• Note: This template should not be used on biographies of living persons.

Arkon (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Why would you remove the Reference section? I'm trying to save your article from deletion....

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Not my article, and was most likely an edit conflict as I only intended to remove the template. Arkon (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

ok ?   Bfpage |leave a message  19:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits to Michael Harner biography

Thank you for working on Dr. Harner's biography for a more neutral point of view. I have been meaning to reach out to you for help with this article as there is much that needs editing (like the concept of core shamanism) which I would like to propose on the Talk page. I've done quite a lot of research on Dr. Harner, core shamanism, and neoshamanism voluntarily and find there are many, more scholarly references than those I disputed on the Talk page. Also, I believe I now have secondary sources for most, if not all, of the references to the Foundation for Shamanic Studies Journal Shamanism which I believe is the issue about primary sources since these are articles written by Dr. Harner. I can provide these on the Talk page - would that be the right way to proceed? Is there a better way for us to communicate directly about this? Bashamfour (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for getting in touch with me about helping out with this article but I could not edit from a neutral point of view, I am afraid. I am quite flattered that you perceive that I am able to edit from a neutral point of view - but on this topic, that won't be possible for me. I did, however, post a helpful search template on the talk page of the article that should help you and any other editor find additional information and sources that will help with the article. The Very Best of Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

––––––Mootaz21 (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC) Chambi Operation topic i don't think is to be deleted cause it a article about a ongoing events and i made it out of a French topic [1] Jump up ^ https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataille_de_Chaambi

Thanks!

Thanks for your thanks, Bfpage.... it means a lot. I'm struggling with the atmosphere over there. It's hard to get the page to reflect things that i think are very important and to make sure that edits stick. There's a team of people who seem to be motivated to reduce any exposure of the chemical industry judging by the pattern of edits. I support proper sourcing but it seems they are maximizing contentiousness according to every little guideline they can muster and using guidelines as tools for obstruction and not for the spirit in which they were intended. Have you ever seen this before on pages relating to industries with some things that they would prefer to not have so publicly visible? How do you think i ought to best proceed? SageRad (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I would like to point out that it may be uncivil of you to call User:Flyer22 a 'disruptive editor'. I have more respect for her than that and have never referred to her as being disruptive. She is excellent at catching vandalism and has a staggering amount of edits attributed to her account. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  17:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

What are you all into and about Jytdog ... coming on this page after he simply thanks me, "suggesting" we both "be careful" ... about what? Cause s/he thanked me for my editing? And calling me "disruptive" .... what is your issue, Jytdog? Really, this is not appropriate. Are you the police of Wikipedia? Sure seems like it. In my opinion, your editorship is disruptive and harmful for Wikipedia. I don't think you're really HERE as you put it. I'm sure you'll find a way to use this new comment of mine to cite me for something else, and build up the long list of BS on my personal talk page... I really do not think you are WP:HERE, Jytdog. I think you're THERE. SageRad (talk) 07:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems kind of stalk-y in itself that you would post a message here. Weird. Jeez. SageRad (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You have run into some editors who believe that helping the encyclopedia means to scrutinize edits to make certain that they meet the standards that they think should apply. You have made important, valuable and numerous edits that have or will help those looking for the information that you have provided. Some editors seem to thrive on contentiousness and will participate quite predictably in all sorts of discussions on whether or not other editors should be blocked or ban; you can read this in their editing history. Please don't be discouraged! You are doing a great job.

  Bfpage |leave a message  12:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

List of Telangana-related articles

Hello. I'm wondering why you did not just move the index page to its new title?! Pages should never be moved by copy & paste because that breaks the revision history which, in turn, is required for attribution of the Creative Commons and GFDL lincences of the content. Now an administrator will have to perform a history merger which can be quite complicated and is just unnecessary work. So, for future reference, next time please use the "move" tab on top of the page. De728631 (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Apologies! The last thing I want to do is create work for someone else. I do not see a 'move' tab in my editing window, but I will read up on the details on how to do it correctly. I am SO sorry.

