User talk:DangerousPanda/Archive 7

Things you probably never read on Bwilkins' talk page in the first place

Salting

You speedied Pago_(Company), and the user recreated it. You then sent it to AFD. Why not salt the article? If you thought it was speedyable in the first instance, isn't it in the second? I ask because I typically salt articles I speedy if they keep showing up in my watchlist (usually in exactly the same form as when I deleted them). Am I wrong? causa sui (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

In this instance, I basically considered a borderline speedy in the same vein as a contested prod ... as such, I figured take it to the community, and if it's deleted, then we'll salt it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ack

I groaned, but I also laughed. You are a bad, bad person. :P [1] KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It actually came out slightly funnier than I had anticipated. Overall one of the stupidest cases of suicide by police officer ever seen on Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, *I* appreciated it. And your jest. :-P KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

*snickering* Touché (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You have NO idea how much I needed to be able to toss a bit of repartee and have it caught and "gotten", with no hurt feelings, anger, or misunderstandings. Thanks - its been a bit crappy for me today, communications-wise. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you haven't got a towering spectre of ArbComm because of someone claiming I said something I didn't in an e-mail. Right now even accidental humour works for me :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I will be very much surprised (and somewhat horrified) if anything happens on WalkerThrough's say-so. It would take a complete lack of clue to miss what kind of disruption he is; not even the worst ArbCom member ever has utterly lacked clue. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but perhaps my belief that "everyone has something to add" is sometimes naive ... I even e-mailed him advice on WP:OFFER, apparently after he'd forwarded some unbelievable stuff to ArbComm and the WMF (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Chris St Clair

Sources to verify Chris St Clair

The Weather Network theweathernetwork.com mcharron@pelmorex.com Firefly Books fireflybooks.com www.fireflybooks.com/bookdetail&ean=9781554073382 www.kingstonthisweek.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1001954&archive=true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.124.12 (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't tell me; properly WP:CITE them in the article, which, by the way, is Chris St. Clair <---- note the period, and note that Pelmorex, his employer, probably doesn't count as 3rd party (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I was simply trying to provide more information with additional data, not a second request. That's what I noted material and links to your attention,

Thanks, 67.193.124.12 (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

...like I said, if you want the article to remain, fix it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Equestria Daily

A new deletion review has been created regarding an article you've recently discussed. Dr. WTF (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Nordpay

Fine, I'm aware that I tend to be a bit trigger happy with deleting articles, so I try to respond to aggrieved editors positively. It's very occasionally been possible to work with an editor to salvage a spam article, but usually it's pretty futile Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure he gets it yet ... his current unblock doesn't address how he'll move forward ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Apologies thanks for undoing my rollback on above page was totally unintentional only just realised i had done it when looking at my contributions. Using my iphone whilst at work is not the best idea seem to accidentally press something every so often. Edinburgh Wanderer 19:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No issues (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for trying. I appreciate it :) -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Pulled my hair out on that one ... just couldn't get through to them, sorry :-( (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Halo my dear

I never disrupted any community discussion, There are only 2 editors discussing about the article deletion issue me and other editor If u dont know please please please stop accusing and abusing fellow editor please please please I am very well following the rules (Vensatry234 (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)).

*sigh* Even the way you say this shows you just don't get it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Vensatry234

I'm not sure if you consider this edit warring, but as soon as the user's block expired they reverted their changes back into Rang De Basanti and again mentioned something about MikeWazowski not being an admin. I figured I'd leave it to your discretion because I wasn't sure if this action fell within the rationale for the last block.--v/r - TP 15:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he was caught socking anyway ... thanks for the heads-up! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Shii_reported_by_User:Shii_.28Result:Blocked_72hrs_.29

Popping in to let you know Shii contacted me off-wiki about this; I left both a message on the noticeboard and on the article's talk page. Hopefully the current revision might be palatable to both editors. humblefool® 23:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Shii

Actually, I hadn't noted his sarcasm. Text is one of those mediums that it can often be difficult to detect if you don't know the person, and before yesterday I hadn't interacted with him before. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok. As per the edit notice above, please try and keep conversations together on one page ... I am watching your talkpage for replies. Did you answer the question about whether he formally violated WP:NPA that many times for all those warnings? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

And the notice on my talk page says I don't watch other talk pages. Since you stated the conversation, we should be following my rules. :-p That said, I gave one notice for each occurrence. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

So, if you don't watch pages, and I do ... and this conversation started on your page, why is it not continuing there where it started and belongs (according to policy)? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to that policy. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me-123567-Me (talk • contribs)

I think I'm starting to understand User:Shii's frustration now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to sign my last post. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Goat Island

There are many islands named Goat Island, including Goat Island, Trinidad and Tobago. The correct title for that article should be Goat Island (Trinidad and Tobago), and I have placed an entry at wp:requested moves. Your WP:OWN attitude and "final warning" on my talk page are clear abuses of power. I recommend you relax and work with me on this instead of all this posturing, or I will escalate. Jokestress (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that someone else already replied on your talkpage regarding this. You'll also need a better reading of the manual of style regarding titles of articles (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

...and please allow me to clarify one aspect: my first polite post on your talkpage was your first level of warning. That was the correct time to return to all of the articles you did the same error to, and fix them. Instead, you re-did the edit (contrary to WP:BRD) marking it as "pedantry". This showed that it appeared that you a) had no desire to edit collaboratively, b) had little desire to follow the principles of WP:CONSENSUS, c) were clearly going to force someone else to go and fix all of the changes instead. For this reason, your next warning went from level 1 to level 4. Cooperation goes a long way on this project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

One: your first post was not polite. Two: please make your case for retaining the current title at Talk:Goat Island, Trinidad and Tobago. I'm not really interested in discussing your level of civility. Jokestress (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was very polite. I have moved the page - there was absolutely no need for an RM - the original article was created based on a previous MOS. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

Man your good! I guess being on Wikipedia so long makes me forget about the newcomers not knowing these things. I should be more careful.Gregory Heffley (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This is my frownie face

[2] You could have said "OR" and left it at that, without a blanket smear on the high opinion protestors have of themselves. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have interviewed people who took part in protests, riots, including people arrested. I recently interviewed some from Occupy Ottawa. Fluff, no real meaning, but thinking they're somehow actually making a real difference ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

OR :-P But seriously, regardless of your view of them, didja have to say it? Still wearing my frownie face. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

... maybe it was the Jerry Seinfeld in me. Just have to go off with the "what is it with all the..." :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

heh, I hear that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Intimidation

Editor clearly did not read anything I wrote, now just making stuff up
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since you have participated in yesterday's events, and even at one point (justly in my opinion) objected to other users personal attacks against me, I am dissapointed that you seem to resort to intimidation in your "advice" that you posted on my page. I have read some of the policies and pages on this site, and browsed a bit how things go on here, and see that things are, as always, more complex than on the first glance. Why do you suggest that after all the very upsetting intimidation and harrasment, that I recieved on the ANI page, which caused quite a bit of stress to me and to which I was unable to respond, I would have no right to complain about it, and would be "banned" (which seems to be a pretty extreme measure, and as you pointed out is different from block that I received - but even in policy about banned users it is written It is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors, whether by mocking, baiting, or otherwise abusing them.). I reviewed what happened on ANI page, and the most offensive personal attacks did not come from the offending admin (who did throw some insults but was later concerned about showing to the rest of the community that he did not do anything wrong), but by "Baseball Bugs", who, as it turn outs, has a long history of harrasment and personal atacks against other editors, and has been blocked several times for this [3]. Although he received many warnings to stop his abuse at ANI page, he did not, and even attacked another sysop for which he received warnings both on his page and on ANI page too (unsurprisingly, although his abuse of admin was not as severe as against me, this caused stronger reaction). I do not see why complaining about this would cause me to be blocked (or even "banned" as you suggest on my page, which I find rather intimidating) - unlike the "edit war" situation, in this case Baseball Bugs was harrasing me while I had absolutely no interaction with him, and there is no rule against protecting users own dignity (in fact, at many points in the policies, the importance of rules of "civility", "no personal attacks", "assuming good faith" etc. have been stressed over and over again, and they all have been severely violated in my case; I even found at one place that it is wrong for experienced users to object to unfamiliarity with the rules by the less experienced users). And why would an admin (or indeed any other user) would be, justly, able to object to BB's unacceptable behavior, and I would not? Also, by your own estimate, most people on ANI board did not read my posts in depth, rather they relied on assesment of other users. "Baseball Bugs" has in several occasions misrepresented the circumstances, all while I was not able to respond. For instance, he replied that my comment, transfered by Swarm from my talk page, that I did not violate 3RR rule, is untrue - while it can be easily checked from my edit history that I made 3 reverts, and sysop made 4 (that is a coincidence, noone pointed my attention to 3RR or BRD policies; his threat of block turned me to the noticeboard page, and the uselessness of the reverts turned my attention to the talk pages) - weather this is deliberate misunderstanding or not, I do not know, but user BB effectively tried to represent me as a liar. He also said that it is a "blatant lie" that the offending op tried to get an edge in edit dispute from his sysop powers - by threatening to block me; he in fact admited that he had intended to follow on his threat [4] to be honest, blocking was actually going to be my next step, which would be a case of conflict of interest - and this was the reason, together with his calling me a "vandal" and refusal to talk, to go to the noticeboard page (only then did the offending admin become kinder, suggesting that I start a new page etc. - but after the block and his unblocking, he resorted to his "racist" and "bad faith" insults). Worst of all, the sources that I provided were referred to as not corresponding to the text I inserted. In fact, if you check the sources (which were for the two incidents; I later, via Swarm, pointed to sources for other incidents, and to the wu wei generalities), you will see that there is nothing regarding the incidents themself that does not correspond to the sources - the suicide/turist incident and the little girl incident are fully supported from the sources. However few people bother to read the articles, and when someone says that sources do not support the text, while I cannot respond, that is pretty much a below the belt blow. Some people questioned the general wu wei stuff, however this is in fact quite uncontroversial and easy too check - there are some useful references for this too, some I pointed via Swarm in my second ANI post. The thing which is NPOV (or rather it would fall under WP:SYNTH, as I see is in the policies) is the link between the two. It is not true that I misrepresented the sources, but some editors (Basseball Bats included) tried to represent me as dishonestly using the sources. Now, the whole incident did cause quite a bit of stir and soul searching in China and in the world, and making cultural link is not something that is out-of-the way - in fact, as it can be found out from many sources, there are links to Chinese fear of complications (cases when people were punished for helping - BBC and LA times articles talk about that, and I mentioned it too as well as Good Samaritian-type laws). I later found this link [5], where professor Joachim I. Krueger from Brown, speaking for CNN, says that this is classic case of voulonteer dilemma and says the following: If an incident occurs in a foreign country or culture, it is easy – maybe tempting, as we grapple with something so baffling – to conclude that the particular culture is to blame, that it is being callous, uncaring or egotistical … but it would be too facile to think that apathy in the face of others’ suffering is a signature of the local culture. So, the synthesis, although in retrospect is probably wrong, is not unnatural and it is understandable that such an inference about culture is made - showing just how accusations against me of being "bad faith editor", "racist", "Chinese apologist","troll" is wrong. Had I inserted the same example into voulonteer dilema instead of Chinese culture it would be quite appropriate (I might do that at some point), or indeed if an authority made connection with wu wei (which, despite of how people react, makes sense), then it wouldn't be original synthesis. This is just to point out to you in how many ways the damaging things and accusations against me are wrong. Finally, I also see that you were involved in a slimilar incident recently, in which you blocked another admin for 72 hours. Now, it seems to me (it is possible that I didn't get all the circumstances), that this sysop was not more guilty than the one I had conflict with. Is it true that his "edit war" involved a talk page reverts (and there were not even 3 of them) of deletion of talk page comments (which in your policies is not the same as in the article, the comments of other users are not to be removed, if I didn't confuse the things about the policies). He also made some personal attacks, essentially saying that user is juvenile, and in joking and disrespectful, but somewhat lighthearted manner. He was only unblocked when he admitted his mistake and appologized. Contrast this with the other sysop, who also made personal attacks and violated 3RR, refused to talk on the talk page or article talk page, threatened blocking while in edit dispute (and as he later admitted intended to use his blocking powers), who was unblocked without his admitting any fault (in fact, he indicated that he thinks block is ridicilous and that he was right all way, and that he feels it absurd to even having to justify his edit warring, in his own words I'm honestly shocked anyone could consider that an edit war, I'm honestly aghast that I even need to defend my reverts. etc), and in fact completely changed his tone from constructive (in the beginning of noticeboard, when he finally responded to me, making a suggestion to move the material esewhere) to insultive (once he was unblocked, but I was not). Perhaps I used the wrong noticeboard (I see that there is incidents noticeboard, and the case on the noticeboard was closed before I was able to respond properly), however, despite the evidence that the offending admin in my case got very lightly compared to the other sysop, certainly his abuse and insults were much lighter than the one by "Baseball Bugs" (after all, he was blocked and this must have stressed him, and I can extend good faith that he thought my edits were "complete crap", which, as I explained there, they were not - even if synthesis is wrong, that does not mean that it is trash much less that such offensive words should be used). Of all the users (mostly admins but some are not - seems like Baseball Bugs, with his long history of harrasment, is not allowed to be sysop, which is a good thing), who participated in what felt like verbal lynching at that ANI page, "Baseball Bugs" had most malicious, inciting coments aimed at turning other users into trashing me, and while there were quite a few insults, his influence seems to have had the worst effect - both in characterizing my edits as something they were not, and in direct pattern of abuse and insults. It is certainly not his first time - compared to my treatment for what happened yesterday, the tollerance of his ongoing harrasment of many users over many years seems to be quite strange. I certainly do not like injustice and abuse of power (of which there is a lot in this world, and some forms of which you are only too lucky not to know about), but are not (despite of what you might think) unreasonable. It is natural that privileged people stick to each other, and so, the fact that a sysop was blocked (and in fact there is another case of similar situation) is certainly a good thing showing that, albeit imperfectly, the rules can be followed here. So it is both unnecessary, contraproductive and unfair to try to intimidate me - if there is a procedure against abuse, and abuse is occuring form a particular user in a repeated and persistant way, which includes harrasment, repeated personal attacks and ignoring all warnings over YEARS, against many users, than I do not see how complaining against severe abuse (that only started on ANI page in earnest as I was blocked and unable to respond, to the delight of certain type of editors) that I was victim of yesterday, could be a disservice to community. Unfortunately, I know too well that NOT complaining about abuse leads to its repetition, until it becomes endemic in a community. Hopefully this place, that seems to have elaborate system of very reasonable policies, does not subscribe to supressing legitimate complaints about behaviour that is strictly against numerous policies that are formulated as important. In this short time which included extreme frustration of yesterday's injustice, I have come accross to both common human falacies and decent people (like Swarm, but there were a few other users that, although likely mostly motivated by defense of the admin who fairhandedly issued the two blocks, also objected to the worst abuse against me), so certainly I may find this hopefull, and also hope that your attempt at intimidation is just an error in judgement that can happen to everyone. Wangleetodd (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC) (talk page stalker)Holy... leapin'... Zoinks! Doc talk 23:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Appreciation

		The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
		Awarded to Bwilkins for pretty much being the best talk page stalker ever :) Cheers, FASTILY (TALK) 21:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's some high praise :-) There's some darn good stalkers out here (right y'all?) Thanks! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

(was stunned at his quickness) Speaking as the first one to have ever received that award, I will vouch that he is good.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

In response to your strong worded review....

