User talk:Drm310/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

COI templates

Hi Drm. If I could make a request, when you add a COI template to the user talk page of an editor who hasn't edited recently (one or two weeks) could you make sure to remove the Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues, either with HotCat or by editing the template message? This is a tracking category and it makes more work for admins–and by admins I mean me–to look through the contributions of users who aren't actually editing. Thanks! Danger ^{High voltage!} 19:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Atmore, Alabama

Thanks for synthesizing the tags to the Atmore, Alabama site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.22.136 (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

USACK

Any questions regarding the validity of the data included in this article can be directed to ATTN: Joe Jacobi, CEO USACK National Office (Oklahoma City Office) 725 South Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73129 Phone: : 405-552-4040 ext. 4504 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usack-okc (talk • contribs) 03:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at USACK, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usack-okc (talk • contribs) 05:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we select this for arbitration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usack-okc (talk • contribs) 05:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree to your last suggestion. Open to discussion and even input on how to improve the article as well as other articles in wikipedia regarding our athletes from anybody. The reason the article is as it is is because no one has had any input in 2 years that the article has been online. More than happy to have an outside source contribute in a positive manner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usack-okc (talk • contribs) 05:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually you'd be surprised. I actually called the number the USER was posting and its actually the USACK in Oklahoma City. They thinks its funny actually. You two were actually telling the actual people that they were illegal copyrighting their own information from their webpage. Yes I agree their choice of name sucked and the should have designated a single person but do me a favor before you accuse someone of copyright violation verify it first....you just made the rest of the wikipedia community look like idiots guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.78.92 (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I am going to have to side with the organization on this onee guys. Major violation of good faith on your side. Should have when to arbitration...then to try and cover up your screwup DRM and have a froend do an IP block. Man not trying to name call but man you are a disgrace to yourself when you bend the rjles and then lie about it. Do me a favor before you do any more "instruction" to another useR....READ THESE ARTICLES truth honor integrity

                                          Dr. SAMUEL TIDWELL
                                           PROFESSOR OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING
                                           MIT
                                            CAMBRIDGE, MA.  USA  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.72.15 (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC) 

The two of you are seriously confused. I didn't secretly contact an admin to have the original user blocked. It's not my fault that the editing habits of the user attracted the attention of an admin. Accusing me of bad faith without evidence to support it is just a personal attack. Regardless, the block against the user was correct as per Company/group names. Even now they still have the opportunity to change their username, but so far, have failed to do so.

The USACK website clearly states at the bottom of its pages "© 2012 United States Olympic Committee. All rights reserved." That makes the material copyrighted. The addition of copyrighted material, even by persons from the organization in question, must be done in accordance with the rules at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. That wasn't done, and that's why the maintenance template was put up.

I have some suggested reading as well: Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. --Drm310 (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Silly boy. The USACK is part of the USOC. Come on now youre joking right....you did know that all the USAS sports programs are under them didnt you. Where did you think all their funding came from. Why else do you think all that money came from. All international competiors that represent the USA and receive federal funding have to be members of the USOC. Each governing sport body has a member on the board of directors. In essence the only real power they have is they actually certify the various sport bodies and its athletes for competition including medical and drug testing. The only copywrite power the organization has is over the USOC logo. The USACK logo and its propietary symbols are owned by it alone. Again if you would actually do research before saying anything things would look a whole lot better......its not the fact you screwed up that is the problem...it th fact that you insist that everyone else is wrong. It took me a whole 5 minutes to find the above information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.72.20 (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Important news notice. After doing further checking with the US Patent office....guess who owns all things relaring to the USACK..........why its the......USACK.......say it aint so Joe....say it aint so....thats just can be right...surely that cant be right....now I advise you thats just what the USAPO websites searchable index says...I mean. .... I mean just because the US goverment says its true doesnt always mean its true....HAHA.........

Again all I ask is before anyone accuses anyone else on wikepedia.......verify stuff...

Not trying to embarss you DRM..you were at least tryng to work out a solution — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.72.18 (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  Note — For anyone wishing to discuss the article in question, I strongly suggest using the article's talk page. An editor who acts, in good faith, to remove or bring notice to possible copyright violations on Wikipedia is 100% percent in the right as far as our policies and guidelines are concerned. Furthermore, this user is not alone in their concerns, and a thread has been raised on the article's talk page. If you disagree with this, then you should raise your concerns on there—not here—as continued action here will in no way affect the discussion there (nor the actions taken as a result of it). Thank you for your understanding. --slakr^\ talk / 17:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Dead links in article 'Bob Pringle'

Hi. The article 'Bob Pringle' has some dead links that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix them?

