User talk:DangerousPanda/Archive 8

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

Hello Bwilkins, Regarding Page: Mohammad Nashir

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

Unfortunately I do not agree with you in this situation.

If you read my complacent comment I mention where you can find the further noteworthy sources, in addition to this underneath the page there were many references and sources available, I feel your arguament was very flawed and you are directly intentionally not placing my page up.

I kindly request that there is no reason not to place up the page and you put up the page.

As I said before please contact me if you need further sources to justify my argument.

I feel you have not treated me fairly in this case and you have deliberately not placed my page up.

Please kindly place the page up.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tw3ak1t (talk • contribs) 22:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to try and create a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT, but the article as it was is unsalvageable from a notability and BLP perspective, as stated on WP:REFUND. It cannot be undeleted. If you do decide to create a draft, please read WP:FIRSTARTICLE, and do not move it into articlespace until you have verified with a few trusted people that it actually meets Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, I appreciate you overlooking my previous submissions, I have submitted a new draft, please could you kindly look at it and see what could be changed, or if it is ok for submission.

Yours... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tw3ak1t (talk • contribs)

None of the "references" are permissible on Wikipedia - they're blogs, and user-editable sites. Even the text of the article shows he's not a notable person whatsoever. When someone merely "claims" to do something, it's unacceptable. Starting a non-notable club or society = non-notable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Poetry Comments - Mohammad Nashir Hi again, I suggest reading this enclosed website for others comments on his work, it is mainly positive and very well-known. If you find out more about the University of Sheffield Afghanistan Society which closed on January 2012, it was supported by many diverse organisations including Shell Petrol, University of Cambridge and BBC Persian TV. The fact he has outlined this on his website does not mean he is not notable, it only means that he is further trying to explain the organisations he has worked in.

Of course there are blogs, but these are just for personal purposes, if you see his Academic Society and Amazon pieces they have contributed a lot if you only read the pieces. In addition The Academic Society is new so there is not much substance to call it very notable, however it has highly generated interest, however his previous organisation The Afghanistan Society - The University of Sheffield has helped the Afghan people and his talks has enabled the Afghan people in Sheffield and nationwide in the UK to voice their opinions on Afghanistan.

I think your association with 'notable' is very muddled, I would say that notable in these areas of helping Afghanistan, promotional work for Afghanistan and his contributions in Academia and Research is notable.

Once again please visit that link and find others comments on his work.

Here is another example of his notability, A blog account of a seperate person on Mohammad Nashir's poetry.

Here is his worldwide credibility on a Portuguese website of his poetry Portuguese Account of his Poetry

This explains his poetry on one of his poems called 'London Baby' in a positive light.

I hope this satisfies you for evidence.

May I also say that, I have so many sources on individuals commenting on his work and placing his work on their blogs and websites, it would be difficult to keep track.

Here is another source where his poetry is stored for a Russian (.ru) website - Some of Mohammad's Poetry on a Russian Website

In addition under the publisher Forward Poetry Press Ltd he has published 3 of his poems and he has published in the renknowned British poetry publisher, he is not only self-published, you can ask the organisation if he is published there, you can also contact United Press Ltd about his publications there in the UK and additionally The Pen magazine in the US.

Thanks.

Tw3ak1t (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This will be the last time I try to say this (ensure you click EVERY link that I provide you): general notability guidelines, reliable sources, self-published authors. Most importantly the one on reliable sources. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies if I frustrated you, I have re-referenced the sources in the Wikipedia page as a draft, please take a look if it is Okay, I appreciate your patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tw3ak1t (talk • contribs) 21:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to start commenting on the talkpage of the draft, rather than continue this here. For my friendly tps's, the draft is here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:42, 21 January 2012 (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.

IPBE

Hello, what template do I use if I need an IP block exception. aviyal want's water 23:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:IPBE (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(talk page stalker)Send an e-Mail to these people. That should solve your problem.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 511,870,599) 11:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

University Canada West

I'd already started a discussion on the topic. Could you comment there? --Ronz (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Name-calling

false accusations of name-calling, specifically "Asshats" and "Idiots", from me to Jasper Deng and/or Elen of Roads, which I never did, and would never do - this from the editor you said was "polite", in comparison to me. Wonderful. Sorry, it's really abusive, I really do not want to sit and "take it". (Or, is that expected of me?) It's amazing. Do you still think this new editor is polite by comparison? I've asked him to check his facts, and support the violent accusations, or apologize. I suppose I'm being unreasonable in that! My god. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Bwilkins, thanks for your explanations at ANI regarding personal attack, uncivil, libel & slander. (It was informative.) Just so you know, I was using the common dictionary definition, not legal meaning, re word "slander" ("false and malicious statement injurious to a person's reputation"). In this case, "WP userid" (not necessarily "person"). Ok, thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG, WP:CANVASSING. Already brought up to WP:ANI.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Creativity

Hi BWilkins, I'm not sure that block is going to calm things down. AniMate had a word with him about it already, he apologized to AniMate on User talk:AniMate for it, and hasn't repeated it since. I don't think it's preventing anything. Please consider unblocking to minimize the uproar. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

He was warned last week by me not to do it. To see him do it again ... (it has been escalating all week) shows me differently. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I was unaware of the previous warning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Good block. If I had known about the previous warning I would have blocked him myself. AniMate 02:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It was here which they removed here. You can see my justification for a "first" warning being a "final" warning there. Gotta love the principle that "a removed warning = a read warning". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The ANI debate RE: Attacks and Socks

Hi Bwilkins, Firstly, I hope I wasn't stepping out of line by adding some common-sense to the debate at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks_and_socking. I don't even know how and when I got ANI flagged on my watchlist, but I had watched that debate, and noticed that it was getting out of hand. Fingers-crossed the 2 individuals involved can find a resolution to all this. An edit conflict occurred though just as you closed the thread. I marked up my statement as EC. That is fine isn't it? Anyhow, hope the rest of your day becomes more cheerful and less stressing. Take care, and happy editing! Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the auto-unblock request from my talk page.