You've probabbly seen my response to ed already but ill post it here as it will probably answer your questions.

blocking me wouldnt solve the siutation; chances are in the long run Wikipedia itself will be deprived of a decent, young editor. Something it soley needs.

It wasn't really a revert war since i didnt revert anything. It started off as me posting a query about his username and he deleted it and said it was rubbish/nonsense which i was a little annoyed about but i merely posted a new message asking him why he reverted it. He responded by plastering a rather strong toned message on my talk page (some of which i didnt actually understand or know how to interpret)and i was genuinelly offended by it and i said it was ironic he was pointing the sword at me (i was still perfectly polite) and i pointed out that himself had already been banned for 3RR, vandalism , annoying others and also about his username (he was even indef banned) and i urged him to stop this madness otherwise it will be both our downfall, and i ended the message with something he put on my page; there is no further discussion. Thus ending the matter.

However, for one reason or another he decided to report an already closed matter breaching WP:LETGO or even WP:DEADHORSE and further fueling the aready tense situation, and making an unessarary judgement. Could you point out the exact source of what i did wrong, or better still what would you of done if you were in my shoes?

On a more important issue, I absolutely can interact with other editors , provided they wish to interact with me. If you check my contribs i have welcomed and assisted new recruits (which in my opinion are the most important aspect of wikipedia since without them wikipedia will soon become useless) and its rather sad that some more experienced members trample on them (as i was when i was new) or help them for the sake of furthering their own prestige. Also i have been encouraging retired members to rejoin wikipedia, most notably User talk:Barts1a and i was helping him resolve a dispute he had with another editor (which caused him to quit in protest/disgust) diplomaticially and encouraging him to move on.

I have also made good relations with my mentor, Lionel who i get on very well with; along with other editors who i am great friends with, notably User:Σ and User:Jasper Deng whom have helped me (and i have helped) to progress in wikipedia.

Also , if you want me to break down your arguement to further your understanding then i will.

Having first encountered you today, Dont judge a book by its cover I highly doubt you'll listen to anything constructive from this review absolutely bad faith judgement, afterall why would i put myself up for review and then not give a toss about what it says? Why would i make a constructive criticism page? After all, you failed to listen to a half-dozen people today alone.Who were the other four? You appear, based on your edits, to get into needless arguments, then wonder out loud how you go there. You need to learn to listen to constructive criticism. You need to read the first time, rather than hound. You need to shut up and listen a little more. You have positive edits just not positive relationshipsnot true , see my previous statements above.

At any rate, thank you for the review its nice to know what others think of me from time to time. User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)(Complain)} 10:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward

Thanks for your comments on Jimbo's talk page. That thread has now been archived so it can't continue there. What would you advise I do next? I really, really want to move forward with this. And there are only two places, as far as I can see, with unused accounts that would need to be usurped. I'm quite happy to do the legwork; in something nine years in the making that really doesn't worry me at all. — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Brian Reichle (Brian Redban)

How can you not consider somebody who is listened to by thousands of people on a regular basis and not notable? simply do a search on the itunes store for the 'joe rogan experience' and you will see just how popular his primary podcast is. Please refrain from using personal bias when moderating wikipedia, it certainly doesn't make you look good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.192.47 (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal bias? I'd never heard of the guy, so I searched for him, and found him to be utterly non-notable. Not assuming good faith, and trying to promote someone of little notability certainly doesn't make you look good. Even worse if you are actually him trying to promote yourself - now that would be funny. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ukrainians

Hi! I allready wrote before to some users and administrators about problems at the page about Ukrainians. There is a problem of eraseing important data or sources (vandalism) from the page by unknown user, sometimes it is only prvocation, but it is allways there. Maybe some previously known users are doing that, I can't point at the moment, but it is still a big problem because there is a clear goal for provocation. I would be very grateful to you, only to look what you can do with this site to be protected. It is useless me to warn those users, because I think there is no any effect of it. Thanks for you time!--SeikoEn (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Replacing unblock decline

I wonder, in this edit did you intend to over-write another admin's unblock decline, or was that a mistake? JamesBWatson (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Odd, I didn't get an edit-conflict message ... it was not intended to overwrite another (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes there is no edit conflict message, for no evident reason. Well, you both came to pretty much the same conclusion, so I don't suppose it really matters. It would have been a different matter if one of you had accepted and one had declined the request. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

...and oddly enough I have seen that once or twice (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

SRESQ (talk · contribs) block on hold

Latest unblock request would seem to indicate they are ready to stop blaming others and accept the reality that what they did was way out of line. Feels like its WP:ROPE time, checking with you as blocking admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right ... WP:ROPE ... I have unblocked. Thanks for the heads up :-) Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of 2 pages

Hi, Thanks for responding so rapidly. I have recently had two pages deleted Leslie Kulesh and Auto Italia South East I hope it is appropriate for me to respond to your comments here. Firstly the reason why I did not write on the deleting admins page first is simply because they did not write to me upon deleting the page, so I felt it was probably best to expand the conversation. I don't have much experience dealing with deletion and as I'm sure you know it can be quite frustrating. I believe the Auto Italia page to be honest and unbiased, and was frustrated to be accused of advertisement. In addition the term 'Emerging Artist' is jargon for an artist in the early stages of their career. Many artists who are reviewed heavily in the art and mainstream press, have international exhibitions and have published and been written on in academic and popular publications would be considered as 'emerging'. The term does not correspond with non-notable status. Thanks for looking at this for me, I only wish to contribute to the subject of contemporary art through wikipedia. I have no axe to grind! Like most contributors I have so little free time and it's so disheartening to have all your work deleted without as much as a word. All the best Chaosandvoid (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by your statement about "deleted without as much as a word". I can clearly see on your talkpage that you were notified of the impending deletions by the individuals who nominated them for deletion. Note, per WP:DELETE, this was not necessarily the deleting administrator. Fastily, for example, merely reviewed the contents of the article and agreed with the nominator that it needed to be deleted, according to policy. The phrase "notable" on an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia has extremely important meanings, and it's Wikipedia's definition that rules here, not your own. Leslie Kulesh failed to meet Wikipedia's definition, and thus was deleted. For the record, I agree too ... which makes the nominator, the deleting admin, and me all agreeing that the article does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for articles. I will, however, review Auto Italia again. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I will take what you have said on-board and in future attempt to pay closer attention to the guidelines. Sometimes it can be a little overwhelming for more amateur wiki contributors to follow how and where the conversations are happening. Sorry to say I missed the messages on my talk page. Things do move fast around here sometimes! Thanks again for your help Best Chaosandvoid (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have undeleted the Auto Italia article - however, I have removed aspects that were horrifically promotional - which likely led to its deletion in the first place. It still may be deleted through a articles for discussion process. One minor concern: I hope that you do not have conflict of interest in any of these subjects ... someone who is related to an organization may not write an article about it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not related to the organisation. I have contacted them and made use of references and permissions of images they have sent to me. I will continue to communicate with them and other artist run spaces and artists to contribute to wikipedia's art pages. The 'selected exhibitions' and 'selected publications' sections were given to give the article veracity not promotion. I can see how the 'selected exhibitions' section can possibly be misconstrued to be promotional and will in future only mention specific exhibitions if they are of over-all relevence to the article. On the other hand, Auto Italia can in no way profit financially from independent publications written about them in magazines or in books. Most wiki pages cite books written on the subject. How is this promotional? Chaosandvoid (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Most articles contain links to third party reliable sources that discuss them, not related subjects. The specific exhibitions may only be useful if they contain artists that are notable. As an FYI, I have a friend whose mother has literally sold thousands of paintings, has been well-written of in local news, and is somewhat of a local celebrity - she is still not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, although I only listed some of the exhibitions that have taken place at a gallery, and also listed the publications written about them. This seemed to me only to be stating fact, hopefully adding veracity to the article. The publications are not there as references, nor are they discussing related subjects. They are major publications written about Auto Italia. I don't entirely see why it is promotional to include these, and in fact if they did not exist the page would be considered non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaosandvoid (talk • contribs) 22:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Replacing unblock decline

I wonder, in this edit did you intend to over-write another admin's unblock decline, or was that a mistake? JamesBWatson (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Odd, I didn't get an edit-conflict message ... it was not intended to overwrite another (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes there is no edit conflict message, for no evident reason. Well, you both came to pretty much the same conclusion, so I don't suppose it really matters. It would have been a different matter if one of you had accepted and one had declined the request. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

...and oddly enough I have seen that once or twice (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

SRESQ (talk · contribs) block on hold

Latest unblock request would seem to indicate they are ready to stop blaming others and accept the reality that what they did was way out of line. Feels like its WP:ROPE time, checking with you as blocking admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right ... WP:ROPE ... I have unblocked. Thanks for the heads up :-) Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of 2 pages

Hi, Thanks for responding so rapidly. I have recently had two pages deleted Leslie Kulesh and Auto Italia South East I hope it is appropriate for me to respond to your comments here. Firstly the reason why I did not write on the deleting admins page first is simply because they did not write to me upon deleting the page, so I felt it was probably best to expand the conversation. I don't have much experience dealing with deletion and as I'm sure you know it can be quite frustrating. I believe the Auto Italia page to be honest and unbiased, and was frustrated to be accused of advertisement. In addition the term 'Emerging Artist' is jargon for an artist in the early stages of their career. Many artists who are reviewed heavily in the art and mainstream press, have international exhibitions and have published and been written on in academic and popular publications would be considered as 'emerging'. The term does not correspond with non-notable status. Thanks for looking at this for me, I only wish to contribute to the subject of contemporary art through wikipedia. I have no axe to grind! Like most contributors I have so little free time and it's so disheartening to have all your work deleted without as much as a word. All the best Chaosandvoid (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by your statement about "deleted without as much as a word". I can clearly see on your talkpage that you were notified of the impending deletions by the individuals who nominated them for deletion. Note, per WP:DELETE, this was not necessarily the deleting administrator. Fastily, for example, merely reviewed the contents of the article and agreed with the nominator that it needed to be deleted, according to policy. The phrase "notable" on an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia has extremely important meanings, and it's Wikipedia's definition that rules here, not your own. Leslie Kulesh failed to meet Wikipedia's definition, and thus was deleted. For the record, I agree too ... which makes the nominator, the deleting admin, and me all agreeing that the article does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for articles. I will, however, review Auto Italia again. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I will take what you have said on-board and in future attempt to pay closer attention to the guidelines. Sometimes it can be a little overwhelming for more amateur wiki contributors to follow how and where the conversations are happening. Sorry to say I missed the messages on my talk page. Things do move fast around here sometimes! Thanks again for your help Best Chaosandvoid (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have undeleted the Auto Italia article - however, I have removed aspects that were horrifically promotional - which likely led to its deletion in the first place. It still may be deleted through a articles for discussion process. One minor concern: I hope that you do not have conflict of interest in any of these subjects ... someone who is related to an organization may not write an article about it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not related to the organisation. I have contacted them and made use of references and permissions of images they have sent to me. I will continue to communicate with them and other artist run spaces and artists to contribute to wikipedia's art pages. The 'selected exhibitions' and 'selected publications' sections were given to give the article veracity not promotion. I can see how the 'selected exhibitions' section can possibly be misconstrued to be promotional and will in future only mention specific exhibitions if they are of over-all relevence to the article. On the other hand, Auto Italia can in no way profit financially from independent publications written about them in magazines or in books. Most wiki pages cite books written on the subject. How is this promotional? Chaosandvoid (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Most articles contain links to third party reliable sources that discuss them, not related subjects. The specific exhibitions may only be useful if they contain artists that are notable. As an FYI, I have a friend whose mother has literally sold thousands of paintings, has been well-written of in local news, and is somewhat of a local celebrity - she is still not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, although I only listed some of the exhibitions that have taken place at a gallery, and also listed the publications written about them. This seemed to me only to be stating fact, hopefully adding veracity to the article. The publications are not there as references, nor are they discussing related subjects. They are major publications written about Auto Italia. I don't entirely see why it is promotional to include these, and in fact if they did not exist the page would be considered non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaosandvoid (talk • contribs) 22:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

barnstars

Hi. Two barnstars/awards to add to your superb work on miniatures. (I don't want to edit your user space).

