User talk:DangerousPanda/Archive 6

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

Tobago spelling mods

Thanks for your note. Under most circumstances I do bother to take the time to advise editors when making changes to ensure consistent spelling - however.....on busy days, when it is a one-edit IP editor, I am afraid that the effort of writing a note exceeds the potential benefit !  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions

Hi, you made some accusations here. I would like to know who you are accusing of railroading, setting her up using a Verizon account and all the rest of the bad faith accusations you've made against editors. I am very upset by your accusations right now and I need to understand them better I think. If you want an email from me to show you my ISP, let me know, I have no problems being checked out about all of this. I just don't understand why you are treating editors in good standing like we are the way you are. Are we to ignore the vile things she puts on our pages that are unprovoked? I had no contact with her when she called me a cu@@, did I deserve that when I was talking to another IP on my talk page? I don't understand, so here I am asking for clarications because your words were hurtful and in my opinion uncalled for so please explain yourself so I can understand. Do you want us to leave and her to return? What exactly is your goal here with this rude smearing you just did? --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Crohnie, you're taking my comments far too personally. You might even be taking Wikipedia as a whole too personally. I made no direct accusations, but I can guarantee that there are many people whose hands are not as clean as they are pretending to be. You might just be becoming the victim of someone's likely good faith attempts to help you, but they went too far. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: "no talkback"

I'm afraid that I didn't see your talkpage edit-notice (the only place your request is visible, so far as I can tell) because I used Twinkle to leave the {{talkback}} template, so never saw an edit screen. I apologise for this fault in the Twinkle software. Incidentally, for someone who recently objected to incivility... [1] Also, reply at ANI. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 13:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

When you say you're "no longer 100% convinced", I take this to mean you're thinking this is actually not SRQ, but rather a troll impersonating her. For some of the socks or all? From that large list of "suspected" IPs (where there is no edit overlap whatsoever) CU found "several"[2] of them to be operated by the same user that operated Sabra2 (talk · contribs) and UrbanCowboy12 (talk · contribs): since the wireless data concerning geolocation is "simply unreliable and should be disregarded", the CU recommended to "use behavior".

So let's look at some other socks for "duckiness". RiverDeepMountainHigh (talk · contribs) goes from obscure (and I mean obscure) articles that SRQ was either the prime or #2 editor for[3][4], then shows up to get in the middle of a debate (this time with Wildhartlivie and Crohnie) seemingly with no prior knowledge of the situation[5]. ILuvAMRadio (talk · contribs) had an odd thing for Charles Karel Bouley (with their third ever edit there in that known battleground for SRQ) and Christine Craft[6]. Makes a seemingly innocuous change of a word[7], but gets no reaction. So she elicits a reaction[8]. Of course, DocOfSoc predictably responds (exactly what SRQ wants), and the sock starts reverting her[9][10]. NeoNeuroGeek (talk · contribs) also liked the obscure Christine Craft article, but just couldn't help ripping into someone at another article who had just started editing there: guess who that person was? If you guessed DocOfSoc... you're right![11]

I don't know, B, I think either it's pretty obviously her; or an advanced form of troll has really done their homework. What's more likely: an editor with competence issues who vowed to keep editing here even though banned, who thinks she's improving the WP but can't resist her old targets, and who has a very clear history of stalking certain editors... or a troll having one giant laugh, fooling so many and framing poor SRQ (who is innocent of socking)? Pretty diabolical, especially when you consider they've managed to fool those that have had "significant non-positive interaction" with her: who do you think "best" knows how she operates after all those interactions over so much time? And how many editors do you think have actually had significant "positive" interaction with SRQ? It should be noted that while some feel that SRQ was "pushed" into her ban, she has a history of attacking and disparaging those she disagrees with that goes back years[12], and this sort of repeated behavior is really what got her banned. Cheers :> Doc talk 20:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note - In lieu of a not "forthcoming" response to the above, here's an excerpt from one of the e-mails, in typical "point-by-point" response from her (so the "quote" in the beginning are my words)...

On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 10:20 PM, SkagitRiverQueen <email address NOT revealed here> wrote:

"Sue me if your lawyer thinks it's worth it". Law suits related to the internet are becoming more and more common, you know. And just so you know - I already talked to my lawyer today (not only is he my lawyer - and a very good, successful one at that - but he's a personal friend) and he believes there is definitely legal action that can be taken here. Now, I may not sue you personally (but I'm not saying I won't, either), but Wikipedia on the other hand...well, they are liable for the stuff their editors write as well as the stuff they refuse to remove, you know. And...in the end, Wikipedia could find you to be more trouble than you are worth if you don't do the right thing. It's quite simple, really. All you have to do is remove the statement in question. Are you sure you want to let your stubbornness be your guide, here?

This e-mail was sent by user "SkagitRiverQueen" on the English Wikipedia to user "Doc9871". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

So who used the "email this user" function, and to issue a legal threat no less? Not I. Since mentions of her self-proclaimed on-wiki medical condition exist in many edits from several different users, I would suggest someone start "revdeleting" ASAP if she is to be taken seriously. But she revealed this herself here, and it ain't her full name, e-mail address or phone number. You can't "out" yourself... or can you? I don't believe there is any "legal" issue here at all. I never deleted the mention she demanded, and have yet to be served with any "legal papers". There has always has been an issue of competence with this editor, and this half-baked legal "threat" to me and WP only further demonstrates it. I won't even get into the blatant copyvios... Doc talk 23:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, very much, Bwilkins, for your helpful and very wise and astute comments at ANI. Most appreciated. I hope you are doing well. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No issues Cirt. Sometimes I just shake my head :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Explanation about CSD

You declined the speedy deletion of User:Expedrium, because it was "Not unambiguously promotional". G11 was not the only reason I had. See this; it was also a copyvio of http://www.elance.com/s/expedrium/. Goodvac (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you cannot place two CSD tags on an article. The second will be automatically discarded. If the user is the same person and the website, what's the issue? There's no copyvio ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was common practice to use two CSD tags if they were applicable. I could have used {{db-multiple}}. Nowhere does it say that the website has given permission for the content to be used. It doesn't matter who Expedrium (talk · contribs) is. Goodvac (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) deleted it. Goodvac (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be widely believed that you can't put two CSD tags on a article, but I know of no guideline or policy that says you can't, and nor am I aware of any common-sense reason not to. I am certainly happy to accept two or more, and off hand i don't remember ever before coming across an admin who thinks it shouldn't be done. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. I usually place as my reason the most egregious violation (copyvio pretty much trumps all) when deleting, but thats why db-multiple exists. Syrthiss (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Mistake?

I wonder if you made some mistake in this edit, since the link you give produces a blank. Simply Special:Contributions/Jpullokaran gives a more meaningful result, perhaps the one you intended? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably true ... link generation from my work computer can be a challenge. Feel free to fix on my behalf! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Toys out of the pram...

User talk:Dr. Blofeld - obviously not the sort of person who can listen to criticism...  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No, and it's pretty mild criticism to say the least. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

As a courtesy note, your block of Dr. Blofield is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked. Cheers, Resolute 00:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the discussion there is leaning towards consensus to unblock, but wanted to notify you and see if you wanted to add more comments prior to taking action. Thanks.

My position, as stated there, was that the block was reasonable under the circumstances, but I support an unblock in the wider context including ANI discussions he participated in and other comments. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers to both Resolute and GWH for letting me know, and associated comments. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Superb summary [13], BTW. Toddst1 (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It was 4AM and the coffee had not brewed yet :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request from Carbine

I see you have commented at User talk:Carbine. My inclination is to unblock and then keep an eye on the editor for a while, per Wikipedia:ROPE. It may well be true that after four years the editor has changed, especially if they are young. At 18 I was very different than I was at 14. Of course they may not have changed, but if so it will soon become evident, and reblocking will be in order. What do you think? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I was actually trying to see if perhaps they would have provided any information about other editing while they have been away from Wikipedia on enforced vacation. WP:ROPE can be good. Your call. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Civility

Respectfully, would you please take note of this User_talk:NYyankees51#Recent_Deletion but also please give the user a chance to retract his latest comments before interceding? Hopefully it will be the last time he harasses the other user... Update: Apparently it went to ANI and another admin imposed a 24-hour block. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Factocop redux?

Hi BW. Could you please have a look at 212.242.202.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? I have just blocked it for a week as block evasion by Factocop (talk · contribs) (or whatever the sockmaster is called), but a second opinion couldn't hurt. Favonian (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think your correct in your belief that it is a sock of Factocop. Mo ainm~Talk 19:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hello Bwilkins. Could you look at Blood on the Dance Floor (group)? I'm letting you know since you've salted Blood on the Dance Floor (band). In my opinion this should be discussed properly, the band seems to be quite well known (I found some sources even in the Czech language :)) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

USER: SPARTAN

As you could of seen on the Admin incident page, the person who was on my account ( I still don't know who ) was on it for the duration while I was away from the computer, so I'm pretty sure they were the ones that were talking to User: Ryan_Postlethwaite. I won't stop pursuing this. Here is the full extent of what happened as I explained to Shell Kinney (arbitration committee) by email. I haven't gotten a reply yet so I might as well share the full extent of what I told her. Essentially, it's happened before in March 2009, when I'm not sure but I think someone must of been on my computer. Last year (2009-10) I was in a dorm style room, so what I meant by "trolls" was I thought someone was going onto my account when I was not there, because at the time my computer wasn't protected very well, it had no password to get into, so I think someone, possibly my roommate thought they were being funny when they were replying to people in Swedish. I'm living on my own now and I of course, have better password standards so it pretty much guarantees no one else can go into my account. I'm using this IP address so I can make sure it gets resolved rather than solely on the Spartan account, since it doesn't really let me go anywhere else. Hope to hear from you soon, 96.50.86.207 (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible sock of Factocop?

Please can I draw your attention to the edit history of an unregistered user here,Cheers --NorthernCounties (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request 3SeriesBOT

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/3SeriesBOT as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 03:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm checking with the editor who was dealing with the CFD discussion (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Dhruvekhera unblock request

I was responding to the current unblock request at User talk:Dhruvekhera when your latest comment caused an edit conflict. My feeling is that the user has given very satisfactory responses to your query, which encourages me to agree with you that an unblock would be appropriate. However, I do have some reservations, based on such things as this edit and the block which followed it. This makes it clear that the editor had already had it made clear that such personal attacks were unacceptable, and the "I didn't realise" line is therefore difficult to fully accept. It is also very difficult to take that edit in any way other than as racist, so the "I am not a racist, it was all a misunderstanding" line is also difficult to accept. On balance I am inclined to compromise by cutting the block length considerably, say to one month (compare Diannaa's suggestion of six months). Any comment? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I would do so, but bring to his attention the same comment you made above. "We tend to believe you, but this, however we'll AGF, so don't blow it by WP:EVADE in the next 30 days" ... on the other hand, is the block then turning from prevent to punish? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Good question. My own feeling is that being blocked for a few weeks might perhaps convey the message "We are serious about this" more effectively than a block which is lifted as soon as the user says "I am sorry and I won't do it again", and therefore might be more effective in preventing further transgressions. Of course this is speculation, as we can't know how the user will respond. In any case there seems to be fairly broad agreement on unblocking some time, but on the question "when?" a range of opinion from "now" to "six months". I think six months would be unnecessarily harsh, and rather punitive, and I won't complain if you decide to unblock now. However, I am still inclined to leave a little while to convey the point. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

May I interject here, since I was the victim of this abuse. The term "Dirty Jatt" is clear. It's like saying "Dirty Jew", or "Dirty African". It is racist no doubt and no matter how Dhruvekhera explains it, it was meant as a racist slur. There is no such thing as an Indian Race or Indian Ethnic group. The term Indian is similar to European, so Dhruve's claim he cannot be racist to other Indians is false. We all know Europeans can be racist to one another. The term "Bangla" again in its context, was nothing but a slur and pure racism. I have nothing against Dhruve, but you must ask yourself, do you really want editors with that sort of behaviour here? Thanks --Sikh-History 10:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The answer to that question is simple: "No we don't". The question is whether or not we can believe the user's assurance that it won't happen again. I am doubtful about that, but willing to give the benefit of the doubt, on the understanding that any repetition of the unacceptable editing will result in an immediate re-imposition of the indefinite block. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, re-reading his commentary since he responded to my 5P questions, I have come to the rather disturbing conclusion that he was not at all sincere. It's "us" who misunderstood what he said, of course </sarcasm>. His examples of "f'ing english" not being a racist insult simply because the person would be of the same european ancestry is pure, unadulterated bullshit. I know from my own background that Indian people are as racist as anyone else, so simply sharing some degree of common lineage does not avoid/preclude racism. In short, in his 5P reply, he had said the right things: since then, he has merely insulted everyone else and demonstrated he was not sincere. I declined the unblock, have fully-protected his page for 6 months (and he may request WP:OFFER then, but of course it will not be a given. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Having considered everything, including your latest comment here, I agree with your decision. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

:-) Always good to hear that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

was wondering if there is another way to protect his own talk page without semi-protection? --CarTick (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The other way was removing his access to the talkpage for the duration of the block. As the duration is indef, he would never be able to post as per WP:OFFER. Semi-prot for 6 months keeps him off it and away for that period of time. Of course, if anyone ever sees any evidence of WP:EVADE, I'll change it for the duration of the block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ekram Ahmed Lenin

I have given enough resources with citation url. In Bangladesh, not everything proof you will get from Bangladeshi websites. Bangla Academy is the authority to justify any claim of Bangla Literature. Writer Ekram Ahmed Lenin has written 7 books but not all books has perfect web citation because web printed media is still poor in Bangladesh. However,See the reliable third party web printed sources for his two books 1.Amrao Pari 2. মহানায়ক I have attached here 5 books cover page and publisher address. pls see the below url and verify those addresses from Bangla Academy either he is false writer or not. If he is perfect I would request you to retrieve his profile. A. Amrao pari B. Black Daimond C. Jollad D. Nanarokom Golpo E. Shundorbon Ovijan If Bangla Academy, Bangladesh make it false notable; I would nothing to say. Please give me enough time to answer your all questions as I contribute here in my free time. Mrkshahin (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Take it to deletion review. If you recreate, you may be blocked. I contribute here in my free time too - I don't like to redo things again and again either. We have notability guidelines here, as this is an encyclopedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think i am unable to understand the process of deletion review. Can you please guide me how to do it. I already given here resources with citation url. Please help me.Mrkshahin (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Help with Jerzeykydd

I would really appreciate your help with User:Jerzeykydd. Despite your warning on Toddst's talk page to stay off of my talk page (and mine his), he left another message accusing me of ownership of a page. Jerzeykydd has been blocked twice before and has consistently disruptively edited. I am getting very tired of this silly game he has played. I don't know if ANI is useful but I am extremely tired of the disruptive editing and badgering.--TM 00:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on this issue.--TM 22:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please remove outing

[14] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Linkels Josy

I hope it doesn't look like I am wiki hounding this user at all, however I have all his pages on my watchlist and have gone around and cleaned all the pages he has added to his desired categories, more then likely, because of a bad cut and paste or wiki formatting. He has asked 2 people for help in his history here, [15] and [16] to which no one has replied, now he has also asked for an [review]. I do enjoy his editing summaries about being a fan of the UK, (Sarcasm) because UK editors are the only editors on the en.Wikipedia(Sarcasm). I just wanted to touch base with you since we both seem to trying to prod this user into proper usage of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmatter (talk • contribs)

PLEASE DELETE ALL THE DELETING REVIEWS AND ALL YOUR REMARKS ( MESS, SARCASM,.....) IN RELATION WITH MY PERSON FROM THE: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josy_Linkels. Indeed,YOU DON'T TRUST ME AND KNOWING THAT YOU ARE PUTTING ME TO SHAME AND ALSO KNOWING THAT I'M IN NO WAY TO BLAME I STILL REPEAT THAT ALL MY DECLARATIONS ARE TRUE AND THAT I DON'T NEED ALL THESE MANIPULATIONS LIKE: WE DON'T KNOW IF LINKELS EXISTS,AND SO ON.I KNOW THAT MY ENGLISH IN NOT THE BEST BUT IT WOULD BETTER BE TO COME TO AN END STILL REPEATING THAT ALL ME ITEMS ARE TRUE AND THAT NOT OWNER OF A HOMEPAGE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LINKELS Josy (talk • contribs)

Nobody denies you exist, or that you own a website. However, notability, reliable sourcing, WP:AUTOBIO, conflict of interest... stop writing about yourself; NOW. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

On "Editors" authority and constraint of speech

I have some time so I am pursuing attempts to block updates to the NorTel history page.