I am sending this message to all the people who have commented on my unblock request at User Talk:12bigbrother12#Caught in an Autoblock. I've removed the request because I have moved back out to university, where I have a different IP address and so am not affected by the block. I will be going back to my old (home) IP address in March where hopefully the situation should have resolved itself. Thank you for taking the time to deal with my request, If for whatever reason I'm not allowed to remove the unblock request I apologise and obviously feel free to revert the edit I made on my talk page. Thanks again. 12bigbrother12 (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Block

If you ask an admin to block you are they allowed to do it. I'm seriously thinking thats the best option. I'm getting riled by other editors and it won't be long before I snap completely. I'm sick of people goading me it's childish and I always seem to get drawn in by it and end up fighting back it's doing my mental health no good at all I'm extremely stressed out Ive done so much hard work but its only a matter of time before i lose it. The spi turned into a farce because murry had small digs and got to me. He may not be porridge but he has got to me. I seriously think a block is the best option or are there other non admin ways to block your own account it's for the best. Edinburgh Wanderer 02:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

if its possible go ahead and block in I am no longer able to carry on and would like to be off wiki for the forseable. If the account isn't blocked I will return and it's clear I dont have the mental well being at this time to support it.

BWilkins, FYI I've set EW's wikibreak enforcer for 3 months, so this should be resolved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Floquenbeam. I have to say that I'm still scratching my head because I am totally unable to see any behaviour toward E-W that could be construed as harassment, or serious enough to cause such angst. If I could find it, I'd totally deal with it ... but IMHO it's not there ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I won't talk about it too much, in order to not stir it up again, but I don't disagree with anything you've said. I don't know if you looked at the SPI, but it's a trainwreck. I've decided to let the dispodition of the SPI be SEP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It didn't work so I'm going to do other things for a whilst. I don't mind if people disagree with me at all but would like people to explain why they see it differently. One of the first thing he has said today since he came back and i engaged in dissuasion with him calmly was to say we were sectarian editors with conflict of interests.[1]. Its clear he does not like me at all if he would just engage normally but he does not.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Give up he decided it would be a good idea to take me to ANI and is misusing your comments there. Im notifying you as he hasn't notified anyone he has mentioned.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Mentor

Why would you be unable to be a mentor? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the messages that the one party uses to remove my attempts to assist on their talkpage :-) Clearly, they have no believe in/respect for what I'm saying. Mentoring the other party would look like I took sides (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. Do you feel one party is more to blame than the other, or that it is fairly equal? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

They're both a little stubborn: Y steadfastly insists on beginning the edit wars (typically), and B steadfastly refuses to do what needs to be done to stop it the right way. When both behave like mules, they're both at "fault" in their own ways, methinks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that - it's as I suspected from a quick glance at the situation. They need to sort themselves out, or they are likely to end up being blocked/banned from Wikipedia. If I suggested to them that they go through mediation and/or accept a mentor, would you be willing in those circumstances to act as mentor and/or mediator. You seem to be behaving in a fair and balanced manner in this affair. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your faith in me, but I will stay out of this one for the reasons noted above. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello

That attitude. I dropped the issue since the user calls my sources as unofficial, in order to avoid the edit wars but behaving in this manner with other users is certainly not a part of Wikipedia's policies. Please have a look at it, I'll really appreciate the help. Thank you ♫♪AdyNiz♪♫ 06:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for bothering you again. Any suggestion or response regarding ^? ♫♪AdyNiz♪♫ 13:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Check with the reliable source noticeboard regarding sources, dispute resolution for content itself, and WP:WQA for difficult communication (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Your concerns have been noted, and filed. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, your attitude towards it is quite clear in the edit summary (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Then we are in agreement. And to bring it to your view, the section has been filed into the archives and is not deleted. You are free to access it, but not to tamper with it. As for my "attitude", I don't need to explain anything to you so I will let this pass. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to inform you that after demoralizing and threatening a new user to throw him out of Wikipedia and creating all that mess, Ankitbhatt now has raised objections over my idea of giving him a Motivation Award. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Grange Co-op Deleted Article

Hello. You recently deleted and protected the page Grange Co-op again. I understand where you were coming from. I have been having Internet connections issues and the page edit area was timing out for me most of the time. I believe that I wasn't able to fully complete what I had wanted to because of this issue (I also don't any of the references external sources were saved). I do have the edits that I can send first to see if they will indeed fix some of the notoriety issues. Thank You Getfive (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You said you were going to check for useful stuff, create a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT. A live article should never have been created (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You've Got Mail

Using this header as the title, could you please place {{You've got mail}}{{SUBST:User:Cyberpower678/Signature}} as a final message to User talk:Catfish Jim and the soapdish.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 513,999,018) 19:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello?—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 514,596,459) 15:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

RFP/C

I have been requesting for confirmed user status for quite some time now.I re-requested it through a second post.My first request was rejected because i had posted the same request with some extra information but no measures were taken to approve my second request.Please act soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram ganguly (talk • contribs) 16:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you requested ... and were asked a question, which you were supposed to answer in the exact same section. Instead, you started a new request. You now have 4 total edits, half of which are to RFP/C ... and I see zero signs that you understand Wikipedia's policies or processes. Wikipedia does not have a time limit. Get comfortable with Wikipedia before going into the complex subject of Images (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

bushiroad undeletion request

even if you can't restore it can you at least give me a copy?

Bloope (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I looked at, it wasn't worth it; 3 lines, most of it related to other companies (as an attempted comparison) as opposed to the company itself ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a page that I created and I would like the info so I can improve upon it and possibly re-post the improved version. Also, you claim that I was referencing other companies. What are those other companies?Bloope (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Bushiroad <ref>bushiroad.com</ref> <ref>bushiroad.fm</ref> is a Japan-based company like [[Cardfight!! Vanguard]] <ref>cf-vanguard.com</ref><ref>bushiroad.com</ref><ref>bushiroad.fm</ref> and [[Weiß Schwarz]], among others.

Was that worth it? Does it meet WP:FIRSTARTICLE? It's not even useful as a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't create any page for you to object to

You recently wrote this on my talk page:

"Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted."