Extended content

{{userbox | border-c = gold | id = [[File:Empty Set Barnstar.png|42px]] | id-c = white | info = This editor has been awarded the '''''Empty Set Barnstar''''' '''{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}''' times | }} | info-c = #F8F8FF }} {{userbox | border-c = gold | id = [[File:Barnstar-Megaphone.png |42px]] | id-c = white | info = This editor has been awarded the '''''Wikipedia Motivation Award''''' '''{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}''' times | }} | info-c = #F8F8FF }}

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those ... which of the 3 categories do they go in, or do they go into a different cat? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think they would both go into 'general', but I'm not really sure. and here's another:

{{userbox
| border-c = gold
| id       = [[File:Articles for Creation Barnstar Hires.png|42px]]
| id-c     = white
| info     = This editor has been awarded the '''''The Articles for Creation Barnstar'''''' '''{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}''' times | }}
| info-c   = #F8F8FF
}}

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What to do about vandalism at WP:REFUND

You've recently reverted some problematic changes there. An edit filter mentioning you-know-who might be considered. But check out Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. It says that EFs are not advisable when only a single page is being attacked. So what about putting back the semiprotection, and doubling the duration each time a new problem occurs? A line could be added to the intro shown to submitters suggesting that IPs make their undeletion requests at ANI (which is not semiprotected at the moment). A good-faith REFUND request from an IP seems to come in several times a month. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Semiprotection has twice been tried. Both times they've waited it out. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 16:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm foreseeing gradually longer semiprotection that could go up to a month if they stick it out that long. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That long, however, and IPs are unable to request a REFUND. AN/I isn't a solution if it's constantly semi'd to discourage sockpuppets from posting. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response and advice. Actdaveor (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Htc-logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Htc-logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Picture 054.jpg

Hello. Just looking for an active administrator to do a maintenance delete. Here on en.wiki someone uploaded an image at File:Picture 054.jpg which I moved to File:Roberto Luongo Panthers 2006.jpg. At the Commons, File:Picture_054.jpg is a redirect to File:Muse 054.jpg. Now when you visit the File:Picture_054.jpg redirect on en.wiki (even though the content is #REDIRECT [[File:Roberto Luongo Panthers 2006.jpg]] it points to File:Muse 054.jpg. If you can help, the redirect here on en.wiki just needs to be deleted to avoid confusion. There is no need to have a redirect to a Commons image here. — Moe ε 09:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. — Moe ε 10:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

In regards to User:Nevoexpo

I saw that in your decline comment on User talk:Nevoexpo you said "Although I could say you were not well-warned about edit-warring..." The user and I discussed this here. I wasn't sure if you were aware of that or not, but if so, is there something I can do in the future to make it more clear? If there is a problem with this on my end, I'd like to know so I can fix it if possible. Thanks. - SudoGhost 10:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed ... and fixed my caffeine intake, which should prevent similar issues this morning. I did not take the proper opportunity to review the talkpage history to see the chunk that was removed (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay, just wanted to double-check. Thank you very much. - SudoGhost 10:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User talk:JonLittle5579

Hi Bwilkins. Regarding your message on the above user's talk page, I am in agreement with what you wrote as to what policy should be, but I cannot agree with what you wrote because it is stated as setting out what policy is, when it pretty clearly is not. Specifically, you told this user that they would not be unblocked because they have a COI if they plan to continue to write the article on the cricket club—the source of their conflict of interest. You did not say it as "I will not unblock you" but that "you will not be unblocked" and implied both that this is from policy, and that no other administrator would. I would not have wished to make you look like a liar on that page but had I gotten this user's message before his block had already expired (he posted to my talk page), I would have been basically constrained to unblock by policy. The COI policy is a strong suggestion, a precautionary scolding without teeth—"COI editing is strongly discouraged". We tell users their edits will have additional scrutiny, and we watch them for spamming, and we tag their articles with COI and advert and NPOV and so on but we don't block editors who are collegially editing with a COI unless they are being actively disruptive; continuing to edit with a COI is not in and of itself disruptive by long standing consensus. We do, of course, block promotional user names, and that was done, but there was nothing to block here and the autoblock itself should never have occurred: we are supposed to uncheck "Autoblock any IP addresses used" when doing these types of username blocks; see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Setting block options.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledge what you're saying here. I see that User:Jimfbleak put the original block on User:Warecricket. I do disagree a bit with you here: when the username is both a violation of WP:U and they are creating a related article, blocking both the user and the autoblock are valid...if the username itself is the issue, we can avoid autoblocking. Based on that, Jimfbleak appears to have blocked correctly ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but think about it this way: If you came across a user without a promotional name who had disclosed a COI just as the COI policy encourages users to do and advises us not to bite for, or the typical clueless user with an obvious COI, would you ever block just for that? Becuase I see this as no different at all. The fact that a user also has a promotional name does not make their COI worse, it just makes their username no good. Where do you see any support in policy for blocking the person, not the username? I only see an express direction advising us not to do so.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Please understand I am only here discussing what I think the state of policy, not what I think it should be. I would give these policies fangs.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, picture this: someone creates User:MyAwesomeBusiness. The edit their userpage, and a couple of minor articles about the line of business they are in. Someone drops a {{welcome-coi}} template on their page. Their next set of edits are to create a whopping, highly-promotional, puffery-laden article about MyAwesomeBusiness. They were warned not too, right? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I would block the username obviously, without an autoblock, G11 the articles, and warn with the {{uw-create1}} series. Creating a promotional article by an involved user is not a blockable offense under current policy and is not spam, especially where there's some evidence of good faith, if cluelessness. Continuing to create them after sufficient warnings is just plain vandalism and is blockable. But not all situations are equal. Creating 30 promotional articles all at once just is not the same type of situation; there's an intent difference. The specific situation here is a user who created an article that is not even G11able (oooh, I just invented a word).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Heh ... add a "u" it becomes gu11able *snicker* (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Query

Just a question i created a user space draft User:Edinburgh Wanderer/Denys Prychynenko another user has came along copied it and placed in article space see Denis Prychynenko. Ive nominated for speedy deletion as not notable yet. But was wondering am i correct that i cant do anything about someone doing that. Sorry you are one of the few admins i know.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Was it an exact copy/paste? That literally makes a copyright violation, as attribution was not given ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly the same total copy and paste. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the article as A7, and left a little copy/paste template on the offender's page. Let me know how things go. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks he may well become notable at the weekend who knows. If he does ill move the page thanks for your help with that. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:Canada Education Program

Hi there. Would you be interested in applying as a campus ambassador for Wikipedia to Carleton University? If so, drop me an email. Thanks! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

FCAYS

Shouldn't Dualus (talk · contribs) be blocked as well? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Dude, you know I was about to say "go ahead, I'm a bit tied up". Silly Vulcans and their dropping of admin power (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report

Hi, Bwilkins. I would like to ask what to do with the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FOSTER NATURAL GAS/OIL REPORT. Although I myself supported to keep this article, the closure was far away from consensus or any closure conditions. Beagel (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have undone the poorly-done WP:NAC (it was not even a valid close reason), and closed as delete - it may be notable someday, but not now (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello DangerousPanda/Archive 7! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey Delivered manually. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Debresser/Chesdovi proposed resolution has been archived from ANI

Hello Bwilkins. The thread which you opened has been archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive726#Community Discussion of Topic Ban and Interaction Ban without formal closure. Do you have a suggestion of what to do next? It seems that seven editors supported the topic and interaction bans including the two of us, and there were no oppose votes from uninvolved editors. Neither Chesdovi nor Debresser were happy with the restriction from talk pages. I think it unwise to allow either Chesdovi or Debresser to participate in the debate until a clear consensus is reached on the naming issue. (We've been going in circles long enough).

If more data is needed to show consensus for the topic ban, the community's unhappiness as expressed in the prior ANI might be thrown into the calculation. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, it appears that User:Gwen Gale has logged the restrictions at User talk:Chesdovi and User talk:Debresser and is treating them as WP:ARBPIA sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report

Since I am an admin, and I disagree with the early closure of the AfD for this page, I'm going to restore the article and reopen the AfD to allow the AfD to run a full week, in accordance with your instructions above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh! You know, I paid more attention to the fact that the WP:NAC was horrible, and less attention to the dates to see that it was early. If you'd noted that to me, I would have reopened myself. Not enough Merlot last night, it appears. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Originally I had posted here to ask you to reopen the AfD because it was early, but I removed that after seeing that someone had previously asked you to re-close it as delete. I figured that giving you a second request that contradicted someone else's request would not have been worthwhile. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarification - I never asked to re-close this article as delete, I just asked what to do about non-correct closure. I would also ask to restore the talk page of Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report. It contains several discussions as also open page-move request. Beagel (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

A typo

Here - "nothing in it", perhaps. pablo 16:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

OpenDDR

You're right... I should have put a welcome template on his talk page. I usually don't bite the newbies, but the past few days have been more Wiki-drama then I'm used to. Feel free to trout me if you must... VictorianMutant^(Talk) 18:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Award

	Civility Barnstar
	Thanks for judging neutrally,without discrimination and for your good behaviour with users .--Orartu (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks; very unexpected :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you please take a look ?

After my recent block , I look at the report page of edit war : [6] . You know , this reported edit :[7], has not been reverting of any change and I think was wrongly reported as a revert. I have 8 edits in that page : 5 times adding references , one time deleting a template that was not a revert and two times reverting (getting back the deleted references) I ask this because it was my first time to be blocked and first time to be considered doing wrong . Can you explain me what was my wrong , to be prevented in coming occasions ? Thank you so much --Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Someday you will actually read the definition of a revert at WP:3RR. It's been provided often enough to you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for explanation , but let me ask my last question and I will not bother anymore : Is changing the unrelated text a revert ? I mean changing a part that is not related to the discussion of opposing editors is a revert ? A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors , But which editor : the opposing or unrelated ordinary bystander editor?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

As it says: "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material". Any editors, effectively any text (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, thank you so much.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be some edit warring between one of the involved users User:Orartu and User:علی ویکی. I am not aware how to re-open a case but I have added a comment with the relevant details on ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Alborz_Fallah_reported_by_User:Orartu_.28Result:_Both_blocked.29. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Cyberpower678

Please remove that bot out of my talk page for 24 hours. It keeps deleting an impersonation barrier template that I am developing. Please send me a talk back if you received this and have a response for this.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 22:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It won't delete it if more than one person has edited it ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael Capponi

Hi BWilkins

Thanks for your feedback on the [Michael Capponi] page, if you could help out a fellow Canadian with some pointers on how I can rewrite the article as well as some of the source and references since I have been adding them along with a friend over the last 6 months and it would make my life easier so I don't have to start over again completely. If you could be so kind as to at least put it back into draft mode or email me the contents so I can at least start from there I would be very grateful.

Thank you Mryayo8 (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Lest We Forget

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
      Between the crosses, row on row,
   That mark our place; and in the sky
   The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
   Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
         In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from falling hands we throw
   The torch; be yours to hold it high.
   If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
         In Flanders fields.

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi.I need help,please take a look at here [8]can romanizaed form of a title's name be written in article in addition to common alphabet?With Respect--Orartu (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Content dispute that I see absolutely no discussion. I have protected the page, warned the other user, and warn you too (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't want to involve in edtitwarring.I want to know whether my edit is correct or not, because there are many articles which have same situation,I also want to sockpuppetry investigation of User:In fact and User:Alborz Fallah, What I must do?I have class, I will see your guidances later, Cheers.--Orartu (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

To user Orartu : It was you who changed the consensus. I was just trying to stop you. You did not pay attention to the link in the talk page and also the edit summaries. Oh! By the way, Regarding you request in here, you may do it in WP:SSP. In fact 13:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

To user In fact:Are you admin Bwilkins?I don't want your guidances.My changing doesn't relate to your consensus.--Orartu (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You both need to discuss that link on the talkpage of the article. If either of you change the article related to those same edits, you will be blocked for slow edit-warring. Take it to the talkpage, it's open for both of you right now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There has already been a very long discussion. ( The link is provided in the talk page ) Do we really have to do the very same thing again and waste our time?! She just appeared and broke the consensus. If she wanted to change the article and oppose the consensus, she should have first discussed it. BTW, User Orartu and I both reverted eachother twice in a 24-hour period. How come I deserve a warning, but she does not! Regards, In fact 17:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please kindly read this edit summary. Do you think we can really discuss with a user having such an attitude ?! Do you think she has read the discussion in the talk page ?! In fact 17:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the TB template, I am so sorry. I did it as a routine. I did not notice your message on top of the page. (It is very small,... my excuse ) In fact 18:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You did, of course, see a few lines above where I warned them as well? Remember that consensus can change. It would help to have the discussion, even if simply to verify current consensus. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. In fact 09:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Abdullah ibn Saba

I was wondering if you could take a look at the latest activity on this page. Recently, you blocked User:Wiqi55 for 60 hours, for edit-warring on this page. But only minutes after the expiration of his block, he resumed edit-warring there, and has already reverted this page 6 times in the last few hours. [9] Kurdo777 (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I did indef earlier ... pending even a minor understanding of Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC/U on User:Arcillaroja

Hi, thanks for suggesting RFC/U. But I need another user to file, and as stated earlier, all other users who "fought" this guy have receded as they grew tired of him. So if you agree with me, would you co-operate on this RFC/U? Thank you. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 12:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Having never interacted with them, it would be both inappropriate and probably quite useless for me to certify it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Tovalu

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tovalu (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok then. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tovalu/vector.css for me. Kthxbai. <3 Tovalu (talk) 10:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As you may have already noticed, you are not welcome on this talkpage. Due to your personal behaviour, I have little desire to do personal favours for you - such as deleting the above. I half expect it's some form of entrapment anyway, based on your previous history. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi again

