User talk:DangerousPanda/Archive 5

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

Jay Losk

I didn't tag it for speedy deletion, but reverted the original editor's unexplained removal of the speedy nomination added by another editor. The speedy needed to be re-added on principle. I've now AfD'd it. No evidence that the man exists/ed. PamD (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No issues - CSD helper automatically advises the person who last added the tag :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Inuit18

Hi, just want to inform you that as soon as you unblocked editor Inuit18 (talk · contribs) [1] he already began vandalising articles by tampering with quoted words [2] and trying to help editor Tajik (talk · contribs) in edit-war. Editor Inuit may actually be editor Tajik using proxy servers (i.e. Proxy Way) to easily change his location. An IP from Germany 188.107.215.119 (location of editor Tajik) left a message telling Inuit. "...but be careful, he can also use Proxs and Prox mashineries/programs that can get filtered by Wikipedia, like ProxyWay)..." Ahmed shahi (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, I've blocked Ahmed shahi because he's posted this message to everyone who'll listen and is deliberately stalling on signing up to an interaction ban between him and Tajik so as to accuse him of sockpuppetry and generally make a nuisance of himself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer continuing to edit-war and mark non-vandalism as vandalism

Hi, I noticed that you agreed (I think) to mentor Neutralhomer on the use of Twinkle and distinguishing vandalism from non-vandalism. I don't know if edit-warring was included, but it should have been. Neutralhomer is continuing to make severe problems and is acting in a way which I would regard as essentially thuggish (see User_talk:Necrat for a couple examples]]). I have no direct involvement in any of the issues but in my stalking history pages I noticed these issues, which eventually led an editor to give up his hands and call it quits (the editor posted his expeience here). I'm very concerned that we aren't handling these types of people more forcefully and instead letting them run amock and cause damage to our reputation. It is also very concerning that NeutralHomer is a prolific ANI editor - and I don't think someone who behaves like this, and also appears flagrantly dishonest, should be regarded as in good enough standing to post all over ANI. I have attempted to open a discussion with the editor (see User_talk:ImperfectlyInformed#Re:_My_.22Unreasonableness.22), but the fact that he is feigning ignorance (which goes back to flagrant dishonesty) leads me to suspect I won't be able to affect him. II | (t - c) 01:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This user jumped the gun running to the adminship claiming I wasn't be "responsive". I just woke up from a nap. This user seems to be only out to get me blocked and not interested in talking about it when only allowing me an hour to respond to his/her talk page post. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

7SeriesBOT modification

Per User talk:Josh Parris/Archive 10#Glitch? - I was thinking to modify 7SeriesBOT so that it removes the CSD tag before deleting the page. What do you think? Josh Parris 23:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Mcjakeqcool

Please get consensus for that conversion of his indefblock, which looks messed up anyway. Several users who aren't comfortable with WP:COMPETENCE couldn't help but use it as their reasoning for supporting an indefblock. At the minimum, you have got to provide some sort of evidence that Jake will contribute productively when he comes back. He wasn't indefblocked for socking, so getting him to stop doesn't address the original reason he got the boot. (And, to point out something I've pointed out more than once before, Jake will almost certainly not be able to pass muster if/when he returns.) Şłџğģő 00:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed that Beeblebrox, while swinging the hammer a bit hard, doesn't seem to see any potential here, either. Şłџğģő 00:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't mean to change his indef - I merely meant to unprotect the talkpage for page protection only. I'll go back and redo. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks fine - he's indef'd, but "officially" able to edit his talkpage, however, I used page protection to prevent anyone but admins edit his talkpage for 6 months, at which point he's welcome to beg for mercy. See here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

So there's that. Honestly, I feel bad that you wasted even a second of your life on this guy. Şłџğģő 20:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

And it has been deleted, rather pointlessly, if I do say so myself. If you can see it, you'll notice he used an additional seven or eight socks since the OFFER discussion. Şłџğģő 02:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Here. Shelton, Daniels, Mcjameskcool, MuZejacob (heh), Walters, Rutherford, and a few more were just blocked today. Şłџğģő 02:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't think you have any consensus to extend WP:OFFER to this guy, when there isn't even consensus for OFFER in the first place. WP:COMPETENCE is a huge issue with this editor and 6 months doesn't even begin to be long enough.--Crossmr (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "extending" WP:OFFER - I'm telling him that he needs to go away for awhile, and that OFFER is his only way back. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether you're "extending" or "telling" it amounts to the same thing. It is an essay without consensus and with serious issues. "telling" him offer is his only way back in is the same as "extending" it. We didn't have several AN/I threads about this guy so he could be let back in when no one was looking.--Crossmr (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It's moot. Shoot on sight. Şłџğģő 08:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirects from related words

Hi Wilkins,

Thank you for welcoming me back after my long Wikibreak. In the message you sent me while I was away, you suggested that I tag for speedy deletion redirects I have created which are likely to be inappropriate. I know of no such redirects as I am still at a loss as to why most of the redirects indicated at ANI were deleted if profanity was not the reason. Db-r3 does not apply because neither of the redirects I created were typos or misnomers. Redirects from related words have strong precedence on Wikipedia and I have never heard of there being a cap on how many redirects a particular article has. I will not contest the deletion of the redirects addressed at ANI because maintaining my account on Wikipedia means more to me than one day's work, but I do not believe that deleting more redirects from related words would be a positive contribution to Wikipedia. I hope that this issue is now behind us and that we can move on to further the ends of the project more harmoniously. Thank you again for your kind words subsequent to the resolution of the incident at ANI.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem - as the issue was not to do with quantity but as noted at ANI it was appropriateness of them, I'll head off and deal with them every so often myself. Again, welcome back - I hope your Wikibreak was well-spent (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

and apologies on behalf of others and myself for any action being required at all. I hope you do not suffer from it. And so fast! I hope I didn't appear intemperate in what I wrote, I will review later. Best, Verbal chat

Just don't prove me wrong here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblock of SyedNaqvi90

You wrote on his talk page that you'd unblock SyedNaqvi90, but according to the block log you didn't actually do so. Please either unblock him or clarify your unblock message. Thanks! Huon (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Another login thought

Try deleting everything in the pwikipedia/login-data directory. Josh Parris 06:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, there was nothing in that directory. I'm going to end up trashing the entire python and reinstalling, I think. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

...which didn't fix frickin' anything. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Crap. I'll sleep on it, and talk to some people. Josh Parris 13:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I've got it working again ... inexplicable, really. Of course, after trashing my pyw directory, I've lost the original g7bot.py code ... d'oh! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hello, you may not know this but User:75.2.209.226 was warned about uncivil behavior at Wikiquette alerts about a month after you had a negative interaction with him/her (the "Read, and read carefully" exchange). Unfortunately for everyone, 75 has not stopped this behavior. I'm taking this to the next level by putting together an RfC, which has about 20 diffs of various policy/guideline violations. Please take a moment to look at my draft at User:Noraft/Sandbox/5, and add your endorsement in the "Other users who endorse this summary" section, since you were the target of uncivil comments. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 23:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you miss this? Or no interest? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I merely question the efficacy of RFC's against an IP editor. I'll keep looking at it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This particular IP user isn't an SPA or just doing a few edits here and there...when he first created his account someone put an IP template on his userpage and he took it off and explained that while some IP addresses are shared, his wasn't. Further, he has changed his behavior of being a DICK in the edit summaries, which means he did respond somewhat to his first intervention. I think this one is worth going after, for all the trouble he's causing people. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 22:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request 7SeriesBOT 2

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/7SeriesBOT 2 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 02:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

User:LiNaK37

I really wish you had discussed this with me first, or at least notified me that you had drastically reduced the block. Particularly since an uninvolved admin had already declined to unblock. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss - the block did not seem to match infraction, and the other "decline" was over the use of the word "repreated", which he removed. At that point, he therefore only had one instance of vandalism without proper warnings, and it was not particularly horrific vandalism either. If there was more to the story, then it was not readily visible, but I would love to know it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have questions regarding the exact circumstances of the block, the time to ask them is before unblocking, not after. It's fine that you disagree with the block, although I believe it was perfectly justified and I fully expect to have to make similar blocks in the future. It's not fine to change the block yourself, without any attempt at discussion, because you happen to disagree. I think I might have read that somewhere. The correct course would have been to ask me on my talkpage, then proceed to ANI to request some outside opinions. I find the way you handled this to be extremely discourteous. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, we're on the same side. I agreed that a block was required, therefore it was not reversed. Editors have the right to make unblock requests, and have them looked at and acted on appropriately - I deny more than 99 out of 100 unblock requests. Based on the information available in his block log, a deep look into his contributions and deleted contributions history, and warnings, it appeared that an indef was possibly not called for yet. If it turns out it was, he's been given WP:ROPE and one of us will catch him soon enough - call it the Wikipedia catch-and-release program. I did it according to the book, so saying I was someone who was acting otherwise is perhaps not the right direction to take - let's work together, rather than adminishing your colleague for following the same rules you are. Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help, BWilkins, I was a little frazzled by all the info.

Smackerella (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I unprotected Canadian Neonatal Network since it had not been repeatedly recreated and the user (Smackerella, above), who created it, appears to be in good faith and just needing some more gentle into to WP than had been available until your welcome message. Splash - tk 22:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That would have been perhaps an accidental reading of the delete log. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat involved

Don't know if you're interested or watching the page or what have you, but User:StopAbuseOfMothers is still disputing his/her block. Just thought I'd let you know anyway. Cheers, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 17:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dottygray

Yes, I have no argument with what you say. I was perhaps being pedantic, but what I was saying was that it might be appropriate to block for WP:EW, but not for WP:BLP. Perhaps this a fine point, but you will appreciate that I in no way contested the existence of the block! --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

...heh, or Vandalism. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Come on, my friend, we are on the same side, are we not?--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I hope you didn't take the above as anything but an addition to the list: "EW, BLP and VAND"! But yeah, hard to BLP when it's more of a BFP - biography of fictional person! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I missed your comment...

...here: not yet been whipped like a mule, but my "abuse from random people at my door" quota has certainly been met... ;-) TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 14:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted page

Good Morning, I just received word from Dick Arlett that you deleted the page I contributed for him about him. Can you help me / us understand why? Thank you Ken —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kponstad (talk • contribs) 16:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(replied on their talkpage...and the CSD nommer's as well) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixing in the Food Industry

You commented on a similar AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixing in Consumer Products. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:SyedNaqvi90 again

On May 30 you unblocked User:SyedNaqvi90 who had been blocked for "continued alteration of cited statistics", imposing some editing restrictions. Since then he has inserted made-up numbers into various artilces, including Oslo, Norway, Shi'a Islam in India (where the previous numbers probably were just as wrong) and Persian people (where he actually added sources, but they don't support his estimate of up to 3 million). I've addressed his behaviour on his talk page; he doesn't seem to understand the problem. For all I can tell, others of his edits are valuable contributions, but apparently one has to fact-check whatever he does. What course of action would you suggest? Thanks, Huon (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Being Victimized

Hello, brother i am writing on your talk page since i am very depressed and facing repeated personal victimization from Huon, it feels like he is stalking me, and repeatedly pointing out few minor mistakes of mine about my edits, since most of them are supported by multiple references yet, he denies it and reverts it back to the older version. Though i admit that few things he pointed out were my mistakes, and i would improve my self in future, and i did take prompt action against it. Yet if you look into the past Huon and I had tough arguments regarding Muhammed Ali Jinnah, Fatima Jinnah where he was repeatedly vandalizing any thing regarding Jinnah's Shia faith or domination, which seemed like as if he wants to conceal those facts. But i have to make he realize that they were Shia. Hence, now he can't stand me, and goes on nominating my work, my articles for WP:AFD. Or else he questions every single edit like an immature person. I mean no harm to any one, neither i am writing this message to request you to take action against him, i am rather writing this to make you realize that he is always trying to jeopardize my account and my credibility, just for some minor mistakes i did while editing. I am already very depressed for being blocked 4 times in an Year on Wikipedia, 3 of those blocks were on minor edits. Let me assure you Sir whatever i have done on Wikipedia is by Assuming good faith, and i have always contributed positively and will continue to do so, i am currently in a learning phase regarding many policies i am not aware of, though hopefully I'll improve my self, Thank you. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your own editing has been the cause of the issues. Nobody has anything against you - it's your editing. Your baseless and disgusting suggestion that racism or other xenophobic responses have anything to do with this is appalling. You are changing sourced numbers, or are claiming the numbers are different than the source - STOP DOING THAT, and nobody will have any issues with your editing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Arab people

Hi, your edit to Arab people using AWB broke the article, so I undid it. I suppose you have good reasons to believe that the reference is “invalid”, so you may want to remove it again. Svick (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It was an editing glitch, my bad - redone properly now, as per WP:AN. Thanks for the notification! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi there. I just sent you an email. Amsaim (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:OVERSIGHT - although, suggesting at your nationality does not seem to break that, unless you admit or have ever admitted to it. The best reaction is none. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Signature forgery and WP:TPO by User:Direktor

During that endless mess is taking place at Talk:Faust Vrančić#Requested move redux, DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) (and Kebeta (talk · contribs)) copied-and-pasted, without any permission, a comment of mine that I originally posted on another user's talk page (see the diff, against my will (I clearly stated in the comment I preferred to post on the user's talk page) and fakely using my signature. I advised him in his talk page (see the diff), and I also cancelled my fake comment already once, using a clear tag "I suppose nobody has the right to copy-and-past one of my posts from a talk page to another talk page using my signature", but he didn't care about it: see the diff [3]. This (widely in contrast with Wikipedia policies) considerating the awful atmosphere he created in that talk page, trolling, stalking and disrupting, seems the last manipulatory attempt to create a more fuzzy RM. - Theirrulez (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

When you posted your comments, you irrevocably gave them to Wikipedia. If it was copied/pasted somewhere where it makes sense, you have no right to complain the way you are, and pasting your signature is NOT the same as pretending to be you. I copy / paste comments to other locations regularly, but only to places they're valid and explain my reasonings (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, message received, let me say that at least it's really not nice. Cheers, - Theirrulez (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:TFOWR

Figured I should respond here rather than bug TFOWR with any conversation we have. In the end isn't about whether or not the green line actually means anything (hell, if it doesn't, let's put green lines everywhere), but rather giving the wrong impression that somehow there is something separating England and the US right now in the World Cup and that one would advance and one wouldn't, which is absolutely not true (if they had no more games, they'd have to draw straws).

It's very minor, but it's frustrating saying to people that 2+2 does not equal 5, and if there's something that makes it seem like 2+2 does equal 5, then it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia, only having a bunch of page owners respond to you saying that 2+2 does equal 5 and it always has, and there's a consensus about it.