  Bfpage |leave a message  16:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry. If you don't see the move tab, you might want to check your user "preferences" and change the skin for Wikipedia. If you're using the default Vector skin, the move option is hidden in a dropdown menu called "More" on top of the page. I have now merged the histories of the two pages so you can continue editing the new list article. De728631 (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

What skin do you recommend?   Bfpage |leave a message  16:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 User Talk

About: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:37.44.112.93

Please, see links in English to confirm proposed changes: https://belaruspolitics.wordpress.com/2007/07/08/1995-referendum-and-coup-detat/ http://thepointjournal.com/output/print.php?art_id=227&spr_change=eng Could you please restore proposed changes? Or may be I should provide with the quotes from the sources above?

In addition I can provide a link on "Hate. Children of a lie" propaganda movie (Ru language). Also there are more available materials on Ru or Be languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.121.208.241 (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because of the use of the word: "pro-russian" which indicates to me that you may be editing with a particular point-of-view politically. That word is not a neutral term but favors one point of view over another. Believe me when I tell you that I am no expert in politics, but I do know a loaded term when I see it. Best Regards,:::  Bfpage |leave a message  16:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Is it possible to insert at least paragraph "Violations during the pre-referendum campaign" from http://thepointjournal.com/output/print.php?art_id=227&spr_change=eng ? If possible, could you please insert the paragraph and reference or let me know?

It was not "usual" referendum (from democracy point of view). I think that fact should be identified.

As for "pro-russian" - can't easily find full prooflink. The President's position at referendum and propaganda direction was similar to "all-russian nation" but with the "Soviet" features (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Russian_nation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.84.11.124 (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I will take your word for it. If you reference your change with a reliable source then it should be okay. Best Regards and come back if you have other questions.

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

See also sections

This are generally not recommended per WP:MEDMOS. But more specifically when we do have them we do not typically put terms for which there is no article. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I believe those are misspellings instead of non-existent articles. When I do mobile editing, am in sore need of a spell checker.

  Bfpage |leave a message  16:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

A yes one of the many problems of mobile. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you but what is this for?

Which question did I get the Wikipedia:Teahouse/Badge/Question for? Rubbish computer 16:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You asked a question on 5/12 about duplicate articles. This question doesn't come up all the time and I was personally interested in the answer myself. I figure if you ask a question at the Teahouse, there are probably a dozen other editors with the same question that just didn't have enough guts to ask it themselves. I appreciate the time and effort each editor puts into posting a question at the Teahouse. And I don't hand out badges just to anyone..... Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  16:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Have a new article that may be interesting

I couldn't have all the time in the world to go over that list above of suggested articles, anyhoo... Heere is the latest I've been working on. I know you're going to say the material in the opening is already covered in depth in {William Kidd, but with out the backstory how is the man to be made interesting? Did you know that when a pirate ship attacks the only two people that must be in the attacking party are the two elected reps, the captain and guess who else??

The Quartermaster! Hendrick van der Heul

Robco311 (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Large template at the top of the article

As this article is read by 1000s of people a day I am not a big fan of putting a large template at the top of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I rarely use that template but since so much material was being moved I felt that it would be courteous to the other editors and readers to let them know that it was being actively worked on. If a reader, even thousands, sees the template they will know the dynamic nature of the encyclopedia and know that it is always being improved. I have to quietly and respectfully disagree. In addition, the template would have been off by now if I had been able to continue editing without interuption. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  11:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Have raised a few minor concerns here Talk:Cervical_cancer#Still_editing Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

please help

hi, i dont understand or agree with the reason they declined my draft.. can you maybe help me? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:E_Square_Young_Engineers Onlinejonathan (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, I will be glad to take a look and get back to you. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Onlinejonathan, your proposed article is really not an encyclopedia article-that is what Wikipedia is meant to be. For a company or business to be considered notable enough to have an article written about it there needs to be news coverage (at least) from an independent news source that provides information about that company. I did a search of the internet regarding this company and there are no new stories that describe or critique the company. Wikipedia is not really a directory of industries or businesses and the ones that are listed have had independent news stories written about them by independent news services. Also, Wikipedia isn't meant to be a way to promote a business or company and that is what this article appears to be. Do you know of any reliable sources unaffiliated with this business that have written reviews or commented on it?