At the same time I am disgusted by the current contribution policy of Wikipedia and the authority granted to arbitrary "Editors" to block attempts to contribute.

I was within a hair's breadth of stopping to contribute to Wikipedia at all and that decision remains pending.

I do appreciate your comments which were useful and helpful.

Regards

Doug Cottrell Amiablecdn (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:CONSENSUS. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus describes the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia. There is no single definition of what consensus means on Wikipedia, but in articles consensus is typically used to try to establish and ensure neutrality and verifiability. Editors usually reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. When editors cannot reach agreement by editing, the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages."

There was no attempt whatsoever to achieve consensus. The updates were removed arbitrarily and at the sole discretion of an individual "Editor". Had the process of consensus been followed the editors themselves would have waited for comments and concerns from the reading public. They did NOT. It is not the contributors who are breaking Wiki policy it is the "Editors". Amiablecdn (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc. We would like everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. How many times have you read something and thought, "Why aren't these pages copy-edited?" Wikipedia not only allows you to add, revise, and edit articles: it wants you to do it. This does require some amount of politeness, but it works."

Once upon a time in a land far, far away .... Amiablecdn (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The next thing to read is WP:BRD. Bold is great, but it is expected that reversions may happen without discussion. Then there must be discussion afterward. So, if you tried and failed to add content, but have not yet received a reason, you can fairly expect one. Hopefully the talk page discussion will sort out the issue. If the talk page remains unproductive, there are other options for WP:Dispute Resolution. Don't stop trying; just realize that 'Bold' doesn't mean 'Easy'. Ocaasi (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC) (random AN/I watcher)

I've read them all, followed them all, and the brownshirts just keep on keeping on. The update has no chance to be seen, to have anyone comment, to move any further towards consensus because the brownshirts insist on breaking Wiki's own policies in their testosterone driven attempts to assert their manhood. Sounds too strong? It is far too weak a wording but trust the editors can correct it to be factually accurate. Amiablecdn (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

...and the next one to read is WP:NPA and WP:BLOCK, because your terminology is leading that way. I've been watching the Nortel article for a few weeks now other than an IP editor, there's only one who's even remotely "breaking Wiki(pedia)'s own policies" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Why is it when I read: "I was within a hair's breadth of stopping to contribute to Wikipedia at all and that decision remains pending.", my first thought was "Promise?" HalfShadow 19:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ouch ... a coffee spit-take is ugly! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that; my humor seems to be stronger than usual recently. HalfShadow 22:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Theo Botha

You nominated Theo Botha for deletion. I've been working on the citations. It's still a terrible article, of course -- I've mostly limited myself to supporting it from RS. I suspect that it's not WP:AUTOBIO but rather initiated by a fawning relative, and it shows signs of having been written by a native Afrikaans speaker whose English is not very good. However, there are at least five articles in the South African press devoted to Theo Botha. I also found a mention or two in a book about executive compensation. There are numerous articles in which he's quoted directly, often several times in the article. Maybe he's only made himself notable by being a persistent loudmouth, but hey -- a win is a win, under WP:GNG. I invite you to take another look at the article, and the AfD discussion. Yakushima (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You can ALWAYS tell when they have their SERIOUS FACE on...

...They CAPITALIZE some WORDS to give them added WEIGHT. HalfSHADOW 18:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No KIDDING! It SURE makes me TREMBLE at the thought of their INCREASED emphasis! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The best PART is when they seem TO stress odd words. Syrthiss (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Warning! possible return of vandal!

I want to report that someone logged on using IP Address 96.242.217.91 may be trying to use Wikipaedia as a propagandic tool for his/her own views. This person is adamant that New York's Chinatown contains the highest concentration of Chinese in the western hemisphere. As to the sources in question, they are nothing more than annoying business sites promoting NY Chinatown business and travel. To make matters worse, user 96.242.217.91 assumes that this is good enough, just because the author says so w/out incl. proof on how such research came about. It's like me writing that Elvis Presley is a first cousin of Kim Jong Il, and you'll just have to take my word for it because it is. In spite of efforts by myself and others to remove these unsubstantial claims, this homer is persistent in undoing our corrective edits on "Chinatown, New York" and other Chinatown pages. There are at least 3 other Chinatowns in N.America(Vancouver, Toronto, and especially mega-crowded San Francisco) that I've also had opportunities to visit on many occasions along with NYC, and I can tell you that each one could easily match or exceed what 96.242.217.91 claims. I would also like to mention that based on this individual's writing style, I suspect that it to be "Thmc1", who was recently banned by you from Wiki for conducting similar practices. Why am I suspicious? In addition to what I've explained above, all of this BS has just re-started not too long after he was ousted. If possible, I would like to recommend some sort of investigation with a temporary ban, and/or warning that Wikipaedia's articles are not to be abused for one's amusement. MBaxter1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for the HELP

Thank YOU for your responses to some OF the threads on MY talk page. I welcome the HELP. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what we're here for :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to add annoying and odd CAPS on some words so I have now CORRECTED this oversight. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That's SHOWING HIM. I could KEEP THIS up all DAY... No, no, I'm bored of it now. 21:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)HalfShadow

Welcome TO the Chandler Bing School OF Typing. Can it BE more annoying? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Who's the sock?

I wanna throw tomaters at 'im. HalfShadow 22:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Make sure you throw them via ghostlight (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, don't shit on Mater; he's been everything. HalfShadow 22:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Tfeaster

He can't reply as he's had his talk page access revoked by Favonian, but see [17]. Gee, another fan. :-) Dougweller (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess he actually did reply. It's either tfeast or tfamine, isn't it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

:-) Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

WMUKBot

Thanks for the block, although I realised the mess quickly and stopped the bot and cleaned up after it. Shouldn't be a problem again. Thats a not a mistake ill be repeating again. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 13:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of English

Hello. I agree entirely with this edit, but I thought it worth suggesting to you that, considering it was addressed to an editor who has indicated a lack of confidence in using English, that "warm fuzzies" might not be the most helpful kind of English to use. I think I understand, but does the Omani editor? JamesBWatson (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed :-) I have more warm fuzzies about my terms now (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

barts1a

That was the other editor (who likely should be indefed), not Barts. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Already noted, and fixed it (I had thought before it was noticed). In the process, I think I actually reduced his block by a number of hours. I believe that I already extended the other editor by an additional 24hr due to his continued tirade against the editor while blocked. I need coffee. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Coffee can help :) The block on Big Brother (now 48h) looks ok to me. If his posts stay that mean when he gets back, he'll only be blocked again, so it'll take care of itself swiftly. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

... and based on HJ's comments, he was not beyond an earlier unblock to begin with. I've thought of further warning Big Bro about the "threat", but you're right, I think it can take care of itself now, as you suggest. Oooh look, coffee's ready! Shall I pour? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll have one with ya, gonna press some now :) Gwen Gale (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm

A red change...not that long to go before there's a green change too (at least until about the end of the month)? ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, yes ... the annual festive variants (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Gavin.collins

Hi. I don't understand why you said that this reset the clock for the SO. Seems fairly innocuous to me... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't find where anyone told him he couldn't edit his own talkpage. Blanking it is fine, but I wouldn't regard putting up a new piccy as something that would reset the clock. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

He's banned from editing Wikipedia. The talkpage belongs to Wikipedia. The edit he made was unrelated to a request for unblock, not a reply to a comment to an editor regarding a past edit, and was - by his admission - an "indulgence". Ergo the edit was an edit to Wikipedia, contrary to the ban. Maybe my 1+1 does not equal 2 for you, but IMHO it was a violation of the ban. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(and after eating a nice bowl of soup, I realized this might read a bit aggressively-defensive, which is not the intent ... please just read as how I read the situation, and act accordingly) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you in this case, and it appears GwenGale may as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

<sticking nose in> <also, after e/c> BW, I agree with Sarek and Elen here, and perhaps go further than they do. First, this really can't be held against him OFFER-wise. Second, that it is unnecessary to blank his talk page like that. Does your second comment above (please just read as how I read the situation, and act accordingly) mean that you won't object if I restore his page, in the interests of de-escalation? [moot now] His ban was to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia; as long as he is no longer being disruptive, I see no harm in allowing him to look at a pretty picture on his talk page, and to change it occasionally. </sticking nose in> --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I enjoy pictures too. I don't enjoy gaming, however, based on the circumstances that led to his ban. That said, I'm not going to WP:WHEEL over it - I think it's a bad call, and sets a bad example. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you did what you did in GF. It's what you get for having your TP watchlisted by me. I don't think GC did any harm as such and even if he's allowed back through the SO, reblocks are so easy. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, dueling TPS's are always welcome...especially when I'm stalking yours too LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to the Nortel article

Your continued contributions via reversion of bad edits, but mainly via additions of new and updated material, are appreciated. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Note

I sent you an e-mail. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If you get a chance

Hi Bwilkins if you can spare a few minutes I'd appreciate your input on this[18].--Cailil ^talk 22:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That 122 Ip you recently blocked for three days

122.60.93.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Uncensored Kiwi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Is at it again; more harassment and personal attacks. They've posted a similar message on other talk pages, straight off of their block. I would suggest another, longer one, as they clearly aren't going to stop.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 05:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

.. And now they're back with the account Uncensored Kiwi (talk · contribs), edit warring to reintroduce their personal attack.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Userspace draft: PIUG - 2

My most recent entry on having the Patent Information Users Group (PIUG) topic approved and moved to production has fallen off your current page again to your archive5 page.

I believe this entry should be ready to go based on my collaboration with TFOWR, who answered your call for feedback. TFOWR and I worked on "sourcing" as discussed on his talk archive page and my User talk page. In particular, I found an independent reference that covers the PIUG in support of much in the PIUG wiki article: Patent Users Group Celebrates 20 Years. Chemical and Engineering News, 86(23), 33-35 (June 9, 2008).

Is there anything else I can do besides be a "squeaky wheel?"

Tomwolff52 (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm torn. I acknowledge TFOWR's help, but at the same time, another admin says it fails WP:CORP badly. I'm rather on the fence. I'm not sure where you studied statistics, but I don't like those numbers if they're truly representative. I wonder if it's not a bad time to pump it over to the article incubator, get some kind of 3rd opinion. Let me contemplate after a coffee. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's been a while since I looked at this, and my memory isn't what it could be, so I'll need to revisit it. I do remember a lack of secondary sources when I looked last, however. Like Bwilkins, I'm caffeine-deficient right now. TFOWR 09:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to bring up a recent development that shows the esteem that PIUG is held by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and other patent professionals. Anthony Trippe, PIUG Chair, recently wrote about his interaction with USPTO Director David Kappos who initiated the conversation to request help from PIUG. The matter is described in detail by Mr. Trippe on his blog on Our Role in History:

"It turns out Director Kappos wanted our [PIUG] help. USPTO and EPO were working together on a Directive where the two organizations would develop a joint patent classification system. Both organizations would use the joint classification and it would form the basis for a system that could be used by all members of the IP5 and hopefully all of the patent offices of the world... [H]e asked if PIUG would be willing to write a letter of endorsement for the Directive and if I could speak with our colleagues in Europe about joining us for the endorsement and sending the letter to the President of the EPO [European Patent Office] as well... I reached out to Aalt van de Kuilen, the Chair of CEPIUG and asked if he would be willing to work on a letter with me. Aalt ... and I put the letter together, signed it and send it along to the USPTO and EPO."

The posting by Mr. Trippe includes several links to magazines and patent experts that report the directive and the endorsement and pledge by PIUG to partipate with the USPTO and EPO on the Directive.

I hope this development helps settle the question of the importance of PIUG in the patent world and that it is a legitimate subject for a WP article. I would really appreciate your further attention on the matter.