I respect consensus 99.999999% of the time, i've probably been in 2 or 3 edit wars ever, but I believe it's every Wikipedians duty not to compromise and let a consensus say that 2+2=5. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Doc, this happens to be the one time that I've seen your editing that I think you're 110% wrong. The green line shows "the bar" - what point you have to be over to move on. You're trying to move the bar, and make it look perhaps like three teams in that specific pool move one. You need to reframe how you're looking at this - it's nothing about current position, but position one must get to. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Regarding page for Jeannette Claudine Romeu aka Galaxy Girl. Please explain in detail why you deleted this page. There are significant reason for the page to exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.252.91 (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the note at the top of the page when you clicked "edit"? She was tagged for deletion by someone, I agreed and it was deleted. Based on WP:RS and WP:GNG there were zero reasons for an encyclopedia article about them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

On protection and consensus...

I meant to drop by yesterday to say thanks for your gentle nudging at Template talk:2010 FIFA World Cup Group C and elsewhere. Point taken: {{editprotected}} and similar stuff needs consensus, and more than just a consensus of one! Particularly where the edit is likely to be contentious.

Incidentally, while I'm here - thanks for the userbox holder! I was, uh, also going to steal borrow your red-round-boxes as well, if that's OK? Possibly with some tweaking, possibly not (it's been suggested that my userpage should have some colour on it...)

Anyway, thanks again! TFOWR 09:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery Borrowing is good! Many people won't likely see that edit as contentious, as it apparently is on the other groups - I think it's dumb, Taelus says it perfectly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sons of Admirals

Why did you delete this page? Speedy deletion had been challenged and I provided sufficient evidence to prove that it met at least one of the notability criteria if not more, AND I had support from another user. Daskill (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too pleased about this either. I don't see why it should have been deleted. Half Price (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this either. Although I am new to wikipedia I don't see why this should have been deleted. Elinious (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You were advised of the speedy criteria WP:CSD#A7 when someone else nominated it. The "supergroup" does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC, and the term "supergroup" was pure WP:PUFFERY. I merely agreed with the tagger, having done a search regarding this "phemonemon" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Having had a look at those demands I could find a hundred articles which do not meet WP:MUSIC. It's unfortunate that this page was deleted. I think that many people would like to get information about the group. Half Price (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, ok maybe supergroup was an incorrect term, but that doesn't make the article non-notable. It meets the criteria for WP:NOTABILITY and therefore did not warrant speedy deletion. Daskill (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

None of the article appears to have met notability as per WP:MUSIC. They've done nothing that is remotely encyclopedic yet. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Criteria 1 of WP:MUSIC states "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." It met this criteria. It was therefore, not eligible for speedy deletion. Daskill (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you had asked for it to be userfied, I would happily have done so. Going somewhere to simply complain gets you nowhere - discussing some form of resolution would have been intelligent. You've been here long enough to understand WP:AGF, and seeing as I read both references, I still disagreed. I don't bite, and am typically overly fair about things. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry mate, not trying to get on your wick, I just think you should've taken part in the discussion before unilaterally deleting the article. Daskill (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

...and that's where you're missing the point: someone ELSE saw that it was not notable, and tagged it for deletion. I checked deeper into the article and the references, and agreed. Clearly, it was not "unilaterally" done. I saw the post on the talkpage before deletion, and found it neither matched the problems in the article, nor were convincing. If it was a discussion, it would have gone to WP:AFD. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It probably should have gone to AfD really. Half Price (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have read WP:DELETE, you will know that if I was convinced that the discussion on the talkpage was a valid attempt to fix the issues that led to the tagging, I could have changed the WP:CSD to a WP:PROD quite easily; however, as stated, there were too many issues to make that step. It literally met the grounds for CSD as it stood, and the minor talkpage additions were not at all convincing. Like I said above, if you wanted to discuss a resolution, then I'm happy to discuss - if you're here to bitch about it, off you go now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Help

I begged the administrators to take me into care. The user BokicaK I was cursed, because I asked him something. My English is not the best, and translate the Google translator. I asked users BokicaK to tell me that the other user (RastkoPocesta) active, but he replied me the following: Jebote Rastko Pocesta vise. Mogu da mislim na sta lice te vase knjige. meaning: Rastko fuck more often. I can think of what you face your book. on the Serbian Wikipedia administrator and no one to oppose him. Whenever I have defended him he blocked me. On the Serbian Wikipedia all hate him. I begged the administrators to put a block of users, for our personal security, because our on disdains. I feel very vulnerable. Thank you in advance --Filip Srbin (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

re: Homan

I've also posted an explanation on the blocked editor's talk page. Please do decline or remove the unblock request if I've stuffed up the procedure! Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What a hoot!

(I hope that translates into Canadian. If not, let me assure you it is a VERY positive comment.)
(Also, these are exactly the reasons I wouldn't touch adminship with a proberbial 40-foot barge pole. (Even if I had one.))
But, as usual, I digress. (Short attention span?)

A very good wiki-friend pointed me to User:Bwilkins/Essays/Wikipoodling, EXACTLY when I needed it. Having thanked him, I now think it only fair to express my gratitude to you. Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(P.S. User:Bwilkins/Essays is a red link. Are there other User:Bwilkins/Essays/... ? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC))

Go to User:Bwilkins ... I think there are 3 or 4 of my essays there. Glad you liked :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't Understand

I looked in your "My Toolbox" and do not see a sandbox generator.  ??? Bridgettttttte_babble^poop 11:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, got it. TU. Very Scary. LOLove Bridgettttttte_babble^poop 11:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request 7SeriesBOT 2

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/7SeriesBOT 2 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 02:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Heyy

Then can we try temporary protection for sometime? 2011 Cricket World Cup please --Karyasuman (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

2011 Cricket World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Please, in my view at least temporary protection is required.--Karyasuman (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFPP, 2011 Cricket World Cup

Sorry, I meant to mention this earlier (like, at the time it happened...)

You declined semi on 2011 Cricket World Cup; I then went in and applied PC protection. I guess I wasn't wheel-warring, but I still feel I owe you an explanation. I agree that semi wasn't appropriate, but my thinking was with PCP moving to RFPP many editors requesting semi simply wouldn't know that PC1 was another option (and I also thought that PC1 would be a good fit for "2011 Cricket World Cup").

Hope that's OK, let me know if I've been cheeky, and - as always - do feel free to undo anything I mess up ;-)

TFOWR 17:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

SyedNaqvi90 again again

Just to let you know that I've raised an issue with SyedNaqvi90 (talk · contribs) at AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unexplained edits of demographics figures after a block for the same thing.
All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

To follow up on this, it seems I over-reacted and I've apologised to SyedNaqvi90 at his talk page (User talk:SyedNaqvi90#Again).

If you have the time, I would like to ask for some advice about what I should do were I ever to come across something similar to this again. That is, I find a problematic edit by someone who has been blocked for similar edits in the past, unblocked with a warning not to ever do such a thing again, and complaints on their talk page showing that they have not given up on their pattern of edits (whether or not this is an accurate summary of the SyedNaqvi90's situation). Could you recommend what the best approach or venue might be for this? It doesn't seem much point to me to add yet another thread to their talk page, but AN/I doesn't seem to be an appropriate venue for this (in retrospect).

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

A request for user comment is typically the next phase when it comes to behaviours seriously contrary to Wikipedia norms. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for that; I suppose I hoped there might be some simpler venue for such issues. I'm going to be busy for months helping with the clean up revealed by the previous RfC/U I raised, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85, and I would hesitate to go through all that again in the near future.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ban of Sugar Bear/Ibaranoff24. Thank you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Question on template

Hi! I'm asking the following question to you as you addressed my unblock request.
Before being blocked, I put a PoV template on Oshki (and explained it on the talk page), but it was removed (by an ip). My question is: what should I do if the template is removed again? Does the 3RR also apply to this?
Sardur (talk) 08:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Any edit is subject to consensus. Except for actual vandalism, 3RR is also related to templates - a good faith edit is never vandalism. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

So, what should I do if the template is removed? Sardur (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Obtain consensus to re-add it on the talkpage of the article? If it's being removed contrary to consensus, ask for page protection, ask for a third opinion or an WP:RFC? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will see what will happen. Sardur (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Designsbyd

She emailed me as well, and based on what you said I am thinking of unblocking (I didn't delete the image, it's on Commons so I can't at present, and restoring the page will restore it). My main issue is that it seemed to be more about her achievements as an architecture student, more like a resume than a userpage, than what she would be interested in doing as a Wikipedian. Daniel Case (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no issues with what it actually said ... it helps explain the articles she was focusing on. Want me to leave it with you? I was thinking of tagging the nom'er once it's undeleted. And BAH, I can't do anything on Commons either. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Matt Henshaw

Huh? T. Canens (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You'll note it was deleted ... you had CSD'd it, mouse slipped :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Barobax

• Hello, I put Speedy Deletion on Barobax 2 days ago, please take a look, you deleted this page before. --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone else who monitors CSD already caught it, thanks (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Josh Fernandez

Unfortunately you are far too efficient. Could you possibly tell me the year of birth from the article please, as I need it to investigate at least one questionable copyright claim? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

1993-10-25 ... Cheers! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Can I possibly just run this by you first, since some people might consider it sailing a bit close to the wind of WP:OUTING, depending on interpretation. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DjJosh/Archive has two accounts listed, with account names obviously connected to the above article. The article on the radio show seems to have been created by both accounts and Drdindo14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), however the article itself seems to have been created by Drdindo14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Pinoymusic10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), although it would seem obvious they are the same editor. It would seem a bit obvious they have "some relationship" to the subject, although I am unaware if any have actually confirmed the nature of that "relationship". According to the Eat Bulaga! article File:Eat bulaga in balck and white.jpg is from 1993, and it was uploaded by DjJosh. I think the copyright status of the image is a bit questionable, but in order to list it at PUI I would need to explain certain personal information. Would you say the information has been voluntarily provided? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of 3BTV Webpage

86.182.25.208 (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)9th July 201012:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)~

Dear B Wilkins

I added details about our internet TV channel ww.bmetv.net to the incredibly helpful Wikipedia and at the same time added details about my colleagues ( and incidentially co-owner of bmetv.net ) channel 3btv.com.

I was trying to be helpful and I certainly did not mean to imply in anyway that bmetv.net owned 3btv.

Would it be helpful if you contact the Managing Director, Philip Radley Smith at his office -contact details www.i2ic.com to confirm he is happy for the entry to be reinstated.

I apologise profusely for any infringement of copyright my actions inadvertenley caused but I admire your actions in trying to protect a third party.

Kind Regards

Ewemade Orobator ( Presidentumad )

Sorry, the internet TV channel is not notable. I will not be contacting anyone regarding it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Subjective, biased, misleading commentary on Vertebroplasty page

It seems you may already be aware of the controversy on the Vertebroplasty page. But I wanted to alert you to its continued display as a searchable item. I am an interventional radiologist and am quite familiar with the vertebroplasty procedure. I am less familiar with editing wiki pages however. I attempted to edit the page and remove adjectives and misleading, controversial, or subjective comments. The very moment that I edited, however, the page was deleted and the original page was put back up. My information may have been deleted because some of it was copyrighted material, although I cited reference and quoted all of it. I also have communicated with the Society of Interventional Radiology regarding the original page to alert them to its misleading nature.

Today, I edited much less extensively, in an attempt to try to improve the objectivity more simply. Hopefully, my edits will be seen to be what they are: fair and balanced. People want to go to Wikipedia for fair, balanced, factual information. I see no use for subjectivity on the site. It demeans the users and removes all utility of Wikipedia as a go-to site for information-gathering.

Thx Pjdorio (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Paul Dorio, MD [email protected] 7/13/2010

False positive report

The other day you submitted a false positive report because you found yourself unable to edit someone's talk page. If you have not already seen, it was due to an accident in the code of a particular edit filter which was quickly fixed by the MediaWiki software itself. The code has been reverted to the last good version and this should not happen again. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, however; if people hadn't reported it we wouldn't have known there was a problem. I have removed the false positive reports as I felt it was easier to just go to the people who submitted them directly. —Soap— 23:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I did notice a couple of hours later ... sure made it tough to decline unblock requests :-) Thanks for the update! Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Hello!

I am here to ask why you deleted the page for David Thompson (singer). I don't know what the article actually said, but I know the artist. He had a number 1 hit on the Canadian country charts, several top tens and top 40s, and was a guest on several prominent Canadian country television shows (such as Big Sky Country and the Tommy Hunter Show).

Thanks, Kinnery (I'm new to Wikipedia... not sure if I did this right! Please let me know) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinnery (talk • contribs) 15:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing that established any form of notability, especially according to WP:MUSIC. The article itself read more like an obituary than an article about someone who may have been notable. There were no statements or references regarding anything you noted above. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

page review request

hey b, i've been working on an article that was previously deleted and userfied to me to work on. i would like to eventually move it to the main article namespace but i do not want to have my first article deleted. i was wondering if you'd take a look? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Designsbyd/Daniel_Hayes_%28actor%29 i would appreciate your opinion greatly :)
Designsbyd (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you've really moved this along a lot! IMHO, however, I do not really see where he meets WP:ACTOR/WP:ENT ... maybe I'm missing something though? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Requesting help re: disruptive edits

Duchamps comb has repeatedly removed sourced material from Rand Paul without discussion, and then began disrupting Paul's talk page by introducing misleading quotes. Duchamps posted this on the talk page:

"and its registered team only has one ophthalmologist" --[that entry is wrong because] Paul has had over 200 other Opthamologist re-certified by his NBO. --Duchamps_comb MFA 18:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In reality, the sentence said:

"its [the NBO's] registered team only has one ophthalmologist, Paul himself, listed in the annual filing submitted to the Kentucky registering agency."

Additionally, the source is a document that Rand Paul penned himself! When asked to cease the removal of sourced information in the article without discussion, Duchamps declined. As you've dealt with Duchamps previously, regarding similar actions, I believe this situation would benefit from your help. The Original Wikipedian (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

[4]

If you look at the conversation and Refs (that do not qualify as RS) you will in fact see WP:OR,WP:SYNTH, and WP:BLP being violated by The Original Wikipedian (in an uncivil manner to myself). I look forward to your comments.--Duchamps_comb MFA 04:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Sick Kids(clothing)

Why did you delete this page I made?? It is an offical company and all the facts are right? I want to repost it again but it's pointless if your just going to take it down again?

If you take my post down again you should make your own post on The Sick Kids because they should be on here. It's pretty silly asking people to come make pages to just put them straight on the delete page without thought? It's time wasting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljackson88 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I already advised you long ago on your talkpage why it was deleted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

aprabhala

Thanks, I will review the speedy deletion criteria and use more appropriate standards in the future. --Aprabhala (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The bizarreness...