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Bfpage Thank you so much for being that fast! well i will try my best to explain..its not meant to promot at all and there is a hebrew wiki for it as well. I placed a few links for other sources as well as hebrew ones. There are a few in the References section and there are more such as http://tv2.hu/musoraink/aktiv/162447_rubint_reka_mar_tudja_mit_vesz_kisfianak_karacsonyra.html or http://www.nrg.co.il/online/54/ART2/305/595.html . Also, there is on wiki an other company doing the same basically and its called Mad Science. If its a case of being too promoting, I will try to rewrite (please help :( ) and i can get more links i believe although it seems odd that a company winning the prince award is declined.. please see this: http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000056614 . From your knowledge and experience, do you thinks its savable? Onlinejonathan (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This will be a 'tough' challenge. Please provide the following information so that a proper reference can be inserted into the article that shows that the company is/was 'newsworthy' and that it was covered independently by the link you provided above:http://tv2.hu/musoraink/aktiv/162447_rubint_reka_mar_tudja_mit_vesz_kisfianak_karacsonyra.html

The name of the tv station, the country of the tv station, the language of the broadcast, the first and last name of the news anchorwoman, the city and location of the tv station (address not needed), date of the broadcast, network, and station. Just to complicate things further, the template we will use is this:

{{cite AV media

| people =

| title =

| medium =

| publisher =

| location =

| date =

| url = (etc.)

Don't worry about putting the reference in the correct format or wiki-markup, I can do that for you. You can leave all the information I've asked for right here on my talk page. Do you have any other news articles that refer to the company?

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Working on it!! I cant thank you enough.. you are so kind and jelpful! Onlinejonathan (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Bfpage hello again! here are all the details: The name of the tv station TV2, Hungary

the country of the tv station Hungary the language of the broadcast Hungarian the first and last name of the news anchorwoman Somogyi Dora the city and location of the tv station Budapest date of the broadcast 14th November, 2014 network and station TV2, Hungary www.tv2.hu Did I get it all? Onlinejonathan (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Massive edit

Onlinejonathan, I just performed a massive edit on your draft, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:E_Square_Young_Engineers to remove all hints of advertising and promotion. You may not like what I have done and so please feel free to revert any of my changes. It is essential to prove the notability of your topic with news sources and un-affiliated websites.

  Bfpage |leave a message  00:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi again! You did great and I actually can learn from this as i go along and create more articlesOnlinejonathan (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, you think now its ready to be resubmitted again? Onlinejonathan (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Bfpage Hi again and sorry for the seond message but I added a few more links!! I think they are great... what do you think? Onlinejonathan (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

WPMED

Combined the two templates here [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for List of microbiota species of the lower reproductive tract of women

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

re: Talk:Szeptycki family - I guess now you have been involved with at least one successful DYK :) Congrats to you as well! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

that is very kind of you, I find you do equally excellent work. thank you I appreciate it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No one, ever has called anything that I have contributed to on Wikipedia...excellent. I am flabbergasted. Thank you back.

The New President of the Ozzie10aaaa Fan Club,

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI

You know that I would rather not post on your talk page, but I'm doing so now because it is procedural that I alert you to this WP:ANI thread. Flyer22 (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I am blocked and unable to participate in the discussion on this matter. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  15:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

BFPage - the last time you were brought up at ANI, I made it crystalclear to you that if you didn't stop the behaviors described in that post then you would find yourself unable to edit Wikipedia. You didn't stop the behaviors described in that post. I have blocked you for six months. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• I honestly dont have the time to read all of the text below right now but wanted to let talk page watchers know that we've had a fruitful discussion via email and I'm relatively confident that BFB's block ill be lifted shortly with an agreement to avoid certain stuff that has caused her trouble in the past. I really was being fully truthful when i said his block lasting six months was unlikely, as I've said frm the start heh (though there are a variety of reasons why it ws initially so high. ````

Request to be unblocked

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

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

---

Request reason:

I would like to request that I be unblocked. I am not hounding anyone and I am only trying to improve the encyclopedia. You may want to consider the possibility that the other editor may be mistaken and that the perception of being hounded may not be valid.