Tomwolff52 (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, what I would recommend is this: use the {{helpme}} tag on your usertalkpage. Provide a link to the draft. Express how you have worked on the draft with others, and are looking for final ideas to bring it up to speed for moving to articlespace. Let them have a few kicks at the can. Then, we'll move it to articlespace, and I'll nom it for DYK :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do soon. Tomwolff52 (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I posted the {{helpme}} on (User talk:Tomwolff52) on December 1 and then on Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/2010_December_1#Patent_Information_Users_Group_.28PIUG.29 based on the suggestion by Kevin Morgan. Since I didn't get any feedback at the latter, I reopened the {{helpme}} on (User talk:Tomwolff52) on December 13. I got one response: "I think the article looks pretty good right now; it's ready to become a live article to me." I thought you might want more feedback and I was going to open it up for help again, but I thought that might be rude. So I asked at WP Webchat and I was advised to ask you directly if you wanted me to open it up again for more comments. Please advise. Many thanks. Tomwolff52 (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

About a blocked user

Hi there; I have e-mailed you. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Protest

I have officially protested the ban and requested that it be lifted. Now you know. Dylan Flaherty 11:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It has been upheld - now you know. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

By? Dylan Flaherty 11:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

A third-party, totally uninvolved admin: me. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, your ban is broader than hers, and it is yours that I am protesting at this point, not hers. Therefore, you would need someone other than yourself to uphold it. Dylan Flaherty 11:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

In what way is it broader? It's the same, only that you have been reminded that ANI is never the place for content discussions. It's the same, and it's upheld. Move on - next word I hear about it your topic ban will be extended to a month. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, how you've handled this I think the only place you can or should talk about it now is my talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

...and it's exactly because of the way Dylan handled it that made it easier to uphold. If you Dylan chooses to discuss directly with the originating admin (Gwen), then I will look the other way while that discussion takes place. Clearly Dylan does not understand the core Wikipedia policies, and is being disruptive - but rather than block, you're being given the chance to better understand through discussion with a trusted admin such as Gwen - life will be easier. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: My talk

You'll notice that particular barnstar never made it to my userpage or anywhere else. :) I suspect the IP is Beastly21 anyway. TNXMan 14:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Cybermud

Hi Bwilkins, hope you're having a good weekend. I believe you're familiar with this guy - could you have a look at his posts to Talk:Feminism[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] and Talk:Men and feminism[29][30][31][32] over the last few days and remind him of site policy vis-a-vis civility, disruption and soapboxing. Both myself and Slrubenstein have already done so but he seems not to be listening--Cailil ^talk 20:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

7SeriesBOT

Not sure if this is a bug or not - the following pages had a CSD G7 tag on them User talk:24.92.8.72, User talk:24.92.8.72, User talk:70.126.216.199. CSD G7 says "Note that this does not apply to user talk pages, which are not deleted except under very exceptional circumstances". Agreed the user should not have used G7, but should 7SeriesBOT then declined to delete them as talk pages? It seems this is a bug that users could use to wipe out their talk history. Fortunately, in these cases its no big deal.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Typically, I would agree. However, the only person who had posted on them was the only person who tagged it with G7 ... not really a worthwhile talkpage to keep in that situation ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the "only person" mentioned above. There are three other of my IP talk pages that I tagged, but admin Ronhjones rm'd the tags and cited the CSD G7 reg. They are still blanked, so will 7SB rm them eventually?

Also, I wonder how you got the bot approved to do this, which does seem to have the potential to conflict with the deletion of Talk pages regulation?

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  17:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It won't be blanked deleted by 7Series if 2 different people (non-bots) have edited it, as per the BFRA task. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that seems pretty cool. Congrats on the whole bot project, which looks like it's put together well. So, since I was the only editor on those IP talk pages, and since it looks like the admin above (". . . in these cases it's no big deal.") agrees that it's okay to delete, can I expect the 7SB to eventually delete those pages?

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  05:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If more than one person edited, a real human will need to delete them. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Spam links

Dear Bwilkins I inserted links on World Academy Online as this is serious resource. As all works are based on Dr. Jae K. Shim works, he is Professor of Business at California State University, Long Beach. He is a co-author of over 50 professional business books. That is why i inserted links on world academy online. I am sure that professor could not be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.238.104.196 (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello again COuld you please insert World Academy Online into the list of reliable sources. As all work s on this resource are written by Jae K Shim who is a professor of Business. I am sure that his works will improve Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.238.104.196 (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Try the reliable sources noticeboard, because from what I see, he's neither reliable nor notable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Cybermud

I know I brought this issue up to you before but I find this kind of comment[33] utterly unacceptable and am precluded from dealing with it. As an uninvolved sysop would you mind having a look at the behaviour of this editor at Talk:Feminism please - and feel free to hit me with a trout if necessary--Cailil ^talk 00:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Scratch that there's an ANI thread that been opened about this - if you have a 2c about this or indeed by contribs please feel free to add them there--Cailil ^talk 00:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll check out the ANI. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Mr. Bwilkins! Can You Help Me?

I hope this finds you well and in good spirits, Mr. Bwilkins! Thank you so much for your help back in October when I was banned from editing my article. Because I have been the chief contributor to the Ron Holloway article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Holloway ), I should've paid closer attention to the importance of inline references long before I finally did. When my article came under some serious scrutiny in late September I began trying to improve it by supplying relevant and up-to-date inline citations throughout the article. Since that time I've added about forty references. I have been a real stickler about keeping the references up-to-date. When better sources have come to my attention I have replaced the older, less relevant references with those offering greater clarity. Some of the referenced articles were written as recently as December, 2010. After I was granted the privilege to resume contributing to Wikipedia I couldn't help but notice the warning banners at the top of my article remained. I didn't take it upon myself to try and remove them. I just left them. On December 28, 2010 I looked at my article and noticed something different about the banner and the wording. It appears the wording was "updated". What once read: "blpdispute=September 2010", now reads "disputed=September 2010". It's the same date, but the wording and their meaning is a bit different. I will admit it bothers me to see these banners knowing how hard I have worked to make sure every claim in the article is not only true, but irrefutable. My musical activities are usually documented in music publications, videos and many online music forums that include reviews, interviews and photos. I have no need to exaggerate or stretch the truth concerning my career. My major concern is to create an article that is completely verifiable and therefore beyond reproach. At this time I think my article has met those standards. These banners were placed before I cited numerous books, television appearances, major newspaper articles from the Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, etc. It also includes referenced articles from NPR and the Kennedy Center along with a couple of biographies and encyclopedias. It's beginning to look as if the longer these banners remain, without taking into account significant changes in the article, the more likely it is they will get reworded and give the impression the article contains false statements. That is definitely NOT the case. If you have a little free time, Bwilkins, could you look at my article and check the inline references? I think you will find it is no longer lacking accurate and reliable inline citations, as it did back in September. Thank you for your time and your expertise, Mr. Bwilkins. They are greatly appreciated! Sincerely, Ronsax (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The minute I see "my article", my spidey-senses start to tingle. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand, Sir! I didn't mean it like that. Sincerely, Ronsax (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Userspace draft: PIUG - 3

I was hoping we could bring the matter of Patent Information Users Group (PIUG) topic to a successful close before it dropped off to your archive6 page.

As you requested and as I summarized, I received a reply to the {{helpme}} on (User talk:Tomwolff52) on December 13: "I think the article looks pretty good right now; it's ready to become a live article to me." I thought you might want yet more feedback, but I held off opening up for feedback again since I thought it might be rude. Instead, I queried you on whether you wanted me to open it up again for more comments. I would still do it, or perhaps you would now move it to articlespace, and "nom it for DYK" as you replied to me on November 30, 2010. Either way, I'm glad to do what you need me to. Thanks. Tomwolff52 (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It was moved last week. Have not had the chance to look into DYK as of yet. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have two small issues. (1) We added two categories to the article (Intellectual Property Organizations, Professional Associations). I noted that the link to PIUG is listed at the top of the two categories' pages and is not in the right alphabetical section. Is this something that will get worked out by others who manage those pages? (2) The DYK is a very nice idea. Whenever you can get to it would be great. Is this something I can help you with? Tomwolff52 (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Contacting User:Jerzeykydd

Hi there, could you notify User:Jerzeykydd of something for me? I removed uncited content from the blps David Rivera, Todd Rokita and Jim Renacci. He subsequently reverted my edits and restored the uncited content claiming he "added refs". Clearly though, he did not add much of anything. I don't want to have any problems, but I don't want to see this continue. Thanks.--TM 15:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Undue deleted page please

Please undue [34], your bot is deleting too fast! Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

And undue that too.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Both done. The bot is efficient :-) And I have to say you're doing an odd version of archiving (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You restored archive 2, but your odd bot deleted archive 1 again.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Done again. The bot's not odd...how about don't tag your pages for deletion unless you want them deleted, because that is odd? I removed the G7 quickly for you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I added the tag accidently and were going to remove it, but your bot speedy deleted it.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Edit warring block

For future reference, may I ask what about my unblock request was unsuitable? I would have thought "I had stopped edit warring at the time I was blocked for edit warring" was sufficient, but I'd like to know, so I can compose a better request if I'm unlucky or foolish enough to have it happen again. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

rhode island red question, was the intention of the block so that he never edited Juice Plus again? He's back at it. was told when it was blocked he'd be welcome back at all but a few of the 3.5 million articles?!

“ It's become apparent that you lack the self-control to keep yourself from Juice Plus, so the block will help you to disengage. I believe you need to spend time away from the project in order to start absorbing the serious impact your own behaviour has on others, and on the community and the project as a whole. A few months from now, if and when you come to understand that your actions on this encyclopedia have had real-world impact on actual people, and when you can agree to stay away from this topic area, you will be welcome back to work on all but a few of the 3.5 million articles in the project. Risker (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC) ”

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.212.221 (talk)

Hockeyguy676

Good call. I wasn't comfortable making that block myself. Toddst1 (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

TPSers can be helpful :-) In that situation, you probably could have made the block as it was clearly required, even though you were the prime target. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

Hi. Since the time that you have commented at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock_request (where there was some messy brainstorming about what terms are necessary for an unblock), a specific proposal has been made by Doc James about the restrictions/conditions that will come into effect upon the user being unblocked. Your comments/views on this proposal are welcome. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Russ Nelson

Could you take a look at Russ Nelson? The subject of the article keeps removing maintenance tags and based on this comment and this much older one, I think someone else needs to explain the concept of WP:V. Toddst1 (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully I better explained the concept of a topic ban. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently he doesn't get it: [35]. NB, Russ Nelson and Danese Cooperare both on the board of Open Source Initiative. Toddst1 (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Heads-up

Hello, about your block of User:BLGM5, I don't know whether you've noticed the further comments at WP:ANI#Abuse of Twinkle. Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fellow editor

Hi fellow editor, I am trying to get some Admins to take notice of this, WPAN/I, what is the best way to do it? Thanks--SH 10:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

There are dozens of admins watching there. Canvassing is the wrong way to do it. If none of those dozens of admins choose to do anything, it's because it's not a strong case (yet). I'm not sure who marked it as "Unresolved", but that was the quickest way to stop it from being looked at anymore, as that's a type of closing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies as WP:Canvassing was not my intention, it was just from as discussion with another Admin, that she was keen to get someone elses opinion, hence I asked you. Thanks anyway. --SH 08:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear

R3ap3R.inc already made a request to change his name upon being unblocked [36]; it's what he did straight after that [37] which led to this block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Already understood and acknowledged ... he's got some serious 'splainin' to do to become unblocked at all. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher1

Just to note, that despite being warned before, he had not ever actually been blocked, so I didn't judge an "escalating block" to be warranted. Courcelles 12:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Got it. I do, however, believe that one should learn one's lesson when it's presented a month earlier (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Rgsconsulting

I was not surprised when Rgsconsulting (talk · contribs) was blocked for his username, although I had refrained from mentioning it for fear of getting BITEy with a new user.

The block was username-only, though, not for his COI (not related to the username) or his single copyvio article creation. So, on the one hand, his statement that he wouldn't edit articles he has a COI with[38] shouldn't influence the unblock. However, it showed that he was willing to go along with the guidelines, which was a marked change from the earlier discussions I'd had with him.

I don't see the username issue with "Rgspol" as opposed to "Rgsconsulting". His first initial is R, so it stands to reason his real-name initials are RGS. "RGS Consulting" sounds like a business name; "RGS Pol" does not, at least not obviously.

Accordingly, I've unblocked him to allow a change of username. I know this goes contrary to your declining his unblock earlier this morning. I don't mean to be stepping on your toes with your judgment call on the uesrname; if anything, sending it to WP:CHU will get enough voices into the mix to see if there's a problem with that name or if it's good to go. However, I thought being bold and making the unblock now was the best way to handle the situation. —C.Fred (talk) (I am watching your talk page for replies.) 19:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No issues. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

For your attention

Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, --Epipelagic (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup. You've lost it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:REFUND

hello, I'm a bit confused by your response [39]. Per the policies related to WP:REFUND articles are generally restored when they are deleted due to an expired PROD. Could you please restore the article? I don't think it qualifies as a speedy, so it should really be restored and sent to AfD if you see a problem. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

7SeriesBOT

I think the bot needs a reboot, it hasn't done anything for two days. --94knux (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup ... we had a major power outage in the house, and it blew the motherboard. I'll have him restarted within about 12hrs. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Hey Bwilkins, You deleted a page of mine recently for a Grove City College's Volleyball team. I believe it was for a lack of sources but I had thought that myself and the others contributing put it a good amount of sources given the amount of infomation provided. I was just wondering why and in the future what amount of sources should i look to give —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.147.28.1 (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hard to find the article as it's not in the contributions of this anonymous account. See WP:RS for more information on 3rd Party Reliable sources. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

But why?

Hi Bwilkins, Thanks for your "2 cents" on my AE case. Believe it or not, but I do find your comment a little bit more fair than some others comment because apparently you saw problems with another user too. Still I'd like to ask you why you suggested such sanctions toward both of us together? I have demonstated over and over again how the topic benefits from my presence there. I wrote such articles as The Mountain of Israeli-Palestinian Friendship;Sayyida al Hurra;Liar paradox in early Islamic tradition;Comedians of Middle East conflict;Arab rescue efforts during the Holocaust;Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib;Everest Peace Project. Only last night I wrote Allah Made Me Funny. There's no other editor from both side of conflict, who ever wrote an article that says something good about the other side, but me.

Now all the differences that are presented against me are taken out of content. There's no single difference that represent my editing in the main space, and at least half of the differences have nothing to do with I/P area.

Yes, I used the word "trolling", then put me on zero tolerance civility alert, but why to topic ban a productive contributor, and unique in the means I demonstrated above contributor?

The other user was not able to demonstrate how the topic benefits from his presence. The problematic editing of that user me and others mentioned were made mostly in the main space, but even this user does not deserve an indefinite topic ban IMO. A month or two months will do the trick I believe.

Of course an interaction ban is a good idea.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Help on O'Donnell BLP

Hi, Thank you for your comment about finding consensus on the O'Donnell article. If I wrote up a draft of a potential request for comment would you give me feedback so we can do an official one? Jnast1 (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Some questions regarding an unblock of yours...

There's been some questions over at WP:ANI regarding your unblock here: [40]. Perhaps you could shed some light on the situation, which is under the thread titled "Weird ip activity". Thanks! --Jayron32 14:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Commented on ANI. Thanks for the notification (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Bwilkins.

I appreciate,i usually stumble on such pages but i get suprise even with the semi-protect logo,i have reverted alot of annonymous edit and vandalism on such pages so that i decided to remove them to let administrators know that the pages are not really protected and i came across a page sometimes ago with such logo fixed by an editor.Earlymen message me! 06:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Bwilkins.