Tariq ... this is a little inconsistent in many ways. You unfathomably unblocked a user who appears to be one of the most disruptive users on a BLP about someone related to the US and Switzerland (I don't think I need to say who)...that unblock based on the circumstances should have as a minimum been discussed on AN/ANI due to the long term nature of the issues, and the massive BLP disruption ... I'm not asking you to explain, I'm just questioning the bizarreness of it all. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose of this comment, if you truly don't want me to explain anything and don't even mention what article you're talking about, but please don't interject with non sequiturs like this. I have removed your comment from the section accordingly. -- tariqabjotu 21:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Transformice

An article that you have been involved in editing, Transformice, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformice. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

Yup, I declined a CSD and changed it to a PROD, which unsurprisingly is now an AFD :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Dyk re Rlevse

Did you notice "will be on international travel from 18-24 July 2010" as Rlevse's talk page header? Just a heads-up in care your request there was urgent, dave souza, talk 14:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I did see it, which is why I also posted it elsewhere ... but I do notice that he's been off and on. Someone from DYK will hopefully take care of it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I fixed that hook so it makes clear what's interesting about the article subject. The article has similar awkward phrasing; I suspect the nominator/author was not comfortable enough with the language to revise it properly. Daniel Case (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you! Must go off and write a new article about the first golf club captain. So much to do, dave souza, talk 16:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

editing

Hello bwilkins, might I ask which edit peaked your interest? Thanks for the tip btw. --Faust (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Songfacts.com

Regarding Pvae, you might wanna read this: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Songfacts.com. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ontario Country Performer and Fan Association

The article Ontario Country Performer and Fan Association has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article does not meet the notability guidelines for companies and organizations.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bigvernie (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pvae_again

Since you are the blocking admin, I thought I would inform you that I posted a further opinion about this. Basically, I put myself in Pvae's shoes. I would feel a little miffed if I was blocked for a week because "one editor" told me to stop doing something 3 months ago. Furthermore, the consensus on the reliability of Songfacts is not that clear.

It would be different if his talk page was filled with multiple warnings and reasonable requests to stop doing something which were being ignored, I don't see that here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

deleting talk pages with WP:CSD#G7

You explained this delete with a WP:CSD#G7, but that says "if requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page" and there is content on the page so it does not cover this delete of the talk page. Further although I am wiki-lawyering here I do not think that deleting comments on a talk page is a good idea, particularly if they are bot generated. Comments such as these should remain on the talk page so that other editors can make informed decisions about the edits to the article. -- PBS (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The page was blank when it was deleted. As per the FAQ for the Bot, WildBot merely makes a "shopping list" for disambig repairs. Once repaired, WildBot removes the list. There had been no other edits to the talkpage other than WildBot, and the shopping list was no longer needed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I know why you did it, but as I said I do not think it is a good idea, because comments such as these should remain on the talk page [even if only in the history] so that other editors can make informed decisions about the edits to the article [which resulted from the comments on the talk page]. And as I said WP:CSD#G7 does not cover it as the there is "substantial content to the page". -- PBS (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't get why you feel that G7 does not count. A list of items that need disambiguation is created. This is not substantial content. Wise people fix the disabig issues. WildBot says the list is complete, and blanks the page as per its approved modus operandi. 7SeriesBOT then deletes it. There is nothing substantial, or even necessary to keep - a list of things to be disambiguated is not necessary to keep, as it has little bearing on the article itself in practice. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

But equally there is no reason to delete the edits, and the deletion does not fall under G7. Let us suppose that there is already a comment on the page. Would you delete these edites? If not why do it in these cases? -- PBS (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It 110% falls under G7 as it's BLANK, with just a CSD-G7 from WildBot asking for deletion when it gets deleted. What part of G7 does not fit? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"if requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page" (my emphasis). The page has substantial content, it is the talk page that does not, so you can not use G7 to delete a talk page of a page that has substantial content." As I said initially I did not want to wiki-lawyer about this, I think it is useful to leave the page history intact even if the talk page is blank, and I do not see the advantage of deleting such a history and the history could be useful for following the accuracy and utility of the bot. -- PBS (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, there is no content - the talkpage is considered separate and divisible from the article itself. PBS, you've ben around enough to know that. If your goal is the verification of bot actions then WildBot has a log of its actions and you can check its accuracy, and 7SeriesBOT has a log of its deletions so that you can check its accuracy. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That is not what G7, so were do you get that consideration from? -- PBS (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

...and don't cherry pick from policy. G7 continues "If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page or category page, this can be taken as a deletion request" - a talkpage is a page of its own, and therefore qualifies. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OK I'm curious

Just to make it clear up front I don't think there was any need for Verbal to be blocked, although I do think it was s 3RR However I don't understand how you can say you were an uninvolved admin.

• You had already taken a position on the subject both on Verbal's page but also had issued a de facto warning to the person who reported him
• You were in dispute with the original blocking admin
• Unless it was through a back channel you didn't consult with the blocking admin Sarek

So while I think the effect of the unblock is the right thing, this does smack of a failure to follow process. --Snowded ^TALK 03:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I was (as stated in the block log) in contact with Sarek, who concurred that I was "uninvolved"...and I certainly would not call that a "dispute" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The dispute reference (per the pipelink) was to Tariqabjotu not Sarek. It was not clear in your unblock which you were referring to. Thanks for clarifying that --Snowded ^TALK 10:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did say "blocking admin" :-) Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Matt Henshaw

Why has this page been deleted numerous times? Coverage is growing in the UK on the BBC and in music magazines. Matt Henshaw should exist if only even in the form of a stub. Locking the page seems very wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilsonowl (talk • contribs) 13:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Ilsonowl (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for posting this on your talk page, I am fairly new to wikipedia (early 2010) as you will note and trying to read all the internal workings is difficult. It is easy to take umbridge and pages your are trying to create or modify being deleted. It seems that everything that has been questionable that I have contributed is due to the the coverage being in the Uk and considered minor over the Atlantic. I will post the Matt Henshaw article and links up on the Help Desk. I'm sure you will also note, that due to my pre-occupation with the deletion of certain articles I haven't contributed to much else through fear of deletion. I hope you appreciate my time in writing this and will look further into it, along with other administrators. Ilsonowl (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The article went through a community discussion called articles for deletion - it failed, miserably. In short, my armpit is slightly more notable - my armpit has, after all, appeared in an internationally-released movie. Sorry be in jest there (even though it's true), but until this guy actually meets notability guidelines (specifically WP:MUSICIAN), any versions of articles about him will be removed on sight. Pretty soon we may also prevent creation of that specific article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Verbal

Would you look at the talk [[5]] page and explain to me how Verbals actions constutute an attempt at compomise?Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And even I, as a long term supporter of a lot of the work Verbal is doing, am getting to breaking point on this. Can you please help out? --Snowded ^TALK 16:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh, I'm allowed to disagree with you. What's the point of having a poll if I'm not allowed to comment in it. Also, I'm not the one referring to "flag waving Nazis". Verbal chat 16:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

" Unblocking should not lead to additional editing problems from this editor. A continuation of the block would be punitive, not preventative" I would argue that your tone indicates to me that that is ot in fact that case and had the page not been locked the edit war would have coontinued. That you are in fact going to have the word pliitvcal in the lead regardless.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There was no editwarring, and I stopped editing the page way before I was blocked/unblocked/blocked/unblocked, and had already committed to no further edits. I believe the word political will end up in the lead, but I'm not going to edit war over it. Verbal chat 16:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No and I agree Off2Rio is making nonsense statements, but want we really need (begging) is a more collegiate style. All you are doing is antagonizing people to the point where they will oppose you just for the way you are behaving.--Snowded ^TALK 16:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

coiq

I've come across this as a standard reply to unblock requests a couple of times (I don't know if you were the editor in the other case). Is this a substituted template? If not, I might create it as one (with your permission of course). —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You can always {{subst:User:Bwilkins/coiq}} ... it's free for use :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've created it as {{subst:coiq}} (with appropriate attribution), to save me having to remember which userpage to put in. I've also wriiten a brief doc page, though I'll need to find a category or so to add it to. Hope you don't mind! —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Black Veil Brides page creator

You might be interested in the note that I just left here, just FYI. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Bubble tea!

-download | sign! has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Unblock appeal

I have moved the contents of this section to User:WindarProd/Appeal discussion since there was more than one admin involved. You are welcome to comment on that page, and I would appreciate your input. Thanks!

Herman Pfisterer

I just noticed that you deleted an article for Herman Pfisterer for reason G-12 Copyright infringement. Is there anyway you could restore that article. I think that was in error. I believe it probably generated that based on the Medal of Honor citation which is in the public domain. Thanks and let me know if you have any questions--Kumioko (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I was just wondering if you had a chance to take a look at this yet? Sorry to hound you I am trying to finish creating articles for the Spanish american war medal of honor recipients and he is one of the last ones. Before I create a new article on him I want to make sure the one that was previously posted doesn't have more info than the one I am going to create. --Kumioko (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the article ... the second issue becomes that findagrave.com is not a valid WP:RS. All of the claims put forward apparently are based on that. Without proven and cited ref's, it would have been deleted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If I may, the find a grave website is used as a reference to some degree on thousands of articles throughout WP with a project dedicated to ensuring that articles with a Find a Grave page have it on the article. There is even a template for it and its mentioned in at least half a dozen places in the various manuals and guides as to how it should be used. Therefore, the argument that the article should be deleted because it was used as a ref is not valid. I agree that it is not the greatest source out there, based on the fact that it is updated mostly by volunteers just as WP is. However I again request that you reinstate the article and if you still have a problem with the find a grave reference then I suggest you submit the article for deletion at AFD so that I may discuss the issue properly or bring up the reference issue on the MOS references page because this is a far more massive issue than this one article and if your view is to delete any article that uses this reference we need to clarify immediately for all whether or not this reference should continue to be used and if not what should be done with the thousands of articles that use it as a reference. Also, if you are unwilling to reinstate this article then let me know and I will just recreate it. I don't want to spend any more time requesting an article be reinstated when its likely a stub anyway. --Kumioko (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I may be willing to userfy it. I agree that Find A Grave may be useful as a secondary reference if additional primary ref's exist, but not it it's the only source. Let me know if you want it userfied. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to be honest Im not sure what you mean by userfied...tell you what is it possible to copy the text to a sandbox for the page. Then I can look at it and clean it up before I post it. --Kumioko (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's what WP:USERFICATION is.  Done The article is now in your userspace here. Don't move it back to articlespace until you've introduced peoper ref's, cleaned it up, etc. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Roger that thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Itds done the article is recreated. --Kumioko (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Stitches (Australian Band)

Hi Bwilkins!

I was wondering if you would consider restoring this page (Stitches (Australian Band)). I will endeavour to make it meet the guidelines for suitability and notability.

Stitches may not be the most 'notable' band in the world, but they have released music on CD, supported overseas acts and had a degree of press coverage in numerous places (in our part of the world). There was once a long running comic about them in a street press magazine. One of the members is noted for using innovative guitar tunings and techniques. The band also has animated sequences projected over them during performances and are becoming known for this aspect of their performance. This request isn't about promoting them, but simply giving credit to what I believe is one of the most interesting and innovative bands out there.

They are certainly far more notable than Stitches (Welsh Band)!

Best regards, Epsychlopedia Enpsychlopedia (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your opining on my edits.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive18#Admin_Gwen_Gale.27s_usage_of_administrative_Blocks.

You have recently sought out to comment as an administrator on my edits, via your following of Admin Gwen Gale's page. As above, you made some rash and harsh comments on my editing without citing anything of what I had done. I asked you to explain, to which you refused. I noted your failed usage of WP:SOAP also, which I encourage you to review.

To me, from the perspective of an editor, you are using you admin role, to squash content that you disagree with, even though its well within the guidelines of Wikipedia. I ask you again to explain your remarks, with regards to whatever you believe that I did that deserved admin blocking. If you are unable to be specific, just say so, say that you have no concrete actions that warrant the remarks you have made. If you are simply unwilling to spend the time to back up what you are saying is the justification of admin blocking of editors, I would question the wisdom of your initial entry into the fray. Thank you. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Cmt left on your talkpage. The project is unfortunately better with you blocked, BTW. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• I concur, BW. Note also my reading on WP:OWB#46. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 11:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Need your assistance

I would like to lodge complaints against a couple of editors. User --->N5iln<--- reverted my edit on the "Insight Guides" page which he deemed violated the Wikipedia neutral policy. I don't see it as such, and can tell you that there are tons of other pages here that literally throws oil on the flame by comparison. He should be looking over those pages instead. For my part, I could've rephrased my edits a little bit better. Also, user ---> Beeswaxcandle <--- deleted 3 Insight Guides reviews whioh I posted on the Insight Guides discussion page. This is clearly a violation of my posting rights. Isn't the purpose of the discussion page supposed to be a forum for users to discuss and debate, rather than repress other people's views? These were clearly my opinions, and if the Beeswaxcandle had a beef, they should've come right out and said so...state their disagreement instead of deleting my posts, which I feel is unconstructive to the Wikipedia Project. Heck, up until then there weren't even any posts in the disussion section. If I'm unable to even simply express such views which is what a big part of Wikipedia is all about, then what good is even operating a cite like this?

Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by MBaxter1 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

...and how has WP:BRD been working for you overall though? The talkpage is not to discuss the subject, it's to discuss the article (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh!

I had to smile at the thought that their "comments" might deter this user: I've got elephant hide, I have! Thanks, though: there are sometimes I find it easier to walk away, with things still needing to be said. I'm glad you stepped in and said them. TFOWR 20:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:TPSers to the rescue! LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you show me where this is written down?

Can you show me where this is written down? It is all impossibly confusing for newcomers.