Accept reason:

Unblocked by Kevin Gorman subject to an agreement to follow guidelines posted here. Huon (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• BFP, I've rarely seen a set of diffs documenting a problem quite that well. I gave you a chance the last time Flyer brought you to ANI, and instead of reforming you kept acting in the same way. You had a chance to improve the encyclopedia as you state you want to, but by ignoring a generous warning and continuing your behavior, you blew it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• I was intending to bring this up anyway, but especially since Flyer requested me to - I am open to greatly reducing your block (although since I literally told you I'd block you if you continued your previous behavior, it'll still probably be quite a while.) If you voluntarily agree to a situation that guarantees Flyer doesn't need to take you to ANI again (and blocks will be epic for deliberate violations,) I'd be happy to cut it down. I normally prefer for blockees to outline conditions they'd be comfortable with - do you have any suggestions? Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Administrator Kevin Gorman, thank you so much for your continuing to maintain a dialog with me on this matter. From your viewpoint, I imagine that you probably don't 'enjoy' having to deal with situations like this. I prefer to sit on this 'development' for a few days to let things (again!) settle down a bit. Please assume good faith on my part. You will find in my editing history no evidence of this behavior or accusations of this behavior related to interactions with other editors. That is why this has been so baffling for me. In the meantime, you may want to analyze instead the reversions done by Flyer22 to my edits. Take note of the time intervals between my edit and the reversions.

As for being a friendly country artist grandma persona...LOL! I am sorry, personal attacks (is this one?), I have tried to correct my personal information when ever I have the opportunity and this seems like the opportunity. I am a professional visual artist, a member of a 'big-city' juried artist-member organization called The Associated Artists of Pittsburgh, and have made it into almost every show that I have entered, notable by being covered in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette and Pittsburgh Tribune Review. I own and run a successful art gallery on one of Pittsburgh's busiest streets showcasing the art of established and emerging artists. I am 57 years-old and a grandmother, yes! I have an undergraduate degree in chemistry and biology (pre-med at that time) have completed half of the work required for a master's degree in public health.

As for friendly - that is probably the best characterization of my talk page editing here on wikipedia. I enjoy welcoming newly registered editors, I answer questions in the Teahouse, I award barnstars, I work in AfC, I post helpful search templates on newly created pages to assist new editors in finding reliable sources. Please check my 'thank' log to see how many people I have thanked for their edits and contributions. I accept and actually flattered by being characterized as being called 'friendly'.

Since I am blocked, I am unable to participate in the discussion on ANI on this matter.

Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  15:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• The thing is BFP, most editors, most objective analysis (tool-based, etc,) and myself indicate that there is a problem with your editing habits. The ANI thread will continue to stew, and we'll see what comes out of it. Ping me whenever you'd like to discuss this futher - and it probably is a good idea for you to think about it for a few days. I will really do wish you the best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The tool Editor Interaction Analyzer, used here: is an indication of articles that are regularly vandalized that both Flyer22 and myself restore. This same tool indicates that at least 41 instances Flyer22 edited the same article after I did. If you are using this tool to demonstrate how I come after her to purposefully edit articles that she edits, you are making a mistake. I certainly do not interpret this as stalking or harrassment when she comes after me to edit the same article! This tool indicates that many articles are regularly vandalized and we both restored these articles with STiki. Since Flyer22 uses STiki regularly, it makes sense that Most of the time, my editing on the same article is a reversion of vandalism or a good faith revert - not harassment. Those articles that were edited within minutes are all (except for one) reversions of my edits by Flyer22, not the other way around.