I appreciate,i usually stumble on such pages but i get suprise even with the semi-protect logo,i have reverted alot of annonymous edit and vandalism on such pages so that i decided to remove them to let administrators know that the pages are not really protected and i came across a page sometimes ago with such logo fixed by an editor.Earlymen message me! 07:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate Bwilkins,

Thank you very much for letting me understand some new wikipedia terms.Keep on remainding new editors like me with this messages,you are great.Welldone again Bwilkins,I understand very well about the protection lock now. Earlymen message me! 02:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well done

Well done for revert warring to ensure closure of a thread to protect an admin you have a clear admiration for, in a discussion you had already given an opinion on in his support. 2,000 admins on this site, yet you felt the need to do that. Well done indeed. Yeah, disruption on the AN board. What a crime. BLP violation on the Main Page for 6 hours. No problem. Admin not willing or possibly even able to explain what his definition of a reliable source is after closing the Afd as 'reliably sourced' that led to that utter disaster. Not a problem at all. Admin who cannot name a single user, or give a single example of an argument in that Afd, which he believed was a good argument that James Middleton is notable and has had in depth significant coverage. Excellent. An admin who believes the whole thread was a "joke", the same admin who with a straight face and in all seriousness used a Yahoo blog as evidence the subject's sister was obviously notable, whose article now has to be partolled 24/7 to keep the utter shit he presumably thinks is good coverage out of it, although we'll never know if that's really true because his refusal to explain his concept of it is apparently his enshrined right, to be protected with moves like this. Yeah, I can see how you've really prevented disruption with this. Edit warring on the AN board followed up by threats, the final embarrassing stage of this sorry decision. Well done. Closed right after a good example of a closure was presented for comment. Extremely well done. Timely indeed. MickMacNee (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're freaking brilliant. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

MMN

I've drastically reduced your block of MickMacNee, as there's an overwhelming consensus (with which I doubt any neutral observer would disagree) that it was both out of process given your prior involvement, and wildly disproportionate to the "offence". – iridescent 17:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Commented at AN. Although I'd be hesitant to call me "involved", I tried for a couple of days to diffuse, stop him, and warned him that blocks would come if he continued his path ... I'm merely following up. Your reduction is noted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Draconian block as an involved editor

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Congratulations for the brilliant idea of closing the same AN thread twice in a row, each time with a disruptive non-neutral summary [41] [42], and then imposing a draconian block on the editor who opened and reopened the thread for rising to the extreme baiting [43] by the very admin who was discussed in the thread. From WP:INVOLVED:

In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

This case does not fall under the "purely in an administrative role" exception, since everybody can close or reopen AN threads when it makes sense. You were in an edit war with MickMacNee. It was definitely not a straightforward case, and the block length was excessive, given that venting on a talk page is generally tolerated to a large extent and Bearian actually asked for it with his words, "You can insult me all you want", which were part of the baiting. Hans Adler 17:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks for the fish, but I have neither COI or strong feeling about the dispute. I don't think I have conflicts with the person, other than as noted above warning him to stop or be blocked. Not following through would have sent the wrong message. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Vesey

Hello

Just thought I would let you know that there's currently a discussion at User talk:Ryan Vesey on unblocking this vandal. I thought you might like to be made aware of it to add your comments as you're the first admin that refused his unblock request. He's made a third one now, another admin is considering it but is looking for input first.--5 albert square (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There was not much more for me to add overall. We'll see how it goes (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Delftsaardewerk.nl

I'm minded to unblock this editor. After you declined the unblock request, fellow admin Atama stated they were minded to unblock. I did ask Atama about this, they xhe has not edited since I asked a couple of days ago. I believe the editor will make a user name request, and will not add links to the website to articles again. Have suggested that they propose any additions of links at the talk page of the relevant article for other editors to evaluate. Mjroots (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No issues if you feel otherwise :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Bernard the Arch-elf

The page of Bernard the Arch-elf has been voted to be merged with The Santa Clause. I do not know how to merge, would you by any chance? If so, it would be a great help. Thanks. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:27 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully this will archive (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011s308

Requests for permissions

Hello, can you take a quick look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed page (my user:Эдуард Шерешевский)Thank you!

Hopefully this will archive (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

deletion of replify entry

Hi - curious as to why the wiki entry I created for replify was deleted. It described the company in neutral terms - it was certainly not blatent advertising. There are Wiki entries for Ipanema Networks, Silver Peak, Riverbed, Expand Networks and many other companies with similar business to Replify, so I really don't understand why their entries are allowed to exist and ours was not. Can you clarify? Regards Paul Moorhead —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.105.102.82 (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you say "ours" should be a big hint: WP:COI. Wikipedia works on notability. If you work for an organization, you should never write about them as you have an inflated belief about their notability. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL - who do you think created the entries for Exinda, Riverbed, and all the other companies? I can assure you it was an employee. However I do understand your point and thanks for replying. I feel there is an issue of consistency here - our competitors (see Ipanema Technology for example) have entries, so either we should, or they shouldn't. My measure of notability is based largely on the consistency principle - we're either all notable (by virtue of being cited in independent analyst surveys for example) or none of us are. What I can do is to edit the entry to further establish notability based on our significance to the IT sector in Northern Ireland. Would that address your objection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.204.22 (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi - could we continue this discussion please. I don't feel that the notability rules are being applied consistently - e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McAfee_Personal_Firewall_Plus, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipanema_Technologies are both pure advertising with no citations at all. I put the entry up for review, but now it feels as if I had gone lower profile it would still be there. Regards Paul Moorhead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmoorhead (talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend against using WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments - the Ipanema article is an unreferenced piece of crap about a non-notable company that should not exist on Wikipedia. Let's go back to square 1: do you work for the company in question? If yes, you clearly have COI, and are not remote from the company enough to understand whether or not it's notable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Working for a company is a potential COI but that does not make it impossible for me to judge notability - I have worked for many companies and not felt they warranted a wiki entry. By that argument, anyone with sufficient expertise to write an article has too strong a personal interest to reliably judge whether anyone else might be interested. My point was not that the entry was about as worthy as some worthless entries but actually that it had considerably more notability than others and satisfied a need for a link from another independent wiki entry (which I had no hand in creating). But this has been an interesting education in how wiki actually works. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmoorhead (talk • contribs) 15:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

User at AN/I

Hi. You commented in the last thread at AN/I that concerned user Terra Novus, who signs himself as "Novus Orator". Partly at my initiative, a new thread has been opened there that I consider as simply a continuation of the previous one. Because I consider it so, I've thought it proper to contact each administrator who took part in that last discussion, to disclose the fact. I believe this is an allowed notification for that reason. If you'd like to reply to me concerning this message you can do so here, as I've temporarily watchlisted this page. Thank you,  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The talkback template and your editnotice

At REFUND you say Oh, and please note on my talkpage edit notice where it says not to use tb templates . A reasonable request but you should be aware that many users apply the tb tag using scripts like twinkle/friendly and will not see your request. In this case it would be better to have it at the top of your talk page. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Anglo Pyramidologist

FYI, I see no block log entry saying this user's TPA was removed.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I got called away from my computer. I did it moments ago before I saw this. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Shittyboi024

We generally do allow those blocked for the sole reason of their username being inappropriate to fix that problem by changing their username. If they change their username, we have no reason to block, and that user is offering to change their name. I don't see why we would decline that unblock request. Prodego ^talk 18:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I am aware if that, and have done my share of unblocking for that purpose. Saw some things in both his talkpage and contribs that didn't jive, added that to the nickname to equal no unblock. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Admin help...

Are you an admin? Need some help as Domer48 continues to edit war on WP:Carlingford Lough. He has quoted in discussion page that there is a 1RR but he has made several edits within the last few days. Dispute is over the word 'International' being included in text. Dom has not joinned discussion and discussion is at an impass as 3 for and 3 against removal of term. I have reverted to original prior to edit war but he/she keeps on making the same edit. very very annoying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.147.195 (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Per this post Could you have a look you need to be blocked. 1 RR per Troubles Arbcom is quite direct, "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty"--Domer48_'fenian' 13:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If it quacks like a duck

Then it must be a duck. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greco-Turkish_War_(1919%E2%80%931922)&action=history

The edit warring continues.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 12:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bwilkins, I have made my case in here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:78.176.91.37#Your_recent_edits Briefly put, I have nothing in common with the said user. I hope you have some time to check the article where I have been involved in sort of a edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.129.110 (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, what can I do to prove I am not the said user. Nipsonanomhmata deletes my editings [[44]] or even my comments on the discussion page [45] And again deleting the same comments: [46] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.129.110 (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't make your case here. If it's your IP address that is blocked, then the ONLY place you're allowed to post would be an unblock request on that specific userpage. If you are blocked, and have merely changed IP's in order to post here, you're violating WP:EVADE, which can also get this IP address blocked. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't make any case in here, I notified you, as the blocking administrator, that I have made a case in the "specific user page." --85.103.129.110 (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

BWilkins, you and I have been mentioned at ANI regarding this case; see WP:ANI#False sockpuppetry accusation. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Eyeballs

Could you keep an eye on User talk:RussNelson as you've had some experience there? Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 02:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do what I can! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's an Idea

Why don't you mind your own business, you arrogant, self-important moron? Even your fellow admins realise that you're a waste of space as demonstrated by the number of times they disagree with you. Do the decent thing and stop bothering everybody. You won't be missed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.12.175 (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If you provided an ounce of context to your comment, or even an ounce of intelligent commentary/proof of your claims, I'd be willing to listen to constructive criticism. Otherwise, all I hear is "blah, blah, blah". If you believe all admins people agree, then you're pretty naive. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for stalking, what next?

		The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
		Thanks for answering the man's query for me. It helped. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 15:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Juliette something

Juliette has been refused a wikipedia page and so now the album advertising campaign is linking to every other juliette on wikipedia

please find link as example http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011s308

We need an information page so when the album gets national airplay its linking to the correct Juliette and not a mixture of 20 others on wikipedia. http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/36c0dd6e-2968-4f68-b092-1050fdf4d675 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.146.82 (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not ever for WP:PROMO, and an advertising company that links to Wikipedia for that purpose should be fired. If this individual starts to actually meet notability guidelines for an encyclopedia, then someone unrelated to her might write an article that actually stands up. Until then, give it up. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sticker

Take one. Or two.

Bwilkins, one of these stickers is yours, as a reward for your interesting literary comment at ANI on the prose (poetry?) of a now-blocked editor. Well done. Yours, Drmies (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC) (English teacher)

Thanks ... I've put it onto my userpage :-) Of course, the main part of that statement was stolen borrowed from Douglas Adams and a discussion involving Vogons. Cheers! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I want to unblock this editor

I'd like to unblock Juliettefarrell (talk · contribs) and explain to her what she should do to get an article about herself. She's written to the ArbCom clerk's list not about the block but about problems with the BBC website - its biographies are almost all created by its software from our biographies, and in this case it created a biography for this singer about someone else entirely. I think those of us on the clerk's list who have discussed it would like to see this problem fixed. Is that ok with you? If I don't here from you shortly, and given the note I've just read above, I'll go ahead and unblock as I think that would be in line with what you would like me to do. Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, must be tired, you only declined to unblock. The blocking editor has interacted with her recently: [47]. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Coffee = good :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Winnipeg NHL team

... no, it really isn't. It is no business of ours as to the legal whys and wherefores concerning what a franchise owner names a team. When a team name is officially announced, that's the official name of the team. If that changes, then the name changes. Whatever that outcome, the only proper article name reflects the team name, and that is a matter about which we have no discretion as to debate or seeking a consensus. Therefore, speculation on the subject is pointless and inappropriate for a talk page.  Ravenswing  14:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• (By the bye, I really like that top edit notice you have on your talk page. I haven't seen it before, but I've just set up some myself for my user and talk pages. Thanks!)  Ravenswing  14:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I felt that while we were discussing the potential new article name, it made sense for someone to step up and say "hey, using 'Jets' may or may not work because ..." Personally, I'd leave it around - it does not hurt anything, and helps with some context - after all, thousands are asking "why not JETS?" Glad you liked my edit notice - not everyone notices LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hi, Bwilkins. I don't know neither User:Berean Hunter nor User:LightSpectra. I never worked with them on any article before or had anykind of personal conversation on their talk pages or anything similar. However, I believe they are editors who usually contribute to Wilhelm II, German Emperor. Since this is the case of an article in which the subject has retained its original name (that is, his German name instead of having being anglicized, while the anglicized name is kept in parentheses) in the article's title, I thought those editors' opinions would be important in the ongoing debate in Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies.

The other editor who I called, if I'm not mistaken, was User:Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy, who has long shown interest on articles related to both Brazilian and Portuguese royals. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you selected a couple of editors, and a favoured editor. Yup, WP:CANVASS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help on The Shadowboxers talk page. I needed an extra pair of hands. It was starting to have a nervous breakdown! — Fly by Night (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply to your notice is posted on the relevant talk page

Hi,

Please make a note of reply to your notice here. I am glad there are responsible neutral admins around making Wikipedia more vibrant and valuable. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal or HIDING of content

My Fault {[ “Mea Culpa" !!!]} Pls HELP!

To BWilkins, JamesBWatson, RadioFan, Gene93k, Nageh etc. wise ppl ...

With no intentions to do HARM to anyone i did attempt to create an article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vassilina_Dikidjieva -

not knowing that all of it will remain forever visible in the Wikipedia Archives and -actually- indexed and revealed by a simple Google NAME search to all the world to enjoy ...

This turns out to be extremely unpleasant and objectionable to the (innocent) persons directly concerned. (Obviously, especially in the cases of “NO EVIDENCE OF NOTABILITY" this turns out to look quite ugly; for artists are sensitive ppl). I have been -quite justly, of course- strongly criticized for my initiative . Once again, i will point out that in other Languages rules are much more relaxed, people write self-promoting articles freely, all the time.

Lacking much expertise myself, I guess I am not at LIBERTY to simply go back and delete the exchanged views and negotiations and discussions, no? It will be considered a Vandalism - not my cup of tea at all.

Is there any way you wise people of Administration to remove the whole discussion, pls?

PLEASE?

Or at least HIDE it from view through a Google Name Search? I am aware that some texts included in this coding:

will remain invisible in the eventually PUBLISHED pages ...?

I assure you, that all your attention to this matter and your effort and results will be highly appreciated; and my affection towards the Wikipaedia Project will get restored.

Actually, once I did apply for some photographs (of the same person) to be removed from Wiki Media Commons upon her strong objections and my plea got answered and matter settled satisfactorily.

R.S.V.P. = Please RESPOND. Thx, best rgds, Peter S. D.