Dead: http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Province+taps+Pringle+children+advocate/3774558/story.html

• You added this in November 2010.
• The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

Dead: http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Pringle+resigning+city+councillor+2010+says+children+advocate+position/3785446/story.html

• You added this in November 2010.
• The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

Dead: http://www.newstalk650.com/story/20110101/45115

• You added this in January 2011.
• This copy from the archives might be good.

These links are marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots|deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Backwindow

Your copyright issue with Backwindow's page happens to be from a website that belongs to Backwindow itself. Maybe check that the next time, that would be useful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.246.167.190 (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Please use the article's talk page for discussion of the issues there, where other editors may contribute. Any concerns raised here will not affect the discussion there, nor any actions taken as a result. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your statement, so that you can be identified as the author of a particular comment. Thanks. --Drm310 (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - it doesn't matter that it's the company's website, use in Wikipedia still requires a formal copyright release. Just being an employee of the company doesn't mean they have the authority to release its copyright material under Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA license, which allows any reader to copy, modify and re-use for any purpose including commercial. JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio tagging

Hi. Thanks for tagging Jon Olson, but where the whole article text is copied like that, the tag to use is {{db-copyvio}} for speedy deletion, rather than {{copypaste}}. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Westport Innovations

Thanks for your message, but can you tell me what you're referring to when you say that I copied and pasted text directly? You deleted my entire article without even making sure that you were correct in your accusation that I 'copied and pasted' content - which I did not. I wrote the entire article, and had it checked by the VP of Communications at Westport Innovations for accuracy, and quoted external sources rather than Westport's home page simply to comply with the rules. Thanks. Wprt (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Left my reply on the article talk page. I see there is now an OTRS ticket so I will let that process run its course. --Drm310 (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

International Trade Centre

Last Friday you gave Mathew.chacko (talk · contribs) a coi warning. Today I discovered it was virtually all copied from the official website, so gave him a copyvio warning. Dougweller (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Did you send me a CoI note on my wall through an automated process, for my information, or because you actually feel that I had created a CoI on Travis McCrea? if you look at the revision history, you will see that all I did was added citations on claims that were already made (which also means that I feel that the conflict of interest tag on the article is illfitting, and makes it seem like I am making content changes).

Anyway, thanks for your clearification ☠  Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 16:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

follow up

a few things, while my name sounds like a joint account... if you look online, teamcoltra is simply my handle (@teamcoltra and fb.me/teamcoltra socially, teamcoltra on IRC, teamcoltra on messengers, etc).

You mentioned that my references were self-authored but I ensured none of my references were written by me. That was a big requirement for me to ensure that I didn't put any reference in that wasn't made by someone else to prevent bias.

Future suggestions will be made on my talk page. Thanks for your help (re Travis McCrea) ☠  Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 09:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Requesting addition editor review of article Pretty Diff

Hello Drm310,

You recently cited my article Pretty Diff for conflict of interest and I do agree with your assessment. I have edited the article to remove content that cannot be verified by articles and included citations from third parties. Please examine the article again to determine if the article is still lacking the sufficient neutrality. I welcome any suggestions you may have to make the article less biased. It seems it is difficult to substantiate claims about open source software since most substantiation is performed by examining the code directly. I have noticed that similar and related articles are incredibly short and provide few sources which may indicate these types of articles are generally challenging to substantiate without speaking to the code of the subject directly.

Would it be inappropriate to cite artifacts of code to substantiate operation of the application represented from the article so long as features and intended means of operation are not represented?

Thank you for the review so far — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austincheney (talk • contribs) 22:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm no expert at reviewing articles regarding software, so I can only suggest reading the essays regarding the notability of software here and here. As a general rule, it's not advisable for the person who develops a product (open source or otherwise) to write an article about it, as it would be construed as promotional intent.