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Kevin Gorman can you please explain the rationale by which you think that the block is justified at the same time that an incident report is open for every other editor on Wikipedia to comment. Provisionally, and while continuing to acknowledge my lack of knowledge of the background to this case, I do not see how the current time implementation of a block corresponds to any concept of Right of reply or how this adds any support to any potential efforts towards an achievement of reconciliation.

In my 06:56, 30 May 2015 I had made the direct request, "Bfpage my comments are made prior to my taking a personal look into the edits on which the previous report was based but as a general point I think that it is important to note the ideals by which Wikipedians are meant to work together. Please make comment here as to your view and response to these and previous matters raised. Also if there are issues that work both ways then you are at liberty to raise cited comment."

I am continually distressed at the way that AN/I focusses on judgement rather than on such issues of facilitation of understandings; provision of explanation; development of agreements; formulation of any relevant plan of mentoring with either party; rehabilitation.

You have seemingly ignored my intervention above and, again provisionally, my instant reaction is to view your unilateral action as being potentially of a disruptive nature and to wish that I had not bothered pinged you.

I would ask that this request to be unblocked not to be closed until this issue has been resolved and also ask you to consider reverting the block. GregKaye 12:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Greg - I'm confused by the request to provide a rationale. The ability of admins to place sanctions is not dependent on ANI consensus (although ANI consensus can overturn it.) People are blocked while ANIs are still open about them constantly. I'm more than happy to workk with BFB - see below - but she acted in a clearly blockable way that I had explicitly warned her I would block her for again if she repeated it. If you've read the below, you'd also realize that I don't intend this to be a six month block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman Please, Please, give, please, a rationale by which you think anything close to a six month ban is justified. Please point to the crime. En Wikipedia is short of editors and surely a valid reason for this extent of ban should be able to be presented. Please. Where is it? What is it? What diffs do you think shipping out a productive and, as far as I have seen, polite editor for half a year. Please, please explain. I will be more than happy with any valid explanation if it can be provided. So far I have seen the award of civility barnstars and brownies. What am I missing? GregKaye 19:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Besides the multiple ANI's as I've said here multiple times (and BFB has been productively engaging about, which I appreciate,) I don't intend the block to be six months. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog I have read the ANI and I am asking you what you think was so intolerably wrong? Please, please explain. Let's please get at least one issue that we can work with so as to progress to resolution, please.

Kevin Gorman please point to a diff, please point to a crime, please point to anything that makes sense. Please. GregKaye 20:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• There are plenty of diffs and descriptions in the last two ANI's pointing to serious hounding issues, as were agreed by others there. Since you already tried to relitigate it at the ANI, I would rather not do it here too. And, as I mentioned, I am not intending this to be a six month ban -see below. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman if there is plenty of material then please, please point to something. Please explain. Where is the crime. Please. What have you got? GregKaye 20:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Greg: I'm not going to bother responding further to you here. Both ANI's have loads of evidence supporting a temporary block of BFP, which suggests to me you didn't read them. You tried to relitigate it at ANI, and got shut down there. You're not helping BFP in any way shape or form by posting here further. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman The simple fact is that Wikipedia has a lack of editors. On that score and in the context that, you have not responded to a would be simple request to please present a rationale for a six month ban, I sincerely believe that I am trying to help. Please, If you can give one, what is the wrongdoing here that warrants a six month ban? How can we just proceed with a ban without explanation? How does that help the potentially banned editor? What could possibly have changed after six months if no explanation is given. GregKaye 21:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

references that have been made of Flyer22 and that have previously appeared on the talk page of DangerousJXD?