That's odd as I have not created any pages. I do not know what to make of your vague allegation.

LosAngelesWriter (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Um yes, on November 12, 2011 you created Sean Zarinegar Travels America. It was deleted, and you now have better access to the guidelines overall, so you'll have a better understanding of why it also cannot be undeleted. There are literally dozens of welcome templates, and I always like to a) make sure editors have been welcomed, and b) ensure that they are welcomed with an appropriate template for their situation (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Login

hi i m mukta sawant & u have blocked my account & told me 2 login and 2 send u request again but whenever i login is comes "There was an unexpected error logging in. Please try again. If the problem persists, it may be because you have cookies disabled, and you should check that they are enabled in your browser settings." what should I do pls help...........--116.203.40.61 (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You are indefinitely blocked from editing the English Wikipedia. Please stop trying. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for participating on the 3RR noticeboard

Thanks you for answering my questions :-) I actually did warn him but he accused me of "spamming" his talkpage. He also removed not only the warning templates but my attempt to engage him :( I hope an admin could have a chat with him and get him to cease his aggressive behavior because this is obviously not an issue I want to edit war over. But I can't reason with him if he doesn't want to even talk to me.--TheBigNatural (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

He is within his rights to remove your posts, and not engage. Follow WP:DR. If he continues to edit-war, update us and the block will happen if/when actually needed. You have done your part warning him - if he ignores it, then it's his own fault (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!!!--TheBigNatural (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

By all means, I agree with that. I'm as of lately, not in the correct state of mind, and I sincerely apologise for my warring behaviour. Worm has repeatedly encouraged myself to take WikiBreaks, so I think it's appropriate I commence with my first ~ today. And just to make it clear, whilst on the topic of ignoring warnings, I did not ignore them - I just felt they were innapropriate at the time.

So again, apologies, let's move on, and a different approach: If you really feel the images are nesccessary, re-add them - I still think they are not, however a fresh pair of eyes, can decide that one. Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Request

I have inadvertently outed user:FarAsSiam connecting it as an alternate account of mine, originally intended to be a clean/fresh start account. As a result it can not serve this purpose, is abandoned, and should be blocked. I apologize to you for the element of deception associated with requesting permissions/confirmed. My76Strat (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What, I see no such outing. WP:REVDEL could have dealt with it, and it's impossible for cleanstart if you're still using BOTH accounts - especially if you're still editing the same pages and harping about the same stuff on User talk:Jimbo Wales regarding the same stuff. Cleanstart means move on. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes sir. I understand. A close look at my user page shows [2] where I initially intended to abandon this account. For reasons highlighted in the Jimbo post, I felt there was some unfinished business I desired to conclude. I reverted the stated retirement here with intentions to reach closure. I submit to further questions if more information is required. I will be abandoning this account soon. I will never return to edit as FarAsSiam in any regard. And my apologies remain. My76Strat (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if you could login as the account you want blocked, and confirm on this page that it's you, I'll do it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you![3] Best regards - My76Strat (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I missed your request for a post here, sorry. I concur that the above is accurate. FarAsSiam (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ankitbhatt and Ashermadan

Hello Bwilkins. I tried to ignore personal attacks by Ankitbhatt initially, but his words are getting harsher, and impossible to tune out completely. Here, he has accused me of "double standards" and "vandalising the page". Though there might be a little content dispute, this kind of thing must be avoided. Do I report him to WP:ANI or reporting to you alone is sufficent? Also, there's this another character, Ashermadan, an old friend of Ankit's, who thinks I've "gone crazy with the mad-for-Salman disease". Another clear violation of WP:CIVIL. Thanks for your help. Scieberking (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Two admins (including me) have now commented on that talkpage. You might want to check the dirt on your own hands on this one (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I might've done the wrong thing by reverting Ashermadan (talk · contribs) thrice (he wasn't willing to reach a consensus), but I haven't really used uncivil language. Have I done something wrong regarding the whole issue? Scieberking (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, someday realize when some degree of "consensus" has been achieved. One can try to extend an argument foolishly, but sometimes it's time to through in the towel. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I want it known..

That I was not intending to get User:Wingard banned. And the removal of text from my talk page was because it was included on two other talk pages, did not figure it needed to be included on mine as well. I see now that they are blocked for a year, and to be quite honest, I hope it sticks this time. It's obvious they couldn't stick to their unblock guidelines. But I wanted my side heard as I was not online when all of this went on. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 17:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I know. I could see you two had worked out a pretty good truce, although the tension was palpable. This was their doing, and their doing alone. WP:COMPETENCE (and logic) is a virtue. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. I had no issues with Wingard. I had no intentions of getting him banned, I'd never want that. They were, for the most part, doing what they promised to do. And I wasn't going to sit there and not tell someone that he reverted something that needed not to be. I just hope they take this year-long block seriously enough to think about actions and the consequences they have. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 18:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• 1 year vs. indef: Oops. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No issues ... that's why we're here :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!!

Hi there! I just wanted to thank you for fixing the Garrett Ryan page. I just couldn't figure out the cite error. Even Musicfreak didn't know. Anyway, thank you so much for your help I thought for a second all my work went down the drain. Thank you again :) Creativity97 Talk? 18:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone had not closed a <ref=> tag ... so the rest of the article was awaiting the closure. Also, the table was missing a couple of parts - someone had defined a new row, but not closed it (nor put anything in that row) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh okay, sorry that was all me. I still make mistakes sometimes, who doesn't though :) But thanks, next time I'll make sure to be more careful. Creativity97 Talk? 18:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Bwilkins,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Template:ANI-notice regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

See here. I cut the section heading because it was causing the [edit] link to edit the template, not whatever page this is on. Thing is supposed to be subst'd and this cut has removed section headings from a bunch of pages. Know anyone tasked with cleaning up such messes? It's beyond my pay-grade. Template should whinge if it's not subst'd, too. And someone may need to poke the Twinkle people about this. Alarbus (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Diff of Template:AN-notice. Same issue. Alarbus (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