{P.S. Come to think of it, probably a Warning at the very point of initiation of an Article for a Living Person would be a good idea in the future, for such enthusiasts as myself to shyaway?} Ecce Nemo 21:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

When I look back at the history of your talkpage, I see a lot of notifications/warnings regarding the article, including references to WP:BLP. I do have a challenge believing that you did not know the article would be visible: right above the SAVE PAGE button it tells you so, especially when you first create an article. That said, "no evidence of notability" refers to meeting Wikipedia's very clear guidelines, not that the artist may or may not be somewhat specifically notable in their field. The history of the Articles for Discussion related to the entry needs to remain, in part it tells YOU how to fix the article for the future. Second, it may need to be referred to in the future should the article be recreated. I'm not sure what you're really looking for in the long run, as deleting this or not deleting has no impact on the artist's ability to be creative. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response and comments. Yes you are right to " I do have a challenge believing that you did not know the article would be visible " and I began with MEA CULPA admission of guilt; but here my plea is about Google Search VISIBILITY of Wikipedia (internal) discussions which is different. That was not clear to me at that time. NOINDEX it is called and -again- for INSUFFICIENT NOTABILITY OF PERSONS the elegant manners would be to protect these verdicts from Google with the NOINDEX umbrella. Thx, rgds,--Ecce Nemo 13:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Please be civil when choosing to delete

Your comment that they "may never be" notable enough to be included in Wikipedia was judgmental and against the wiki guidelines:

"Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. ... When writing on a talk page, certain approaches are counter-productive, while others facilitate good editing. The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration. "

I am not a Wiki expert. Once I read the guidelines for band pages I understood why the page was deleted. The page dated back to 2007. The rules have kept changing since then.

In the future be more polite and assume good faith. You ought to have simply stated something like there is not enough media coverage to validate inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squeezindiva (talk • contribs) 21:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

First, what article are you talking about? What discussion are you talking about? How about some context? Number two, if I said "may never be" is not judgemental, it's merely stating the case - I'm sure with the rest of the context around it, my statement was replete with good faith, as are all of my discussions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe some day someone will explain to me what "judgmental" means, but in the meantime the impression I have formed from observing how the word is used is as follows. Being "judgmental" means "making a judgement", but the word is used only by people who for some reason think that there is something wrong with making judgements. Of course we make judgements: life depends on doing so. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

She left the same message on my talkpage. She's upset that her COI nn bandpablum got deleted.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean "unreferenced, WP:PUFFERY-infused bandpablum". I mean, the description of the genre made me throw up a little in my mouth. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you afd bullies - you completely misused your powers by having an opinion. :) Toddst1 (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

So you all don't see anything snarky or unprofessional in your discussion of my comments? Here let me help you a little bit. BWilkins wrote: "the description of the genre made me throw up a little in my mouth." Yeah, right. That's civil discourse. Toddst1, having an opinion is not the issue. Snarkiness is. And JamesBWatson you can easily look up the word judgmental in wikitionary where you will find it meaning critical.

As I said before, once I read the Wiki requirements for page inclusion I understood why it was deleted. It's not a problem. Last I looked Wiki hadn't hired us for a gig.

Seeing how some of you "editors" operate has been illuminating indeed. Squeezindiva (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)squeezindiva

Yes, I'll admit it, BWilkins is not professional - neither am I. We're volunteers - amateurs even. As far as the comment being snarky, sure it was, but do you know how tiresome it is to find the 10,000th person who has discovered Wikipedia thinking "Hey! This is a great place to promote my band/business/boss/mother-in-law/you-name-it." That it got to an AFD is rather sad.

Having said, that hearing about someone "careen across the musical map whipping up dance-inducing tunes in a startling array of styles" can induce nausea. Toddst1 (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice, Toddst1. Keep diggin' that hole. You're looking more "civil and courteous" every time you comment. Squeezindiva (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC) squeezindiva

I'm done with advertising-only, sockpuppet accordion players who go on the offensive after their precious promotional piece is deleted. Toddst1 (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

... and as per WP:NPA, I'm commenting on the quality of the contribution, not the contributor. Your little band may be fun, but they are not yet meeting the definition of notable, and indeed it is possible that they never will. It's your respsonsibility to either become notable, or STFU. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Grammar lesson

Hi Bwilkins, may I please ask you to clarify the grammar lesson you have given to me: Even if they were for only 1 second each year over 19 years, it's still grammatically "years of blocks and topic bans"? In particular I do not understand what 19 years are you talking about? Could you please be kind enough to explain me how this number "19" came about? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. The number 19 is made up to make the point. "Years of blocks/topic bans" means "a number of blocks and topic bans that took place over a number of years", and does not mean "collectively, they have added up to years". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You are not saying that I have 19 blocks and topic bans, don't you? Because I have only 11 blocks and topic bans with only two that are more or less fair. Anyway... I will bother you no longer. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, the number 19 was random. I could have said 7, or I could have said 9,381,251 (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

New Article approval

Hi I have created another article. I needed your assistance in editing and approving the page. regards {Szolan (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)}

Well, I can only guess but I see an article on someone named Rafiti that clearly does not meet the notability requirements. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! There's hope!

A sincere Thank You for your clarification in my talk page. I took a long leave before looking at it, and now, for once in a long time, I feel relieved, consoled —and protected. The relief comes from the realization that there are sentient beings, namely, there is intelligence in Wikipedia, after all. That means there's hope, too. Regards, --AVM (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, and welcome back. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Re:Next Time

I apologise, I did request page protection but I was despairing at the vandalism that was still occurring so I took it to ANI in the hope it could be resolved more quickly. Next time I won't remove it afterwards, thanks. Reichsfürst (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Carpe Diem (media agency)

Hi,

You restored this, can you also restore the full history (missing the fact it was PROD'ed and the reason) Mtking (talk) 09:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You may have a good reason, but on the face of it, it seems strange to suppress the PROD from the edit history. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

...feel free to fix it :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection of pages.

A page (The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim) where you have appeared to apply a semi-protection prevents newly registered users from making contributions. Can you please explain your position? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thadeus.Zeitlin (talk • contribs) 11:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

As per the protection log, you can see that it was being regularly vandalized by anonymous editors. A request was made at WP:ANI for protection, which was therefore granted, as per the log. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

WTF

What do you make of this? WP:POINTy? Toddst1 (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised by that attitude from Floq, really. I'm more concerned about them telling a user to give up and leave the project - pretty uncivil really, but nothing worth paying any attention to yet (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, I see I may have been unclear. I'll rephrase. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? This was even remotely helpful? Last time I checked, nobody bullied the user involved ... lest not me! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Slow edit war

I'm reverting dirsuptive edits by blocked user and its sockpuppets. What is the problem? --Enok (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, tell me what to do.--Enok (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Fountain

Hello Bwilkins! I wanted to thank you on behalf of Fountain for your understanding. I know you went out on a limb and I know you won't be disappointed. I would like to make one last appeal for just a little more generosity on your part--1 week is still a long time during the summer break. Please note subsequent to your decision that Fountain apologized to LHM and LHM accepted. Please see [48]. Now I agree that it should never have come to this in the first place. You see Fountain views me as an unofficial mentor, although I have told him I'm a crappy editor. I am partly to blame for this whole thing with my uncollegial editing and I regret it. Fountain is young, and can be implusive. We were all like that at one time. Appreciate anything you can do. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• I was coming here to make a similar appeal. I feel like Fvk is genuine in his remorse, and would not have such a long block log were it not for both BelloWello's baiting and Fvk's own youthful impulsiveness that Lionel points out above. I would certainly support further reduction of the block, as it truly does seem that Fvk has grown through this experience, and will be more thoughtful going forward. I also fully understand if you feel it's necessary, for precedent or whatever other reason, to maintain the block as it stands at one week. I only wanted to appeal for "clemency", you might say, given Fvk's sincere expressions of contrition, his two seemingly outstanding mentors, and his declared intention to make changes moving forward. Best regards, LHM 00:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• I left a note on my talk page in response to your note, but to boil it down, I just wanted to make sure that you understood that FVK didn't violate 3RR, he only made a single revert to the article. You can read the full text of my reply (and my attempt to clarify) on my user talk page, thanks. -- Atama頭 00:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Excuse me for piling on. After mulling the situation last night and today, I had decided that I would shorten the block to 48 hours when I got home today. So, if you're agreeable to a shortened block, I'd be willing to be the one out on the limb for him and keep an eye on him for the rest of the week.--Kubigula (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Personally, I think that's a bad idea, you end up setting a precedent that has the ablity to be massively abused. From 1 month down to 7 days is, as the original blocking admin said, "the middle range of fair". Don't reward a history of bad behaviour with "getting off really easy". Give him the chance to properly read and learn over the next 5 days: 5 simple days. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• If this were a straight 3RR violation, I would completely agree. However, as Atama notes, it's a less clear cut situation. In any event, I don't think a week's block is unfair, so if you disagee with shortening it any further, I will defer to your judgment as the admin who handled the unblock.--Kubigula (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Jclemens said that he initially chose 1 month automatically without thoroughly investigating the reasons for Fountain's blocks:

  "Jclemens also overlooks the fact that much of Fountainviewkid's block log comes from undoing the damage of an editor now banned, especially the last block in which FVK was suckered into a 3RR violation by BelloWello using a sockpuppet. --Kenatipo speak! 02:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

  You're correct--I did not see any obvious notation in the block log that such was the case, and I didn't investigate further, just picked the next increment of length. That sounds like grounds for a length reduction to me, but the first step is for FVK to understand why the block was placed (and I do hope I've been appropriately thorough) and place a relevant unblock template explaining the way to move forward from this point. Jclemens (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)"

In light of that, shouldn't the current block be reduced from 7 days? Please? --Kenatipo ^speak! 14:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In other words, if the initial block had been less than a month, then the subsequent block would probably be less than a week. Pretty please? --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It takes 2 (or more) to edit-war, and it doesn't matter if the other party is banned, blocked, or vacationing in Hawaii. To be "suckered in" is either a massive lapse in judgement, or a midunderstanding of the policy to begin with. I think 7 days has become extremely fair - the editor CLEARLY has some additional insight to be gained - and it's almost only 4 days by now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I just wonder, in the history of Wikipedia, how many editors have been blocked for a month for doing one edit (in ten days) on an article that's under the normal 3RR rule. "Unorthodox" is one word for the block, I guess. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, BW, all parties involved, including the aggrieved party, seem to favor a reduction. We know your position on the matter, it is reasonable, and I for one respect it. Noone wants to step on anyone's toes. But just for the sake of clarity: you would not actively oppose another admin if they changed Fountain's block while taking responsibility for said action? – Lionel ^(talk) 20:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The original blocking admin has concurred with my findings - and your consensus involves very few people. My reduction of the block was based on a long reading of the situation, looking at diff's going WAY back, and was extremely generous. Yes, I would consider additional reductions to be WP:WHEEL, unless of course you're in the mood to take it to WP:ANI to get the consensus of a larger portion of the community to reduce the block by what, 2 days?. I'm personally not convinced that he understands WP:EW and WP:DR yet based on his repeated actions - what part of that is a challenge? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

But, Wilkins, you didn't look at FVK's most recent history (and neither did Clemens) following the lifting of his block on June 28 -- FVK was successfully limiting himself to 1RR on all articles. FVK's mentor, Atama, even told you this, but you didn't hear it. No one (I hope) is considering escalating this; I know I'm not. But, we won't know the damage done here until we know whether FVK will return; at the moment, he sounds discouraged. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you help with some Wikimedia tech error?

The article on Joseph Smith, Jr. was moved to Joseph Smith. No real problem there, it was discussed and we all knew it. But somehow it got... stuck in permanent redirect to each version of itself. Now, there's no main article, only redirects to each other. An other Admin had tried to undo the change but got a wikimedia error. I don't know how good you are with the tools but I was hoping you could shed some light or know someone that can help. Thanks for trying. Padillah (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I would bet that trying to restore 11,000+ edits is the problem ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

So would this go to ANI or is there a better place to request tech help? Padillah (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN of course ... it may actually take someone with even higher powers to deal with it, and some of them monitor there too. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago - biodiversity

On the page for Trinidad and Tobago, the new section added today on "Biodiversity" was deleted with the comment "doesn't really belong in overview of country". Excuse me - I am new to Wikipedia - but information about biodiversity is on a lot of country pages. Ukraine is one of many examples. Sometimes the information is listed under a heading of "Biodiversity" or "Flora and fauna", sometimes these are subheadings beneath "Geography". Biodiversity is important for each country. Most countries of the world are signatories of the Rio Convention on biodiversity, so it seems a reasonable topic to include at individual country level. Biodiversity deals with all groups of organisms. Fungi are a separate biological kingdom not related to plants or animals, so if summary information about the plants or animals of a country can be put on a country, fungi too ought to be admissible. Rather commonly on country pages there is information about animals and plants, but information about fungi is absent owing to a lack of expertise. In the present case, Trinidad and Tobago, there was no information about any biodiversity. Adding information about fungi (unfortunately my expertise does not stretch further) is surely a step in the right direction. Maybe you would be kind enough to reconsider this action.Middgeaugh-Botteaugh (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

...and I will be removing it again. WP:BRD says you be bold with an edit, if it gets reverted, you then discuss. Nowhere does this say BRRD. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in this matter. Did you notice, before removing the section, that it was not the same as before? It had been modified in an attempt to take on board the points you kindly raised. Thank you for your advice about the need for further discussion, and see the discussion page for Trinidad and Tobago for further comment.Middgeaugh-Botteaugh (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The article you deleted

11:40, 13 July 2011 Bwilkins (talk | contribs) deleted "Alexander Voloshanovich" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement (CSDH))

Hi, Bwilkins. This reason per which you deleted the article seems to me to be not true enough. Every phrase in the article was reworded. Please restore the article. Psychiatrick (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

They still appear too close for comfort ... and I cannot even see any real notability for the individual. I would recommend a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT, ensure notability and WP:RS are met - check with a trusted editor to see if it's "ready for prime time" before moving it into articlespace (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, the deletion you made was not related to the issue of notability for the individual. However, his notability is obvious for all those who want to see the section Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union#The Working Commission to Investigate the Use of Psychiatry For Political Purposes. Psychiatrick (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll say it slowly: the article and the source were still too close. I did not delete it for notability, I stated that notability was not at all apparent in order to assist you as you recreate it as a userspace draft. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry I misunderstood your phrase “They still appear too close for comfort”… But anyway, I understand all its subtle connotations I would not imply if I were you. As of the source and the article, its content was reworded and was not copied from the source. In my opinion, when you deleted the article, you pushed the deletion button without comparing the source and the article. Thanks. Psychiatrick (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the article in question but you may want to read WP:Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I’ve read WP:Close paraphrasing. But there are such phrases that are impossible or very difficult to reword. For instance, the source "Dr Alexander Voloshanovich: A Critic of the Political Misuse of Psychiatry in the USSR" (PDF). Psychiatric Bulletin. 4 (5): 70–71. 1980. doi:10.1192/pb.4.5.70. contains the phrase: “I was born of Russian parents in 1941 in Kharkov.” This phrase can be reworded only in two ways: “He was born in Kharkiv in 1941” and “He was born in 1941 in Kharkiv.” There is no more way to reword this phrase. One may not write: “His Russian parents gave birth to him in 1941 in Kharkiv.” The phrase reworded in this way sounds foolish. That is why from today I will try to use only Russian-language sources to avoid problems similar to those mentioned above. I suppose the administrators of the English Wikipedia themselves will soon study the Russian language because of the problems they create for users. Smile. Psychiatrick (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No Plan B Band