These include inappropriate and against talk page guidelines contents such as an initial: "This is my second go round with Wikipedia. I left because of Flyer22. But I (sort of) got over her accusations, remembered my password and now I am back editing the wiki" which was added in a Revision as of 08:33, 8 February 2015. and later with "If you're new to editing Wikipedia (I suppose I'm still relatively new.), go to The Teahouse. That is the place where I learned a big portion of what I know. It's so good at teaching new users, that [[User: Flyer22|somebody]] thought I was a seasoned editor." which appeared in an early version of "Notes about Wikipedia". In a Revision as of 20:54, 8 February 2015 a link was added to produce the text: "I love Wikipedia. I enjoy fixing typos, extending infomation about stuff, [[Wikipedia:Teahouse|The Teahouse]], and ([[User: Flyer22|For the most part...]]) the friendliness of Wikipedia among other things." and the "I left because of F" wording was removed in a Revision as of 03:07, 12 February 2015. In revisions as of 08:28, 16 February 2015 and of 04:25, 19 February 2015 the text was added: "I dislike the user Flyer22. I think Wikipedia would be a better place without users like Flyer22." In a Revision as of 09:43, 5 March 2015 text was then edited to: I hate the user Flyer22" with the following content then being removed.

Please note this is not the same person.

In the meantime there has been a generally high level of good humour at the talk page of:

DangerousJXD who has received the following barnstars

The Original Barnstar Hi, im User:Frogger48, hoping you enjoy your stay on Wikipedia. the kindness here is a thing I love also. Frogger48 (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks Frogger48! -DangerousJXD (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC) The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar I just want to say thank you for thanking my edit to 2015 in video gaming. Keep up the kindness and have a great time in Wikipedia. LightShark1 (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks LightShark1! Kindness is important here on Wikipedia and I myself try to be kind to everyone. On another note, on your user page you said that you hate Minecraft. I couldn't agree more! —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC) The Civility Barnstar It's nice to be nice.   Bfpage |leave a message  22:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks Bfpage!! –DangerousJXD (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC) The Barnstar of Good Humor I liked reading your user page   Bfpage |leave a message  02:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks. —DangerousJXD (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC) The Friendship Barnstar I am writing to tell you that you are one good friend that I've made here on Wikipedia. We both have learned and have been able to focus on improving the encyclopedia, along with getting through some difficult challenges. You learn things more quickly than any other editor that I have ever seen. You demonstrate enthusiasm for whatever project you get involved. You handle disagreements in a responsible way, humble and easily able to move on without getting discouraged. Nothing seems to stop you from editing! There are so many things to admire about your editing. Please keep up the good work - I notice the time and effort you put into your editing. You are a great example to me. With the deepest regards and admiration,   Bfpage |leave a message  20:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Wow Bfpage, thanks for the very kind words! :D Again thanks! :) --DangerousJXD (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC) The Original Barnstar Thank you for your help!!!!!!!!! Nairobi Adams (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Any time, Nairobi Adams. Thanks! :D —DangerousJXD (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Following the comment on the shortly after the humour barnstar Bfpage made a Revision as of 02:38, 8 March 2015 to the add a non appearing note to give: "<!--LOL, Bfpage -->" to the "I hate" text and, within two hours, Flyer22 had presented the ANI report titled "WP:Harassment by Bfpage" with title mention not being made to DangerousJXD which was added at 04:31, 8 March 2015. I totally agree that perhaps Bfpage can be directly confronted with these issues and I am pleased that DangerousJXD has removed the WP:CANVASS references from his page but, none the less, especially in the context of the recent ANI (made on the basis of "Bfpage started adding categories to articles that I edit.") I have to wonder who is following who. The friendship barnstar was given after this whole incident flared up possibly by way of apology.

You have also noted a high level of cordiality from Bfpage that I have also noted in various edits. In this research, whereas I have always known Flyer22 from her great work at WP:RM, I have now seen a more antagonistic side in passing edits. I have also noted that Flyer22 will quote irrelevant cases of other editors stalking her she herself has a wider and colourful history of involvement in ANI. Both sides of this can be considered.

Flyer22 has herself said (in addressing Kevin Gorman who like you I regret pinging): "I appreciate your help on this matter. I truly do. But I was not looking for Bfpage (who identifies as female, by the way) to be blocked. And Bfpage being blocked for six months is too harsh, in my opinion."