IP follow-up

Hi BWilkins, can you please have a look at a report I just filed on WP:3RRNB? It's the expected follow-up to this incident a few days ago, but surprisingly involves a long-dead account. Nightw 15:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I won't - you posted a 3RR notice - please don't then canvass others. Let those who watch the page deal with issues without the canvassing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I just thought because you dealt with the last incident you already know the background and might want to follow it up. Didn't realise that would be considered canvassing. My apologies, Nightw 15:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Taylor Business Institute and User:Hashem sfarim

Thanks for your note. I'm reassured to see I'm not the first person to be the subject of his indignation... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

RE: How is this useful

Alright. I'm sorry that my comment became an upset. I know that you wanted Jimbo to respond, but I believe the thread concerning signatures has exhausted itself; the thread doesn't have anywhere else to go. It's time to move on to the next step and talk to Joedesantis. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It was condescending that you'd feel I did not know that I would need to talk to the editor - I've been around for awhile, and they don't just hand the mop to anyone. Any, that's all good ... please keep conversations together on one page ... like it says when you edit this page, I am watching the conversation on YOUR talkpage (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarifying a misunderstanding

I DO appreciate the "help" and the words and advice that Bmusician (and even to some extent you) gave before. And the point about deletion. Whether I totally agree with its hasty implementation by some, or not. I KNOW that I should have written more in the beginning. That would have been better, I know.

I was just making the point (that you're ignoring) that it would have been nice if more than 3 seconds were given in deleting the thing. Like maybe 24 hours. THAT'S IT. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Not possible. If you want 24 hours, you create a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT - simple as that. A non-conforming article cannot stay until you decide to come back to work on it. You've been told this. More than once. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution to solve my IP problem

Thanks a lot, It works fine now. See you--Bruno2wi (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant simile

"Railing on because policy states that an article that looked like TBI did got deleted is like peeing yourself while wearing a dark suit: nobody else notices (or cares), and eventually you feel pretty crappy."

Masterful use of language. BTW, you're not invited by my house any time soon wearing anything dark. I knew a guy like you in grad school.  :) Toddst1 (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't wear white pants until spring ... will khaki's be considered "light enough"  :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I screwed up...

Thanks for writing that whole huge paragraph about socking, but I have found my error and the user was not socking. Just wanted to stop by to inform you. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Made my own quasi-apology there as well. Good on ya for stepping up! :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please

insted of being an admin can i be a rollbacker please AwesomeSponge (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe when you earn it, yes. We don't just hand out advanced permissions willy nilly (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Cyberpower678

I was just composing the note explaining why. Yes I should have mentioned it first. But it was so out of whack with reality and IMO likely tio have been seen by god knows how many of the junior cohort. But how ironic that someone else comes to me about it. Did CP himself notice and wail on IRC or are you babysitting? If the latter, had you not noticed his somewhat singular interpretation of rollback until now? Plutonium27 (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

First: please keep conversations together (as per my edit notice) ... I am, after all, watching your page for replies. Second, I'm watchlisting his talkpage ... I don't review his userpage because it's typically his business. Yeah, his interpretation is wrong, but teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You could have asked me. I put that up there when I wasn't that experienced. I know it's wrong (I forgot to fix it), and unless it's a disruption to Wikipedia, you shouldn't have been the one to change it.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 20:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

GBooks snippets

Are you aware of any policy/guideline that specifically discusses the use of GBooks snippet views for sourcing when the contributing editor has not seen a broader view/had offline access to the source etc? Someone is trying to say that it is acceptable but I am pretty sure that it is not because of the lack of context etc. To my mind, the correct approach is to find alternate sources or get hold of a copy of the relevant source, via WP:RX if necessary. - Sitush (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

1RR restrictions?

[4] Is it true that an admin may not impose a 1RR restriction on an editor? I want to know if I screwed myself by agreeing to one. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Conditions of unblock and conditions of editing can be placed. They have far more teeth as a condition of unblock, or when agreed-to by the community (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing

Your concerns have been noted. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Note [5], [6] showing a second editor also doing the same CANVASSing. And [7]. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that as meeting the definition of Canvassing ... it's merely following up (thankfully to only a few) saying "nevermind, it's done" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Why "thankfully"? Writegeist (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Because Buster spammed canvassed a crapload of people ... if the follow-up had been to the same number of people, it would have been equally ridiculous (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think "co-operative notifications" or "co-operative editing" is closer then? Collect (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't see anything dastardly nor cooperative about the second editor's edits ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Mawashi Protective Clothing

Good day Bwilkins, I updated the justifications to undelete the page Mawashi Protective Clothing... Could you comment please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shareitnow (talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted it to the version that was in existence when the REFUND decision was made. Please do not WP:REFACTOR discussions that a reply has already been made to. The article will not be undeleted in that forum. You are free to make a request at deletion review, but please read WP:DELETE before doing so. A couple of hints: besides promotional, there was nothing notable about the company. They make, sell, and research PPE ... big deal. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand Bwilkins, but these multiple reliable sources of information, external to the subject itself, do make this topic notable:

• http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=654729&crtr.tp1D=1
• https://buyandsell.gc.ca/initiatives-and-programs/canadian-innovation-commercialization-program-cicp/pre-qualified-innovations
• http://lapresseaffaires.cyberpresse.ca/finances-personnelles/consommation/201006/21/01-4291917-g8-g20-jai-mal.php
• http://www.designlaunches.com/gadgets/personal_cooling_system_that_keeps_you_cooled_on_the_go_by_jeanmarc_sheitoyan.php
• http://transportail.com/pi2011/index_en.asp?id_page=194

If you too would consider these source of information as reliable, could you consider undeleting the wikipedia page on this topic? Shareitnow (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I was clear about your next avenue of approach: Deletion Review. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Advice needed

Please take a look at [8]; I strongly suspect this stuff has no place on Wikipedia, but have no idea what to do about it. Please advise. Ipsign (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

TopGun

Can you please unblock the guy? I think he has gotten the message about the sanctions by now. I just wanted it clarified that he could not do two reverts on the same articles as I am working on. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• I ask again, please unblock TG as time served. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, why do you keep bothering him. :) He has made his position quite clear, and I think he got your first request already. Let that be solved by Bwilkins, TG and the reviewing admin. JCAla (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Because I can't even respond to a post now without being accused of baiting the guy. There are no need to keep him blocked, I am quite sure he has got the message. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

He is blocked to protect the project. If someone determines that his last block (the 72hr one) was truly unwarranted, I would not be averse to the current block being reduced to 72hrs in it's place (as per normal escalation). However, last I looked he did not understand why he was blocked, and continues to argue he should not have been blocked - both of which are key to being unblocked (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - Wikiquette assistance

Hello Bwilkins. This is just a short note to express my thanks for your time and your wisdom on WP:WQA recently. I’m particularly grateful for the soundness of your contribution at diff. Many thanks.