Hi again.Pardon for interruption, I wanted to discuss with User:In fact here[10], but his tone of writing is similar to announcement of war than discussion, I am sorry for him.My account blocked for unintentionally editwarring here [11], I only wanted to stop User:Alborz Fallah entering unrelated sources, after blocking I didn't contribute in editing this article, and User:Alborz Fallah and User:علی ویکی freely entering unrelated materials to this article, User:ASCIIn2Bme has referred to some of them.After nomination of this article Azarbaijani Kurdsfor deletion, they soon created another discussion subject in Iranian Azerbaijanis to reduce my contribution here as nominator [12],User:علی ویکی also deleted all "Dubious" and "Citation needed" tags from article without any convincing explanation [13]. User:علی ویکی also deleted materials which had sources here[14], but there was no penalty for him.He is not ordinary user [15]. Please take a look at here Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis, here is like battleground and new assistance forces and sockpuppet accounts want to poison atmosphere against me.I only said that article is not propaganda site of Iran's government or Pan Iranist blog to reflect only their pov, but User:Kansas Bear began personal attacks against me and along with User:In fact accused me as opposer of Iran's government, and Righting Great Wrongs.I wanted to see the result of this deletion process Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azarbaijani Kurds,then leave wikipedia, but I could not tolerate tense and poisoning atmosphere around Iranian and Azerbaijani related articles and personal attacks.I appreciate you and other admins of English wikipedia who keep the neutrality of this encyclopedia.With Respect--Orartu (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You will always need to show proof of the personal attacks .. using diff's. They also must clearly meet the definition of WP:NPA. Whatever you do, just don't say something like "check out user X's contributions" ... that'll get you nowhere. Much of what you're pointing out above is a content dispute, and WP:CONSENSUS applies. When in doubt, dispute resolution processes kick in. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Music files

Hey there! Hope you are having a wonderful Monday :) I had asked User:Dawnseeker2000 (who had worked with me in the past and taught me to upload music files) if he could upload three music WP:SAMPLEs to an article I am working on. He insisted that I should ask you to see if I could? If not, is it possible that you can help me out with doing this? Thanks, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 03:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Are the samples copyrighted? Then no. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring persian racist activities

When persians nationalist, and racist disruptive activities are ignored and encouraged by admins like User:EdJohnston, my presence is meaningless and is only wasting time.I want to delete all my contribiutions and discussions.I am sorry for myself for wasting my time here to hear accusations like these [16], [17], I don't want to save my talk page, it is painful for me.When I am unwelcome here, there is no reason for existance of my talkings too.--Orartu (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Qozlu, Ardabil & User:Orartu

Hi there. After four days of waiting, she finally showed up in the article's talk page. She also reverted the other user who had already restored the article to the consunsus. As I remember you said we should not change the article related to those same edits or we are blocked. Unfortunately User:Orartu did not listen to you and your advice. What is your suggestion ? Regards, In fact 10:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

But another ,member of mafia gang did instead of you.--Orartu (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:PA. In fact 10:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not personal attack.It is reality--Orartu (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

IronE Singleton

I'd like to request user space drafts of the previously deleted versions of this article to work on cleaning up and sourcing it for recreation. The recent success of The Walking Dead has lead to a bevy of supporting sources. aprock (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Extended content
This is the ENTIRE contents of the last-deleted article
He currently resides in Dallas, Georgia. Year Name of Movie Role 2009 The Blind Side (film) Alton

Thank you. Based on the AfD discussion, other versions may be a better starting place. If you think it would be better for me to ask each of the other two deleting admins, please let me know and I will do so. aprock (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hello,

Since I saw that ANI doesn`t get much attention, I am wondering if you could review this case [18] and help to reach a solution. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion is ongoing. This probably should have gone via WP:DR anyway, as it's content-oriented. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I don`t believe that there will be anymore comments but ok, I guess it can wait a bit more. As for WP:DR, I don`t think this is necessary since this is a clear case of disregarding sources in the article and altering it to reflect personal opinions. I believe that content dispute would be if the other party would present any source at all that states otherwise... Another user also confirmed this content and sources [19], I am just considered that this case won`t be forgotten and left without a solution.Adrian (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Does the content belong or does it not belong ... that's a content dispute. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This person is famous because of this accomplishment(the union of Romanian principalities) therefore I don`t believe that this info by any standards should be excluded.Adrian (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

...and now you're bringing a content dispute here? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I asked for an admin for solution and after that I have wrote an ANI report. I honestly did`t thought I should go with WP:DR. I will do that if the problem remains. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:ADMINSHOP would seem to apply at this point. You didn't like the results me and the other admin already watching the situation gave you, so you went to ANI. That didn't result in an immediate block so now you are asking B directly. They're not currently disrupting the article. This obviously is a content dispute. If you aren't interested in pursuing DR then it is time to walk away. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It may seem like that, but what should I do? Until the last moment I gave this user a chance to explain his POV and to stop with personal attacks.. What would you do in my place if someone would act like this? I asked for advice and what should I do and I never got the answer.There are several wikipedia policies and a user clearly ignores it (and intends to ignore it no matter what, also almost in every his comment there is a personal attack..) - I still can`t believe it. If I was in his situation I would probably be warned or blocked by now... I am really stunned with this whole situation. For now I will walk away of course since the community decided to tolerate everything this user have done, but if continued I will pursue a DR if possible or if simply present this case as such to [20]. PS: I am not asking for a block. If it would be by me, this user should receive a warning for now. Adrian (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's a pattern of activity, that's what WP:RFC/U is for. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Since you had earlier warned User:Orartu about his conduct, could you please take a look at his latest activities. Other than the usual edit-warring, the usual personal attacks, and the usual WP:Battle-POV-type of edits, he's now taken the disruption to whole a new level, calling another editor "an agent of the Iranian government".[21] This is a serious accusation with real-life implications, to be throwing around at an editor whose username is his real-life identity. Another editor, with an identical POV as User:Orartu, who made the exact same accusation on Wikipedia several weeks ago, was given an indefinite block by an administrator who also happens to be an ArbCom member.[22] [23]. I'm surprised that Orartu's behavior has gone unchecked for so long. Another admin named EdJohnston also recently warned him about his battleground-type of behavior/edits[24], but instead of taking the warning seriously, Orartu went on the offensive, and a made a bunch of accusations against EdJohnston as well. Kurdo777 (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for you and your group who could not tolerate another pov and try to prevent my contribution.My activities are obvious, and there is no need for your explanations.I have already explained about this subject, you arrived late.You and your friends made a bunch of accusations against another admin Silk Tork[25].Your friends accused me here[26]:"And as user:In Fact has illustrated, your "posts" consist of grievances against the Iranian government and are not relevant to the discussion at hand." , that was natural reaction to their false statements aganist me, but I deleted my comment, but your friend didn't.Why do you think you have right to say everything you want but others don't have.--Orartu (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

To Kurdo:Probably you have forgotten your serious and unfounded accusations against me here [27], because I wanted to show your accusations are non-sense and materials of this article are historical realty, not showing enemity to other ethnics,I was forced to rename that article, and it was deleted.--Orartu (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

To Orartu: Links ?

To Bwilkins: She is slow edit warring in Qozlu, Ardabil, and pays no attention to the discussions and the consensus. Regards, In fact 18:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

He is slow edit warring too, we have not reached to any consensus, unless imposing pov means consensus in terms of In fact.--Orartu (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Newyorkbrad blocked User:Saygi1 for calling someone an agent of the Iranian government. His theory was the possibility of real-life harm to the editor so accused. Now Orartu has made the same charge here and does not seem to have any plan to withdraw it. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it.User:Kurdo777 accused me as ultra-nationalist here [28], and User:Kansas Bear and User:In fact accused me as opposer of Iran's government,[29]--Orartu (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for 50/50 Twin

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 50/50 Twin. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ei1sos (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If someone spent half as much time actually writing a new article as wikilawyering the hell out of this one, there might actually be a useful article half-drafted by now (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Page protection on Itinerant

I've noticed you have protected the page to prevent further disruption. I would appreciate it if you could also revert the edits to a previous (pre-edit-war) neutral revision. 79.170.50.135 (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

All the more reason to discuss what the article SHOULD look like on the talkpage right now then n'est ce pas? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello

May you confirm me to have right to upload pictures, because i didnt have rights to upload logo on one wiki page. Thanks Stojan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stojansmk (talk • contribs) 22:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Be cautious with logos ...non-free items like that and some things need to go to WP:COMMONS. You also realize if you upload your own photos, you're giving some rights away to Wikipedia, right? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, no, non-free items have to be here, they're not allowed on Commons. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

(I need to stop editing while exhausted :-) ) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

chorus+ article

Dear Bwilkins, I am the principal author of the article "chorus+" that you recently undeleted and made available in my userspace "grsjst". Thank you for that!

In order to prevent speedy deletion, i'd like to ask for your advice. To give you some context, CHORUS+ is a research project funded by the European Commission. There are a number of research partners involved that will contribute to the article. However, since there are multiple contributors, the article may take one (or two) months to develop. My initial plan was therefore to develop it in my own userspace and, once it is sufficiently mature, publish the article on wikipedia. However, when I requested an upload for the project logo, this was rejected because the article was only available in my userspace. Publishing the article led to speedy-delation, as you know.

My question to you is how to proceed in this case? If I keep the article in my userspace, how do i upload images? If i publish the article pre-maturly how do i avoid it is getting speedy deleted? Many thanks for your suggestion! Grsjst (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A draft article in userspace really has no need for images. Feel free to have placeholders for the images (or link to a generic image for now), but there's no rational need for the project's images/logos. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Intentional disambiguation redirects (context)

Greetings! I apologize for not providing a specific context. You recently speedily deleted T. grandiflora (disambiguation), and several other similarly configured "foo (disambiguation)" redirects. However, these redirects are supposed to exist in accordance with WP:INTDABLINK, so that intentional links can be made to disambiguation pages without appearing as errors needing correction. Furthermore, there is a widely used template for species identification on disambiguation pages that requires these redirects to exist in order to function properly. Please don't delete "foo (disambiguation)" redirects unless the target page is actually not a disambiguation page at all. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, wow ... no. It appears you either don't understand the purpose of a disambig page, or really don't understand that policy! For example, if there is only ever going to be one article, there's never a need for a disambig page (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am only referring to situations where legitimate disambiguation pages already exist because there are multiple articles. For example, T. grandiflora is a disambiguation page, because there are multiple unrelated species known as T. grandiflora. Therefore, T. grandiflora (disambiguation) must exist so that editors intending to link to the disambig page can do so without creating a false positive for an erroneous link to a disambig page. bd2412 T 17:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the only disambigs I deleted were ones that had only 1 single article linking from them, and I understand and acknowledge what you say above - that's literally no issue for me (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you give an example of a valid (disambiguation) redirect deletion? I'm a bit unclear on your position. --JaGa^talk 18:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Bwilkins, but that is flatly incorrect. T. grandiflora has only ever been a disambiguation page indicating multiple meanings since its creation in March of 2010; therefore it already was a disambiguation page when you deleted the T. grandiflora (disambiguation) redirect a week ago. By contrast, your deletion of Dejean (disambiguation), which was a redirect to Dejean, was correct, because Dejean is not a disambiguation page. Do you see the difference? bd2412 T 18:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where "yes, no issue" and move on leads to you thinking you need to provide rather non-WP:AGF continued explanations. I'm pretty sure we're on the same page here, move on (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

If there's a misunderstanding here, it is yours, BWilkins. The (disambiguation) redirects exist specifically to act as targets for intentional links to existing plain-titled disambiguation pages. This mechanism allows editors (and, for that matter, bots) to distinguish between those deliberate links on the one hand, and, on the other, unintentional, erroneous links that require fixing so that they will point to the correct article. Using (disambiguation) redirects in this way is a longstanding policy that has repeatedly been affirmed by consensus. Please do not delete any more of these redirects.--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you actually know the situation being discussed ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to say no hard feelings if I pursued this issue a bit overzealously. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Verax NMS

[30]  Chzz  ►  00:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

He's Back

Davis100 has indeed returned as Davis1000 and has continued his vandalism. Just thought I'd let you know. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

To welcome or not to welcome?

Hi Bwilkins. I'm currently involved as close to a furious all-in brawl as I will ever be about welcoming new users.

• Kudpung added a polite message on my talk page suggesting that I wait a little while before adding welcome messages.
  
• I replied, and this is as snarky as I'll ever get.

Kudpung of course makes very good point: why welcome SPAs and obvious trolls and vandals?
I mentioned you in my reply to Kudpung, so I have foreshadowed this.
Your thoughts? --Shirt58 (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think one of the reasons the perennial bot request to automatically welcome a new user fails each time is specifically due to the sock/troll issue. I highly believe that every new editor needs to be welcomed with a set of the "rules". However, socks and trolls are not "new". WP:AGF falls back to the concept that even a possibly apparent troll/sock should be treated as a new editor (and therefore nicely), unless proven otherwise.

As an example, in my mind every editor who makes a request in Request for Permissions/Confirmed is, in theory, here to edit. I will automatically welcome them after taking a quick glance at the quality of their contribs (thus putting a Twinkle welcome template that might be able to address some of the "glitches" they have faced). There are other boards (such as WP:REFUND) with similar "standing". One of the reasons I created User:Bwilkins/welcomecivil is because I wanted to be able to be more specific towards a new editor who might have gotten a bit angry from the beginning.

In the long run, User:Bwilkins/Essays/Assume Ignorance is still one of my key concepts. The early contributions will let you know if the assumption is a good or bad one, and whether or not to welcome. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR

In a recent AN/I posted, you expressed some sympathy with DIREKTOR's positions (although not in that particular instance). I've about come to the conclusion that he is pretty much impossible to work with in terms of trying to reach consensus due to his basic incivility. Most recently DIREKTOR has accussed me of section blanking without consensus when, in fact, the changes in question were the result of discussions in July and August. I readily admit that much of my frustration is due to my belief that DIREKTOR is determined to undo what I regard as good work that came out of long mediation process (from which DIREKTOR eventually withdrew), but I'm seeing a pattern of consistent accusations and ad hominem attacks which inhibit productive discussions. Am I completely out of line in my thinking? I'm seriously considering taking up the issue at Arbcom or initiating an RFC/U, and any advice you could offer would be much appreciated. I figured asking you and Elen of the Roads would be appropriate. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

We seem to have an editor who can include a lot of positive edits, but who - when faced with any opposition (especially on ethnic lines) absolutely becomes intolerable. You would probably have no issues finding someone who would certify an WP:RFC/U, but I would urge caution on choosing one who is ... "reliable" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that is good advice. I also want to make clear that the purpose of the RfC/U would be, as it should be, to improve the overall editing situation. If I proceed, I expect I will ask some editors with skills in handing disputes, involved and otherwise, to help draft the RfC, and to take the necessary time to do it properly. I confess that part of me would like to find a quick fix, but I do not believe a quick fix, even if one were readily available, would work in the longer term. Lots to think about, thank you. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

My changes have been undone??