The closing statement of the earlier ANI was to the effect that: "Any continuation of this behavior will be considered a breach of WP:HOUND." Please not that it was hounding behaviour that was mentioned. The only behaviour that has been recently reported is of editing categories of articles and things like that. What am I missing here? GregKaye 12:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog What point? We have the diffs. There is no question as to what anyone did. What apology do you want? BfPage has said below, "My first and probably most important question is this: if I am blocked from participating in the ANI discussions which now both have been closed, in what venue am I supposed to 'admit' my wrongdoing? On my own talk page? Through email discussions with you? In an ARBCOM setting? Do I just make a random post on my own talk page hoping that it will be read? What exactly are my options?" You say that she has never apologised but immediately she says this you, I think, slap this down your judgement and presumption that, "Fake apologies are as worthless in WP as they are in any real community." On what are your views based? I am not making a judgement either way but please cite proofs of insincerity. Please.

We have a situation in which two separate editors have independently taken issue with an editor and have shared, in one short period of time, an editor made a bad taste comment in a situation in which it would have been better to recommend removal of content. We go into a pattern of rapidly executed judgement in which it was fairly stated that hounding activities would not be acceptable. Perhaps understandably, communication stopped. Nobody in Wikipedia, it seems to me, does anything about reconciliation and like minded disciplines. If you wanted tougher sanctions you should have protested at the time and explained your case. Since this time Bfpage has come to and encyclopedia whose Main page text presents: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and, with NO restrictions being in place, has done just that. What am I missing here? Repeat, what am I missing here? My points are that there can be two sides within a story with any potential second side now being restricted due to TP guidelines and that, with the hate comment being wrong, why isn't Dangerous blocked? GregKaye 08:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Initial ANI

The the ANI that was my 'warning' was opened and closed within two hours in the middle of the night. No, I did not have the opportunity to comment on my behavior. I have not promised to follow Flyer22. And even if I had made such a promise, I am certainly not doing it now. Wow, you are really getting into this... Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Editing the sexual intercourse and vagina articles

From: the current ANI discussion.

Since I am unable to participate in the discussion on the discussion page I hope it won't be too confusing to bring some of the issues to be addressed here to my talk page. I apologize for the inconvenience of having the discussion taking place in two different locations, but with my block I don't really have another option.

Flyer22 stated: "Bfpage took to heavily editing the Sexual intercourse article, which I interpreted as Bfpage trying to get a rise out of me." The interpretation was in error. I have been researching many medical journal review articles in my article creation activities and come across up-to-date information that would improve the article. I inserted the content with the appropriate references. I did not check to see if the article was heavily edited by Flyer22. Why would I? In good faith, my goal was to improve the encyclopedia with good content and references. These two articles have a high readership and need maintenance to keep up with current research.

If my editing is causing distress, I am saddened. But I also know WP:HERE. Just because those who have an interest in this situation believe that they have identified my behavior as negative, does not make it true. You have to consider the very likely possibility that I am acting in good faith and that editing the same articles as another editor doesn't necessary mean that there is harassment taking place. I am not trying to get a rise out of anyone. Also consider the possibility that past situations between other editors and Flyer22 and the real and actual harrassment that occurred in the past has skewed present perceptions. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

I think that I can prove a point made by Flyer22 and myself about the effect that STiki has on the perception of hounding and harassment. I would like to propose that that my block be lifted for the sole purpose of me using STiki to find and revert vandalism for a period of one week. Then let us all go back to the interaction analyzer and see what it will tell us. This will be a good test for all of us. I predict that the number of interactions will appear to increase between us due to me reverting vandalism on articles that Flyer22 has reverted before me and we may see the same effect if Flyer22 comes across some vandalism on an article that I have reverted before her. It MAY look like we are following each other around, but this won't be the case. What do you say, Administrator Kevin Gorman? Just reblock me if I do anything except STIki. I will be helping the encyclopedia and at the same time avoiding purposefully editing articles that Flyer22 edits. This will be an excellent experiment for all involved. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• The thing is, Bf, you haven't admitted that you see anything directly involved in your editing as problematic. You didn't even comment at the first ANI, although admittedly it was only open for a couple hours. Every editor to examine your edits sees a problem. Any solution is going to start with you recognizing you have a problem, articulating it, and coming up with a way to avoid it in the future. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again, Kevin Gorman. There is a big problem with the first ANI discussion. It was only open for two hours (is this typical?), in the middle of the night. I was probably asleep.