I have made my closing remarks on the thread and I publicly acknowledged your contribution – see my diff. Dolphin (t) 03:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC).

Ahhh.

I'm just going to stop now. It seems I am causing more harm than good here.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,288,966) 15:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm feeling a little better now after a few hours of doing nothing. Let me know if my judgement is still off or I am doing weird stuff like this morning.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,394,501) 03:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Just dropping a note

Heya. I just wanted to stop by and say I've seen a lot more of your posts & edits recently, and would like to say that you're very consistent, and I value that. I'm also sorry that we had that exchange re: Doncram, but I hope you could take a minute, re-read it, and understand that I really was not trying to piss you off. I was trying to make a point, and didn't mean for it to appear to be any sort of personal attack or snipe, etc. If you choose not to reply to this, I can understand that too. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The other thing you'll know by now then is I don't hold grudges. Indeed, although I recognized your username, and vaguely remembered the doncram incident overall, I actually had to go back and look where we may have interacted. WP:POINT is not a good plan on a usual basis; submitting unblocks for someone else is a bad, bad idea, and misjudging WP:NOTDEMOCRACY is probably the worst idea, ever. Your reading of consensus there was more democary based than reality-based. I was sincere in my unblock condition with doncram ... however, their decision to not even acknowledge it was pure a) silliness, b) proof that they don't think they did anything wrong, and c) proof that even they don't think they can reform. Sad, really, because typically they add to the project (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I freely admit that while I generally try to avoid drama, sometimes it finds me anyway (and usually it comes in threes). It is easy to get wrapped up in events, and the recent activity on my talk page was no exception. I understand what you're saying, and (not to beat a dead horse) in most any other circumstance I would agree with you. Say 99.44% of the time. Yeah, I don't understand why he didn't acknowledge your condition, nor why he hasn't taken up the unblock request at all. Perhaps your point B is correct, I simply don't know. Anyhow, I'm glad we could discuss this. Best wishes, Markvs88 (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Seven day block = seven unblocking requests

Despite your lengthy reply at User_talk:Chip123456, I don't think he/she will get it. However, like a lot of school age children who present problems on Wikipedia I don't think this editor is beyond redemption. I have suggested in the past that the editor joins the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user programme. I have seen some good successes with this but I don't think this user is going to join voluntarily and therefore is unlikely to become a good Wikipedian. Perhaps you could consider making the adopt-a-use programme a condition of being unblocked? --Bob Re-born (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

They'll have to suffer through puberty and then come back to request unblocking. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is a pretty bad way to request unblocking. Because their talkpage is locked, they can now only e-mail ArbCom or the unblock mailing list ... neither of which is likely to be sympathetic for a long time (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Frankly I was surprised an admin hadn't blocked talk page editing earlier and I applaud you for your patience in crafting such a long and careful reply. The block expires on Sunday and after that I suspect absolutely nothing will change and we will be back to the same old problems - hence my suggestion of adopt-a-user. He/she won't do it voluntarily but if it were to be a condition of continuing participation on Wikipedia then we might just stand a chance of making a decent editor out of this one. --Bob Re-born (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If there is a belief... or if there is doubt...

I've replied to your message at User talk:JamesBWatson#If there is a belief.... JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

...and again. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

1 rr

User:Wiqi55 was on a 1 revert restriction but seems to have broken his pledge. For example.

Islamic art, reverted by 3 editors

• [9] (9 Feb)
• [10] (9 Feb)
• [11] (16 Feb)
• [12] (18 Feb)
• [13] (18 Feb)

I'm wondering whether further edit restrictions should be applied. Pass a Method talk 00:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

They've been blocked accordingly. Unfortunately it's the most restrictive restriction (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

edit conflict system seems to be broken

This is not the first time this has happened to me (or others) - Wikipedia uses multiple servers and does not always handle these properly - when there is a server "lag" this can even occur for several minutes :(. I restored your comment, of course! At least this is not as bad as one point where WP had a "lag" of over an hour. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Acknowledged, and I noticed you fixed it. Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

AGF

Yes. I assume good faith...almost all of the time. Unless experience teaches me different. When an editor is reaching out for assistance from any available source, its "off-putting" to be told you've been a bad boy. Thats how I took it. Maybe thats not how you meant it, but thats how I took it. Handshake? ```Buster Seven Talk 13:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Reciprocity. When someone offers a handshake in friendship, its nice to get it returned in kind. Maybe you didn't see it. ```Buster Seven Talk 03:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Redslider moved your conversation to the article talk page

And I've removed it - see [14]. Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

To inform you, have voluntarily taken up the adopt a user system. --Chip123456 (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Errrr, what? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you've just been adopted. :) Toddst1 (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I probably need it :-P I like being "told" I have volunteered. I suppose that's "voluntold"? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I have, not you. --Chip123456 (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)(Common sense)

Ah! Well done, and a good idea! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

TopGun

Full marks for trying. By the time that TP debate is over, the week will be up in any case. You have more patience than me. - Sitush (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

He will take me to ANI once unblocked. The "fun" never ends. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Tbh, one of the most irritating aspects - writing as someone who has had not a lot of involvement but has done some homework - is the constant bluelinks to policies and the lawyering surrounding those. Whether strictly by policy or by morality (sorry, I am copying them now!) you did the right thing. I did actually suggest an interaction ban might be where this ends up, but that was deleted. RfC/U is the way to go, in theory, but it will likely end up with two of the things, which will only muddy the waters further. - Sitush (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Unable to edit previously deleted page