As well, in case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. --Drm310 (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

File:King-George-map.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:King-George-map.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 02:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Editing done in Chitkara University website

Dear Sir,

The changes that have been made are informational and have been done by Chitkara University itself. The past content was not accurate and quite outdated. We are in the process of changing the entire Chitkara University text, links, images as requited by the governing body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChitkaraU (talk • contribs) 07:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Drm310,

Kindly note that I have access and permission to the copyrighted material and there is little direct copying of content from anywhere.Inadvertent deletions are causing extreme inconvenience in wikipedia content upadtion. You are requested to discuss before sudden actions please.all material are informational. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.71.23.206 (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but your denial of copyright violation is not supported by the evidence. I have referred this to the conflict of interest noticeboard if you wish to attempt an explanation. --Drm310 (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Missouri Gas Energy

Sir,

I wish to take issue with the warnings and editing issues I have been sent. First, let me say that yes, I do have a close relationship with the company, as I am employed there. However, what we have posted in no way conflicts with the Wikipedia rules and in large part, has been independently researched.

What we are attempting to do is make our history and current activities known to those who may be interested for whatever reason, especially for research. Believe it or not, there are many who are interested in the history of utility service throughout the nation and their current activities. You say we lack a source. I would submit to you that the book, "Cities of Light and Heat" is a well published source that can back up many of the facts we have presented, but not all.

When publishing a company's history, there are not always published sources to fall back on. Therefore, one must rely upon the company itself to provide those facts. Are we not a credible source of our own history?

Second, it is essential that Wikipedia readers know and understand our CURRENT business operations. This includes our energy efficiency initiatives, which are not designed to draw us new business, as we are a REGULATED UTLITY BY THE STATE OF MISSOURI. Perhaps it would be wise to parse which states have deregulated utilities and which do not. That means we have a defined area in which we can do business an cannot breach those boundaries. Moreover, our energy efficiency programs are designed to save CURRENT CUSTOMERS money, and in no way promotes our business. Quite the contrary, we are giving money away in order to save customers money and save energy!! Is that in any way beneficial to our business by encouraging our customers to use less of our service? Is that a detriment to society? I could see it if we were promoting a mobile phone service or such, but this is not the case. Moreover, this is a dominant current business issue for us and all other utilities in the country, and as such, should be a relevant fact about our business and the utility business as a whole.

I know there are many other avenues we can promote this fact and we have done so. However, this is not a sales pitch. This is a statement of fact and is widely shared by most other utilities in the nation, whether natural gas or otherwise. We are not advocating the use of natural gas over other fuels. We are simply stating facts about our business operations. If you think that this in some way influences or biases your readers, then I would ask that you show me how, because every other utility in the nation has the same programs. If we were to publish that natural gas is more efficient and affordable, which is true, I could see your point, but this is not the case and that is not what we have submitted.

I understand and respect Wikipedia's integrity and dedication to facts that are cited and verifiable, and I strongly support this position. However, in this case, I wonder if in that quest, there are not some crucial facts that are omitted due that zeal. Does this do readers any service?

I therefore respectfully ask, that you reconsider our submission, as I can in no way see how this can be justified as "advertising."

Most Sincerely,

Jason Fulp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Fulp (talk • contribs) 04:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Drm310. You have new messages at Connormah's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

3O

Thank you! Just doing my best to help out. :) --SGCM (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Declined Speedy deletion

I just wanted to let you know that I declined your speedy deletion request on Foddershock, because the claims that their songs appeared in movies and that they had a song on a Grammy nominated compilation album are credible claims of importance. It may be that they don't meet WP:BAND, so feel free to search for sources and, if you don't find any, nominate it at AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Enderby (rock band)

Hello Drm310. Just to let you know, I declined the speedy deletion you suggested, but the article is now at AfD. Regards, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Connected Contributor

Greetings most zealous COI sleuth. I appreciate your efforts to keep Wikipedia free from biased, promotional, self-aggrandising entries. No one could argue the importance of maintaining the Wiki mandate of properly supported, factual, informative/enlightening entries on significant topics. Recently, at the Wiki Washington Conference, 2012, Jimmy Wales and Mary Gardiner reminded Wikipedians “to increase the size of the umbrella of the world” (Gardiner). This would seem to point to ensuring that Wikipedia be inclusive rather than exclusive. The more articles the better. Wikipedians must, however, be on diligent watch for strict NPOV.

I have been following the discussion of COI on the Wikipedia: Conflict of Interest talk page. The discussion is leading down the wrong path in my opinion. Despite the most conscientious efforts, you would never be able to ferret out all editors who were connected to an entry. Then comes the issue of the extent of connection. Where to draw the lines? The other problem is that articles done by those not remotely connected to a topic become full of researched, and possible incorrect material. Worse yet, certain important and significant topics may not exist in Wiki at all. (For who should decide what topics should be included? How do you know what someone in this vast world would want info on?) Also, it is most often those who are in some way connected to a topic that can best supply accurate and relevant detail.