How did you get involved in my talk page anyway? --Triton Rocker (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Vrammycowboy

Hello BWilkins. Not to intervene in the communication, but the reverts from the user Vrammycowboy are not justified. Any existing party including every single state on earth and any international organization from UN to EU with multiple resolutions from UN (List of United Nations Security Council resolutions on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict), PACE, etc recognize the currently occupied territories of Karabakh as Azerbaijani territory. The Armenian occupied territories of former NKAO region of Azerbaijan and surrounding 7 regions of which Agdam is a part are legally recognized territories of Azerbaijan. Even Armenia does not recognize occupied territories it as independent state. All the legal names, even those occupied by Armenian troops comply with widely accepted GEOnet Names Server geographic locations (see the link [6] and any article on town, village, settlement location in Azerbaijan which include link to to GEOnet Names Server). So, in fact, the articles on Stepanakert,Askeran (town),Hadrut (town),Aghdara (town),Shusha (as listed by Vrammycowboy) also need to be changed to the correct legal status. Please also see my response to the admin with sources on arsons in Agdam [7]. The user's intent of creating an account seems to be sabotaging the articles and just changing the geographic information to present them as Armenian towns and villages.  Anastasia  04:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand (as you can see by my comments on his talkpage) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Stone

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please check the article history before making speedy deletion requests - speedy deletion has already been requested and denied. Thanks. (Also, I have to say, notability is very clear in the article) IainUK (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Uh, I can't see where Bwilkins made a speedy deletion request? TFOWR 09:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Plus, a declined CSD does not mean it's a valid article: it means that the criteria for speedy deletion was not met. That does not mean it's a valid article on Wikipedia, and as such it is up for deletion discussion by the community. Please see WP:DELETE. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to put it up for deletion discussion that's fine - due to this man's frequent media activities, various prime-time national TV appearances, and band membership, there is no doubt he is a notable candidate for inclusion in Wikipedia and I struggle to understand why you would want to delete the article. IainUK (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

He meets none as per the current article. You assert that he does, but never prove it. All biographies of living persons must include 3rd party reliable sources when created, or else they can be immediately removed under a different speedy criteria. You either fix the article, or it will go quickly...the 7 days of the AFD will give you time to fix it, won't it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Already done :) If all you wanted was references added, you could have asked me instead of nominating it for deletion. Or if you had added the 'no references' box at the top of the page, like others do when they see a page which just needs references, I would have rectified it straight away. You should only nominate an article for deletion if you really believe it should be deleted. IainUK (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I believe that it should be deleted. If it was only about ref's, I'd fix it myself - contrary to your snotty comments on the AFD. In my opinion, there's nothing about this dance teacher, or his studio, or even his little show that warrant an encyclopedia entry - and policy appears to support it, which is why it's under deletion discussion (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

BWilkins, do you really think it is right to delete an article because you don't like the subject? The question should not be, 'do you like Andrew Stone?', the question should be 'do you believe this subject requires an article on wikipedia?'. I'm not trying to be 'snotty' as you say, but I do feel that you are acting in bad spirit and that this sort of behaviour is detrimental to the wikipedia project. I am not interested in your personal views on Andrew Stone, but the fact that you live in Canada and know who he is kinda proves my notability point. IainUK (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you able to read? Did I say I "didn't like the subject"? I had never heard of him until this morning, and the research I have done in the past hour fails to show he deserves any notice on Wikipedia, as per policy. THAT is why he's AfD'd (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This aide memoire may be useful a summary of the activity related to the above. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

AFD of Pineapple Dance Studios (TV series)

This is a very perplexing nomination - primetime TV shows on major channels easily meet our notability criteria. Exxolon (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I realized about an hour ago that I had nom'd the wrong article and withdrew the nom. With the BS surrounding an editor on a related article, I got a bit kerfuffled. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Please check out this article

It seems I have not been familiar enough with the requirements for notability, OK I will admit I have some things to learn. So I decided to check out other articles that seemed also to lack notability. Unfortunately I do not know how to request deletion so I put a discussion of my reasons for recommending deletion in the discussion section of the article. Please check out that article and weigh in with your opinions one way or the other. Willbennett2007 (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy Bwilkins's Day!

User:Bwilkins has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Bwilkins's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Bwilkins! Peace, Rlevse 00:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I have closed the ANI thread

You can see my full rationale there. Basically, we are at the point now where both of you have agreed to - or at least expressed a wish to - move on, thus elongating the messy debate is of no benefit. In my eyes were at the stage now where the issue is only still on-going because each editor wants to reply to the "final" point the other made, thus by closing the discussions I hope it helps you both to stop. If it continues despite this however, give me a poke on my talk page. Regards, --Taelus (Talk) 12:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Nah, it's not over until they remove the copy/paste from their usertalk page. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:EmilyServcorp#Username_blocked

I hope you don't mind, but I declined the unblock despite you saying you wanted to give them a chance to amend it. A declined unblock doesn't really matter, especially in the context, and as WP:RFU is backlogged I thought it better to remove that one from the list till it is in a format that can be handled, in order to save other admins a little bit of time. Regards, --Taelus (Talk) 18:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No issues - I thought I'd give them a chance, and I think it's been over 24 hrs since they replied. Cheers! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Llasha Urko, speedy declined

Re your decision to decline speedy deletion of the above article, can you explain what the credible assertion of importance or significance is. If it is the nomination for the "NAAP (sic) Image Award for Outstanding Young Actress", you should know that the NAACP does not list that category on its website, so I don't think that's a very credible claim. Quasihuman (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

For CSD to be declined, notability needs to be reasonably asserted - not necessarily proven. If you want to WP:PROD or WP:AFD it, feel free - but as notability was asserted it does not qualify for CSD under A7. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Bwilkins, I'm shocked by your abuse of policies in support of Rd232's edit warring and inappropraite block where he is involved

Please stay away from me and my talk page. I have no respect for anyone who holds a position of authority here who fails to take corrective action when such blatant admin abuse is being carried out. You should really be ashamed of yourself and think carefully about what kind of person, editor, and admin you want to be. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the fact that you were blocked not long after this poorly thought out post says more than I need to. WP:KETTLE (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Message on UTM

Hi Bwilkins. Left you a message at WP:UTM. --Bsherr (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied there (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Userspace draft

Thanks for responding to my query about "User:Tomwolff52/Patent Information Users Group."

I will go back to the drawing board regarding this entry. I guess I need more guidance since I have been working on this for many months and thought I understood what an encyclopedia entry should contain. In fact, I have been associated with libraries for years since my job is searching and analyzing technical and patent information. I would like to bring up a few points for your feedback.

I thought I was following examples of other similar organizations and was trying to provide useful information. I took the Historical Development section and modeled other content directly from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Competitive_Intelligence_Professionals and tried to get around the objections about references. I thought that the sections on membership, conferences and communications were informative and made a well organized encyclopedia entry. They weren't meant as spam. They are the critical aspects of how our international organization operates and further its mission "to support, assist, improve and enhance the success of patent information professionals through leadership, education, communication, advocacy and networking." I thought that would be what readers of the Wikipedia article would want to know about. Members have been writing about PIUG in refereed journals over the years. The content I wrote was based on those references. I also worked with the copyright holders to make those articles available to you and other readers of this posting. These articles ought to make the case for notability of PIUG. Finally, our non-profit organization took the extra step of obtaining a registered trademark for our name. I was informed by the PIUG Board of Directors that I should always indicate the registered trademark symbol the first time the name appears in an article. I don't believe that should be considered spam-like either. Does it really go against Wikipedia policy?

Perhaps if none of these points are operative, you could provide me another entry about a similar non-profit professional organization that I should be modeling.

Thanks for working with me.

Tomwolff52 (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, and trimmed of some of the worst parts. I highly recommend against using the article you've quoted as a model, as it's an unmitigated disaster. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Bwilkins:

Very good. I like what you did. It provides well the essence of the organization. I just changed "Originally intended as a US-only organization" to "Originally formed as a US-only organization." I don't think the founders were clairvoyant enough to intend US-only, but that is the way it started. I also added a sentence that follows naturally from the one that state's PIUG's goals: "PIUG works to achieve its goals with training programs, conferences, and formal and informal discussion aimed at improving the retrieval, analysis, and dissemination of patent information." That is what PIUG does for its members and broader community.

I would like to transfer this draft to the actual PIUG page. Is there anything else I need to do besides copy the text to the target page? After that, I'm sure users will make some minor changes. One will relate to the Berks external link; I planned to make it a reference when I confirm it really relates directly to the existing topic. Thanks again for your guidance.

Tomwolff52 (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There's till plenty of work to do before it goes "live". For example, remove membership fees information, and a few others I can help with later. Let's not rush it :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. I didn't realize you were going to make more changes. It's one of my traits to try clear matters off quickly from my plate. I'll work within your timeframe. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomwolff52 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, thanks for talk page stalking and acting thereon. Would you mind also taking a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jimmy McDaniels which also needs to be closed? Yworo (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm ... can't say I've ever had to close an RFC before ... any TPS's wanna chime in? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

RevDel

Hi Bwilkins, could you have a look at the info I removed here? I believe it should be revdelled. I'd usually ask TFOWR but I believe his talkpage indicated that he's going to be offline for a few days; hope you don't mind. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see someone providing their own e-mail addresses as something that specifically needs to be RevDel'd ... unless they had posted someone else's (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; I've seen such edits be revdelled previously so I thought I'd check (partly, I believe, because there's no guarantee that it really is their own e-mail address). Thanks for looking into it for me. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Declining unblock requests in good faith

Hi! Are admins allowed to decline unblock requests in good faith, without actually reading the whole text or not bothering about the text at all? If they are, then why? /HeyMid (contributions) 13:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course WP:AGF says that you must assume that the admin did read everything first. For example, I do shitloads of reading around every unblock request I handle...if something especially bad sticks out, then it might hold more weight to the overall discussion. If a blocked user then fails to assume good faith in the admin's actions (especially when that admin was previously uninvolved} then expect to have your next unblock declined, and possibly your talkpage access removed as well. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That means I failed to assume good faith. So it was my fault? /HeyMid (contributions) 15:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As I don't memorize every interaction, I went back and re-read. In the unblock request that I declined you discussed your dealings with another user - and blamed them for many of your problems. You never once offered to leave them alone. However, you instead said that you would be willing to create a new account. The reasons I gave in the decline - plus the additional recommendations - were there to allow you to reconsider and rephrase. You were only unblocked by another admin AFTER promising to leave the other user alone, which of course was hinted at in my unblock. You chose (and continue to) to rail against my decision - which, by the way, has never been suggested to be invalid - and you're doing so now. I'm trying to understand your purpose. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response. I now understand. /HeyMid (contributions) 16:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Bwilkings - Responding to admin post for Lmaize

The piece I wish to post on banking BPO is a significant gap in coverage of banking and of outsourcing, supported by my references. I can remove company names and references in the article itself if that would make it more neutral? Please look again? Thanks. Lmaize —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmaize (talk • contribs) 16:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Found deleted article

Hi Bwilkins. I happened across the WP:UND request for "david cross kahnawake man shot by police" and found the article the user is there about. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Cross, Kahnawake. Since you started the discussion with the user, I thought you might want to follow-up. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that ... commented gently at WP:REFUND. Something tells me they're not going to like the answer (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing your comment

Thank you but, no, it does not.

It means that I have read them.

Some other admin told me that. --Triton Rocker (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Read carefully: I said it makes it look like you're hiding them. Plus: I have asked you more than once now to keep conversations in one place - if you had archived rather than deleted, you would have remembered that :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Image Question

On the article Kelley Washington, there is a really really bad picture of the player. I looked on the Philadelphia Eagles website and found this great photo. I am going to assume it was taken by someone at the Eagles, which would make it an NFL photo....could Wikipedia use it? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I had the feeling we couldn't, but wanted to check. OK, thanks. :S - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

One more image question: this one is CC 2.0. Is that coverage by Wikipedia or is that one of the CCs we don't allow? I can never remember. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Just lighting the above up again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, cc's are not my specialty ... that looks awfully professional. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response, had to run to the store. Do you know who I should ask? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle

I apologize and promise that I will not use Twinkle in content disputes. I was just got angry due some admins started to bully me, which looked not nice. So what should I do, to get twinkle back? --NovaSkola (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You were not being bullied - the thread (as per many ANI threads) turned into humour, with agreeably a little too much sarcasm that could have looked like it was directed at you. I would wait at least a month. Do some real anti-vandal work here and there. Keep your nose clean. Show that you understand a) what vandalism really is and b) that you do not engage in any content disputes. After you feel you have properly demonstrated these skills, first ask the admin who removed it. If you have issues after that, ANI might work. Remember, the goal is to rebuild the trust of the community. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Verbal

I see that you unblocked User:Verbal, block log, July 26, expecting no "additional editing problems." See Requests for page protection, where evidence was provided showing revert warring over my user page and an attempt to game RfPP, plus see ANI, where incivility and tendentious argument was displayed, plus [8], where Verbal uncivilly removed my required notice about ANI. He is continuing to argue about this, see [9]. His long term behavior caused me to waste hours just to keep a file which, by strong precedent, would not be deleted through MfD, many pages are submitted to arbitration cases as links to files. As the unblocking admin, I thought you should know, I'm just dropping this note here for your review. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You do a lot a bear poking. I'm pretty sure he asked you to stay off his usertalk, and posting anything there is a big poke. If the page itself has never be used in an Arb case, what's the sense of keeping it on Wikipedia when you could just as well keep it offline? Yes, you're gathering "evidence", but really, is it worth the absolute BS between the two of you? No! it's merely exacerbating the situation, and is again another WP:POKE. Discretion is the greater part of valour. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you look at what I pointed to? The page was actually used. And it was sitting there, having been used, with Verbal repeatedly trying to speedy delete it, even though it had been blanked. The discussions I pointed to showed the link to the page, and everyone who has actually looked at this, so far, has agreed that it was "used." I am not "gathering evidence," that page was all compiled and linked to long before the RfAr closed, about a year ago.

But, look, suit yourself. I'm not taking this any further, I presume. As to staying off his page, sure. Except that I'm also required to post a notice of an AN/I filing. Did he waive that? Maybe, I'm not sure. How am I supposed to remember? Do I have to post a link to the waiver?