Hi! I have a question on the article Soompi. It was deleted back in 2006 for not being notable. Since then notability has been established, as the site is widely recognised as one of the accelerators of the Korean Wave [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. I was trying to edit the page but to no avail... I haven't been very active on enwiki for a long time now so maybe policies changed but how is it possible that the page cannot be recreated? I don't see it locked. I don't know who to turn to in this matter. I'm not in any ways affiliated with Soompi and I don't intend to post advertisement or anything. (I'm an established member of huwiki, see my profile there hu:User:Teemeah). Can you help me to understand why this page cannot be recreated and what i need to do to be able to write this article? Thank you. :) And sorry for bothering you with this, you gave the latest answer at the undeletion request page and thought you might be available in a short time. :) Thanks once again. 小龙 (Timish) # ^{xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng} 14:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

According to the logs, it was protected against recreation in 2008 due to the repeated re-creation at the time. If I were you, I would create a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT that meets en.Wikipedia's requirements. When it's ready for prime time, use {{adminhelp}} on it to ask an administrator to move it over the page protection. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast and accurate answer! 小龙 (Timish) # ^{xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng} 14:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, just calling to thank you for taking an interest in my RfA. You were fully entitled to reach the conclusion you did; in fact I anticipated that more editors would be unimpressed with my conduct over the recent dispute, and !vote accordingly. It was still raw and unresolved enough to disadvantage the RfA, but I hadn't planned the timing of my nomination.

The RfA experience was certainly a learning week for me, and I hope that I will live up to the expectations of those who supported my adminship. Feel free to keep my actions under review if you would be so inclined. You'll see that I took my first admin action this evening. Best wishes – Fayenatic L (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no real doubt that things will work ok, and it was an odd-feeling "oppose" for me. RFA is a true learning experience, and we learn a lot about how others perceive us - which can be very painful. Good luck, and let me know if I can be of any help! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I agree with BWilkins. RfA do teach you about how the community sees you which in some cases is perceived as, "The community hates you! Leave now or else!" which ultimately cases good editors to leave. I can imagine my RfA being something like this:

I nominate myself or some admin that knows me well nominates me, I answer the given questions, take a deep breath and transclude, the first thing the voters look at is this, and before you know it, I have a barrage of opposes coming at me primarily because voters can't look into my block. *sigh*—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 518,307,658) 18:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That legal threat from Redslider

As he is going on and on, including accusing others of BLP violations (despite having made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_R._Pellegrino&diff=prev&oldid=476941658 this edit), I was looking at his talk page and noted that where he deleted his legal threat his edit summary reads "Deletion. This is not a "retraction" this is a deletion in compliance with promise made to the NLT committee. DO NOT RESTORE IN ANY FORM". I'm not happy with this, we expect editors to retract such threats, not just delete this. Is it worth taking this back to ANI do you think? Dougweller (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, I'm inclined to agree. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Review at ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I hate to say "we told you so", but seriously Goose, watch out for your canopy ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL. I am an uninvolved regarding TopGun's situation and even I support the community proposed 1RR restriction and I'm not one to quickly want to block or restrict anybody.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 518,306,353) 18:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Stopping edits with this Decision.

If you all think that this page should not be in Wikipedia, this is only perception. After this decision I have no more reason to stay edit with Wikipedia. I feel the moto and rules to create and edit pages, but every one is teaching the same. With this decision I am STOPPING edits in Wikipedia, finally.Gokulchandola (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Gokul Chandola 23 Feb 2012.

Seriously? You've done some good work, and you actually for some reason created a page that does not meet Wikipedia's requirements, and because we have the nerve to actually follow policy, you're abandoning the project? Look, take it to WP:DRV if you don't think that three independent people have policy correct, but I have a feeling that will just anger you more. This is an encyclopedia, not LinkedIN, please remember that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Thank you for enabling logged in edits from the blocked shared IP(125.18.115.224)

Phanstar (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't let me down :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

TopGun and Darkness Shines

Hi BWilkins. As you can see, I made my first proposal on the Administrators Noticeboard proposing an interaction ban. When and how are they enforced is my question, since I am not yet very knowledgeable about this policy.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 518,486,076) 16:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Try this, Due to a community consensus as discussed at this Thread you are now subject to an WP:IBAN with user:insert user here. Violation of this restriction will result in your being WP:BLOCKED from editing and further violations will result in increased block lengths. Something along those lines ought to do it. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

They will also be listed at WP:RESTRICT in the community-imposed section by the closing admin (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Can non-admins close this if it is completely obvious what consensus is? Are proposals active for 7 days before they are closed?—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 518,504,280) 18:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Generally, proposals like that are best closed by uninvolved admins. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. I don't want to have the same opposition I encountered at WP:PERM.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 518,505,347) 18:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-admins closing things on ANI and/or AN is usually a big no-no if it actually requires admin intervention - especially in something as formal as this. On top of that, someone who has !voted is not supposed be the one to determine consensus (even if it's obvious) and formally enacts the restriction. Let's not open the door to additional wikilawyering (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Well, I won't close this or other stuff from now on.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 518,508,211) 18:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Who came up with WP:PERM :o) I had visions of a page filled with really bad hair. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

AN comment

I acknowledge I can go a bit overboard when defending myself. Most of the time I don't act like that. Were it a different editor proposing the ban and only asking to restrict me from ANI and deletion discussions about the list I would be more calm about it. On a more general note, I think situations like this raise a broader issue with Wikipedia. From my perspective there is a systemic bias against an individual editor going up against a group of editors and as a result people often judge the individual without looking at the context or considering whether the group is actually at fault. Similarly there is a bias against people taking new action, rather than those who do nothing to change the status-quo. People seeking to challenge an entrenched interest inevitably get accused of disruption, because the result often is disruption. However, the disruption is usually caused by the entrenched interest doggedly resisting any challenge. An analogy I think about is that it is like someone wandering into a mine field and then being blamed for the explosions rather than the people who actually planted the mines in the first place.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Eschoir complaint at ANI

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Questions concerning institutional votestacking- "9-1-1 button". I notice you were in discussions with him at User talk:Eschoir#Origin of the Eucharist 2. If we wait until Eschoir is willing to negotiate in good faith it may be a long wait. EdJohnston (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Two words: un and real fortunate (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

DD2K

The trouble is that user:DD2K keeps falsely accusing people of being socks. He is being disruptive. He is the reason that I usually just read WP and not edit since it is too much trouble. Why help WP write when WP helps savages like DD2K and pours cold water on people like me. Why be so scared that I only write where I am a recognized expert and become a WP slave and be bow down to disruptive article owners, like DD2K?