Whats the point in helping wikipedia if everything you change is undone.... theres no point. Why would anyone edit a page if its going to be changed back. Well I won't be editing anymore. --Benjyjm (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what edits you're talking about. If you have made edits that are properly sourced, do not violate WP:COPYRIGHT, and are beneficial, then they should have no problems. Can you give some examples? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought you would have been able to check them yourself its Ray_William_Johnson page, I made several changes. I added three pictures and edited text (which was incorrect). The images I uploaded have been removed? I got a warning that the copyright info was not right I contacted another wiki admin( I think he was an admin ) about it asking for his help, he didn't reply. But not only are the pictures gone ...the text has been changed back too which I don't understand at all. --Benjyjm (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The person I contacted was Luna Santin ...I thought he was in control of Ray_William_Johnson page and was the one who put a semi-protected status on it.--Benjyjm (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is "in control" of any articles. If you do not own the images that you uploaded, then they typically must be removed. When you upload them, you must (for legal purposes) specify all of the copyright information in order to protect Wikipedia. If any is missing, the images will be removed. One of the edits seems to have completely messed a few things up, and was reverted accordingly. One was uncited (over 5 million instead of 4.9 million). WP:CONSENSUS always rules - discussing your edits and obtaining consensus is the basic concept of WP:BRD (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Mughal Lohar

He's been taken to ANI but I doubt he will reply. Dougweller (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Ansell

I would really appreciate your help in recovering this lost article - see this discussion. In the meantime User:George Ho has moved Ansell (disambiguation) to Ansell, and another user, User:Dogcutter, who seems ot have been banned, has created a different article on what looks like the same company as the subject of the lost article. I have some difficulty in following what is going on here!

Thanks--Mhockey (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Hi there. I thought I'd let you know about this rollback request. If you have an opinion on the matter, feel free to share. Swarm ^X 06:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Done (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologize in advance!

How the fate of my application for next?, I need reassurance and a great soul to fulfill the promise of yourself. If you asked me to wait again for another month, I also resigned about it, but I ask if you can as soon as possible so that my spirit can recover against acts of vandalism here.

For your consideration, on Indonesian Wikipedia I was most active editor with more than 6,400 articles resighting and nearly 1,700 articles sighting also thousands of articles to revert vandalism. Sincerely. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, I won't be making the decision - I already don't think you're ready, and your over-exuberance to regain it simply proves that. A quick note, for the most part, your actions on another language Wikipedia does not always translate to en.Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, according to my words above that whatever your decision, I accept that even though this one with feelings of sadness, at least for now. Thanks a lot. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 09:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

MalikPeters

Given his most recent round of threats what do you think about opening an SPI? I was trying to avoid it (embarrassing a good faith, but misguided, contributor probably isn't constructive after all) but the latest rant makes me suspicious there is a rabbit hole here we are not seeing. I'm not altogether sure I want to delve into that rabbit hole, but on the other hand I'd prefer to know who it is that will be dumping this in front of whichever Arbcom case they think will cause the most trouble. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think they're worth the trouble ... but that just might be wishful thinking (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, yes you're probably right :) It annoys me someone is going to get away with abusing the communities trust. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I should post my request on the discussion page of changing username??? (Denemours&company (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)).

Clarification please

I notice a very harsh response to my restoration of Dieselpunk on this page Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Advice.2C_please.3F. I was threaten with the removal of my reviewer status (although I though that proposal failed) due to one edit regarding The Devil's Tree. If you look at my edit history I hope you understand the level of contribution I've made to wikipedia as well as a solid edit history. Was anything negative added to my username or any ability removed? Please inform me so I know what actions to take. Thanks. Valoem ^talk 17:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep all discussions in one place - that way when you actually read the entire thread, you'll actually understand why someone brought you to ANI in the first place. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually the attack was unfounded. I do not have a history of restoring without updating. Regarding The Devil's Tree edit, I had discussed that with admin Bearian when it occured. I had already discussed this with Chris and it can be found here: Thumperward. Thumperward admitted to jumping to conclusions which I why I am asking to see if anything had happened to my account name and if it can be reversed? Valoem ^talk 15:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What "attack"? A possible issue was raised, it was discussed. Nothing changed. Al your answers are on the ANI. Really. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Bwilkins. This edit is a good edit. I fear new admins may not understand why ips should be rarely blocked. Perhaps, if you're ok, we should place the previous explanation back into the statement? Best. Wifione ^Message 04:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind extending the reasoning, but to say they should never be indef'd is wrong. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with BWilkins here. Toddst1 (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Bot

Are there any particular tasks you'd like (or did you mean all of them?). If you have a toolserver account, I can make a tarball that has the code, so you can just untar it in your directory. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a toolserv account (yet) ... I'm used to running a bot locally (pywikipedia-based), but with a couple of helping hands, I can take a lot of things off your hands ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. If it sounds OK, I will get the PeerReview archiving code ready (minor cleanup and remove any old files that aren't being used) and give you a link to download it to see if it works on your system. I have no idea whether it would run on windows, I've always had either linux or solaris on the toolserver and haven't had a copy of windows since Win95. Is that a problem? I can definitely help you get the code running on a unix-type system. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we have to BFRA to move tasks to a different Bot/Bot-op? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't believe so. If the task is already approved and there is no reason why one operator should be better than another (as with this) then it seems unnecessary to file a request that basically says "I am going to do that task". For example, I took over the WP 1.0 bot just by taking it over from the previous operator. Actually, I would not mind giving you the password for PeerReviewBot so that you can use that username (it doesn't do any other tasks, it's a single-purpose bot account). It's up to you what bot username you'd prefer to use. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

We'll see if I can get it going on a bot account using current system first, if not we'll proceed differently ... :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The bot code is [31]. It uses a library I wrote, which is at [32]. The library file has to be named API.pm and put inside a directory Mediawiki/ and then the main script has to be told where the parent of that Mediawiki/ directory is. You can run the script as DRYRUN=1 perl script.pl and the DRYRUN=1 environment var will tell it not to actually edit the wiki - which makes it safe for testing. You'll have to set up a credentials file for the script, which has one line that looks like user USERNAME and a second line that looks like pass PASSWORD. The name of that file also goes in the main script. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

:-) Alright, weekend project! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Surprise!

File:N64 Pikachu.jpg	<---- Your Award!
	Congratulations! You've just won a Pikachu Nintendo 64! Happy Playing! The Pikachu Who Dared (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What to do about User:AJona1992?

Back on September 15, 2011 you unblocked User:AJona1992, who had been blocked for sockpuppetry (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AJona1992/Archive). AJona1992 admitted to using a sockpuppet to upload copyvio images on his talkpage (see here). I am not aware of any new sockpuppetry or copyvio image issues. However, AJona1992 has done at least three things I am aware of which make me wonder if he should continue editing here at all.

The first issue was AJona1992 expanding the FA on Selena from around 2236 words (when it passed FAC) to about 8637 words (see July changes diff and October changes diff). He then opened a peer review where he wrote The article is currently a WP:FA, however, with my additions, it no longer meets the criteria .... I raised this issue at FAR here, with the result being that his additions were reverted.

The second issue I became aware of was with Selena singles discography where 36 gold and platinum record certifications were removed, as the sources did not back any of them up (diff). This was discussed on AJona1992's talk page, where said he added every one of the faulty certifications, based on Mexican magazines. At the very least this shows me that he cannot decide what are (and are not) reliable sources.

The third issue is from the article on a Selena album, Amor Prohibido. In the course of a peer review I thought this sentence was very odd Selena was named "La Onda Chicana [Selena]" ("The Selena Wave") in Italian.[2] and decided to check the book source cited. When I looked at page 110 in the book cited, I found that the sentence was misquoted - the original was The extremely high attendance figures indicated that by 1995 Selena "was la onda [Chicana]. La onda was Selena."⁷⁵ There is nothing in the book about this being in Italian (it is Spanish) and just searching the book for "onda chicana" gives the translation (it means "the Chicano wave" and refers to the style of music that became part of Tejano, Selena's genre). I also worry that the sales information for the album in the 2002 book does not seem to match what is in the article.

I do a lot of peer reviews and so am familiar with much of AJona1992's work. I have long known that he is a poor writer, but assumed good faith that he was adding useful and accurate content. However, at least as far as Selena goes, he seems unable to filter out trivia / cruft from what is encylcopedic (as seen in the Selelna FA expansion). The discography certifications show me he is unable at the least to find reliable sources. Given his focus on Selena, I also worry that he was trying to inflate her discography with 36 gold and platinum records she did not earn (I have no proof of thios - just my fear). Finally the third issue with the (mis)quote in Amor Prohibido makes me worry that he cannot quote accurately, that he cannot read Spanish (and thinks it Italian)(and yet the erroneous gold and platinum records came from Mexican sources presumably written in Spanish!), and that he does not read book sources carefully (or at all).

It may be that I am just tired of peer reviewing his articles, but I seriously wonder if unblocking him was in the best interests of the encyclopedia. I plan to see what your response is before notifiying AJona1992 or doing anything else (and we can move it to my talk page if you want). I have thought of asking all admins who have blocked AJona1992 to weigh in on my concerns. I have also thought of taking this to ANI, but wanted to start here. In any case I do not plan to block him because I do not want to wheelwar, and more imnportantly I am not a neutral party.

Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want to reply, are you at least OK with me taking this to ANI? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I realize you are busy and may not want to comment on this - if you do not reply within 24 hours of the preceding post I will take this to ANI. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI is likely the wrong venue ... WP:RFC/U probably is the correct one. This does not appear to be something that requires immediate blocking action, but is a number of mold behavioural things all adding up to something possibly larger. At ANI he will likely appear to be a net-positive in the long run, but at RFC you might at least get 1 or 2 behavioural adaptations. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I will work on a RFC/U and notify all the involved admins. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow must of missed this one (note I do watch Bwilkins talk page). Ruhrifisch, I expanded the Selena article because I requested a RfC, where editors took in my favor. I did nothing bad there, yes I'll agree I can't net out trivia, however, that's where the talk page is for. Secondly, the certifications are sourced to the Mexican magazine, since I couldn't find any more RS I took the magazine as the source. If you had read the message between me and that user, you can see that it was out of good faith. Thirdly, I went to google translate and it states that the text is Italian not Spanish, weather the translation is wrong or whatever, that's not my fault. I only needed that quotation, but since it was a issue I removed it, I didn't fight to have it there, I removed it. Also, you don't have to review the articles, its understandable but why be so negative towards me though? Sorry if it sounds like mellow-drama, but I can't recall anytime I did something wrong to you. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 16:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Who made new years a national holiday

This is NOT for restoring the article. I only want to know whats in the article and how did my name get used on it.Greg Heffley 20:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

09:21, November 30, 2011 . . Gregory Heffley (talk | contribs | block) (34 bytes) (←Created page with 'jhn,lgnmddfbnm cfsdgfhnbvgvfggvghh')

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, how did that happen?Greg Heffley 21:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You did it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Responded to the rather frivolous request. Thanks for reading WP:EW, WP:BLOCK and W:DR so well (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

User:AJona1992

Whilst reviewing Donde Quiera Que Estés for WP:GAN, I came across your comment at User talk:AJona1992/Archive 4#Proposed editing restrictions: Perhaps I should have added "you may not nominate any articles for WP:GAN" ... your making an absolute mockery of the process, or perhaps a topic ban from anything related to Selena, broadly construed. The user has several nominations at GAN. The article I have reviewed has only one issue to be fixed, relating to correction of the non-free use rationale. Review is at Talk:Donde Quiera Que Estés/GA1. I post here asking for advice. Is the user in violation of the conditions? Jezhotwells (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

If I may; he was proposing that I should, however, he never made it a rule for me otherwise I wouldn't have nominated any article. BTW the issue is fixed thanks for the review. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 15:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It was never formally added - at the time they were frivolously doing GAN's - especially based on articles they had socked to work on. If the current ones are within policy, and are actually reasonable nom's, it's probably more of a case of keeping an eye on them. There have been additional concerns about the editor raised to me - ones I've not had time to investigate (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

If I may ask Bwilkins, what other concerns do you have with me? When I was reporting a user to AN/I you seemed like you really wanted me to be blocked again, I hope that's not the case here. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 16:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you read how I stated that others had raised concerns about your editing? Did you read the thread further up on this page? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Wiqi55 requesting unblock

• Wiqi55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wiqi55 has recently posted a new unblock request: "I've learned my lesson with regards to edit warring, and I see no reason why my efforts should be deemed disruptive (given that I avoid edit warring in the future)." I was going to deny the unblock and suggest that the indefinite block should be kept in place, but I thought I would inquire first if you actually have conditions in your mind under which you would unblock. It is reasonable to leave editors blocked (in my opinion) if they have a sufficiently bad record. In such cases lip service to policy is not a good enough reason to unblock. You are the admin who might have the best data on the 'sufficiently bad record' since I haven't looked into the matter deeply. Previous discussions about Wiqi55 have occurred at:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive697#Censorship of Islam related articles by Adamrce
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive170#User:Wiqi55 reported by User:Penom (Result: Protected)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive170#User:Wiqi55 reported by User:Wayiran (Result: stale and being actively monitored)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive724#Assistance needed in off-and-ongoing revert/edit war
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive172#User:Wiqi55 reported by User:Wayiran (Result: block 60hr)

Thanks for any advice you can provide, EdJohnston (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Ed, you've done excellent research already! :-) I've seen his unblock - I still have his talkpage on my watchlist. The block was for more than just 3RR...it was WP:OWN and overall WP:DISRUPT as well. I might be willing to unblock with a minimum 6 month 1RR restriction ... and any further incidents of what appears to be WP:OWN would be met with a swift reblock. Maybe restrict him away from certain articles that have been the cause of his issues? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Things

Sorry man, I know your a good guy. I get heated is all, should not have taken it out on you. Ceoil (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I cant go back to hong kong

This is a clear vandalism only account. Why so lenient?—Ryulong (竜龙) 12:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It's Sunday ... maybe it's an WP:AGF moment. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thank you for your partcipation at my recent successful RFA. In addressing your concerns, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, will expand my efforts to include the more mundane areas, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Direction Barnstar

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For giving direction to someone who was sorely in need of it. Well done! WGFinley (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks...this is a nice surprise (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Wiqi55 Block Appeal

I have put this user's request for unblock on hold pending your review of the proposal on a 1RR probation as condition for unblocking. Have a look and advise. Thanks! --WGFinley (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Bishzilla welcome

Hello little B. Good old template is fine. Welcome also use Bishzilla/Welcome template. Model of civility! bishzilla _ROARR!! 12:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

LOL ...nice! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI

In relation to your comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Boris_Berezovsky, you are right. I just checked, and you are familiar with it because of User_talk:Deepdish7#Blocked. :) Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 23:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

On journalism

I didn't mean it as an attack on the profession, of course; but if you're a journalist then you know how the sausage is made, I'd be surprised if you couldn't understand where I'm coming from when I say that news media make execrable sources for an encyclopedia.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 22:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, you did notice that I said that I was almost offended :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record

Hi Bwilkins. Just so we're clear, I wasn't trying to force a reply. I was just so aghast by the rudeness of the undo comment that I almost though she had made a mistake. Anyway, thanks for weighing in. Best wishes, 108.82.100.8 (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

How was it rude? They weren't very well going to say "goodbye 108.82...." (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It is is dismissive, treating an IP as a nobody. "Buh bye" is also infantilising and dismissive language - much as "kthxbi" is contemptuously dismissive. A simple "no comment" would have served the purpose. And the initial revert of a prod as a disruption was not good either. The second user to revert the prod simply pointed out the article had survived an AfD. Rich Farmbrough, 20:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC).