What happened here? Pkeets (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

One of them was deleted - it's non-notable band on it's own. The second one was setup as a redirect to the tour, which is the only thing that makes any sense. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall looking at this set up before and there were two No Plan B bands. Is that what you mean? This has left a dead end link in the Roger Daltrey article that needs to be resolved. Could you userfy me so I can look at what you've done with the articles? Pkeets (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The Roger Daltrey article appears fixed, as someone change the link to No Plan B (band), which then redirects to the tour (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The No Plan B band and tour articles should have been merged. If you notice, the later one repeated the earlier, which plagairized the main Daltrey article, and then added the tour info. The band article should be broader than the tour article, as the tour article only references one tour and not subsequent activities with Daltrey. Any related articles should be linked to the main Roger Daltrey article and listed in the Roger Daltrey template so they can be monitored. The band is on tour again this year. How are you going to organize this? A separate article for each tour and nothing on the band? Could I suggest moving the article to the band name instead? Pkeets (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I've requested the move. Pkeets (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Nice to see you back"

Glad to be back! I think it is safe to say that I should be back to my old levels of activity now, as I have shrugged off enough of the illness to the point where I can manage full days of non-physical activity. Anyway just wanted to thank you for your kind comment. --Taelus (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice

but, can you explain what the cross-wiki link on the WP:Requests for permissions/Confirmed page is for ? My point of view was, that I have made many edits on the german wikipedia as I mentioned in the request. The admin could IMHO very easily verify my claim by clicking on the cross-wiki link and then grant me confirmation rights. Instead I get asked questions, which I had already answered in my request. So yes, maybe I became a bit impatient. You mentioned that my action might get perceived as circumventing policy and being a WP:DICK. My perception is that I could have been granted confirmation rights based on my work on the german wikipedia. Thanks --POVbrigand (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Remember that every project is individual, and has their own rules. It's even possible that an editor at another language has been kicked out over there, and want to come across to English Wikipedia to continue the same behaviours. In short, your editing at de.wikipedia really means nothign in the long run ... I sure as heck would not be able to follow any threads about you/created by you and/or validate the quality of your edits. (Other note: please keep talk talkpage conversations together in one place ...) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to drag this topic. but ... For autoconfirmation you need 10 edits and I just had 2, after I requested confirmation I noticed that I already had 3 by editing the confirmation page. I wanted to be waived the other 7 and thought the cross-wiki link would enable an admin to do just that. I then waited patiently for almost a day. I got a question instead. After answering that question (and saving the page in between lines) I was nearly autoconfirmed already. Kindly check that my user page and my talk page were only edited once by me. Let's sum it up: 2 random edits + 1 request + (wait for a day) + 5 edits to answer + 1 user page + 1 talk page = 10 edits. I do not feel I circumvented any rules.

I understand from you reply that the cross-wiki link is not to look for reasons to grant confirmation before autoconfirmation. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Why would you wait a day? There's 99% of the articles on English Wikipedia that you can edit, why sit around waiting to edit one? That's the whole intent of the "autoconfirmed in 10 edits/x amount of time" - to ensure that the editor is going to be a somewhat positive contributor to the project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I honestly thought the confirmation would be a matter of minutes. The page I wanted to edit happened to be a semi-protected talk page. Had it not been semi-protected I would have been autoconfirmed without noticing. So my final request to you, please conclude whether you still have reason to believe that I circumvented any policy. I'll help you a bit with the answer, the maximum number of edits that could contribute to the circumvention "allegation" is 4 out of 10 . :-) --POVbrigand (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I never said you did, I suggested that threatening to do so doesn't look good as an introduction to en.Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought you did. You said: "Although I believe your sincerity in editing the English Wikipedia, starting off circumventing policy and acting like a bit of a WP:DICK is probably the wrong way to begin.". My impression was that _I_ was beginning the wrong way by circumvention the rules and being a WP:DICK, but you still had some faith in me. btw. I do not argue about the WP:DICK label. :-) --POVbrigand (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

talkpagelocked subpage

Is it intentional that User:Bwilkins/talkpagelocked contains (inside<nowikiw><nowikiw> markers) "Bwillkins" rather than "Bwilkins"? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No ... probably a spelling error - and one I should fix! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Book of Eli

Each section is treated as separate, for an example The Dark Knight is a GA and the cast are linked three times; in the intro, in the infobox and under casting, though not in the summary because they are linked in the casting section. G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra is also a GA, the cast are linked in the infobox, in the summary and in the cast section. I'm not going to go back and forth on this but linking the same thing twice in one sentence is overlink, as is linking Christopher Nolan three times in the Dark Knight infobox. Linking three times in one article is not. I see your name in my watchlist, and I know you're a good editor, but if you have a problem with this then it is a film project issue as this applies to every single film article so take it up there. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That's actually a perfect example of what not to do. Current practice in the project is contrary to how it's supposed to work. As a fun example (I haven't tried it yet), run the articles in question through AWB...look how many overlinks it will want you to remove, and that portion is based 100% on policy. PS: Keep all discussions together on one page (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

User talk:محمد البكور

Just to let you know that I have unblocked this user. His latest request shows that he has read the Arabic versions of EW and BRD and understands what the problem was; also I was impressed that several of those he has been arguing with thought he should be unblocked. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Understanding was the key. Cheers! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Why did you remove my comment here? --cc 09:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where I might have accidentally done that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I had an edit conflict even though I was editing a completely different section. All you needed to do was look at the page history to see we both edited the page at the same time ... a little WP:AGF goes a long way (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I just spotted that myself. MediaWiki never fails to surprise me. --cc 10:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Kingston University

If possible, can you please undo the last two edits on the page. We did have consensus to at least keep the majority of the information before Avanu showed up. His edit amounted to vandalism. :o) BETA 13:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to make request for protected edit on the talkpage of the article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppet/Meatpuppet of ForeignServiceInstitute

It appears that there is a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of ForeignServiceInstitute that has been editing on various language pages, deleting links to a non-profit source of US government public domain language learning materials - you indef blocked this editor for a commercial name and legal threats a while back. The new user is Linguistic Science and I think he is editing under two IPs as well - 72.181.213.221 and 203.118.185.209. Account and IPs are single purpose editors on this topic. I believe he is using a VPN to post from two IPs, or maybe there is a meat puppet. Thanks Bevinbell 17:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

False accusation. I have no connection with ForeignServiceInstitute. The edits User:Bevinbell is so annoyed about were mistakes, and that's all. The edits I've made with this account are not single purpose, and neither were those I made while editing from a dyanmic IP range; I've edited a variety of topics, recently including (as an IP) Classification of Pygmy languages. You can ask Kwami about this, as he's familiar with my editing. Linguistic Science (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

HistoriaPolska

The user is blocked but I don't see a block template (the formal box) on his talk page. Am I simply too quick to comment on it, or were you getting to that? =) CycloneGU (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You'll see a non-templated notification that includes the information he requires. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I guess I'm used to seeing a big red box. =D CycloneGU (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I hesitated to post this, but here's my opinion

In this post here on Talk:Nicki Minaj you referred to Ms. Minaj as a dogla, when you posted "doglas are hot". As I'm sure you know, this is a term that describes a particular hybrid animal so a 'dogla' is an animal or perhaps a thing but it is not a human being. I know you must have meant it as a joke, but even on a talkpage it could very well be construed as demeaning when one would use an animal term to describe a person. Shearonink (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No matter which meaning you're attaching to it related to animals, the simple fact is that it's a common term in Trinidad to describe someone who is of mixed Afro- and Indo-Trinidadian. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well then. Shearonink (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Rationale for user block

A note: your explanation of by recent block (see my talk page) was rather arrogant and sarcastic. I don't think that's the best way to behave as an administrator who should judge such behaviours in other users. Ciao and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You mean my decline of your unblock request? It was neither arrogant nor sarcastic; indeed, anyone who thinks 8 reverts in 24hrs is ok and that they should be unblocked is probably the veritable definition of "arrogant" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

See: you keep being arrogant. Instead of evaluating with clear mind what you wrote, you throw the ball against me. I never said what I did was OK: if I'm stupid or arrogant first, however, this does not save what you write from being impolite, arrogant or sarcastic. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not being arrogant, impolite or sarcastic. You're working yourself into a tizzy, and seeing as your block quite nicely has expired, you're better off actually going out and making some positive edits to this project, rather than misrepresenting the rather gentle-yet-firm comments left in an unblock decline. I do have your talkpage on my watchlist - additional actions remotely similar to the ones that led to your block will not be well-received by anyone on this project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleting of Verax NMS article

Hi Bwilkins. May I keep working on this article in my userspace ?--Timeport101 (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that last time you did that, you decided to move it into articlespace without verifying that it was ready. Do you work for the company? Do you understand WP:PROMO? Do you understand WP:RS? Do you understand WP:NOTDIRECTORY? I have "salted" the article title to prevent its recreation in articlespace. If you do not have WP:COI, and think you can actually follow policy this time and create an article that shows any form of notability, and is not advertising, you may try, but there does not appear to be anything of note about this product. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should users be allowed to remove current block notices?

Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should users be allowed to remove current block notices? Your closure is consistent with the consensus at Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 8#Block notices and BLANKING in September 2010.

Would you modify Wikipedia:User pages per your closure? The wording of the guideline was disputed here. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making the change. I've also added a footnote to the guideline with links to the discussions for future reference. Cunard (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I quite strongly disagree with your close. After reading the discussion, I think if there was any consensus, it was in favour of users being allowed to remove current block notices. The opinions were split pretty much down the middle, but the arguments for forcing users to keep block notices on their talk page made little sense—they seemed easily countered by the suggestion that one just look in the talk page history or the block log, and that the notices are there for the information of the user rather than gawkers. Certainly it would be due diligence for any admin reviewing an unblock request to look at the block log and the history. What convinced me, though, and why I was about to close the discussion entirely the opposite way to you is that the vast majority of admins—who post block notices in the first place, review unblock requests and are responsible for enforcing this policy—were opposed to this requirement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

  Agree with HJ, I'm shocked at the resulting closure. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

  And I agree with HJ and Eagles. Please see Wikipedia talk:User pages#Removal of current block notices.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

  It's understandable if you don't really value my opinion too highly, but I'll say that I, too, can't see how you found consensus for this outcome from the discussion. At the very least, please consider changing your close to "no consensus"; I'd still disagree, but I wouldn't complain. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• As someone with no preference either way (I came across this when I noticed what seemed like a potential edit war on the the guideline page), I'm afraid I agree with others who are concerned about this close. "No consensus" appears to be a more appropriate evaluation of the discussion. I hope you will consider modifying your close based on this feedback. With a "no consensus" close, I believe the language of the section should be restored to the wording from this version that preceded the changes that led to the RfC and does does not specifically mention removal of block notices one way or the other. (Note: I will be making a similar comment to the discussions on the guideline talk page and at the the Administrators' noticeboard.) --RL0919 (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think maybe you must have missed something there. I see no consensus there for making editors keep block logs on their talk pages whilst blocked. If anything, I see a slight consensus the other way, or no consensus at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

From what I read, and the actual arguments put forward, with only some weight as to "type" and "duration" of user experience, it was a slight consensus to close the way I did. I believe I admitted the closeness in my closing statement. Realistically, in the long run, is this something that hurts the project? Does it possibly have a benefit? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Prohibiting users from removing block notices will lead to pointless edit warring over talk pages and is basically a "license to grave dance". If you are going to close a discussion counter to the slight majority in the other direction, you need a really strong rationale - and I don't see that here. A safer move would have been to refer it for further discussion. I can get behind the "block notices may not be removed when requesting an unblock" compromise that's been penciled in to UP. In other cases - for example, if the blocked user just wants to blank their talk page to "blow off some steam" and come back in a few days after the block has expired, or retire altogether after an indefinite block - I see no reason or benefit to prohibiting removal when the interface is just as effective at communicating information about the block to other users. –xeno^talk 12:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Unblock denial chat re user:purpler0ckofficial

((talkback)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.53.168 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure why this is here ... there's nothing on that page that requires me to drop by for a visit. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of 'Strategies of Terrorism'

I think the deletion of this page was unjustified and prompted by a lack of specific understanding in the topic area. There is ZERO original research (note the many references). All subtitles are taken from research by Kydd & Walter (the leading figures in this field)which is fully referenced. So far nobody has actually pointed out specific issues but taking the easy 'it's an essay' route. I've written enough essays in my time to know that this isn't a freakin essay! Any feedback would be extremely welcome!