DD2K's article has so many technical errors, even if you don't count bad editorial content but I will leave it alone. For one thing, jumping back and forth in time when writing is a high school type writing error, yet it is in the Obama article. If people like DD2K are not idiots, they would at least say..."your comments 1 2 and 3 are good suggestions but I disagree with 4 and 5". Instead, he is merely disruptive, removes comments, has sarcastic edit summaries, and wildly accuses people of being socks.

If user A says "I have suggestion 1" and user B chimes in "I agree", A and B could be socks. However if User C has suggestion 2, it is improper to say "(I don't like you)...you must be a sock of Syrian Dictator Assad or Stalin or some other bad WP person (particuarly if the suggestion is logical and reasonable"

Midemer (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Continually accusing someone of being a sock is uncivil, but typically not blockable. Wise people ensure their edits cannot be mistaken as socking, and take the high road. As well, once someone files a formal admin report, they usually back away from the fracas (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

DRV notice

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:TFD deletions by admin User:Fastily, which occured following the closure of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 24#Template:New York cities and mayors of 100.2C000 population. Be advised that I have opened Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 27#User:TonyTheTiger/New York cities and mayors of 100,000 population.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Eschoir

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Esoglou (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Got it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sikorav

Hi, thanks for your interest in Jean-Claude Sikorav. This is a distinguished French scholar with numerous publications and a detailed page on the French side. I already included enough material in the page to show initial notability. Could you please revert the deletion? Tkuvho (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There was nothing on the page that even remotely met WP:PROF, which clarifies the notability guidelines for academics. There was zero on the page that hinted notability at all (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I have received a request to comment on the page Jean-Claude Sikorav, but it was deleted before I had a chance to look at it.

a) What was in the page?

b) are you sure he is not notable by WP:PROF?

Thank you very much, Sasha (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

See above (and I have tied these two sections together) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The page indicated that one of his articles was cited over 120 times at Google Scholar, which in itself should be enough to establish preliminary notability (of course this may not stand at an AfD if there are no other factors). Furthermore, I included the information for a prestigious prize he received. The school he is professor at is one of the best in France. This was clearly not a case of a "speedy deletion". Tkuvho (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to be sarcastic, but "oooo ... 120 times!" No, that doesn't remotely stand as an assertion of notability, thus A7 is a valid deletion. I would encourage you to create a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT, get it ready for prime-time, and obtain input from others before moving it into articlespace (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(ce) @BWilkins: I am not able to form an opinion in this way (I have not had a chance to see the page). The French page says he is director of the math dpt. at ENS Lyon, and mentions two quoted results of his; this could be sufficient for notability. At least this is not a clear-cut case. I think the correct procedure would be to restore the page with a PROD tag, notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, and give the experts some time for discussion.

Best regards, Sasha (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

@BWilkins: You may be mistaken about the application of this criterion in the case of an academic in a scientific field. The score of 120 is very high by the standards of the field. Tkuvho (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have now gone over the "article" 6 times. I have shown it to my R/L colleague who writes on all things science/math. We still don't see it. My recommendation about a userspace draft remains the best option. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's follow your suggestion. Could you please restore the page and move it to User:Tkuvho/Sikorav? Thanks, Sasha (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC) apparently, the page has already been restored.

Concerns over an editor

Hi Bwilkins. As a senior admin i hope you can provide help on this. I had started a discussion on Charles Dickens page over one editors, Yogesh's, point of view section on the article. I brought up the excessive non white emphasis throughout the article (installed by Yogesh) which is out of proportion than what you would find in a book on him, and i had assumed it would be a regular discussion. However as i read various contributors comments on the user i became concerned. First concern personal attacks from the contributor, second concern white Christian accusations, third concern "white supremacist" accusations, fourth concern article was being used as a soapbox to advance a personally held political position (an example being the 'Franklin incident' section was longer tnan 'Dickens Later Years', which read like a history of the incident with nothing to do with Dickens), fifth concern warned of user's history and referred to ANI, INB. With these viewpoints any impartiality is impossible. The other contributors seek an accurate, NPOV, balanced, weighted section with consensus, this is impossible with an editor with views i mentioned (who has also been warned of 3RR which Tom Reedy placed on his talkpage--i see today that he again dimisses consensus and installed content, which has been reverted by another user). Thats six editors (that ive come across) that have made comments on the user over just the past week, and looking at the article history there are others that extend back 3 years (he has also complained of an Anglo-American bias). I had hoped Dickens page would be improved by editors who had done similar with Shakespeare, and become an article that is not just the viewpoint of one user but of a collective group of impartial editors, and not languish as class C, but one editor ensures it remains at that level. A highly respected impartial editor, Old Moonraker, refuses to comment on the article due to the users personal attacks. The user ignores policy and plants his material at will, regardless of wiki requirement of NPOV, weight. Given the plethora of complaints by many editors, the viewpoints held by the user which make impartiality impossible, i cant see any other alternative but a topic ban, which allows for edits by proxy. Harrison 1979 (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

With such a plethora of issues, I would actually recommend an WP:RFC/U at this point in time. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Request for Confirmed