Pretty much exactly what Rich has said here. 108.82.100.8 (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Advice

Hi, as an administrator who is involved in the process of deciding whether punishment is sanctions are merited or not, can i ask for your advice on what do with the following uncivil and abusive actions of User:One Night In Hackney:

1. On the 29th November they leave this cheeky edit summary in response to me adding a citation needed tag when all they needed to do was cite the policy and explain it. I never reverted or argued against their revert.
2. On the 1st December in response i left the following message on his user talk. The issue as far as i was aware was over.
3. On the 2nd they remove the message whilst leaving another cheeky comment about not following their user talk edit policy (don't see how i didn't).
4. On the 3rd they leave the following message laden with personal attacks and incivility.
5. My response (just posting direct link to my talk page due to the small size of it as i make many revisions) contested some of Hackney's claims and insisted they strike their uncivil personal attacks or that i'd ask an admin to judge the matter. So far they haven't responded despite being active since so i am following up and requesting an admin judge the matter.

This is One Night In Hackney's user talk edit policy which makes it clear that if they wanted to respond to my comment they would have. Their policy also seems to have an uncivil tone.

I (and several others) have been guilty of being minorly uncivil towards One Night In Hackney in a recent content dispute discussion (as have they in return), all instances borne out of frustration, however the above incivility came outside of that discussion and was totally unwarranted considering what it originated over.

So what should i do about this? Take it to AN/I? Request a user conduct report? As i said on my talk page, i'll even have a user conduct report done on me. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Before I read further, you do realize that Wikipedia admins do not and may not WP:PUNISH ... we PREVENT disruption (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, was a bit of a grey area for me - i've striked out and reworded my above comment to state sanctions instead of punishment. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I make a quick suggestion: if the above is what you consider uncivil, personal attacks, and even that their talkpage policy is at all uncollegial, I would recommend perhaps a little thicker skin! My own talkpage "rules" are in theory more "uncivil" than the ones at their talkpage! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have ignored petty incivility in the past, including from this editor, however they appear to have a chip on their shoulder and like to get a dig in whenever possible and it's not the first time they have been so. Labelling an editor a "POV warrior" and accusing them of typing "drivel" amongst other things are bad faith and do nothing to instill a sense of good faith to work together. The fact they fly off the handle as in this situation is uncollegial. In regard to edit summaires i've seen editors blocked for far less incivility. Are you suggesting that an editor can continue to be insulting and uncivil to someone as long as the recipient has "a little thicker sin"? That really doesn't sound right. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

AN

Kudos for hatting that mess, but I think "accidental" wasn't quite accurate. "Brief" maybe. 28bytes (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I was going to post a similar thought. Hatting is no problem but the closing note should follow the facts.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, BTW (as you already would have noted) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Atabey

Hi Bwilkins, I just changed the entry ATABEY according your recommendation. Now it can be published ?

Tainosyciboneyes. Tainosyciboneyes (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It really is far from following the manual of style right now to start. (NOTE TO TPSers: have a peek here and feel free to pitch in/comment/help) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi, What happens to the user talk page if the user wants to permenantly leave Wikipedia? Is it going to be speedy deleted per Wikipedia:UP#Deletion_of_user_talk_pages ? In fact 08:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Not always - it's rare. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Revision history of Filipa Moniz Perestrelo. [19] : Edit warring (Colon-el-Nuevo) - Fringe theory.

Measures ? When a user is banned ? Thanks in advance for answer. --Davide1941 (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to the aid of these edits. I have also uploaded a file - File:Chapel_of_Piety_Carmo_Lisbon.jpg - which can be used for Filipa Moniz's resting place in Carmo whihc could be added to the article.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The article has been protected so that you BOTH can come to WP:CONSENSUS on the article talkpage (including other editors). Follow WP:DR. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the other editor, David1941, is not interested in discussing his edits nor coming to a consensus. He even deleted my request for a discussion added to his talk page. This article needs a good rewrite by someone else with good writing skills.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That IP wikihounding me after agreement not to

See [33]. Yworo (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No wikihounding. No interaction with Yworo. Just a simple correction to an article, and even an invitation on the talk page for anyone to discuss. As usual, Yworo goes into a knee-jerk rage because someone disagrees with him. 24.163.38.235 (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Edits clearly fit the description of Wikihounding due to expression of perceived slights, the "errors" "corrected" are not unambiguous, and the hounding is being accompanied by tendentiousness, edit warring, personal attacks like just above and at AN/I. Yworo (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Taivo unblock request thread

I have a quick question for you. At User talk:Taivo#December 2011, you made a reference to Taivo's block log, and escalating blocks. He had a single previous block, from over two years ago. Would you really have given him a 48 hour block (and a 23 hour for the other edit warrior) because of something that happened two years ago? Horologium (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Although I typically make EW blocks identical (to be fair to both parties), there are occasional exceptions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Psico

I'm sorry, i didn't know! thanks for the message Psico pp (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Advice

Hi. There was a discussion at ANI a few days ago about an editor who was inserting invisible unicode characters into articles (I won't mention the obvious reason why per WP:BEANS). I was just wondering if you know of any way to detect these kind of invisible characters (such as the soft hyphen) in articles? I don't know how on earth I would go about spotting this kind of disruption. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...a search using AWB? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 02:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to make sure my noobishness doesn't completely negate your answer, you mean AutoWikiBrowser right? (Don't know if you can tell that I've never used it) Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL ... yup, that's the one (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 02:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I use a Mac. That's my defence. Thanks for your help! Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Htc-logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Htc-logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin request

Would you mind taking a look here? Does anything look suspicious to you? Toddst1 (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)(Non-administrator comment)Yes. It does. I would recommend having a checkuser see if there is an IP Hopper or a connected account. This user really seems to be paranoid about you Todd. I would recommend asking User talk:Xeno or User talk:WilliamH to see if they can find anything.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 21:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it's either a duck or not. See User_talk:Muzemike#IP_issue. Toddst1 (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not an admin nor am I a Check User. I can't be of much help except for the fact that this looks very suspicious to me.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 02:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It's on ani now. Thanks Cyber. Toddst1 (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Advice: please review before going live

Hi Bwilkins. I am trying to create an article about Noor photo agency and would like to have it reviewed before making it into a final article. If you can take a moment of your time I would appreciate. Thanks. Ina Desk (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't want to sound too harsh here, but where's the notability? It doesn't even appear that any of the individual "players" have any notability on their own. WP:CORP amplifies the requirements for businesses, and there's nothing in this article that even remotely comes close. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? then I am not sure what a reliable independent source means for references. Coverage on MSNBC, British Journal of Photography, The New York Times, Le Mond "visa pour l'Image award", plus awarded UNHCR: Nansen Award, among many others. Maybe I should link to all the World Press Photo awards but, that seemed a bit to self-promotional.Ina Desk (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I am taking my cue from these guysIna Desk (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument :-) There's a lot of junk in that article that needs to be removed. The primary difference I see (at first glance) is that a significant number of the founders of VII are all blue-linked - meaning they are all considered to be notable enough individuals in their own right, that the "coming together" is a fairly "big deal" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Giving you a chance to revert

Are you joking? Seriously? User:3.14159265358pi's comments appeared to me to be a personal attack against me. That seems pretty blatant. WTF? (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage about what WP:NPA actually says (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Signing blocks

Sorry about that. Usually, the editors I block are IP vandals, in which case I use the following anonymous block template: {{subst:Uw-ablock|time=Duration|reason=For a different reason|sig=yes}}, which does it automatically. Only now do I see that the one I use for registered users (which I don't user often, since I don't often block registered users) didn't contain that value: {{subst:uw-block2|time=duration|reason=reason}} I've fixed this. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring?

Hello BWilkins. I have noticed that you are more attached to me lately giving me guidance left and right. This is in no way saying that I am not welcoming it. It is much appreciated for the help you are providing me. I would just like to know if you are voluntarily mentoring me or not. Are you?—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 18:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've had your talkpage on my watchlist for awhile ... and you seem to be posting on some other talkpages I watch ... and of course, I'm active on Requests for Permissions ... I suppose I find that if I can be of some guidance, I'll give you a gentle nudge one way or another (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd imagine there are a few people that have your talkpage on their watchlist, Cyberpower. I've been having a look through your edits and, to offer some unsolicited advice, I suggest you drop the idea of adminship completely for the time being... at least a year or so. I cannot imagine you would enjoy the experience of RfA. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware of that. I hadn't planned on participating in one for a while anyways because of my recent unintended block. I merely wanted inputs from other users giving their opinions of me and how I could improve to be a better editor. Becoming an admin is certainly a dream of mine, but, I have no intentions of rushing my way to it. I will only consider RfA once I feel I am truly ready as well as other editors feel that I am ready.

@BWilkins: If you want to be a mentor for me, I have no objections to that. I look forward to your nudging.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 20:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I am honoured that you would ask (and I mean that). I'm not sure I have the time required to truly be a good mentor in this case ... I would be pleased to continue to provide snippets here and there (especially when I see something that might interest/concern/help). I suppose that's not the answer you're looking for ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. It's not like I am totally incompetent and need a mandated mentor. You can help me out when you have the time. I am getting increasingly busy myself as the time for college approaches in the next few months.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 21:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Decemober 2011

When you posted your warning on my Talk page, did you read everything I wrote in the Discussion page you mentioned in order to get my side of the story, or did you just take his side because he asked you to? Are you saying that when a clear pattern of conspiratorial and biased editing by a group of 3 or more editors from the same country is noticed on Wikipedia, other editors should just ignore it and not address it at all? Please clarify, because if those are the rules, then my next step will be to effectuate change to those rules as what is happening in the Tuples_in_association_football article is a disgrace to Wikipedia and I will not stand for it. I've been constantly reverted and attacked by the same group of 3 Scotsmen whose original edit yesterday removed all accomplishments except those from a Scottish Football Club. This bias is so transparent it's offensive. JohnMannV (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course I read the whole fricking thing. Your nationalist insults are, to quote someone recently, "so transparent it's offensive" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You conveniently did not address any of my points and decided to block me instead. Address my points above, and then show me specifically where I committed "nationalist insults". You have 24 hours. JohnMannV (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

And that is the beginning to escalate to a personal attack to BWilkins. I would consider cooling down.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 01:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Swarm ^X 18:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really, but just look what you've done to the template! Twinkle already creates a header. Way to plan ahead. :P Swarm ^X 18:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Geez, who uses Twinkle for ANI notices :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well there's, erm...uh...there's.....no one. Swarm ^X 06:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It's ok ... I was being bold based on a number of concerns that had been raised. Either Twinkle can be tweaked, or someone can undo what I have done, or left undone those things I ought not to have done... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Slang

Hi there; I have been a medical practitioner for forty three years, and have five children and eight grand-children. I have never heard the word "wang" as synonym for penis or, indeed, at all. Where have I missed out??!! --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

See this. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

And there's "How to Drive Fast on Drugs While Getting Your Wing-Wang Squeezed and Not Spill Your Drink" from Republican Party Reptile by everyone's favourite conservative , P. J. O'Rourke. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Newbie message

i dont know u personally. so can u tell me y r u sending me messages did i have sended u message and what is ment by " ... and you should know that this edit is both unconstructive and inappropriate ." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawant Mukta (talk • contribs) 16:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you personally think that "did you fucked your cloths LOL" is either constructive or appropriate, then please feel free to correct me ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

y u deleted my user page who r u 2 care about my safety.i will think should i keep my user page or not. how u dare 2 do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawant Mukta (talk • contribs) 11:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you're still under the mistaken belief that this is some kind of social networking site; it's not. I see that someone else has already provided the guidance for young editors. A quick glance through that will already show you a few things we've already tried to discuss with you before: multiple accounts, using your real name, identifying information and more. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Too Funny. This was the first thing I saw on my watchlist. Lol.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 13:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

u r stupid, idiot, crazy, cunt, motherfucker. i propely know that this is not a social networking site u sucks y don't u fuck ur users page and y r u keeping an eye on me cuz udont know who i m. u dont know that whole world respects my father. u bloody fucker.(Muks (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC))