I just thought, from the block history, that you might be interested. If not, fine. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, though, you are right, in a way. I did respond to a comment on Verbal's talk page, which was more than just a notice of the AN/I decision. I should not have done that. I can't revert it because it's been replied to. However, I'll strike it on request. I won't apologize or edit there, without instructions. Thanks again. --Abd (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Abd, remember I'm neutral in this - yes, I now have Verbal's talkpage on my watchlist, but I can assure you I am a neutral party. I acknowledge the right of each of you to exist on Wikipedia. I acknowledge that each of you have strengths and flaws. However, I urge you two to simply get over whatever the hell it is that has got you two where you are today. If I were you, I would not strike it on his page yourself - if you give me permission to do so, then I will on your behalf. If you feel it necessary to file something like an ANI, ask someone else to notify him, seeing as you have been asked to stay off his talkpage - I hope this never has to happen, and that you 2 are just adult enough to get over it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Bw. If you think it would improve something to strike the comment on his page, that's fine with me. The notice served its purpose anyway. Sure, if I remember, I'd do that (ask someone else). I don't really remember if he did ask me that or not, and it's not worth my time to try to find it. Where would that notice be? The comment that wasn't necessary, I reference above, it wasn't that ANI notice, it was the later comment I diff'd. I have no idea what Verbal is about today. He has just, for about six months, pursued his goal of making it difficult for anyone to read the evidence presented to RfAr in response to his evidence and he didn't care if it involved multiple speedy deletion requests, revert warring, or gaming RfPP. All I did was respond to an attack on my evidence file. Which I blanked long ago in response to his request. Now, I also came here. That's a little more. Verbal, however, is one of a set of editors who acted, over a long time, toward banning others, and he has (with the others) done a great deal of damage in that way. I don't know what he is about recently, I haven't been tracking his work, I mostly stay away from Wikipedia. I have found that it is not a safe place to work, and Verbal was part of creating that impression. I just happened to receive a message on my Talk page and checked my watchlist, and there was his extreme blanking again. If he wasn't touching my page, I'd not even have looked at his contributions or anything. He's obsessed by something and he hasn't said what it is. I'll tell you this: if I'd done what he just did, I'd be indeffed. That's extremely clear to me. So what you want to do with this, that's up to you. I really don't care. --Abd (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Problem user

Hello Sir/Madam, I have a problem with User:SyedNaqvi90 who you have unblocked in May [10] and wanted your help in dealing with him. I just got done cleaning up several articles relating to religions in Pakistan in which I cited sources such as Pew Research Center, Encyclopædia Britannica, CIA World Factbook, U.S. State Department, and Vali Nasr [11] [12] and all these sources agree with one another, that Shias make up 10-20% of the Muslim population in Pakistan as well as in the world. However, SayedNaqvi90 began reverting my edits completely [13], [14], [15] including removing the above sources from the articles. Not only that, SayedNaqvi90 is attacking me on my talk page [16] after I had already explained my position in a nice manner to him on my page and on his. I find SayedNaqvi90 as an extreme POV pusher who uses unreliable sources in articles. Just take a look at this edit of his in which he states in the edit summary "Source is a source there are few more sources supporting this claim stop reverting it" where he is trying to tell us that WordPress articles such as this qualifies as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Anyway, he disagrees with the above academic sources and claims that Shias are 30% in Pakistan based on this unreliable news article written by Sukaina Hussain, which uses the U.S. State Department and Vali Nasr as references but both these never stated Shias being 30%. Vali Nasr actually stated that Shias in Pakistan make up "30 million" [17] of the 174 million people of the country and that figure is covered in the 10-20% as mentioned by the State Department, CIA and others. I'll appreciate your help or advice in this matter and I thank you in advance.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

As I have already said,WP:RFC or WP:ANI. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, i haven't reverted any thing if you pay a look at my edits they all give an overview of the entire scenario infact they state what User:AllahLovesYou is trying to signify, while if you pay a look at User:AllahLovesYou edits are a giving an one-sided view or opinion, while he is using bogus claims to further mislead the readers. You should bring his work into account. I am not crazy that despite of being blocked multiple time before i would insist on doing the same mistake of ignoring the Wikipedia policy, before reverting any of the work by User:AllahLovesYou, i messaged him on his talkpage. I am the one who actually reached a consensus with User:Humaliwalay on article of Shia Islam in Pakistan. While User:AllahLovesYou is just reverting everything that he considers inappropriate which is a clear violation of Wikipedia policies. And let me remind you sir, i am improving a credibility after that sad incident of being blocked repeatedly in a month time. Don't except the same from me now. One should rather look into User:AllahLovesYou since he has be vandalizing all the respective articles, Islam in Pakistan, Religion in Pakistan, Sectarian violence in Pakistan, Shia Islam and Shia Islam in Pakistan. I hope you understand. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

When I say that this is not the place to discuss it, that means both parties ... there's no such thing as getting the last word around here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

rfa closure

no idea what you are talking about on my talk page. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 14:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTNOW would apply it was a self nom candidate with less than 500 contribs and under two months of editing. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 00:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

About things that would cause problems for other people like closing an RFA i read what i was was supposed to do fist also since the rfa needed to be closed early anyway and i did it correctly what problem do you have with me closing it. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 21:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you clearly do not understand enough Wikipedia policy to be closing RFA's or other maintenance tasks. Feel free to watch, but do not close them yourself. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

what do i clearly not understand about it you have not given me a reason or even told me what i did wrong. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 00:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about closing rfa's WP:NOTNOW. I have no idea what you were talking about when you said i don't know how to close rfa. I did it correctly the second time so what makes you think i don't know what i'm doing. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 00:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Your name has been dropped on ANI here. Toddst1 (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheers! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for using the proper warning message on my IP address for making an improper edit to a page. Often times, when a user leaves a warning message, that individual fails to understand the difference between an IP address and a userpage. (I, someone who is obviously not a vandal... and merely needs to log into the Wiki prior to using it, will be the only one to read a warning message, and it never reaches/addresses the ones using the IP anonymously) Also, individuals who vandalize are obviously (in most cases at least) intentionally causing detriment to the Wiki. Thank you for using common sense and using a warning message that actually addresses and applies to the anonymous users of this IP, unlike many users of the Wikipedia. -Rob^talk 05:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

your comments

I really don't appreciate when you join every conversation about my experience level. Correct me if i'm wrong but it seems like you enjoy complaining about my edits. Again i could be wrong. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 23:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Prove me wrong. Every time you get asked to not do something, you then do it again - usually wrong. It takes most people years of editing and "watching" before pretending to be an admin. Because of the repercussions, you don't get the ability in a lot of situations to "learn from a mistake". I am one of the most patient people, and if you have read my essays, I believe in the best in people. You need to stop making the mistakes that you do - once you've stopped, be an editor for awhile, mostly mistake-free. Then start thinking about admin-type things in a year or so. Until then, I'm watching and making notes, and will continue to help you through both a) catching mistakes and b) reminding you that you're in over your head (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that you have a problem with me making a mistake on something the first time and going back and fixing it. You also appear to have a problem with my userbox that says i act like an sysop. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 22:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Inka 888's Request for Rollback

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

little disrespectful

I have said nothing about self noming myself for rfa, for the reference i am way smarter than that. Most of my reverts are complaint free. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 00:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

How about this: rather than rail against constructive criticism, how about you go out and actually improve the project in some manner? If you don't like gentle warnings, polite guidance, and photographs of the future, then rethink that "smarter than that" gauge. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok --Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 23:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification

A request for clarification please, you talk about political agendas on the British Isles renaming campaign issue.

What "political" agenda exactly do you consider I have?

Thank you. --Triton Rocker (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, if I actually used the phrase "political agenda", you'll need to link to it. I may have said that the issues surrounding BISE has political undertones, or something along that line. Of course, you don't archive your talkpage like regular users, so it might be tough to find. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

verifying

What you said on my talk page was that all I have to do is check the page history to see who wrote the unsigned comment, if so I i already do that what i said to the other user was just a friedly reminder --Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 01:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Dont worry Inka, was my mistake... and I already fixed it. I woulda noticed and fixed it at some point anyway. Just caught it quicker since you and Bwilkens pointed it out. Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 01:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

ThinkBot

Not sure if you saw this: [18] or if it really makes any difference, but ActivExpression is actually claiming this is a bot account although it sure doesn't look like one. I don't know what is up with these two (or is it three?) and their army of alternate accounts, but they actually each had a fake bot account set up, MC10 had User:MCBot, which I just blocked as either a fake or an unauthorized bot. The whole thing is making my head hurt. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me know when one of them creates User:GamingTheSystemBot ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted page reviewed: Florence House

Thanks for reviewing the undelete request. Not sure how a new building created to house 40 previously homeless women is not "notable" but will look for other ways to get this documented. This is something that would be in an actual book encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feetplanted (talk • contribs) 19:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Honourable, yes; vital, yes; encyclopedic, no. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

AOAA Help

In regards to your recent denial of undeletion towards "Annotations Of An Autopsy".

I will follow and read up on the WP:MUSIC page, if however I make a submission worthy enough with sufficient proof, will it be analysed with welcoming hands? They have a vast following and History that needs to be archived for this following to be aware of what they have achieved.

Can you share any advice on what is VITAL i.e Key components for a successful wiki page?

All the best! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.12.199 (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If they have actually achieved something and it's proven, them they might be notable. As it was, they were not. We like properly encyclopedic articles - but fancruft will not be tolerated. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Many thanks, I am coming from several problems with Wikimedia commons... I am member since 2007, But recently started to indulge in wiki, faced lot of problems with picture uploading option and admins blocked me, I have started a new username to do a fresh page but that was againist the wikipolicy, Now i put retired message on my another username and trying to contribute in a better way, Can you advice how can i discuss for unblocking me on Wikimedia commons Binukalarickan (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binukalarickan (talk • contribs)

Admins on en.Wikipedia have no power on commons. You will need to request unblock there using its own processes. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Not Meeting Notable Guidelines

Hi Bwilkins,

Thank you for directing me to your talk page. I would like to talk more about why the Chelsey OMG article does not meet the guidelines and was deleted.

You originally deleted the article because "A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): Non-notable web series; limited visiblility)"

This is quite a vague explanation, could you steer me in the right direction to make the changes the page needs to fit within the wikipedia guidelines? I must remind you that Chelsey OMG recieved a massive online following and over 2 million views during the first series; it also had a huge amount of international press, which surely makes it a significant subject.

I would very much appreciate your advice on how I can make the Chelsey OMG article fit within the guidelines.

Thanks, Luke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukevknight (talk • contribs) 12:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how many times I need to provide WP:COI, WP:GNG, WP:RS to you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of admin power ANI filed

An ANI in which your behavior is the focus was filed here: Wikipedia:Ani#Abuse_of_power. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that went fantastically well for you. Too bad WP:PLAXICO no longer exists. I do hope that you take both my advice, and the overwhelming advice provided to you in that thread. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Predictably perhaps, other admins came to your defense. But on my talk page User:EdJohnston noted that "admins may be out ahead of the general awareness in terms of how they deal with the talk pages of blocked users". I think that's true, and was not taken into account by you and other admins. You came swooping in and acting, commenting and threatening blocks as if all that was well understood in general, and so of course comments that are normal from the general perspective seemed like harassment from yours. It would have gone much more smoothly if you had been more sensitive to the disconnect (after all, the expected difference in behavior on talk pages of blocked users is not yet even documented, as far as I know) in your actions and comments. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No, see... your comments were also seen as harassment by the other people who commented in the thread, a mix of admins and non-admins. You are in the minority here. There is consensus that you were warned appropriately for your inappropriate behaviour. → ROUX ₪ 17:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker

You've blocked Triton really on a technicality. I would have reverted Snowded's change much earlier but my system was down, and in any case, Snowded should have reverted it himself as soon as he realised he was wrong, but for reasons best known to himself, he didn't. Triton merely implemented an agreed change, which is, as I say, a technical breach of the topic ban, and one that should not attract a block, in the interests of good will. LevenBoy (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It did not attract a 1 month block, as it should have for the first breaking of it. Give him an inch, he'll think he's a ruler. He's clearly not at all serious about the topic ban. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, thought so, wasted my metaphorical breath. LevenBoy (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The wrong message gets sent if you don't act on that one, even though it's in some ways a technicality. The topic ban is clear, there's no wiggle room. If you give him wiggle room, he'll take a bigger wiggle next time. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"TR has admitted a long time ago that he is a return of a previous editor".

Did I really? I am confused who I am supposed to be now. Can you please show me where and what I said exactly? --Triton Rocker (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It was awhile ago but I know how to find it, do you really want me to go back and find it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. As is it reads like a slur. I have no idea what RTV, or whatever it was you said, means. --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done on the SPI. Did I not link to right to vanish?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A slur? Doubtful: but being called a sockpuppet could be considered one to some, I suppose. Please tell me, Trtion Rocker: what brought you to LevenBoy's side so quickly and randomly? It would clear some things up if you could explain this. I just can't understand why you went from the articles you were editing to where you went starting 11 July. Is he a friend in RL that you communicate with off-wiki? No shame in admitting that: he wanted your help, and you obliged. The odds of you two not being connected are improbably remote. I'm not anti-BI, and this has nothing to do with that issue. Your 8 blocks and many AN/I threads indicate a pattern of disruption, and that's why I got involved. Hopefully you'll talk about it, and I'm "all ears". Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 03:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The connection between the two is BI/highking. Thats how they both end up at the same articles. You see this as Triton at levenboys side, when infact both of them are just trying to undo some of the damage from the crusades. Its very clear that editors on both sides of this dispute check through each others recent edit histories to see if any BI changes have been made. That seems a far more likely way of them ending up at these different articles than them being the same person. Also many of the articles get mentioned on the BISE page, so reading through that could lead to Triton joining an article where Levenboy has taken action. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out at the SPI, if Triton Rocker cared so much about BI terminology, why did he not change the term once in the 144 edits he performed to Rocker (subculture)? Even when adding "UK" himself[19]? Why not British Isles? Because LevenBoy cares more about stalking HighKing overall than actual the BI debate at this point, and Triton Rocker was created as an alternate account to be brought into the "battle" and appear to be another editor. I don't know for sure who he was before, but LevenBoy's entire purpose seems to be to hound HighKing: you did see the Wikistalk, right?[20] If Triton Rocker had edited a page or two that the debate spilled over two and then got involved, I could see it. But from NO exposure to COMPLETE commitment... I don't buy it. LevenBoy's parroting pleas for Triton Rocker at AN/I were what got me suspicious in the first place, and I've made a case. Let's see where it goes, shall we? Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 08:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there!