CheersTwyn3161 (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think Bwilkins had to do with the deletion of Strategies of Terrorism but it looks like an essay - one for a class - to me and should not be a part of WP. Toddst1 (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Meals Deletion

Care to reconsider? Looks like a speedy snow close to me. CycloneGU (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Per the withdraw, I also question the notability of umpires in WP:BASEBALL/N, but that's a discussion for another channel. I originally didn't know about it, hence my Delete comment. CycloneGU (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the most BS way to confer notability ever. I always knew there were drugs in baseball, who knew it was in determining Wikipedia notability standards as well LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:NPrice

I know I do not have it marked on my userpage, but yes I am an administrator here, the Commons and globally on all Wikimedia projects. I just wanted to clear the situation up and the user did have my permission to post my comments on his talk page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ack, I merely took a cursory glance at your userpage and saw the Commons one and no others, and oddly I've never run into your name anywhere else, so 1+1 came to an apparently erroneous answer of 2...which explains why I hate math. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It is all good. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have mentioned you at ANI

I have mentioned you at WP:ANI in relation to my allegation of tendentious editing by, amongst others. Thisthat2011 - Sitush (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Need Professional Help

Hi Bwilkins, I have noted your: "This user is a professional writer or journalist" box. I am working on the Leonard R. Brand page and am not doing a very good job of it, apparently. I think your experience as a professional writer could help the page, and possibly I can get some tips on how to write articles better. Another editor is providing critical support, but I think we could use some further help. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Spam for admin recently working at WP:PERM/C

See Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Archive 3#Accept/decline template. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No, BWilkins, no

You still don't get it. The best way for you to welcome Fountainviewkid back would be with an apology to him for your mistake, and by removing a completely unwarranted block from his record. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I made no mistake - I went above and beyond what should have been done, and comments by certain editors have proven that perhaps the block should have remained as it was. The block was made by someone other than me, I recognized the *good* in the editor and reduced it, and the blocking admin was fine with the change. Blocks cannot be removed from the record. I will not apologize for doing the right thing, and vitriolic rants by some people are equivalent to running onto a football field and ranting at/threatening a referee simply because you don't agree with their call. Get over it, like FVK seems to have maturely done. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"None are so deaf as those who would not hear". --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"Threatening?" – Lionel ^(talk) 00:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DangerousPanda. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Xwomanizerx_.26_Ending-start.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I know your page says you don't like them to be placed on your page, but I doubt you'd see this message. ℥^nding·start 02:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Damned Dirty Ape

In closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damned Dirty Ape, you seem to have deleted the edit history for Damned Dirty Ape. I wish to revisit this matter as the topic has fresh currency due to the success of Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Please could you restore the edit history for this topic. Warden (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Of course that compulsory voting is discrimination. Jackie d. alarcón (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Request

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Antisemitic_remark_going_unpunished. I remember you a few years ago saying on WP:ANI or WP:WQA "Wikipedia will not tolerate antisemitism in whatever form" or something along those lines. If you disagree with me in that section, I'll accept your opinion and leave the issue be. Debresser (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Number 1) Wikipedia does not do punishment. Number 2) consensus (and my own detached reading of the comment) says that it was in no means an antisemitic attack. I'm losing a lot of respect for the way you're handling things around that ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Ok, I'll drop it. I'll assume that I must have read something into that comment that wasn't there. Thanks for taking the trouble to look into it. Debresser (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance

A few years ago, I was drawn as an uninvolved administrator to Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland) after a discussion of legal threats on ANI. I discovered the article was a mess and apparently WP:OWNed by Maryland Pride (talk · contribs). Several discussions on user talk:Maryland Pride and talk: Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland) seem to go nowhere except for MP to have recently declared an edit war to maintain his/her content. It's pretty obvious that MP has a COI here and as I'm now rather involved I'd like some outside eyes on the situation. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A couple of other folks (1, 2) have weighed in, so I hope this is a moot point now. Toddst1 (talk) 04:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about missing the request earlier ... had some late night work to do (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

How Can I prevent the Speedy Deletion?

my page "Ahmed Okasha Addaly" was deleted. Despite alot of people have in their wiki page alot of personal work experiences, their page doesn't deleted. So the Reasons of refusing the request for undeletion to my Page"Ahmed Okasha Addaly" aren't convinced me. Please reply to me as speed as u can thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DS success (talk • contribs) 14:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It's one thing to have a userpage that talks about you - as long as it's not advertising or promotional in nature. You apparently have massive WP:COI - you don't even understand that you're not important enough for an encyclopedia yet - we don't allow autobiographies. This isn't LinkedIn or Facebook or MySpace...it's an encyclopedia of topics that are notable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Q from Zaena777

Hello,

My name is Kristy Mardini and I am a Parenting examiner and author. I have written a few series, such as: Save the Mess For the Outdoors, Parenting Reminders and Healthy Children, and working on more. I was hoping to keep my page up but it got deleted.

I know that you need links to my articles, the problem with that is I have them on Examiner and I can't link it here. However, I did link my Facebook page.

I also have an a link to DallasNews.com that linked my series to their site.

I was hoping to maybe get some ideas from you on how I can save my page?

Thank you for your time,

Kristy Zaena777 (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Kristy, some of the key concepts you need to read involve autobiographies and conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a source of marketing or promotion for people or products. As an encyclopedia, we look for topics that are notable (in your case WP:AUTHOR) and are sourced in third party reliable sources. The short version ... don't write about yourself, and generally ensure the topic you do write about would make it into a printed encyclopedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Nairaland

You speedily deleted an entry on Wikipedia for Nairaland without bothering to contact me or wait for me to update it with more information.

Nairaland is Nigeria's leading online website and is the third most visited social online site in Nigeria after Facebook and Twitter. Can you explain your justification for deleting Nairaland other than that you have not heard about it.

Did you even attempt to visit any of the reference points? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akinsope (talk • contribs) 19:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me for sticking my nose in here, but the burden of establishing notability of the website is on you, the article creator. It isn't up to Bwilkins to chase down every link in the article or otherwise do research. None of the claims in the now-deleted article assert that the website satisfies WP:NWEB. I suggest you read up on WP:CSD and WP:YFA before further challenging Bwilkins or any other admin. I realize that having your article deleted may be frustrating, but I think you're missing a few major tenets of our policies in your opinion. Toddst1 (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Toddst1, you are mistaken about the order of operation, and it is very unkind to suggest in such a haughty way that he should read up before challenging an admin. That's just not the way we should do things around here. The fact is, the article had a very clear assertion of notability, and the speedy deletion was in error, and the author was right to complain about it. Errors happen, and that's no big deal. But hollering at people who are doing the right thing is not the right thing to do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no Jimmmy. I'm sure you know that an article may be deleted under WP:CSD#A7 if it does not assert notability. It's not clear to me and apparently BWilkins that the article asserted that. A claim of being the 10th most popular website in a small country claims (local) popularity, not notability. It was a borderline case at best and that's stretching it. Toddst1 (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Toddst1, you are misreading or misunderstanding policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no CSD for failure to show notability; A7 is the one that requires that an article show some type of importance, which, the version I checked, certainly had ("one of the most popular websites, measured by X") It may not be notable, but that's a decision that can only be made at AFD. CSD is when there is no indication of importance (not notability) in the part. --MASEM (t) 13:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Look mate it is people like you that will destroy Wikipedia. I put valid references up but your trigger finger deleted. Best of luck to Wikipedia, but the emerging market will develop its own solutions and work around and Wikipedia will go the way of Encyclopedia Britannica. I'm not frustrated just disappointed at juvenile and narrow points of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akinsope (talk • contribs) 23:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Because of Akinsope's post to WP:N, I looked at the deleted article, and deleting it per CSD was absolutely unwarranted. Ignoring the Alexa source, there's three sources - I'm not sure of their reliability but they're not directly tied with the site and don't appear to be SPS. Ergo, there is indiciation of importance. There may be notability issues that would require a full AFD to review, but CSD is not the place to make notability assessments. Akinsope constructed the article properly for a starting article on WP to avoid CSD, and is completley reasonable to keep. I strongly recommend restoration, otherwise they will need to be a deletion review of this. --MASEM (t) 00:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the many eyes here, I would have been quite happy to review my decision about CSD in this specific article - especially surrounding WP:N. In this case, I did not agree that there was a clear/valid assertion of notability. However, in my mind it was quite borderline. As the basics appeared to me to be a bit spammy, that broke the tie that led me to click delete. However, based on polite policy-based requests, I obviously would have restored either as a userspace draft, or perhaps back to articlespace. Using angry phrases like "unwarranted" really is not necessary unless I become a little more belligerent :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If it was a borderline case, you shouldn't have done anything; the article did explain its importance per A7. CSD is not for deciding if an article meets WP:N; this has been very clear in the past, because that is only an determination that can be done at AFD. The better action would have been to deny the speedy but suggest an AFD if you questioned its notability. We cannot be deleting articles that have some basic promise, even if they are borderline to start, and I strongly recommend you be more cautious in the future with these types of deletions. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not determine Notability, I determined that notability (based on the ref's provided) was not well-established. You might want to readjust your WP:AGF-compass, your snarkiness is showing :-) I am always cautious in my application of CSD, and will continue to do so (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the sources listed on Jimbo's page, I see three non-trivial sources about the site. Its status as the #8 ranked website in Nigeria might also count as an "award" for the second criterion. I don't see a fair claim of non-notability here, much less enough proof for you to make this decision without taking it to an AFD. Wnt (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not being snarky, I'm being really concerned here, given how deep I am into notability on WP and how we've finally gotten to a point where it has been accepted, and where cases like this serve to erode that. CSD is not AFD. As an admin dealing with CSD cases, it should be expected that you tread the careful line and throw caution towards inclusion rather than deletion (particularly as it was not a BLP, a marketing dump, or outright copyvio). Again, I will stress this: notability does not factor into any of the current CSD requirements; the closest thing is A7's "importance" which is a very different determination than notability. You should not be making any calls at CSD based on the non-notability of a topic. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Importance was clearly not established. I will continue to deal with CSD with the care I usually do. As I said, I would have undeleted this one, even if for a userspace draft ... but others jumped in instead. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you would have undeleted it, and as I said up above, mistakes will happen and that's no big deal. What is a big deal is if people have the mistaken idea (which I don't think you do) that A7 requires any particular "magic words" to make a claim of importance. The article clearly made some claims that clearly indicated that the author thought that, under Wikipedia's normal approach to things, this would be a suitable article about a suitable topic with sufficient notability. There was a claim to the site being important in Nigeria, and several cites. As I have said, and just to repeat myself, I have no really strong view on whether or not the site actually should have an entry in Wikipedia - a quick google when I first looked into it this morning didn't overwhelm me, but that isn't the final word of course. I'm just really quite certain that speedying was an error.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	To recognize your excellent attitude during this discussion. Although I disagreed with a particular decision you made, I wanted you to know from me personally that I didn't think it reflected poorly on you in any way! Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, this made my morning :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Could you up the protection of my user page to sysop now as I've finished editing, and I've reverted a few autoconfirmed vandals. I pledge not to ask you again. Thank you so much for your time! --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 13:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Recreated article

A couple of weeks back you deleted a blatant hoax Stephen Freed. The article has been recreated exactly as it was. Would you be able/willing to sort it please (and spank the editor)? --Biker Biker (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been taken care of! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for eyes

Would you mind keeping an eye on Brandon, Mississippi? I've been reverting folks who aren't fond of their town's recently notable resident being mentioned (with citations). I'm obviously involved now. If this keeps up, semi-protection might be in order. Toddst1 (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It's now on my watchlist (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

One more please: Murder of James Craig Anderson. Now in AFD and subject to major deletions of well-cited material by nominator. Toddst1 (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Please be aware that I will be initiating a DRV of your close of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TreasuryTag in exactly 90 minutes, unless you notice that there was no consensus to delete and overturn your own decision. I will also be restoring the content and adding {{TempUndelete}} as per established procedure.

Please consider this message your notification under both Points 1 and 4 of the deletion review process. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 18:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with that, WP:SPIDERMAN (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Considered comedy as a career, have you? (Note the past tense of 'considered'.) ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 18:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it worth getting another admin to look at (your perfectly correct) decision it in the next 90 minutes to avoid more drama? Egg Centric 18:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh sorry: Egg Centric (talk · contribs) – who was voluble in the debate – says that the decision was correct. So that settles the matter once and for all. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 18:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting you're impartial? Of course it was the correct decision. I'm trying to be helpful by suggesting a less-aggro filled route than a full DRV. I am not against DRV because I think you will win you know (I wouldn't be surprised if it culminates in a ban) I am against it because of the hassle it will cause many other editors. Egg Centric 18:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you'd be maliciously pleased if it culminated in a ban, though I suspect you would be surprised. As would I. As would ArbCom. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 18:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I would feel much the same as I do about the removal of power from Gordon Brown. A personal tragedy for an honourable if unsympathetic man, but a great benefit for society. If you plan to take this to arbcom, incidentally, you might as well cut to the chase and go there now, it'll be slightly less hassle. Egg Centric 18:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no plans on taking this to ArbCom, because I don't think it's remotely necessary. Should an admin take the outrageous and absurd step of banning me because I initiate a DRV of the deletion of part of my userspace, then that would be a rather more serious matter. Your pathetic bullying is just that: pathetic. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 18:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I take huge issue with you characterising anything I've done as bullying. And for what it's worth, I certainly wasn't predicting an arbitrary ban if you took this to DRV... I think a community ban would be an entirely proportionate response for tenacious, pointy editing. Egg Centric 18:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you object to be characterising this and this and this and this and this as "bullying" then I can only recommend that you purchase a dictionary. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 18:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh sod off, your pet list of choice egg centric diffs doesn't tell anything like the whole story. I've been perfectly reasonable, I keep on handing you olive branches in fact yet you consistently ignore them. Would a bully have offered multiple times, most recently a day or two ago, to have a coffee in person (and I'll reiterate that again, now)? I think not. Egg Centric 18:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

My "choice" list seems disturbingly long and disturbingly vivid. And I hear you ask, would a cyberbully ask to meet their victim in person? I understand that that's fairly common, actually. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 19:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

44 minutes. --Ebyabe (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete issue

Hello Bwilkins, my name is Brett Laurence. You speedily deleted a page I posted about myself, and the reason cited was plagarism. Since this was done without my knowledge (the page deletion), I am not sure what was considered plagarism, but everything that I posted was written and owned by me. I would like to have my page (which I spent a bit of time on, as I recall) re-instated. Is there a way this can be done?

Thanks. DigableB (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It was tagged as "copyright infringement" by another editor, as it replicated the contents of another site. This is not permitted under Wikipedia's licensing. The other issues around you writing this article are around WP:AUTOBIO, notability and external reliable sources. You may not write an article about yourself, and there was certainly no notability stated in your attempt. The biographies of living persons policy is very clear about other issues, in case someone else is able to draft an article, should you meet the requirements someday (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"...should you meet the requirements someday"? Sounds like you may have other issues you need to work on, Mr. Wilkins. Whatever happened to your own, "Be polite", "Assume good faith", "Be welcoming?" Actually, I believe if you search for my name in Wikipedia you will bring up more than a handful of articles I am mentioned in. As to the charge of "replicating the contents of another site," that's just untrue. Which site? My own personal website? I have to say, I am disappointed with Wikipedia. DigableB (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I'm occasionally frustrated by editors who, even though they read upon signup about WP:COI and WP:PROMO, their first act is to self-promote. As I stated, someone else tagged the article as a copyright, and unless you have given full permissions to Wikipedia to copy your site, then it must be removed. You cannot write about yourself, and you cannot copy from any website, even your own. I didn't make up the rules, and you agreed to them when you came on board. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And a good morning to you, too!

Couple points.