Yes, I do have sex with my wife, who is indeed the mother of 2 children. So, as you suggest, I suppose I am a "motherfucker". Thanks for the kind words. It is too bad that respect is WP:NOTINHERITED :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Independent advice

I would like your opinion on something. User:JohnMannV began editing Tuples in association football as his first edit we suspected him to be a sock puppet purely because his actions were very similar to User:Subtropical-man who seems to have ceased editing the page I'm still not sure re this. I got into a bit of a confrontation with him which i shouldn't have on his talk page and started a discussion on the articles talk page to try to avoid an edit war. In this edit [34] he accused me and two other editors of being against him and the article because we are Scottish. He repeated it on the article talk page. Im unsure how to proceed with this as don't want to get into a further confrontation. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It also should be noted we do know each other but it is nothing do with us being Scottish its from membership of wikiproject football. There have been two discussion there re the article. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've dropped him a warning, and am watching his talkpage. Let me know if I should be watching the article as well (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Im hoping the article will sort itself out as people seem to be joining the discussion. I was more worried about the attacks want sure whether to do nothing or report. Thanks for your help. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The nationalist comments were not appropriate at all. I have no comment about the sockiness :-) Of course, maybe he got mad because you guys caught him as a sock, so he's deflecting using the nationalism front? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly wasn't sure whether requesting an SPI would be appropriate especially if it inflamed it more if he isn't.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

BWilkins, I want to file a formal complaint against you. How do I report you for unjustly blocking me and your complete lack of neutrality regarding the confrontation I had with Edinburgh Wanderer? This entire exchange here is sickening. You just blindly took his side. Your smiley face after writing "I have no comment about the sockiness" proves your bias. The fact you state that you will be watching "me" instead of both of us, even more so. This wreaks of two high-level politicians (or more like fraternity boys) covering each other's backs to protect their influence. How do I file a formal complaint against you for abuse of powers? JohnMannV (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, the "smiley face" meant "he may or may not be a sock, pursue that elsewhere"; I'm 100% neutral: you're performing nationalistic insults, and they don't belong anywhere on this planet, let alone on Wikipedia, so you have drawn plenty of attention to yourself. If the above is not clear to show I have nothing been nothing but neutral, please consider filing a report at WP:ANI once your (surprise) most recent block (by another neutral admin) expires. Note: your actions will be looked at carefully by all as well. Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

How much reasonable suspicion do you need to fill an spi.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry should have fixed that.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Still a bit worried about Sawant Mukta

You deleted their userpage again. Talk page still has some chat that might identify them. I guess there is only so much we can do.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

...and I salted his userpage, and have now been forced to give him a brief block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops. This "crossed in the mail." "Muzukashii da na" in Japanese literally translates as "it's difficult, isn't it?" Idiomatically it means "there are many complex issues raised here that cannot be resolved in any simple way at the present time." The wikipedia project needs the input of editors outside of the USA/UK hegemononsphere; the wikipedia project needs the input of younger editors. But how to facilitate this? Vexed, vexed question, or as they say in Japanese, "Muzukashii da na". --Shirt58 (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You might want to delete User_talk:Mukta_Sawant as well, as it is apparently the same person and presumably the same information. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted, blocked, indef'd (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That was fast! Happy holidays, Kafka Liz (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for Advice

Hello Bwilkins

Sorry to bother you, but I am an IP user recently blocked by swarm based on the request of Topgun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring .I noticed following the block Topgun did not comment on my article discussion :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971#Content_removal Not only did he not respond to me, after I was blocked, he reverted the article to his edit and then justified it on grounds of my being blocked rather than on substantive grounds. He groundlessly claims vandalism if something is not to his liking, and edit warring/IP socking if all else fails. The bones of contention re: 1971 War article are:

1.whether damage to facilities belongs in the human casualties and losses section of the article infobox 2. if so, whether content should be weighted to favor minor damage rather than the outcome determinative damage

• I and others favor limiting content to human casualties only given the best practices of wwi, wwii and virtually all war wiki articles. If wiki staff disagrees, then content should be based on outcome determinative damage rather than minor damage.

Topgun’s approach of warn/block/page protect first ask questions later is detrimental to good faith and collegiality as seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=465321801

• Topgun appears to have also complained about 3 admins, seemingly having trouble with casual contributors like me as well as competent wiki staff. He also violated a previous warning as you probably recall:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=463924949#Punitive_Block

• I would go to dispute resolution on this article issue, but this appears to be a habit with him. As I wish to avoid edit warring but am faced with a bad faith editor, please advise. Thank you.

IP 98 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.115.152 (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

There is not such thing as "wiki staff". We're volunteers. Admins typically do not get involved in content disputes such as this: articles go by WP:CONSENSUS. If you want to make major changes, we have the WP:BRD cycle: you make a change, if it gets reverted, you MUST discuss in order to try to gain consensus. If consensus does not favour your change, you're outta luck. WP:DR is still another way to go. Of course, you should also know that many editors have less trust for anonymous editors - indeed, you have far less privacy as an anonymous editor than if you registered an account (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok thank you. The thing is, this goes beyond content--it's a pattern of behavior by one user across multiple pages. I'd reach out to other users, but then I'd prob get a WP:CANVASS. I would also note that the issue is that the other side is NOT discussing, and is in fact going against the consensus. I am not the first editor to raise this issue. The problem is the user edit wars and then blocks everyone else and claims a status quo consensus. This leaves no choice other than to edit war again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.115.152 (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

He cannot block anyone ... and indeed has been blocked himself. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 02:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Eaglestorm

Giving incorrect details. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinoy_Big_Brother:_Unlimited "Divine allegedly excluding him." supposed to be "Divine unfairly excluding him." I told him many times to change it yet he insists on not changing it. We even had an edit war...he called be a tard. I mean, do you administrators tolerate that kind of behavior? Cratiod (talk) 11:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Cratiod

As you can see, I have already addressed the WP:NPA. I'm taking to interest nor sides in the content dispute at the moment, although if edit-wars occur, then I'll get further involved - although I would hope that dispute resolution is more successful (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

He still won't follow. He has a very high regard of himself. He will take only his facts into consideration. He is also mean and blunt to other members. If, for example, user X said something like: Pinoy Big Brother's darlings, Eaglestorm would make am edit summary like: PBB's darlings? How stupid. Furthermore, he removed my kindest dispute from his talk page without replying and also called me an idiot and a fantard. I would at least want a reply from him explaining and not a post deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cratiod (talk) 11:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Cratiod

Yes, it's more polite to respond, however he cannot be coerced into it. I do have to admit that I would revert the word "darlings" as WP:PUFFERY, and possibly with a sarcastic tone too :-) He's not going to get blocked currently - I am keeping an eye on him, and have been for some time. As I said, I warned him for his WP:NPA (which funny enough he reverted and suggested that you had put me up to it). Let me know if it escalates (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

He still calls his fellow users "gloaters", "idiotic", "ignorant" and stupid... Cratiod (talk) 11:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Cratiod

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Please look beyond me

I'm disappointed that my involvement in BusterD's Rfa may have, in your opinion, cost him some support votes. I don't nominate many editors, least not since late 2006...the only one since then besides BusterD was Mike Cline in early 2010...the issue of me being the nominator didn't seem to be raised then, so I must have really disappointed some people subsequently...all everyone has to remember is that I am not running, but I generally pick great candidates as shown at my userpage.--MONGO 03:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Mongo, the sheer way that you misrepresented and completely screwed up with such horrible judgement the last (and I think only) time we had an interaction has unfortunately not allowed me to trust you judgement at all. I don't hold "grudges", but that level of action will stick with me until proven otherwise. I did say I will look further, and I think I was rather gentle with my neutral comment (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You would have to refresh my memory...are you talking about HJ Mitchell removing my rollback rights?--MONGO 13:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm still hoping to find some sort of explanation for your assessment of my actions which would help me not leave such impressions with yourself and/or others in the future...but for the life of me I do not know what incident I "misrepresented and completely screwed up with such horrible...." (Etc.) Without a discussion on this matter, it would be hard for me to be able to alleviate your concerns.MONGO 14:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy holidays

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness. Hope you have a great one! Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:FDR at the Ages of consent in North America article and in general. Thank you. causa sui (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Sig

Re: The sig I'm using. If you really have an issue with it, you could have brought that issue to the talk page I'm also using rather than leaving snarks at various noticeboards. As far as "stealing", perhaps you've read the following:

"If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.

Similarly, if you do not want your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) challenged or developed by others, then do not submit them."

Nothing we do or write or create in Wikipedia belongs to us, ergo, it's not possible to steal what's left here or have what we create here stolen. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 16:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Just like all edits to articles are tracked in order to attribute them to who did them, or even derivative works from images, it's similarly polite and common practice to attribute where you borrowed from. My little bits of needling were intended for you to pick up on that standard practice by yourself without making a big deal out of it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I prefer plain speaking. If you want to say something to me in the future, it'll be better received and your intentions better understood if you just say it. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 16:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if imitation is a form of flattery then Les must be paying Bwilkins a compliment. I had noted this ripped-off sig as I'm sure others have. Les, although something may be your right that doesn't always make it right if you know what I mean. My 2 cents.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Les, even if Wikipedia and its pictures may be a repository of free information, however, a signature that is copied is considered forgery. Signature's may or may not be free to the public but nonetheless, it is still considered stealing without asking for usage permission of something that was created by someone who hasn't explicitly given permission to allow users to copy and use it as their own. I would be particularly apprehensive if the layout of my signature were copied. (talk→ cyberpower ←track) 23:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope you catch my drift of what happens when copying other user's "property" as I like to call it. Here's an example for you. The basic layout is a copy of User:Hurricanefan25's and three other editor's layout. When I decided to use it, I asked for permission to copy it. The heading as well as the transclusion barrier on my page is a slightly modified version of User:Ryulong's who also had given me permission to copy it. It helps to avoid confusion and possible apprehension in the future.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 23:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, imitation is flattering, and I'm not trying to dissuade people who want to be like me ... however, attribution is key :-) If he chooses not to do it, it says more about him - indeed, it would show he doesn't deserve such an excellent signature :-p (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Then again, everybody has their own opinions about their signatures being copied but, BWilkins has a point. It says a lot about a person who just takes something without asking rather than asking before taking it. Some people will see it as flattering and some people will be apprehensive to it. I happen to be one that would be apprehensive to it particularly since my signature happens to substitute a template that defines the colors of my signature.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 00:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI unprotect

An IP being reported at ANI can't respond, could you un-protect ANI? Cheers Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming this was already taken care of by this time :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Essay

Your statement for the MF case looked most useful, I was going through your contribs looking for a diff to it and was glad to see you've already made it into an essay. Just as a fyi, I posted a link to it on one of the arb boards . FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :-) I'm honoured that it was appreciated (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj birth year

Just FYI, that piece which you think is real is a fake. There are several different ones circulating around (once with her listed address as Los Angeles, which is not true and another that lists her birth year as 1984). There are different versions of that paper that's supposedly from the Dallas PD. In fact, Nicki Minaj herself has openly claimed that she was born in 1984 in Trinidad & Tobago (in her own words). Her official facebook, which she maintains herself, lists 1984 as her birth year. Bastian (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, you should not be astonished

Re [35]; while I agree with the thought, unfortunately that's not observed in practice. One of my few article space contributions was dealing with: apparent weight [36] sat as a zero source, original research, textbook page for years. To get it changed to its current RS stub (which pretty duplicates the existing Weight#Apparent_weight) took months of discussion on the talk page, a twice relisted and ultimately failed Afd. If with followed a consensus on a merger proposal which was ignored and slow edit warred over, referral to WP:DRN which was then forum shopped to Wiki project physics. The usual accusations of malfeasance after responding to a WQA are much easier to deal with! Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 11:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Lazy

So you won't mind if I call you a vandal/sockpuppet some time in the future? Or alter people's comments numerous times despite being explicitly warned not to? Cool, I guess I can treat this website just like a discussion forum then! What fun! Twafotfs (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Not really. All of that is not allowed unless you have a specific and legitimate reason to do so. You may want to check out the policies of Wikipedia. I'll post them on your page if not already posted.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 12:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Pretty rich calling me "lazy" ... you were trying to get admins to do what you had failed to attempt yourself. There was no immediate block that was going to occur. If you're trying to prove long-term issues, that's what WP:RFC/U is for. I closed it because the two of you were finally actually "talking it out". Admins are not parents: it's not our job to intervene and choose sides. Your role as an editor to try try and work it out with the other party FIRST. I finally saw some wonderfully open and productive discussion between the 2 of you - the type of discussion that was probably going to lead to understanding and resolution. So, take that discussion and continue it between the two of you - work it out. If problems recur that require and immediate block, then come to ANI. Otherwise, it's WP:RFC/U. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, how on earth would you expect me to know what WP:RFC/U is? My complaint was not with the issue at hand, which was resolved by DougWeller long ago. I thought that it was very clear that I was "trying to prove long-term issues". And I never asked for him to be "blocked". Also, I think you have a funny definition of "wonderfully open and productive discussion"! Twafotfs (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's my definition of "wonderfully open and productive discussion (extracted from ANI):

User:T: "I am not claiming I acted like an angel"

User:B: "I agree that we both could have handled it better"

User:T: "I've apologized for exceeding 3RR (even though I wasn't aware of it)"

Call me crazy (which rhymes with lazy), but that's very positive, and shows you're both actually active listening (or reading, whatever the case). That's exactly the type of discussion you should have had with each other before ever filing at ANI. As someone trained in mediation, it was the perfect place to send the both of you off to finish your understanding of each other's position. Don't ever be offended by humour - it's actually the best way to resolve a lot of issues (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, none of that has anything to do with the substance of my complaint. I wasn't posting about the content, or about me exceeding 3RR, I was posting about BabbaQ's pattern of uncivil, aggressive behavior and history of personal attacks. He edited other people's comment's before, was expressly warned by an admin not to do so again, with the words "consider yourself advised", and yet he continued to do so. Add to that the list of accusations and insults. And yet, nothing...... Twafotfs (talk) 13:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The root of the complaint was the interactions between the 2 of you - and they were improving. The second thing you have already done is to bring people's attention to potential future problems from them: they are being watched, so let it happen. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

What's with the guy?

• Andriabenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• So touchy~! And with a big dose of EW impulse to boot, what gives? BTW, Harpy New Year~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Scorpion0422

This is user is really at it. He just sent me a YouTube video, or very offensive content. The link to the video is on his talk page, and I really believe he's being really patronizing. He made a personal attack on me. He did. According to your guidelines, it says here:

“ Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor. ”

Is a personal attack. I hope you sort this situation out. TrebleSeven (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking back on his talk page, he has made a bit of another offense. He removed your vandalism mis-identification notice on his talk page with an edit summary of, and I quote: "Blah blah blah blah blah". Honestly this editor sounds so un-constructive. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You're calling the Bevis and Butthead "attacking"? Oh please, now you're pushing it. Ok, so you do not share a certain sense of humour, and certainly Scorpion should be slightly more sensitive. Yes, they removed a warning - which they are allowed to do, and it means they at least read it. I have zero clue why you continued to engage them whatsoever - you were practically asking for the continued degradation of the discussion. Don't follow them, but if you happen to see them improperly calling things "vandalism" in the future, let me know. Your best bet is to disengage from them; really. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thank-you, Bwilkins. TrebleSeven (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies - no TB templates

Regarding your revert, sorry but I missed that request in your edit notice. Happy New Year! -- Trevj (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Question about my account and a page needing to be moved

Sorry, I am a newbie at this. I'd like to rename the title of the article, "User:71.190.77.2/Love Eterne (2010)" which is confusing and not helpful to the more meaningful "Love Eterne (film)". From my understanding, an article name can be "moved" if the editor is a member of a group that has permission to do so such as the Autoconfirmed Users group. Any way to tell approximately when my account will reach the threshold to meet that requirement? Thanks.--Prz4587ill (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)You will be autoconfirmed in < 24 hours. In the meantime, I can perform the move for you. I as well as most editors have the limited right to move articles. However, an article in userspace must remain in userspace and since the article is not public yet, I must inform the user first before proceeding.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 22:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks --Prz4587ill (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Just a quick question: Can you nominate more than one picture for PotD? TrebleSeven (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably yes - it would be considered for a different day, I expect (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't want to get in trouble for anything, that's all. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Protector of Wiki

I was a little surprised that you told Protector of Wiki that any future un-ban requests must go through BASC. I was under the impression that since it was community imposed (and only "de facto", not by full consensus), he could apply for removal of the ban by going to the community. Have I missed something here? Worm^TT · (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Changed it to "should likely" - my belief is that a future similar community !vote would be rather catastrophic for them (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

He would probably have a better chance with BASC than with the community...but not if his approach hasn't changed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheers Bwilkins, that makes sense. If he doesn't have some sort of attitude transplant, I can only see another ball of fire. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you've got it right with Protector of Wiki?

Are you sure you've got this right? Isn't a community ban more along the lines of when no one is prepared to unblock? Clearly there are very many editors who are prepared to unblock and it seems to me far fairer for the default assumption to be in the blockee's favour. Certainly I don't feel that "clear, unequivocal consensus" is the right standard to be using for an unblock request, and therefore I would ask that you re-open things - if not to reopen the discussion of PoW's block itself, then at least to discuss whether your close and interpreation of policy was correct.

Having said that if you disagree with me about re-opening it, I will argue a little bit more with you here, then if you refuse to budge I will give up. So I don't care that much

Cheers,

Egg Centric 21:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm following the policy :-) A community !vote where there's no consensus to unblock = de facto ban (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe you but where is that policy as I can't find it myself Egg Centric 21:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

See also the de facto ban of TT by the same process (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Aye, but TT was a prick - maybe this guy is too, I don't think I've encountered him before. And if the choice is having him and TT unblocked, or him and TT blocked, I plump for the latter every time. Hell, even if you're being a rogue admin, I sure as hell ain't continuing this conversation if it could end up with TT back on wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Egg Centric 21:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

...now let's be careful with those WP:NPA's! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

IMDB as a reliable source

Hello, may I ask you to help me argue with the statement that IMDB is not a reliable source. It has worldwide coverage, strict eligibility criteria for titles, owned by Amazon, there are millions of references to this source in the web and other media. It is considered reliable by millions! Wikipedia is also user generated, but due to the policy is considered to be reliable source as well! May I ask to approve IMDB as a proper source and restore http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silent_Life&action=edit&redlink=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterFirst (talk • contribs) 07:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

See here. When I can personally edit IMDb, it's clearly not reliable - and Wikipedia is not typically considered a reliable source either: ask any university professor (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

why?

I am writing an article about a persons contibution....with the valid source y u r deleting it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asadwazir23 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

See the answer I provided here. You're now also blocked for spamming/massive conflict of interest. You asked for help, and are now completely ignoring it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I tried to make some changes (and delete) to the info I added to the Clignett article. So why is deleting info I added considered vandalism? --Clignett73 (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit-summaries are always useful :-) I have stripped out all of the geneology stuff. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, --Clignett73 (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You're still not doing them though ... right below the editing box is a small box called "Edit summary" - when you removed the text you should have created an edit summary that said "removing text that I put in that I realize does not belong" ... no warnings would have come! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think i have been getting it today, though. I haven't received any warnings. I've clicked the minor edit box.--Clignett73 (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Thank you for the changes on the article. I'd like to know if i can remove some of the sources Beaulosagne added, without any problem. I think some don't have to be there. It looks a bit 'messy'.--Clignett73 (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If you look at how I did the citations using <ref>http://www.blah.com/page</ref>, those should theoretically be the only way that referenced end up in the article - we call them inline citations. So, if the ref's are not in the text themself, and are of no actual use to the article, then they can be removed - I see that some other admins/editors have been slowly removing them. Make sure you only click the "minor edit" box if you're fixing minor spelling, and things like that. Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, i been trying to get the ref part right, but some how it's not working. I'll change that when i have more time (have 2 year old who also needs my attention). Q: Why would you think most of the notable people in the article are questionable? Salute --Clignett73 (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If they are not notable enough to articles of their own on Wikipedia, they are not considered notable enough to appear on a list of "notable" people with that name. I monitor about 4 articles on last-names; we constantly remove "redlinked"/non-notable additions. Only one of the Clignet's actually has an article, and she's an athlete. Another Clignett is mentioned in a music-related article, but they're not notable enough to have their own article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe no one ever tried to make an article about them? I have seen an article of a family name which only had a name of lists with no ref to articles, i'll let you know when i find the article again. Thank you for clarifying, though. --Clignett73 (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Very Interesting...

The more I look into this, the curiouser and curiouser it gets. First, I notice how similar the signature of this editor who's been borderline harassing another user that (coincidentally?) had been repeatedly harassed by a certain banned user. Then, upon further research, this. Do you know who I suspect that this really is? I'll give you one guess. A SPI report will be forthcoming. Doc talk 12:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, to say the least (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Filed. I know this is her in my gut; because the harassment of the same user led to identifying the other similarities in behavior and interests. Plenty of more evidence "in da woiks" for the SPI for any doubters, and I eagerly await a response from the active account. If we are wrong: I will trout DocOfSoc and myself and apologize profusely to Lhb1239. Doc talk 14:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You maybe interested in

You might be interested in joining the Imposter Verification Team because of your contributions here

Whenaxis talk Join the Imposter Verification Team! 01:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Note and question

The following IPs (same person)

• 109.150.60.235 (blocked before)
• 86.181.135.97
• 86.178.31.211
• 86.182.220.73

continue removing sourced and relevant content, editing disruptively in support of a certain pov. It is very likely that the IP has some connection to one of the editors which have been involved in the disputes. I have also notified Magog. Maybe you can give me an advise on what I should do with regards to these recent disruptive edits and this recent disruptive removal of balanced and sourced content. JCAla (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No your information is not relevant its coatrack at best your retaliatory attitude will always get your pov pushing reverted by me or other neutral editors and yes my ip was discussed before I had a 48 hour block now get over your pov and move on 86.181.135.97 (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have also responded to your winging on magogs page explaining why my ip resets intermittently It would be wise not to canvas against me by informing hundreds of users Magog is a very firm and neutral administrator he will decide in time whats what 86.181.135.97 (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore I was only blocked once and I did not have the chance to respond as I was away see ip 109 talk page and magogs message 86.181.135.97 (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yet another. JCAla (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean yet another ? I have already stated why the ip hops....21:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.184.22 (talk)

Blocked account

Dear bwilkins i m Sawant Mukta u have blockedmy account when u gonna unblock it.(116.202.167.6 (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC))

(talk page stalker) I believe you misunderstood Bwilkins' message on your talkpage. Following the message you place on his talkpage here, you have been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. You need to request unblocking on your talk page. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As per the Catfish, and your sockpuppetry (here and here), and now block evasion (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Screwball

It seems your chat with Screwball did not work since he's decided to begin edit warring again.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If he continues to push his fortuitous luck, go back to AN/3RR ... in case he dreams that I'm "involved" or something (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Outing responce

How is it that despite your stating that SonofSetanta is violating WP:OUTING and they were "duly warned to knock it off" by you, that not only do they ignore your warning, but you continue to indulge them at the ANI discussion. I've ignored both the discussion on ANI and the AE for the most part despite being mentioned in it, but when I see, despite your explicit warning, this editor actively perpetuating and encouraging future disruptive practices which may or may not have set this in motion I have to ask how come. Who made them aware and when? Was it by private email which is being encouraged now? Or is this person acting in the background trying to stir the pot? Any which way it seems to be a bit of a farce IMHO.--Domer48_'fenian' 20:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that after their discussion with Elen of the Roads, all should be ... well, better. What he chooses to discuss offline is his business, not ours. And no, we refused to engage them in discussion regarding Outing/Socking ... we engaged their concerns about future editing - that's our job (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For this block summary. Keep that tongue firmly in cheek in the new year! The Bushranger One ping only 23:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well thanks...wasn't sure if that one was going to be appreciated, or have me dumped (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

User:7SeriesBOT

I'm sorry for blocking your bot, but as far as I can tell, its only tasks are G7 and U1 deletions, yet it has also been deleting a number of user talk pages, whereas both G7 and U1 explicitly exclude user talk pages from their remit. I thought that less damage would be done if the bot were needlessly out of action for a while (if I've blocked it unnecessarily) than if potentially important user talk pages were deleted (if it is indeed not meant to be doing that and were to keep going), and so decided to block for now and then discuss the matter with you. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 23:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to some usertalk pages that have been edited by someone other than the "owner" or another bot that has led to the block? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean like this? Although I must confess that I don't see anything in WP:G7, WP:U1 or WP:DELTALK that indicates that this is a factor that needs to be considered. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 00:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Only one editor, same as User talk:173.66.17.20 ... all within the original remit. User talk:70.249.35.245 is an even better example - the person recognized they gave a warning in error. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood policy somewhere, but as far as I can tell U1 says that 'user talk pages ... are not eligible for speedy deletion under this criterion', G7 says that even a good-faith tag by a sole author 'does not apply to the user talk page' (which are the only two criteria governing the bot's actions, as far as I can tell from the task list on its user page); and WP:DELTALK, the policy WP:G7 points to, says that user talk pages are deleted 'on occasion' and for 'good reason,' which does not seem to suggest that a bot should do it. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 00:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been doing it, as approved, since day 1 ... usertalk pages that meet the G7 criteria (one editor who edited and requested deletion) meets the criteria as approved (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid we reach something of an impasse – I just don't see where in the G7 paragraph there is any scope for any user talk page being deemed to qualify. I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong, but could we at least ask Anne for a third opinion? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 01:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BFRA is the best place, as they're the ones who approved it do do what it's doing (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Ani

I've give up on the ANI thread as in just getting angry about being treated badly. Could you answer if it's possible as I asked at ANI for an interaction ban. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no need for anything as radical as an interaction ban. The two of you got off on the wrong foot. You both got your backs up. Back away, breathe, relax, and go back to doing what you usually do - just take that one minor piece of advice with you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Even still i don't want him going on my talk page again. He is only doing it to wind me up and I'm not wanting it. After that i trust the page will be being watched more anyway so if he does it its not my problem. It just upsets me that the political motive and attacks happened. If they hadn't started i was going to have a look for sources to try and sort it to not be blp but he did before i had the chance. i thought my link to blp and saying there was merit to include the information neutrally was enough. Im going to ask igloos created to see if its possible to add an option for not giving warnings as you can't at the moment it automatically does. A hand written note would have been more appropriate. The political aspects including his user page and the mention of press involvement on the article talk page and the fact he says i called him a sock puppet which i never does concern me but I've explained that in the ani so that always there for the future.Edinburgh Wanderer 13:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Ask him nicely not to post on your page anymore. If he continues to do so maliciously, let me know. You already know that's how it works - no need for anything official at the moment (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have left him a note and posted one final question at ANI whether or not he will reply is another matter. I will not be watching him or article so unless he posts on my talk page it's someone else's problem if this happens again. Can I thank you again you've successfully calmed me down a bit. Just hope he dosent do it again to anyone. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

TVFAN24

Talking here so that I don't disrupt a truly muddled talk page. I'd just like to note that he has been adhering to 1RR: he just makes the exact same edit every week, despite it getting instantly reverted every time he makes it. Slow-motion edit warring isn't helped by 1RR restrictions.—Kww(talk) 15:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Unblock Restrictions

Is that box you use one you are coding by hand? It would seem a template for those would be in order, many times I've put similar unblock restrictions in place and then the restriction gets archived or removed from the talk page and no one knows it was in place. --WGFinley (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Did it by hand ... is there a formal box available? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I think it would make a good template. --WGFinley (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

*grin* ... and you know how much I love making templates! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey Bwilkins. Thank you again. I will not let you down. I have a quick question there is an article where an editor linked two names that don't have a page, so it is a red link. Without any trouble may I unlink those two becuase they don't have a page anyway?? Thanks. TVFAN24 (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:REDLINKS ... so, in short, no ... no real need to remove the wikilinks for the most part (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)