I know you did not intend it, but your comment on Marknutley (talk · contribs)'s talk page could conceivably give the strong impression that the user's block review request was declined in part on the basis that the user has an opinion of global warming which differs from your own. Just a friendly note in case you didn't realize it. Cheers!  :-)   Thorncrag  00:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no humanly possible way for that to happen. The comment re: global warming was not part of the unblock. The statement you refer was merely a reply to something else that the user said - we have specific formatting/parsing of language on Wikipedia for a purpose. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Or you could just state that you don't care about appearing that way. So noted.   Thorncrag  17:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I said. Let's not go making stuff up now (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What is it with you guys randomly and indiscriminately throwing out the AGF bludgeon? I have assumed good faith. I commented and also came to your userpage in a completely non-accusatory manner, with nothing but concern for you because I felt you were giving the wrong impression that you declined someone's block review. You then proceed to insult my intelligence by insinuating that I do not know how to parse the "Wikipedia" language. Clearly you do not share the concern that I had about giving the wrong impression to passers by, so we can both can just move along now and proceed to having an otherwise nice day and I will remember in the future not to point things like these out to you.   Thorncrag  18:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm having an excellent day. I'm merely going back, and looking at the decline. Nothing in it suggested that he was declined due an opinion on global warming. I never even said his opinion was different from my own. A couple of lines later a question was asked, to which I rhetorically asked a couple of questions based on some previously posted diff's. Those two things - the unblock and the rhetorical questions - were a far distance apart, and cannot be construed to be related. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

7SeriesBOT & Win7 / WinXP

Not sure how much I can do from afar, but I've done a bunch of Win7 / WinXP installs, and a few downgrades, even, so if you're still looking to get back to XP, I may be able to offer some pointers. umrguy42 18:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Windows is not usually an issue - except for the fact that I have lost my install discs LOL. The roll-back from the failed Win 7 install also failed - left with a chunk of metal...although not a smouldering one, yet. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. Well, good luck with that. I dunno about rollback, but I have found that if you do a clean XP install, you have to do some trickery to the harddisk formatting (thanks to things that 7 did) at the beginning of the install, or the installation will fail. umrguy42 18:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Active banana

pal let's bring to the higher authority to block active banana. he's doing too much that can affect each and everyone reputation and personality to the users and also to the articles that he'd edited and leaving it like a jack ass pale and inconsistent. let's unite to remove active banana Thank you in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.233.12 (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Active Banana (talk) is not an administrator, however Bwilkins is (as am I). I've taken a looks at the message Active Banana left on your talkpage - it seems perfectly civil, helpful and relevant. As far as I can tell it was left for you after Active Banana reverted you at Regine Velasquez discography. Active Banana's revert seems fine: they commented that they were reverting "inappropriately sourced hype", which seems to me to be a fair assessment. Why are you canvassing editors to get Active Banana into trouble? TFOWR 12:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker (again)

Blimey, I turn my back for a minute and it all kicks off (again). Just seen TR's latest escapade, and your latest block. Goes without saying, but good block. There's a discussion about WT:BISE on my talkpage which you may be interested in as you seem to be getting increasingly drawn into this nonsense. TFOWR 10:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

How about "unfortunate block". He knew better, but doesn't seem to give a flying fuck. He's going to generate a lot of unnecessary heat and light now, which will actually make his case worse. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's all unacceptable asymmetric treatment by us admins, I'm afraid. We're clearly targeting "one side" (never mind that one set of editors is having to put up with the bad feeling caused by idiots who are nominally on the same side - there are plenty of decent editors who are pro-BI here, but their views are getting drowned out by the idiots who reckon civility and common-sense are optional, even undesirable, here). TFOWR 10:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm staying out of the whole BISE concept - that way I have zero horses in this race: I am honestly acting as an uninvolved admin. I have had TR's talkpage on my watchlist since he was trying to redirect it to his userpage (as opposed to the reverse). Unfortunately, he's done more harm than good overall, and it's those decent editors who are suffering from it (rotten apples/whole basket things). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Great... so now my SPI's gonna go all "stale-like"? Time to "thin out" the ranks... :> Doc9871 (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, just wait - LevenBoy will be the one generating heat and light like you cannot imagine! I expect an entry on ANI in 3-2-1... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Guess again. Cailil blocked LevenBoy yesterday for civility "issues". LB has four days of pondering to do. TFOWR 10:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, I will be able to head off on some field research in a few minutes without the threat of being mentioned in ANI this morning. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

When does TR's sanction expire? GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(already responded to in more than one location - ask questions once please) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Your Ani Comments.

I made it quite clear on the admin page when notifying about ANI that it was not meant as a poor reflection on the Admin.

I asked for a block review at ani. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not to be meant to reflect poorly on you, just want the block reviewed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter - you were as premature as a teenage boy on prom night :-) The ANI was really poor form - you already know how the process works. You had neither allowed the blocking admin time to investigate and make a new decision, nor had the blockee made an unblock request. Bad ... really, really bad. (talk→ BWilkins ←track)

Unblock request of Je6aDr8D

Hello Bwilkins. Je6aDr8D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein  20:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation by e-mail. It's plausible, but not compelling; therefore I'm leaving the request open for others to review.  Sandstein  20:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Cassandra Syndrome (band)

Last month you deleted Cassandra Syndrome (band) as a CSD - I would've appreciated a notification. Can I get a copy of the last version copied to my userspace? When I get a chance I'll work on it to address notability concerns. Kmusser (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done here. Notification was not required, BTW (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Kmusser (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Vette Page

When I have the permssion of the living individual as well as the business manager who is also her husband it in noway in any court of law would be considered a copyright violation, last I knew. Wikpedia from my view has made things way too complicated with all these references and while I can appreciate it THERE IS ABSOLUTELY LITTLE to NO ASSISTANCE. IT's too easy TO UNDO rather than assist. BTW, one editor and I worked out a number of items and that individual was satisifed with the end result. ANOTHER one COMES along and the BS starts all over again with references to the earlier one - taken out of context. Neither have the time nor the patience for the aggravation. Db54 (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no clue what page you're talking about right now. Having permission (ie original research is not the same as Wikipedia having been given permission - quite the opposite, actually. See WP:OTRS. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

CSD tagging

I don't think that correctly tagging an article for CSD would not fall under WP:DIS because it is a productive contribution to the project. --Inka⁸⁸⁸ 23:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You have a 30 day editing restriction - full stop. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Your restriction only applies to CSD not normal deletion....correct? --Inka⁸⁸⁸ 02:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You may WP:PROD or even WP:AFD, unless issues arise...is that what you're asking? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes that was what I was talking about. --Inka⁸⁸⁸ 22:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Problematic anon

Hi Bwilkins, you recently blocked 213.97.61.24 (talk · contribs) for block evasion and edit warring to retain defamatory information on a BLP. I've been one of several editors policing and reverting these edits. Last night he came back from his block and started reverting some of my unrelated edits, clearly out of spite: [21][22]. I wanted to see if you would evaluate this behavior for further action. Thanks for your time. — e. ripley\^talk 12:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've let him know he's being watched. Let me know how it goes. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. — e. ripley\^talk 13:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Changing_username: Pailebot

I've already entered the request at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple#Current_requests

what else shall I do?--Pailebot (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Now you wait for it to be actioned by a bureaucrat. I would recommend not editing until the name change occurs. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Inka 888

_{Sorry to dig up an old itch but I have to get consensus} I and Dr.K. (talk · contribs) agree that Inka 888 is ready for the rollback permission. I will contact several people and feel free to discuss on my talk page.--Talktome^(Intelati) 20:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please, not yet. I'd want to see him working for at least a month without a mentor first. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool.

He thinks I'm a cleaver.

I'm gonna go cut something. You may hear screams. HalfShadow 21:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you've got the "edge" on him ... or at least a good handle on things :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, that was sharp of you. HalfShadow 01:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Old version of Python II

I think there was an old version of Python II that had been deleted before the recent re-creation. I think the new version passes WP:N (well, it has more third party sourcing than many articles I have seen survive AfD), but I am wondering if it is possible to pull the old version and place it in my user space to see if there is anything useful that could be incorporated back into the article? Thanks! Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The last version before deletion is here. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Extended block of User:RaseaC

I think that RaseaC had reasons to be upset about hte edit warring block. Although their personal attacks were not appropriate, I think that HJ mitchell's two day block was long enough to 'prevent abuse' and anything longer than that seems quite punitive. Why did you extend it to two weeks with talk page disabled? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm blind and saw the most recent one. Still not sure if it's fully necessary, but I suppose it's not my judgement. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It was the continued NPA's ... he left absolutely zero choice. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Centrum99

I've just RD3'd this edit, and then realised you'd blocked the editor for same, so I wanted to run my rev-del past you. Sensible? Over-zealous? I'm still not sure about rev-del...! I fugured it was disruptive, but RD2 would probably have worked as well... TFOWR 18:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that - I've un-rev-del'd. I'm still not too sure about whether it should be or not, and that's probably reason enough to keep it visible. HJ also pointed out it's useful to have it visible as it resulted in a block. TFOWR 18:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

...however, Favonian has just blocked an IP for reverting back to Centrum's edit. Is it worth extending Centrum's block? TFOWR 18:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it is worth extending. Every reactionary force that disrupts our view of the world and quotes uncomfortable facts must be blocked. Block, block, block! And if blocking doesn't work, then start yelling! Forward, comrades, forward! Long live Amnesty International, the only source in the world!

Karl Marx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.210.79 (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As a life member of AI, I resent the fact that you could even dream of suggesting that racism is ever permitted - after all, AI supports people who have been improperly imprisoned simply due to race at times. Stephen Biko? Imprisoned because he dared (as a black African) to speak up. It was pure, unadulterated racism that created the block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So, Amnesty International bought the Wikipedia pages? And I wondered, why links to inconventient pages are erased and their contributors blocked. It must have cost a lot, however! Pages like Wikipedia are very popular and I think you have to invest at least several billions. Am I right? So now Wikipedia will spread all the enlightement that was previously limited only to www.amnesty.org.

Nevertheless, there are several problems that worry me a lot. Although I believe that AI speaks truth and only truth (if it doesn't, it must be viewed as truth anyway), the racists posting on Wikipedia claimed some things that I am not well informed about, because they are not mentioned in any AI report.

For example, is it true that Roma utterly devastated newly built settlements like Chánov in Czech republic and Luník IX in Slovakia? Is it true that they don't dream about studying at Harvard, but purposedly avoid school attendance? Is it true that 60% adult Roma in Czech republic have only basic education (or even don't finish basic school) and don't bother to educate theirselves further, because they want to stay on social welfare for their entire life?? Is it true that their segregation comes into being as a result of white people's flight from their presence? Is it also true that they are removed to the outskirts, because they don't pay for rent, water, electricity...simply for anything? Is it true that their crime rate is so astronomically high that no ethnically based crime stats are allowed? Is it true that every case of white people's attacks on Roma (including baseless hoaxes) get headlines in newspapers, while much numerous cases of Roma attacks are ignored or make it to regional news at best?

I do hope that after your answers, I will be finally enlightened, and who knows, I will perhaps become a member of AI. Thanks.

Karl Marx, jr. 81.2.210.79 (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Look, you don't get it: the general contents of your edits may have mostly fine - it was your disgusting racist commentary that was not. The good thing is that intellectuals are typically not racist. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Intellectuals also don't work for Amnesty International and other NGOs, because they can earn living otherwise. The staff of these leftist bands consists mostly of university drop-outs and graduates of good-for-nothing subjects. This is the reason, why "reports" of these organizations look how they look. Karl Marx jr. 81.2.210.79 (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

While the debate has been educational for me (learning some new stuff about image policies, and reviving my dormant commons account), the argument between Xander and BeyondMyKen has entered the moebius strip stage and shows no hope of resolving itself on ANI. I wonder if you would be willing to apply some closure to it, as it's not my place to do that. This appears to be really a commons issue, and Xander appears to be forum-shopping to try to get his way in the commons site. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Mr. B. Wilkins

I cannot thank you and your colleagues enough, Mr. B. Wilkins, for taking an interest in my case and focusing on the finer details. You have my deepest gratitude! Sincerely, Ronsax (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

MOR cosmetics

Hello, on April 6 you deleted article MOR Cosmetics as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", you may also wanna look at MOR cosmetics that were created few days later and if necessary act according to En wiki policies --Justass (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See AfD MOR cosmetics. Spam isn't my area, so I'm hesitant to dismiss this as unredeemable spam, but it sure looks like unredeemable spam to me... even after a severe pruning. TFOWR 10:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

...opened the drawer to reveal a small sockfarm (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

...and perhaps my TPS's can open an AFD for this related, sock-created work (my desk PC does not have the fancy AFD tools available) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so that over-whelming aroma wasn't cosmetics - it was a sockfarm. Makes sense. I'll hold off on AFD for Deon, and see how MOR's AFD plays out - I guess if MOR is OK then there's a case to be made for Deon as (co) founder. Maybe. Though we know that the Deon article is just an excuse for ref-spam... TFOWR 12:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"Absolute load of shit"

Your quoted remarks are clearly uncivil and yet you comment on the civility of others. Such a stance beggars belief. Would you care to explain yourself. LemonMonday Talk 17:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to learn what is and is not uncivil? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm on pretty safe ground stating that "Absolute load of shit" is being uncivil. Have a look a the recent comments made by the Cailil account when he blocked LevenBoy for using the word "Bullshit". LemonMonday Talk 17:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you're nowhere close to safe ground. There's an obvious difference between the two situations. Read WP:SPADE and WP:CIVIL before coming back ... apparently this could take awhile because you have not yet read it the first 2 times I recommended it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

....this and this says it all (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarah Easson

It's unlikely to have sleeper. Besides, many of the accounts listed would return stale results because they were last edited in 2009. The remaining ones last edited in September 2010 so even behaviour blocks, as you did, should have been done earlier rather than wait for a month before filing a report. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sadly I only noticed the farm this morning. Thanks for your help! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

PoW

Regarding your comment at AN/I... in a broad sense I agree. But you kinda have to admit that what most admins do want is for someone to say the right things, whether or not they actually mean them. Speaking from personal experience, if I had simply parroted the party line any of the times I had been blocked, I would have been unblocked. This happens every day. So you almost have to respect his honesty in blatantly playing the game without any pretence. Almost. → ROUX ₪ 20:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL ... true that. Of course, you know I don't do the "toe the party line, kiss my ass, blah blah everyone happy" game...and if you ever did it, I'd call "BS" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit you'd call BS. If you saw me toeing the party line you'd block my account on the basis that it had obviously been compromised. → ROUX ₪ 20:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that too ... but I'd block for "BS: clearly compromised" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI on a potential WP:SOC...

...since you were the last admin reviewing the ID account (and the UserID page now says "Retired"). — DennisDallas (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, DangerousPanda. You have new messages at User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Alternate.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EC

See [23] where you lost a rev of mine... I may have reverted you back by mistake. Can you fix yours if you were? Sorry but I gotta run. ++Lar: t/c 10:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Benoît Mandelbrot

I saw your posting at ANI but somehow I cannot edit the section. Can you please explain why you think I violated the rules? Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 10:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on your edit summaries, most were fine ... but at least 1 clearly was not. No worries right now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you BW. But which one was it? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 10:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Userspace draft: PIUG

I apologize for not knowing the protocol for restarting a conversation on the title subject originally on User_talk:Bwilkins/Archive_5#Userspace_draft. I posted there again yesterday and decided today that I ought to post on your current user talk page.

I would appreciate your continuing review of User:Tomwolff52/Patent_Information_Users_Group.

I worked on the page in 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.

Thank you. Tomwolff52 (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No issues - rule number 1 for archives is to never edit them; they are, after all, archives :-) I'll try to have a look. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you had a chance in the past two weeks to review this page? I really would like to get this done and stop bothering you. Thanks. 71.147.50.216 (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Mandelbrot update

Bwilkins why don't you release your freeze on the Benoit Mandelbrot page. I have some information here you can use for citing the passing away of Professor Mandelbrot.