Sincere and true Wikipedians would better spend their time on the real issue for any entry...the NPOV. Neutral Point of View is far easier to distinguish and fix. And it is the much more important issue. What does it matter, really WHO creates or edits and entry? What appears in Wiki to the millions of researchers is the entry itself, and Wikipedians have a responsibility to ensure the NPOV for all articles.

So, I am proposing that you make this you new quest. I invite you to point out any areas of any articles I edit that counter the NPOV. I will gladly fix them to comply with Wiki standards, as I have been trying doing in any edits I make.

Question: Now that this article 'The Upside of Down' has the warning box, and I won't get into 'undo' wars, how can we remedy the situation to have the box removed? Jbghewer (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Connected contributors' contributions are rightly subjected to a higher level of scrutiny to ensure NPOV and verifiability - therefore on principle I think it is proper to identify those individuals. As per the discussion at Template talk:Connected contributor#Presumption of problems with connected contributors, I agree with the view that the template doesn't deface the talk page or shout out potential problems to general readers. I feel that whatever stigma is attached with being identified as a connected contributor is exaggerated - you should not feel personally injured or unfairly treated. I would willingly place the template on a talk page where I edited an article while in a COI position.

The whole philosophical debate about conflict of interest, and whether those contributors improve or detract from Wikipedia, has been going on a long time. The ideals mentioned in the conference speeches aren't meaningful if they're not reflected in the COI guidelines, because editors will enforce what is written. If you feel you have been unfairly treated in this specific case, you are welcome to voice your objections at Wikipedia:COIN#Thomas Homer-Dixon, where there is an open discussion. If you have larger objections about the nature of COI/connected contributors and want to make a case for changing the guidelines, I would direct you to Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest, where you can voice your opinions and exert your influence. In either case, whatever is mentioned here on my talk page won't affect the discussion there or the outcomes that result from it.

As for my own editing habits, sometimes I do take the time and energy for a more thorough review and editing of the article. Sometimes, because of time or lack of interest in the subject, I will just tag the article and leave it up to more committed editors to sort out. In either case they are both legitimate contributions, and the latter type is as much that of a "sincere and true" Wikipedian as the former. We're all volunteers here and can contribute as much or as little on a topic as we choose. Thank you for your well-meaning suggestion, but I see no reason to change at this time. --Drm310 (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

article updated as recommended

HI Drm310, Thank you for your recommendations regarding Paul (Prem) Sobel. I have addressed your concerns and will continue to improve the article. Please take a look and let me know of other suggestions. It is my intention to create an accurate, informative, and interesting article for Wikipedia readers, while in compliance. --Centerphi (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Feedback on Mark Pigott edits

Would you mind if I follow the style and format of your COI declaration for the University of Saskatchewan?

Thank you! Paccar984 (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, yes. It would help if you did it on both your user page (which you can create by clicking the red link) and also the article talk page. However, I would also advise you to request a username change because your username closely resembles the name of the Paccar company, which gives the impression that you're using it for a promotional purpose or sharing it with other people, neither of which is permitted. Allow me thank you for doing the right thing by wanting to disclose your COI. You will certainly benefit from the assumption of good faith by other editors, and for your honesty we will be much more willing to help you. Good luck! --Drm310 (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Our account (user page) has been shared. Each person who becomes the 'owner' of our Wikipedia articles is passed the authentication credentials for Paccar984 (984 is the department number for our web-presence group).

I would prefer to not use my personal Wikipedia account to make employer-requested edits. Would it be acceptable to continue using this account, but requiring the next Paccar-designated editor to create a new account? Please advise. Thank you for your advice in advance,

I am sorry but according to WP:NOSHARE, sharing an account is a clear violation of Wikipedia's username policy, so you must stop this practice immediately. As per WP:CORPNAME and WP:ISU, a username can't be the name of a company, or the name of a post or group within an organization, so your current username isn't acceptable. You could change your username to contain "Paccar" but only if it clearly denotes an individual (e.g. John_Doe_at_Paccar). Please initiate that process before making any more article space edits. And yes, any future designated editor would have to create a new account for himself/herself as an individual, and declare their COI.