• If you'd read the page, WP:REFACTOR (a guideline) says "As a rule, editors should not edit each other's comments in ways that affect meaning... Loosely, the following types of refactoring are legitimate...: anything where you are sure that the other editor will thank you for the effort... fixing obvious typos is generally acceptable" (although granted "correcting other user's spelling or grammar is discouraged").
• For such an extremely minor and debatable point, for you drop an Internet Tough Guy turd on my talk page ("Don't do this ever again" being the sum total of your comment) is so far out of line and destructive to the general tone of collegial good will we try to establish here that I have to question if you have any idea what we're even about here. See WP:CIVIL, a policy. You really need to work on your communication strategy. In the meantime...
• Don't do this ever again. Herostratus (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, pretty sure that since we had a series of positive interactions just recently, I was able to be a little more brief and that you'd recognize the spirit of the contact, not call it an "internet tough guy turd" ... ironic how you suggest WP:CIVIL while breaking it yourself. How about I phrase it this way "I know a few editors (quite possibly the one you corrected) who get absolutely batshit pissed off at refactors/corrections with edit-summaries that are glib, so I recommend not doing that unless you're 100% sure that the person won't be offended - not 90%, not 95%; 100%. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's an improvement over "Don't ever do this again". Sorry about not remembering our other interactions, I basically can't remember names and with a few exceptions don't much know (or care) who's whom -- to me, you're all an amorphous mass of heathens. This serves me poorly in political fights, but oh well. Well, I'm 100% percent sure that the user wasn't offended this time, but granted I wasn't 100% sure before the fact. There's not too much we can be 100% sure of before the fact on this poor beleaguered planet, I guess. If you know a few editors who get absolutely batshit pissed off at refactors/corrections with edit-summaries that are glib, you should tell them to calm down. Tell them to get absolutely batshit pissed off at the situation in Somalia or Washington or something. I hate to image what happens if they get cut off in traffic or shortchanged or whatever -- a knife fight, I suppose. It's just not worth worrying about too much, I don't think. But I hear what you're saying. Herostratus (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The curse

Some of the stuff I used on BWilkins

"Wow this made my morning."

You may or may not have noticed that you have been uneasy, even sickly lately. Lack of energy, appetite, apathy, libido. Or even more pronounced symptoms such as incontinence, erectile dysfunction, hair loss, formation of ulcers, gigantic hairy moles, painful hemorrhoids, large scaly warts protruding from your body. You see, I used one of my Creole great-grandmother's curses on you. The insidious part of the curse is that you don't know that you're cursed. But trust me: the sufffering is real. Anyway I'm lifting the curse. The afflictions you may or may not have noticed will soon disappear.– Lionel ^(talk) 00:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This is Lionelt's 12,000th edit

You should not have been surprised by it, unless you're a really pessimistic non-WP:AGFer, and doubted my sincerity in any way :-) I think your curses accidentally hit the guy who sits at the desk beside me at work, as he kinda seemed to have all those symptoms lately. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 07:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

How fricking disappointing. Now I officially believe that he deserves whatever the hell he gets. Damn, I'm frustrated by sheer acts of stupidity (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Alessandro57 needs advice

Good Afternoon Bwilkins, I noticed that you moderated my Incident, that's why i am writing to you. I read today the Wikipedia definition of vandalism, and I understand that this does not coincide with mine. So I offered my apologies to Manocihr and I hope that he will accept them. However, this does not solve my problems, since each of my reverts was caused by what I judge disruptive editing of an article. Sourced statements removed without explanation (I just reverted back one here), statements removed for lack of citation without using previously the cm templates, and - of course - blatantly false statements. What is the right (and most efficient) handle with this kind of problems in Wikipedia? Thanks for your advice, Alex2006 (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you reviewed the steps listed in WP:DR ... as much as I hate simply pointing someone to another page, it's well-detailed, and is honestly exactly what we point people who have been blocked for edit-warring towards, so it might be a useful start ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I will read it at once, thanks! Altough, to be precise, until now I have never been a real edit warrior: after the first counter revert I offer always to talk on the discussion page. :-) Thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hallo BWilkins, FYI. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Božo Skoko: request for undeletion - I added references

Hi, I added references on my user page for the deleted article of Božo Skoko. Pls read my talk on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_44#Bo.C5.BEo_Skoko --Zrinski hr (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits to an Archived discussion. The article will not be undeleted. If you think you can create a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT that meets all of the requirements, you may do so, but do not move it into articlespace until it has been properly vetted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Page protect?

Is it possible to ban a single editor from ever editing my user/talk page? Chesdovi (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You can ask them, and if they continue to post there, it can sometimes be WP:HARASSMENT, but more likely an interaction ban is needed. Technically it's not possible (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

question about deleted articles

If you could tell me where the deleted articles are I won't have to bother you to ask for them. Thanks. 15:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Your editnotice...

Just want to let you know that your talkpage editnotice is a bit bugged up graphically on my setup; at least, it is when in edit mode. (see here for what I mean) When viewing it on the page it is transcluded from, it doesn't have that graphic fail; it looks like what it was meant to look like. I don't know what the problem is, but perhaps you could try fixing it? Or would you like me to try doing it? No need for it to even be touched if you don't want me to. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 18:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have just fixed it, at least for me. Having a table inside another table must of been what caused it. As always, you may revert my edit to it if needed/wanted. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 18:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,OpenInfoForAll (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Chips

Thanks for creating that template! There's a slight problem with it though...

Crunch, crunch!

Here are some chips to go with your fish!

And since I have absolutely no idea whatsoever how to program templates, I'm wondering if you can fix it. N419BH 21:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I even tried to scale down the photo on the original... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I think I got it :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Much better, thanks! N419BH 22:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually ...

Actually I don't think that all admins are always wrong, just most admins most of the time. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 03:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Subsequent to your final warning of MONGO, he has made a suggestion in bold on his talk page that HJ is WP:INVOLVED. N419BH 03:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this must be a case of mistaken identity. I haven't warned MONGO or anyone else. Malleus Fatuorum 04:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to Bwilkins warning MONGO, and this thread is tangentially related. I'm trying to be quiet since the guy has a tendency to be...insistent... N419BH 04:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Images

Hey there, thank you for unblocking me. I have a question, so I can not upload non-free images either? Also, am I allowed to upload a picture of myself on Commons? Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You may not upload ANY images, anywhere. I'm already taking flak for unblocking you at all, so don't try pushing the envelope (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, sorry. AJona1992 (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Templates in block logs

Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't need you to block me: I blocked my sock for fifteen minutes with an indef-block template and logged in to see what would happen. It's definitely funny to see a message telling me (1) I've been indefinitely blocked, and (2) my block will end in fifteen minutes. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I've yet to try and block myself for any reason ... I have a couple of pre-made bot accounts that maybe I should try it on (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow

You're so eager to help me and offer me advice. Thanks for caring about me. I must be special. Lebanese 876 (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You may have seen my personal philosophy: "everyone has something to add to Wikipedia: many just don't know it yet". When I see someone on the road to early destruction, I would rather help them back on the path instead of having to block them later :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

How do you deal with people who revert you but refuse to articulate why, even after being prompted to? Lebanese 876 (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've already seen that question on your talkpage, and prefer to keep conversations together. When I have a moment, I will reply there. Before I reply, I'm going to assume that you have already read WP:DR. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't read that yet, but I'll read it now. Lebanese 876 (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Need feedback on posting guidelines - reply requested/appreciated!

Hi, I need feedback from a SYSTEM ADMIN. concerning posting guidelines. A user recently started a new section on the questionable labor practices of a large, well-known company under Discussion for the company's Wiki Page. The edit was promptly undone by another user on the grounds that this page was NOT a general forum, even though most of the other posts there were less-related. I am suspiscious that this is an attempt to suppress any negative discussion by those who are sympathetic to the company. The co. in question has been in the hotseat w/the media as of late. I wouldn't be surprised if they were agents of the company, since they're very powereful and have used every means possible to quell public desent. My opinion is that the truth ought to be discussed, whether positive or negative. Does this person have a right to start a thread about the co.'s questionable labor practices there. Do you think there's a possibility that there may be an agent working on behalf of the company lurking about on WP? Thanks, Gangnam (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If the questionable labour practices are a) reliably sourced, b) don't carry undue weight through the article, and c) encylopedic, then by all means some mention might be valid. Without knowing which article, I can't provide more info/clarify further (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Adler/chris.usnames

Sorry if I was unclear and put you in a bad light. That was not my intention. Agathoclea (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Chips

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Template:Chips, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to say it earlier: "this is funny! A requested template is vandalism? You obviously didn't read it, nor the rest of this talkpage" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Azeri-Amercian

Thanks for your intervention. But this issue goes beyond this article alone. The main issue is the organized disruption of Wikipedia by Saygi1 and User:5aul, both of whom are suspected sock-puppets/WP:SPAs created to cause disruption in a topical area which is under ArbCom sanctions. For more details, please see here [49] and [50] Given the fact that this is a fringe topic, most administrators appear unwilling to take action, wrongly assuming this is just another content dispute, when in reality it's a conduct issue. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The only suspected sockpuppet here is user Kurdo777 himself, whose only "contribution" are disruptive edits and edit warring by tag teaming with his friend Alborz Fallah. --Saygi1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC).

As I mentioned to Elen, User:Saygi1 has now taken his disruption to a whole new level, and has engaged in WP:Hounding, following me and Takabeg with whom he has a dispute on Azerbaijani-Americans, to pages he's never edited before, making reverts and borderline personal attacks in edit summaries/talk page comments.[51][52][53] How long before this kind of obvious WP:Disruption by a POV-pushing WP:SPA is dealt with? Do the admins really think this user was a new user when he signed up? Someone should just take a look at his very first five edits. [54] He was quite familiar with complicated wiki codes, like making redirects, within an hour of registering to Wikipedia. Not to mention that he umped into a hot spot to edit-war right after creating this username? And he's been making reverts and causing disruption all over Wiki ever since. Doesn't this raise any red flags for anyone? Where does the WP:AGF end and common sense begin? Kurdo777 (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that you're splintering discussion across multiple admins and locations, I'm going to stop acting on it whatsoever. We centralize discussions for a purpose. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: WP:REFUND

I understand why you added it to my comment, but I do not have administrative tools and thus have no right to be using those templates. I have reverted the addendum. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 03:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup, but your comment was a valid close IMHO, and I wanted it to be archived accordingly :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunate

Not including Shores of Hazeron under A7 yet including articles like [Wurm Online] is discriminatory. I also suspect that there is administrator retaliation taking place against me personally here. Quite unprofessional gentlemen. I rewrote the last iteration of that article and it is totally within guidlines as I understand them 1121Eskimo (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC).

You clearly didn't read anything I tried to help you with on your talkpage. If you cannot handle/accept assistance where provided, your career on Wikipedia may be a challenge - brief, yet challenging. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First, why would we retaliate against you personally? This is your first day here, we don't know you, so unless you had a previous account, we can't possible have a reason to delete this article because of you. And the last iteration of the article (with the different capitalization) had sentences like "Solar output based on the spectral classification and magnitude of each sun determines the radius at which habitable worlds may occur." This, and the preceding and following sentences, still was taken literally from the game site. As has been explained a few times now, you are not allowed to copy text (or even rewrite with only minimal adjustments) from copyrighted sources like websites. You have to write your own text. Fram (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Your edits are causing my text to get lost. I can't respond quickly when this occurs all the time and my browser back button does not always save me. Retalation does not need to be personal to be effecive. The change from Shores of Hazeron to Shores of hazeron was unintentional. I ask you to compare this game to Starquest Online's page and tell me what the difference is between the two because you deleted the article under a rule of advertisement. This is the proposed change to the page. Since I can't submit it for approval I will post it here and ask that you review it. 1— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1121Eskimo (talk • contribs)

I'm moving this to a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT for you ... I'll let you know in a moment where I put it (but the trash is probably still the best place, because it's still non-notable and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument against deletion) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It's here, and still lacks notability or reliable sources not related to the game. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this argument is not, but it is a vaid one for descrimination. Apply your standards uniformly or not at all. This is not my first time on wikipedia but it is the first time I've decided to create an article beyond minor edits. I sugguest you start pruning. You may not have many of your articles left regarding the video game industry if you combed through them all with such rigor. 1121Eskimo (talk) 1121Eskimo (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm discriminate, but I don't do discrimination. There's millions of articles; I as a single human being cannot go through them all. However, when ones are created that clearly miss the boat don't remain. You're also using WP:CRYSTAL - the game really has not had time to gain a true following, and become notable ... eventually it may, and at that point an article will be useful (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

About Wikipedia:ANI#User:E2e3v6

Hi Bwilkins! Do you think my comment on the reporting editor's talk page here was appropriate? I sure as heck think so.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably good, yes ... have they ever actually had a Welcome template to show the "rules" ? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Content of email sent to WalkerThrough

Just a heads-up that WalkerThrough has pasted on-wiki what he claims to be the insulting content of an email you sent him. It may be helpful if you poke your head in at his talk and let people know whether or not you said what he claims you did. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the need to, honestly. I know what I typed in the e-mail, and I cannot imagine what he wants to gain otherwise. Of course, posting even parts of a private e-mail (doctored or not) would be illegal, but hey ... whatever. I have advised him that I will have no contact with him until he as the ability to request WP:OFFER (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Primarily for this, but also generally for the sense of humor on your user page and in other comments. Seriously, though, ouch. :) Swarm 19:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well thank you, this cheered me up after the past few interesting days :-) (261 porn films, and I've only seen the first 5 minutes of each of them heh) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

WalkerThrough

Hi BWilkins. I see Fluffernutter made you aware of WalkerThrough's allegations above. He's also been emailing other admins, Arbcom and the WMF. If you still have his emails to you/yours to him, would you mind forwarding them to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org . Thanks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen, if you have seen the unblock e-mail address e-mails about this entire subject from the other, you'll have the full story about this. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

...and seriously, is this the kind of thing someone who calls others "non-Christian scum" does? IIRC, I was the one who removed his talkpage access ... the least I can do is protect him. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

A very charitable viewpoint. However, I do not believe he desires your protection. In fact, I believe he is hopeful of getting the WMF, Arbcom, Jimbo or possibly even G-d to ban you from this project. This kind of abuse of administrators is a serious matter. On the other hand, abuse by administrators is also a serious matter. So lets try this one again, shall we. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, I am asking if you still have copies of your emails to him/his to you, if you would kindly forward them to Arbcom. Thank you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen, as my 2 sole replies to him were from my Blackberry, it does not save the "outgoing" or sent messages. I do have the incoming ones from him, I believe. I deleted them from my Blackberry, but I do not believe that it removes them from my main mailbox. I will verify, and forward accordingly. Thanks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

OK thank you. My Blackberry saves outgoing messages, but I know you can set them up in various configurations. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sent. Work configures our Blackberry fairly securely so as to not reveal sources, etc. I have never actually been into the live online inbox ... you would be surprised at some of the well-known (and not always in a good way) names in there LOL ... I know I was! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want, I can talk to the techies to see if Sent can be retrieved ... I'm know what I sent, and I'm not afraid of that ... not even really afraid of what the return e-mail says I supposedly sent (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi it's User:Alan347. Get back to me please I miss my self. 46.11.74.247 (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The above IP has been blocked for one month for block evasion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)