It is not possible to answer accusations if the discussion was closed! Isn't that discussion closed? It is not possible to participate in a discussion that is closed, but is that what you are asking me? Where and when was I supposed to 'announce'/'admit' wrong-doing if there was no place to do so? Are you saying that, even though that discussion was closed, with no input from me AND the instructions said that no more comments were to be added, you are actually asking me to continue the discussion here on my talk page instead? Am I now, here only on my talk page, supposed to write 'something' that demonstrates that I have a problem? I have to admit something - this process is quite confusing.

You said: Every editor to examine your edits sees a problem. I find this statement confusing also, seeing that out of the 12,969 edits that I've made, 462 have been reverted. That leaves me with 96% of my edits intact. Perhaps you mean that every editor that has commented on the current ANI sees my edits as a problem.

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• I should've been more clear, but no, I don't expect you to answer a closed ANI, and I understand not every editor has problems with your edits. But on both ANIs, every editor who has carefully examined your edits has found them to be problematic. Any solution is going to start with you recognizing you have a problem, articulating it, and coming up with a way to avoid it in the future. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I feel as if we are making progress here. You have clarified your statements and are treating me with patience and respect. I don't believe the problems are with my edits, I believe that in my block, you said I was hounding/harrassing. That has to do with behavior, isn't that correct? My behavior is in question here not my editing. The other editors have not examined my edits, the other editors have examined my editing activity. I typically edit create articles with high quality medical journal review article content and references. My edits are carefully scrutinized by other editors who are active in Project medicine and believe me, when I make an error in content or referencing, I hear about it immediately, thank the editor who corrects my editing mistake, assure them that I will be more careful in the future and welcome any suggestions for improvement. Other editors may not like the way I edit (typically for brevity and clarity), but that really isn't the reason for the block. Editors don't get blocked for creating section titles and adding content.

If I understand things correctly, I am blocked because someone requested that you block me - is that correct? Is there a record of that request that I might see it?

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• No, I blocked you because you continued to behave in the same way after I told you I would block you in the first ANI if you continued. If you don't see any problems with your edits, unfortunately you may really be blocked for six months. I would suggest reading over both ANI posts carefully and with an open mind and reexamining people's complaints against you. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• re: "is this typical?" Yes but, imo, what is typical on Wikipedia does not necessarily make a connection with what is right. I am also of a mind to write comment on the ANI, once I have got my head together on the topic, regarding interpretations of the implications of this block and may be open to conveying comment from Bfpage "directly" and I would also welcome comment from Kevin Gorman and Jytdog on this. GregKaye 12:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with closing ANI sections as soon as they have been dealt with. The less drama the better. BFP would've received the clear warning from the first ANI, and anything past that would've just been extra drama. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Behavior

So I suppose then, we are 're-opening' the closed discussion that was closed. Let us list the 'complaints', it will help us find a solution to resolving the block. (editing this comment is in process...)

• No BF, we really aren't. Multiple Wikipedians including multiple admins have found your behavior to be problematic to the point of block worthy. You are not going to successfully be able to argue you did nothing wrong: you did something wrong. If you try, your original block will stay in place. Please ping me again only if you've realized that you did in fact do something wrong, see what it was, and want to offer concrete steps to ensure it doesn't recur. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't able to complete my comment above before you answered. I do not intend to argue that I did nothing wrong.

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry for responding early in that case - I have a pretty bad headache today and am probably a bit more teste than I should be. To be clear, I really do hope we work something out. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Please! Take a break. This is not an emergency, by any means. I will catch on all the reading that I need to do to fully understand your point of view. Let's both take a break for a couple of days. I hope you feel better. Best Regards,   Bfpage |leave a message  23:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

BFP: I do want to say that I really appreciate your general attitude about this compared to many other blocked users (and indeed many not blocked users.) Thank you. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)