It does concern me somewhat that you are being directed by your employer to make edits to these articles where they have a clear business interest. You should inform your employer about Wikipedia's policies of conflict of interest, neutrality, verifiability, identifying reliable sources, and ownership of articles. Hopefully that will prevent any awkward situations of you being told to make edits that are contrary to the policies. --Drm310 (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I want your email address. Paccar984 User2 (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If editors accept emails, they generally switch them on in their preferences. You would then be able to see a link "Email this user" in the Toolbox section at the top left of the user talk page. In this case, Drm310 seems to have switched off that feature.

I have left a note on your own talk page which I hope is helpful. – Fayenatic London 13:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Meili COI

I responded on my own Talk Page but not sure if better to respond on yours. At any rate, to answer you question, yes, I am a volunteer on Ryan's Meili's Sask NDP leadership campaign. Where/how do I disclose this?

Also, in the interest of fairness, it would be worth checking the other three leadership candidate pages for COI as I'm fairly certain they're all in a similar situation where campaign volunteers are contributing and monitoring the page of their preferred candidate.

Headtale (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. Cheers. --Drm310 (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sports commentator?

GSK has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Play-by-plays are cool though. Especially in non-sports areas! Don't stop ;D --GSK ● talk ● evidence 22:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

New user box

Looks great! Any idea how I can center it on the page? Qworty (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Haha, now you're challenging my on my web design skills! I'll scratch my head a bit and get back to you! --Drm310 (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Eric C. Anderson

Hi again, Drm310. As I mentioned a couple of days ago, User:Qwyrxian had begun looking at the article and offered some critical feedback. I've now updated the draft (here) and replied on the draft's Talk page (here). If you'd like to weigh in, please feel free. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 03:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

As it happens, Qwyrxian moved it over last night, so I am all set. I do occasionally have requests of this nature, so if, in the future, you'd be open to reviewing drafts where I have a paid relationship to the subject, just let me know. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cabri, Saskatchewan, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Metis and Voyageur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Batworld

Dear Drm301,

I have have emailed your administration with court documents which include a judgement against Mary Cummins of 6.1 Million for defamation.

I have no desire, nor have I been attempting, to use wikipedia as a "battleground," as stated in your recent accusation. Again, I have emailed your administration several times asking to have our page, Bat World Sanctuary, deleted entirely to avoid further harassment and defamation by Mary Cummins. Any help you can provide with this issue would be greatly appreciated.

Amanda Lollar Bat World Sanctuary

---

Dear Batworld,

The Wikipedia page "User talk:Batworld" has been changed on 26 November 2012 by Drm310, with the edit summary: User conduct

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Batworld&diff=next&oldid=524968098 to view this change. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Batworld&diff=0&oldid=524968098 for all changes since your last visit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Batworld for the current revision.

To contact the editor, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drm310

Note that additional changes to the page "User talk:Batworld" will not result in any further notifications, until you have logged in and visited the page.

Your friendly Wikipedia notification system — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batworld (talk • contribs) 19:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

My comments were directed at the other editor, not you. Another editor has made a thorough assessment of the situation at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blocking_a_user and I urge you to heed their advice. Note that your username is still in violation of the username policy, despite you having deleted my warning notice about it. --Drm310 (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Not that criterion

You cannot use that speedy deletion criterion - there are far too many editors, and you are not identifiably the original author anyway. Sorry, you'll have to try AfD. Peridon (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

As you seem to be more or less involved now, have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Blocking_a_user I'm staying neutral, and sticking to the rules until someone from on high tells me otherwise. Peridon (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm hoping for the "less involved" now. Enough has been said to both parties at WP:ANI that should (I hope) dissuade them from using the article as a battleground for their dispute.

As for the WP:SPEEDY, I wasn't too sure about it in the first place. I'm usually pretty confident with A7, G11 and G12 cases. --Drm310 (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The one author thing is really for recent mistakes, where the only other contribs are cats, tags and typos. And usually, one of the tags is a CSD... When the article's been up over a year, it's best avoided. I've got a prod up on one at the moment, to relieve an embarrassed autobiographer. At ANI, I've suggested a two way topic ban. Not often I set foot in there. It depresses me, so I stick to deleting things. Or occasionally promoting a rescue effort. Peridon (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Kim Dent Brown has blocked both of them per NLT. Peridon (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Henry Bagwell BLP, you sure about that?

He must be a ripe old age :- ) RashersTierney (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh cripes, you're right. Unreferenced but certainly not BLP!! It's too early in the morning for me... thanks for noticing. --Drm310 (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Have your coffee, WP can wait. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation

Hello, thank you for the tip about using page curation. It is highly appreciated by me. Thank you.--Wakowako (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)