Update on death notice on Wired.com

http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2010/10/he-gave-us-order-out-of-chaos-r-i-p-benoit-mandelbrot-1924-2010/

So why don't you go ahead and post this. People have been trying to update this for the last 12 hours. It would be inappropriate to let the page for a high profile individual sit until October 19.

Thank you for your efforts in maintaining editorial standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pianomanusa (talk • contribs) 14:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Editors can request edits to fully protected articles using {{edit protected}} on the article's talkpage. It's not necessary to remove the protection in order for the article to be updated. TFOWR 14:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Except I did this 10 minutes ago and it's been ignored. Unprotect the article. Exxolon (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Death confirmed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/us/17mandelbrot.html. Please unprotect the article so I can edit this in. Exxolon (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You've already stuck an {{edit protected}} tag on the talkpage, so you must be aware that unprotecting the article isn't necessary to update the article. TFOWR 14:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's being ignored. Therefore unprotection is required. Exxolon (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In the post above, you say you added the tag 10 minutes ago - isn't that far to early to leap to "it's being ignored" conclusions? Be patient - it's a weekend. There's no deadline. TFOWR 14:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Impatiens will go a lot further than impatience. Exxolon has been around Wikipedia long enough to understand the {{edit protected}} tag, how long it might take, AND the fact that there are often delays. He also knows to request full unprotection in the correct place, and to wait patiently. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I support the unprotection request. The editorial dispute, such as it was, only existed for a brief period of time before Mandelbrot's death could be confirmed by reliable sources. Now that the death has been confirmed and a link to a NYT obit has been added to the article, there are no further outstanding points of contention and protection is no longer necessary. Nsk92 (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The validity of the reduction of protection has never been in doubt - it is the mode of requesting it, and the ridiculous notion that a 10 minute old protected edit request somehow meant it was "not being dealt with quickly". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Taron Saharyan

Please see translation of more extremist and racist remarks by one editor here [24].  Anastasia Bukhantseva  01:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Global Peace Service Alliance

Another one here!Global Peace Service Alliance Teapotgeorge^Talk 21:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

CSD restriction

It appears to be up now. I'm allowed to tag articles for CSD now.......right? Inka888^ContribsTalk 03:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I guess, but be careful! Maybe start out by only tagging blatant vandalism pages for a while. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 03:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Tigre tiger

I did not tell her/him that he has to do anything, I was strongly suggesting that s/he creates longer articles than "Fermentelos is a town in Portugal". Inka888^ContribsTalk 19:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Another route would have been tagging the article with "needs expansion" and "needs attention from an expert" (or a couple others that are probably as valid) and then leaving a note on the creator's talk page saying "Hey, I noticed you created a new article, and I've tagged the article with... so that others will hopefully jump in and help out. You may also want to use the (underconstruction) tag to let people know you are working on expanding the articles... or work on the article in your sandbox (appropriate links, etc) until you've fleshed it out..." (etc).

Sometimes, strong suggestions, even with the best of intentions, can be interpreted the wrong way or scare off new editors not familiar with the best ways of starting articles. :-) Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

ThomasK

Greetings -- remember this guy? (Since you were the last one to interact with him on that talk page.) He's back again, whining because I busted him for editing daily for the last couple months or so, and range-blocked him. Sometimes he posts unblock requests claiming to be innocent, but sometimes, like tonight, claims that I'm persecuting him. I don't feel like giving him another chance ... he's had a lot ... do you? Antandrus (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Daniel Case gave him what he deserves ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 07:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Someone is comparing you to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad... Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 06:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that! Much appreciated (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 07:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

funny!

You know, I've heard that expression so many times, but you found the moment of a lifetime to use it. And on UTM...who'd have guessed? I actually laughed out loud. And then I saw the section above this one on your talk page and laughed again. Cheers. --Bsherr (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Every so often, I slip a good one back in where it rarely belongs :-) Glad you laughed in both cases! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oy. Har, har. Keep your day job. Looks like your straight man decided he did enough explaining and went ahead with the change anyway. Should we shatter his bliss by telling him they're synonymous, or leave it be? --Bsherr (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

?

I honestly think you have the wrong idea here- I requested unblock in good faith- I only requested it for User:Draxacoffilus as I helped him make the account in the first place(as this school is blocked from creating new users). But I know now that you're not allowed to do that, so it's a nonissue.

As far as the unblock request goes, I merely posted the template that was on my screen when I tried editing. Some talk pages work, and some don't... I didn't conjure that message out of thin air.

I really don't understand why you would post things like that on others talk pages, All I've done on Wikipedia is try to contribute to the project.

Regards, TheRasIsBack! 01:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

The fact that you could post elsewhere - including here - shows you weren't blocked. Considering everything, you were dicking around, plain and simple. As per the edit notice on this page, do try and keep conversations together (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

bot question

I've noticed the bot 7SeriesBOT doing a deletion, and leaving a summary like this: [25]. It doesn't delete a talk-page anyone other than the owner has written on, does it? Question: If only the user himself had written on that talk-page, shouldn't this be visible from the deletion-edit summary? Greswik (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If anyone else other than the person had written on the talkpage, it would be non-compliant with the bot's approved rules, and would not be deleted. U1 covers many things: draft articles, etc but only 1 edit summary can be used for all U1's ... so, stating that it meets U1 appropriately ... and linking to the policy ... is typically clear enough. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you have a look

As your online could you have a look at Currys & PC World new article we already have articles on both separately and not sure what speedy tag to place or which article to redirect too hanks. Mo ainm~Talk 12:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete seemed to make sense at this point. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Grand thanks I see you added a little Salt also. Mo ainm~Talk 12:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you do me a favour, however: discuss with the creating editor whether we should have one giant article about Currys and PC World as one topic, and redirect the individual articles to it? In other words, do we now merge the 2 individual articles into one - which might be what he's trying to do? Let me know. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Mo ainm~Talk 12:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

About my request fo undeletion of Performance_(band)

Hello, I got no reply from you here : [26]. Would you please discuss it? Thanks, NikoDisorder (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You already stated the problem: no sourcing for the one claim that might make it notable. Other than that, it's not. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I did my homework and found proper sources, they're here

NikoDisorder (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DangerousPanda. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive636.
Message added 11:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

#1, do not use TB notices on this page. #2, do not edit archives of ANI. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

<sheepish look> I know I left you a previous TB above a couple weeks ago regarding a Dweeby123 discussion on HJM's page. (And only afterwards did I see your Edit Summary "ugh ... NO TB templates" in my Watchlist when you deleted someone else's {TB} a week later.) Should I delete my TB above (Oct 15)? I think having it sit there might be unintentionally encouraging others!

I kept thinking, "either BWilkins just added that 'No TalkBack' notice to his New Section page notice, or he's being VERY kind about my not seeing it!"

best regards, — DennisDallas (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Nota Bene: Looks like my post may be moot, since the Archiving Bot came thru between the start & Save of my writing & cleared off mine & two other posts at the top of the Talkpage.

Still love to hear your feedback whether I was pre-No-TB or if you were just being kindly to a TB newbie. — DennisDallas (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)<r>

And for the Peanut Gallery looking on, I am not the current offender of this TB / ANI edit being discussed by BMW. — DD 14:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm reasonably patient :-) especially with newer editors! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hijacked Article

Hi there could you please help with my article Jatt its been hijacked by a user i have requested him on many occasions to stop but he is persistent. i started the article with accurate historical references which he has included into his own article based on a geographicly different tribe and now if i revert the changes by the the bot tells me i am the vandal. any help would be appreciated. thx--Qaleechpuri (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, but your article? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry not my article but the articleJatt--Qaleechpuri (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Once upon a time...

...a 2-week old editor was blocked for edit warring on the O'Keefe and ACORN Video articles. He became frustrated and a little hostile, and was further blocked from editing his own talk page. An hour later, a new account is created. Quack. The account name has since been changed, but used to be similar to the name of an individual closely associated with O'Keefe and the ACORN videos. Quack, quack. After editing some obscure, totally unrelated articles about water skiers, the very next day this editor is editing the O'Keefe and ACORN Video articles -- from the identical point of view of the previously blocked editor, and are conversing supportively with each other. Quack, quack, quack. Since you have dealt with both accounts, can you tell me if there is reason to pick up a hunting rifle, or am I standing here with a fishing pole? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Take it to WP:SPI :) --Kudpung (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Gavin Collins RfC

Just to let you know that Ncmvocalist has taken it upon himself to close it. I have suggested he read Gavin's talkpage and revert himself, as you are still talking to Gavin, and I don't think he realises this. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, Gavin is just playing the martyr. "I was not involved in the draft, therefore I'm not commenting, wah". As long as it's closed with an appropriate summary/resolution that's all that matters - Gavin will not be replying, even though it's in his best interest to have done so. It's been open too long; spank him and move on. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I sympathise. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall now stop banging my head against the brick wall ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I was thinking of making the suggestion that it be hand-balled to the Arbitration Committee (it's not got any cases anyway), but the Community would still be doomed to the agony (and so would arbs). A ban discussion may be a less painful option if it's not hijacked by the subject. I'm seriously contemplating just making the proposal to the Community directly.... It seems the parties are onto this so we'll just have to wait until they are ready. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC) 14:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

vandalism

Bwilkins, ill admit that my edits could of been considered vandalism if the test edits I had made were incorrect. But the edits I made were in line with EVERY other page related to Northern Ireland. Thats called consistency. However the edits I made on NorthernCounties talk page were so far from vandalism, its unreal. If someone is going to throw around comments like vandalism, they had better be sure of their wording. NorthernCounties should be blocked, not just for describing my edits as 'vandalism' but prior to that had reinstated an inflamatory edit which I removed from my very own talk page.Factocop (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, perhaps it will sink in:

User:Factocop, User:NorthernCounties as main combatants, and extraneously User:Mo ainm as a little too knee-deep (added for clarification on 4-11-10)

1. One more whine from either of you about the other
2. One more fucking around on each other's talkpage (i.e. removing/restoring/refactoring)
3. One more incident that even vaguely smells of WP:HARASS or WP:WIKISTALK
4. One more snide remark about the other
5. One more mislabelled or unlabelled edit in any forum/article where you both edit

... and I will block both of you for disruption. Yes, both. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain how I am getting a warning and for what? I have not had a whine about anyone, fucked about with anyones talk page harrased or wikistalked anyone, made a snide remark or mislabelled any edit. Mo ainm~Talk 18:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you may have meant to warn User:NorthernCounties instead -- he was the one who traded "reverting vandalism" comments with Factocop.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been on a bit lightly over the last 24hrs - and some of which was clearly to investigate, take action and document a challenging situation. I see that NorthernC has been appropriately notified - and appropriately blocked. As Mo ainm is involved in the dustups related to all of the people involved, theirs was to be a "just make sure you keep it all professional" notification regarding the above - which I think was pretty obvious. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Have I got this right Bwilkins' you gave an "official" warning to two editors, Factocop and NorthernCounties here at 11:15, 3 November 2010. At 13:42, 3 November 2010 Factocop is blocked here for edit warring, and then unblocked here saying they will "raise any future edits through discussion." Factocop asks and is given advice here on their flawed line of argument, which they completely ignore [27] [28], and escalate and inflame the situation moving the dispute to another article with this edit here, which the Admin has to revert. Factocop then starts with the personal attacks hereand here and is then given an "official" warning I assume here at 17:16, 3 November 2010 ignoring the advice they were given and refused to strike their comments.

NorthernCounties comments on this behaviour and is reverted with an interesting edit summery, in light of Factocops editing and personal attacks. NorthernCounties responds is reverted [29] and then blocked at 17:38, 3 November 2010. Yet Factocop persists on the article talk page, 17:55, 3 November 2010, and their first edit today is to continue to drag the dispute to another article, despite the warning of an Admin. They will no remove their comments and expect a response, and are determined to spread out this dispute on other articles. Maybe Admins and editors should take the advice of Baseball Bugs offered but will it be any time soon?--Domer48_'fenian' 10:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Doc talk 13:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh fuddle duddle. Thanks for letting me know. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Controversial move

You seem to be active right now, so can you please revert the controversial move, for now, that The Celestial City made from Postage stamps and postal history of Great Britain to Postage stamps and postal history of the United Kingdom without any discussion? Postage stamps and postal history of Great Britain is the WP:COMMONNAME and has been discussed previously on the talk page. We can always talk a bout this again but all the authoritative philatelic literature, dealers and societies use that naming. Thanks. ww2censor (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've reverted it. Looks like you already notified TCC and they recanted. Favonian (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks folks. ww2censor (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley

Good call. I blanked the whole NLT/uncivil mess and closed the ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I'm an idiot for having that perspective. Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Scott_MacDonald Toddst1 (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Nah, pretty sure you're not an idiot. Although WQA? Really? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I agree with Malleus that WQA is an utter waste of time. I've never been there but I'm willing to bet that over half of the complaints are things like "he called my edit crap, block him he's a big meanie!!!!!!!!!!!" Access Denied – talk to me 09:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This might be mistaken as taunting (I'm sure it wasn't intended as such).[30] The user is upset and volatile, and picking him up like this sounds like "you can't resign because we fired your ass". Anyway, there's no reason why he can't decide, rather than meeting arbcom's requirements, he wants to retire from the project. I'm sure you didn't mean anything of the sort, but I hope you'll understand if I remove your comments and ask you to reconsider. If you decide to replace them, I'll not edit war with you.--Scott Mac 21:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Mark knows I've nothing personal against him, and would not taunt him. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Right to Vanish

What exactly does the "right to vanish" allow for, then? Thanks. Andrew Parodi (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you've read WP:RTV - especially the phrase "user talks per convention are almost never deleted" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86 twisting/misinterpreting your comments

Hi, sorry to bother you but User:Sonicyouth86 has been suggesting your comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACybermud&action=historysubmit&diff=392880454&oldid=391910091 to User:Cybermud were directed at me also. I think your text is fairly unambiguous and it's clear exactly who you were talking about (afterall I was the first person to suggest Cybermud should drop his SP accusation in relation to User:NickLevinson so many of the comments wouldn't make sense if directed at me). Anyway, Sonicyouth86 is adamant that you were warning me, suggesting I should "read the comment by the administrator about your conduct" etc and refuses to listen to me due to the fact I've issued a warning on their talk page previously (though I also gave one to Cybermud). Therefore, assuming you weren't talking about me, please could you possibly make User:Sonicyouth86 aware of the facts of the matter? Apologies for bothering you with this, but I think it would be better to nip this in the bud now and obviously there's more chance they might listen to you than myself. Thanks--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, all I'm finding are walls'o'text...you'll need to show me where exactly he's suggesting the comment applied to others. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot the second link, he's making the statement it applies to others on his: talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sonicyouth86#Misrepresenting_views.2Factions_of_others_.28aka_.22Wikipedia_according_to_Shakehandsman.22.29--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it really would be useful if you could take a look at this issue as the user is continuing with their disruptive behaviour and they might take notice of you. I know I forget the link before but I did provide it when you requested it. Many thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing things up although I think you've made a small error. Your comments were actually directed at User:Cybermud, not User:Sonicyouth86. (I know it's confusing because both Cybermud and Sonicyouth86 had been misbehaving, particularly the later).--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify your comment on my talk page?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hello. You posted this comment on my talk page [31]. I think you were referring to your comment here [32]. Maybe you could explain why you think that my "actions regarding that SPI filing were disruptive"? I was the accused party not the accusers who had no evidence for their accusations. From your comment here [33] I got the impression that you were addressing Cybermud and Shakehandsman who were saying what a wikihounder I am and planning which editors to accuse of sockpuppetry here [34]. Cybermud was suggesting user Nick Levinson and Shakehandsman was suggesting Slp1. I didn't participate in that discussion. If I misunderstood your comment

"As an outside party, I wanted to say that you've gone way overboard in your comments here. SPI filings are not for fishing as they take up huge personnel resources, and allowing one to continue if you're convinced that it does not apply is pretty bad faith. We have such a thing as dispute resolution, and a policy on WP:WIKIHOUNDING. If you're having issues with an editor, follow DR to the letter...and SPI is not part of it. Although I anticipate that you're an adult and are not likely to be prodded into apologizing, you might wish to use WP:Strikethrough to retract some of your worse commentary."

and it was actually addressed to me (although I really doesn't seem to apply to me) then I would like to apologize to you. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The above comment, when it was made, was addressed to you and only you. You have since rudely and loudly advised others that it applied to them - it is to them you'll need to beg forgiveness. You never did strikethrough your comments as I advised. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This comment [35]: "As an outside party, I wanted to say that you've gone way overboard in your comments here. SPI filings are not for fishing as they take up huge personnel resources, and allowing one to continue if you're convinced that it does not apply is pretty bad faith. We have such a thing as dispute resolution, and a policy on WP:WIKIHOUNDING. If you're having issues with an editor, follow DR to the letter...and SPI is not part of it. Although I anticipate that you're an adult and are not likely to be prodded into apologizing, you might wish to use WP:Strikethrough to retract some of your worse commentary." was addressed to me?

I didn't file a an SPI report and I didn't even participate in that discussion between Cybermud and Shakehandsman. Even Shakehandsman says here [36] that you made "a small error" and that your comment was addressed to Cybermud. Cybermud is now using your comment on my talk page in a Wikiquette alert filed against him [37]. I didn't file an SPI report without having evidence. Cybermud did. There wasn't anything I could strike through in this section [38] on Cybermud's talk page because there was no comment of mine in that section. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi I think there is a misunderstanding here. Whilst User:Sonicyouth86 has indeed very much "rudely and loudly advised others that it applied to them" and should indeed seek forgiveness for the deliberate false statements, the original comment by Bwilkins regarding the SPI was actually directed at User:Cybermud rather than User:Sonicyouth86. This case can be quite confusing as we've got two parties who have both misbehaved in the past and I think Bwilkins has become uncertain as to who is who due to continuing poor conduct of Sonicyouth86.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Shakehandsman, you have supported Cybermud's SPI case against me and Nick Levinson although you thought from the beginning that we were unrelated. Then you went on to speculate that I'm the "sock of an editor from the fathers' rights article" [39]. And then you singled out the administrator Slp1 of being the "most likely candidate" [40]. All this without having the tiniest piece of evidence. In your support of Cybermud's accusations you wrote something about me harassing and wikihounding Cybermud and this is why I told you to read Bwilkns' comment. Because he wrote: "We have such a thing as dispute resolution, and a policy on WP:WIKIHOUNDING. If you're having issues with an editor, follow DR to the letter...and SPI is not part of it"[41]. You supported the SPI report although you knew that Nick Levinson and I had nothing to do with each other (which you say here [42]) and on top of that you involved an administrator, Slp1, in your speculations about me being a "sockpuppet."

Please don't lecture me on "misbehaving" in the future. And please refrain from calling me "obvious sockpuppet" and "wikihounder" or any other offensive names [43].

Bwiklins, I just want to let you know that Cybermud is using your comment on my talk page which I and even Shakehandsman think was directed at Cybermud (and not me) as a way to besmirch me in a Wikiquette alert. I hope that you will read your original comment here in the midst of a conversation between Cybermud and Shakehandsman [44] and see that it couldn't have possibly been directed at me. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

At no point did I support any SPI in relation to Nick Levinson, on the contrary I was the first to raise objections to Nick being investigated and I did so in multiple places and I am now totally fed up of the number of times you have made false accusations on my part in this regard. As for Wikihounding, yes it is an offensive name but at the time of the warning every single one of your edits involved following around Cybermud so that's exactly what it was, I was simply calling a spade a spade. Given your continued conduct a warning is perhaps even more justified and needed, though in fairness perhaps all your repeated false statements and belittling headings are more a form of harassment now than Wikihounding per se. --Shakehandsman (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Shakehandsman, I am asking you for the last time to stop calling me "wikihounder," "obvious sockpuppet" and now "harasser."

Reading comprehension is a useful thing to have. Cybermud filed the SPI case against me and Nick Levinson without having any evidence. You supported that case (which automatically included Nick Levinson) despite the fact that you repeatedly wrote that you thought Nick Levinson and I were unrelated. ON TOP OF THAT, you continued your unsubstantiated speculations about me being an "obvious sockpuppet" of "an editor from the fathers' rights movement" and included an administrator, Slp1, in your speculations [45]. Please stop with your name calling and with your sanctimonious indignation about "false statements." Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes my reading comprehension is fine. In fact it's so good I can see that second to last quote above doesn't even exist anywhere. As for admins, they're not immune from engaging in Sockpuppetry and I haven't accused anyone anyway. Talking of admins and reading comprehension, Bwilkins is one such admin and his statement with regards to you is that you've "rudely and loudly advised others" that his warning to Cybermud applied to myself. His advice to you was that "you'll need to beg forgiveness" from such parties.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Reading comprehension is a VERY useful thing to have. You have engaged in unsubstantiated speculations that administrator Slp1 or some other "editor from the fathers' rights article" might be a sockpuppet and related to me.[46] The link proves this, no matter how hard you deny it. Bwilkins stated that SPI filings aren't for fishing and supporting an SPI case when you know it doesn't apply is inappropriate [47]. IN MY OPINION, this applies to you since you've supported Cybermud's SPI report and even speculated that administrator Slp1 or other "editors from the fathers' rights article" are sockpuppets. As for reading comprehension: If something is applicable to you, it doesn't mean that it was addressed to you. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Your initial comment was, quite obviously, directed to me (it's on my talk page) and, given it's content/context, makes sense there. Besides responding to it there I've never referred to it again. SonicYouth has indeed referenced it since then in many contexts pretending it means many things about multiple editors. SonicYouth is establishing a long history of mischaracterizing edits and editors. While on the topic, I did strikethrough the only thing I feel was not quid pro quo or written in good faith, that is to say, the inclusion of User:Nick Levinson in the SPI, which I've also apologized for and explained several times now.--Cybermud (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Bwilkins, now that I, Shakahandsman, and even Cybermud himself have stated that your comment here [48] was "quite obviously" NOT directed at me but at Cybermud, I would greatly appreciate it if you could strike through you comment on my talk page or otherwise clarify it. I would also greatly appreciate it if you could go to the Wikiquette alerts and clarify that your comment on my talk page which Cybermud has used to besmirch me (although he admits here that your original comment was addressed to him) was a result of a misunderstanding. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so, what you want me to do is to actually go back to the original series of issues between the 3 of you. I will review all of the information, all of the interactions. If there's a hint of a key policy being broken, I will take action accordingly on any of the 3 of you. In other words, I won't just strike, I'll revisit the entire issue from the start. Is this what you wish? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I know that administrators are busy and I'm sorry that you have to waste your time on this but I would like this obvious and to me very frustrating misunderstanding to be corrected.

You don't have to revisit the issue from the start. All you need to do is go back to this one comment [49] of yours in this section [50] on Cybermud's talk page. I would like you to clarify if that one comment was addressed to Cybermud or me. That's all. As I, Shakehandsman, and Cybermud have pointed out to you, your comment was obviously NOT directed at me. Yet on my talk page your wrote [51] that your original comment on Cybermud's talk page was addressed to ME which was obviously not the case. *I* didn't file an SPI case without having evidence; Cybermud did. Shakehandsman supported it although he said from the beginning that Nick Levinson and I were unrelated. I was the accused party (together with Nick Levinson).

I would greatly appreciate it if you could strike through or correct your comment on my talk page [52].

Cybermud has taken advantage of this misunderstanding and has posted your comment in which you confuse me with him on the Wikiquette alerts page saying that your warning is proof of my "bad" behavior. This although he ADMITS that you confused me with him in that comment. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I'm busy. Like I said above, if I am going to revisit something in order to retract something, then I'm going to go back through the entire indicent. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually Sonicyouth86 is correct in saying that a strike-thru is required for a small portion of your text. Most of what he says is false, but he is absolutely right on one point and I don't think anyone disagrees with him there. However, I would actually favour a wider investigation anyway - all we have at the moment is a Wikiqette alert in relation to Cybermud, when in reality his behaviour editing is now much improved thanks to your previous warning (and perhaps due to guidance on my part). Sonicyouth86 on the other hand has not been at all receptive to any advice from anyone and this needs addressing. Anyway, many thanks for looking at this, it really does need to be resolved as it has dragged on for far too long.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Please start with these three comments posted by Cybermud on the Adrea Dworkin talk page which started the entire episode: [53][54][55] Cybermud describes Dworkin as a “hideous looking Jabba the Hutt type woman” and states that “her nastiness certainly does qualify as a valid reason to doubt she was raped.” He continues to write something about “politically motivated rapes,” and “all men are rapists” and “blatant misandry” and things like that. I told Cybermud that I thought talk pages aren’t supposed to be used for such diatribes [56][57][58] and since then he has been insulting me.

Please check Shakehandsman's insistence on calling me names like "wikihounder," "obvious sockpuppet," and "harasser."[59] and notice how upset he gets when users accuse *him* of sockpuppetry [60]. Please also check other editors' comments that Shakehandsman's "editing pattern is to consistently add one-sided POV information to various articles (often unsourced and sometimes blatantly false information)" [61]. Also note his support of the SPI case filed against me despite the fact that he never believed that Nick Levinson and I were related and his unsusbstantiated accusation that daminnistrator Slp1 or other "editors from the fathers' rights article" might be sockpuppets [62]. For someone who is so averse to being on the receiving end of offensive accusations, it's interesting how much Shakahandsman enjoys doing the accusing.

Shakehandsman, please apologize to me ASP for calling me "wikihounder," "obvious sockpuppet," and "harasser." Your claims about my "false statements" are hypocritical at best given other users' comments about your conduct.

Bwilkins, I'd really appreciate it of you could clarify who your original comment was directed at rather sooner than later. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86, you really shouldn't be seeking to direct any investigation, and bringing up brand new unrelated points from before you were even a member here really does not help. FYI I settled the dispute with Off2RioRob due to him issuing me with a full apology and retraction of every single one of his false allegations just as I had requested.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Shakehandsman, I expect a full retraction and apology from you for every single one of your false allegations. The accusation that your "editing pattern is to consistently add one-sided POV information to various articles (often unsourced and sometimes blatantly false information)" [63] which was confirmed in a Administrators' Noticeboard case by several editors is anything but "false." Your unsubstantiated speculation that "editors from the fathers' rights article" and administrator Slp1 in particular are sockpuppets can be proven via diff [64]. The fact that you supported an SPI case which was for fishing is anything but "false." So... stop pestering me with your hypocritical indignation and your name calling.

Please apologize to me ASP for repeatedly calling me "obvious sockpuppet," "wikihounder," and "harasser." I think "vandal" was another of your personal attacks. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I support a full investigation. I resent the idea that "my behavior is much improved" immensely, quite frankly. Behavior implies a far greater pattern of actions than exists on my part. I'm not being a drama queen, mischaracterizing any part of the history or blaming anyone for anything I've done. I have been upfront about every part of my interaction with everyone. SonicYouth, misrepresents other people every time SY refers to them. Probably a dozen times about me and my edits in this very thread. To save BWilkins the trouble of pointing it out I will openly acknowledge two things I did in error. First, reverting SY's first disruptive and argumentative edit calling me a "men's rights activist...with an axe to grind." Reverting it wasn't the right way to handle it. I use scripts to revert a lot of vandalism and the highlighting of SY's name in the history made me think it was the very first WP edit (when actually it was the second.) Which is besides the point that it wasn't vandalism per se and my use of the revert tool that called it such was ill-advised and lazy. Likewise I was cavalier in adding Nick Levinson to the SPI that was really all about SY (whom, for the record, I still believe is a sockpuppet.) Most of the rest of this is the direct result of SY's theatrics, dramatizations and repeated mis-characterizations of edits and editors.--Cybermud (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Cybermud, fair enough, my phrasing was poorly worded. I retract the statement and will strikethru it. My point should have been that you've made some mistakes previously but since Bwilkin's intervention you haven't put a foot wrong and you've apologised to Nick Levinson too. In other words you've taken notice of the advice you've been given. I think you've summed this up yourself better than I did. In fact the above comment is the best appraisal of the situation I've seen so far. Many thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on the above, I will not pursue or act any further. Positive agreement has been made. People are welcome to manually archive things from their talkpages accordingly - if as nothing else, it serves as a future warning that people (including admins) are watching, and that we are trying to help people to get along. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

template

I thin you were the first admin I saw using this, I went ahead and made it a template, whaddya think? Template:3questions Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You could always try Template:coiq which was made from my original userfied one (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Factocop

I imagine you're aware of the ANI discussion about Factocop being a sock:[65] I just wonder if it's appropriate to let his current block expire, or to extend it until they get a definitive checkuser answer? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You wanna give him an aneurysm? It appears definitive, but I'm not extending the block - perhaps a comment in ANI to the effect of "if this is definitive, then his current 72 hr block for NPA/BATTLE needs to be extended" :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As I just noted on ANI, he's got a still-active partner in crime called BritishWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). That one was not mentioned in the SPI, but here[66] Blue is better indicates he is a sock of BritishWatcher, which he immediately reverted when he realized that he had given the game away. Factocopy naturally denies he's Blue is better, while he admits to being Pilgrimsquest. My take on this is that there's a whole lot o' sockin' goin' on. All of these guys have the same viewpoint and tendency to engage in battle with editors such as O Fenian. Not a sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)