Not sure if I'm proceeding correctly. A relatively short article related to Charleston SC is incorrectly titled and contains misinformation. I have received confirmation the facts involved directly from the Records Manager of the City of Charleston, who has sent me pdf copies of several document that support the title change. The article is "Battery Park (Charleston)" with a disambiguation entry that has to be removed. The article should be titled "The Battery." As confirmed by Charleston official documents, and in the words of the Record Manager, "there is no Battery Park." The Battery is a very important part of the city's history, and the article deserves expansion, but the title is simply incorrect. I have been able to edit out some of the inaccuracies in the article, but how do I go about changing the title and removing the disambiguation entry? Thanks. Littlereba (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Saw your note on your talkpage. Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Cchallag

This is about undeletion request of PureView Pro article. I have done my best effort not to make it sound like a promotional language. I took "facetime" as reference and did this article. I would be really happy if you can please undelete and please suggest where I should be changing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.120.41 (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester is on the boards once again

You did the honors the last time this came up at AN3, when you issued two weeks of full protection. Will it come as a complete surprise that the revert war has resumed? I've left a comment in the current AN3 report. Perhaps being the 13th Duke causes bad luck. EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright help needed

Concerning File:Wesley A. Clark and LINC, 1962.png:

Fastily is bang on there: it's your responsibility to prove that it is not copyrighted before submitting, not for anyone else to prove or complain that it is. Taking something from "public articles" does not make the image non-copyrighted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe I did obtain this photo from a government or public website that may or may not still exist. I did not take notes, because this image was very familiar to me and I had never seen it in a copyrighted context. Frankly, the article needs the photo, but I have no idea who could possibly own the copyright to this image. It is so incredibly unlikely, but I guess WP needs some proof that it is not covered by copyright. That seems impossible to me, since copyright is rarely backed up by copyright registration, and since searching for images by image content is beyond current technology.

Do you have any suggestions how I can proceed? Are there any free public tools for searching for image copyrights? David Spector (user/talk) 17:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, unless you have conclusive proof otherwise, you must assume it's copyrighted. Remember, in copyright law, it's merely the creation of the work that generates copyright, not registration. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

RE:Point it out for me please

I've only gone by what I could find on the matter. The story "Hola! Trinidad drops English and learns to speak Spanish" says:

"But, eyeing the markets of Latin America seven miles off its shores, the former British colony of Trinidad and Tobago is rejecting its Anglo-Saxon past and aiming to be Spanish-speaking by 2020."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hola-trinidad-drops-english-and-learns-to-speak-spanish-505008.html

To me, and with the title on top of that, that sounded like they were saying at first that English was going to be dropped as the official language and replaced with Spanish.

Second, the Letter to the Editor seems to be from the Secretariat for the Implementation of Spanish.

"Notwithstanding, we continue to encourage all our citizens to “Say Yes to Spanish in Trinidad and Tobago” — “¡Diga que sí al Español en Trinidad y Tobago!”

Secretariat for the Implementation of Spanish

A Division of the Ministry of Trade and Industry

Level 12 Nicholas Tower,

Port-of-Spain"

http://www.newsday.co.tt/letters/0,87863.html

Lastly, about the bi-lingualism,I referenced this story:

"Just seven miles off the coast of Venezuela and dappled with Spanish place names bestowed half a millennium ago by Christopher Columbus, Trinidad and Tobago has set the lofty goal of becoming a Spanish-speaking nation by 2020.

The effort to transform the predominantly Indian- and African-origin islanders into bilingual citizens of Latin America is motivated by shifting trade ties, officials say."

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/30/world/fg-spanish30

The parts saying it was going to become a "Spanish speaking nation by 2020" and "bilingual citizens of Latin America" sounded like to me that Spanish was going to become the co-official language in order to strengthen it's ties with Latin America.

However I responded on the talk page with another source that I found that seems to be legit saying that it's not going to become an official language, but just very strongly pushed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trinidad_and_Tobago#Spanish_as_a_First_Foreign_Language_.28not_.22Official.22_language.29

--P.4.P. No. 1 (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the article's talk page. Guettarda (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj

I honestly don't think that the page should be given a one month protection, especially the problematic edits are usually handled quick, and being one of the most high profile music artists right now. It's also an area in which very few administrators (if any) get involved. The last editor is extremely suspicious, readding some of Fabish Boaitey additions, and the rest of his edits has nothing to do with that subject area. Thanks Secret ^account 20:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It's because of her high profile that it needs more protection. I was only drawn there months ago because of some issues, and I've kept it watchlisted...and tried to maintain some order on the talkpage. Boatley has been doing it for weeks now, and sometimes things stay for over half a day. The newest editor might even be a sock (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey would you mind adding a protection icon lock to the top of the Nicki Minaj page? This way editors will be aware that it is fully protected when they will not see an "Edit this page" tab, like I did. Thanks! Tinton5 (talk) 18:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I asked for a checkuser when I saw him. Newest editor probably isn't a sock, according to them though there's a huge open proxy mess involved. Fabish Boatey is just an disruptive editor who we could block again without harm if continues to refuse to explain his actions. I've seen much worse in my experience with music articles. But high profile pages like Minaj shouldn't be protected for a month, especially that article in which there's a bunch of good faith editors watching that page but very few administrators. The edit warring/BLP violations is usually reverted quickly in that article, and it has always been recommended to avoid an full protection unless there is massive, uncontrollable BLP violations, office issues, or extreme edit warring between many parties per WP:PROTECTION. None of those three isn't the case. Thanks Secret ^account 07:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Honorsteem again. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

*sigh* Got it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj

I was going to add a category to this Wikipedia page, that was until I saw the view the source button and not edit page. If you're able to, can you please see if American people of Afro-Trinidadian descent is a eligible category on a page, please?

Lemony34 (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not verify if that category still exists (I think it's been gone for awhile now) and do a protected edit request on the talkpage if it does (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Lele Pono‎

How do you feel about blocking User:Lele Pono‎ who has just recreated her /his personal ad again after you kindly speedied it ? Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   00:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Did anybody tell him not to? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You'll note I blocked not for recreating, but because apparently the userid was the same name as the apartments, thus violating WP:U (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry, I should have been more explicit in my note above. I tracked the connection [20] but failed to make mention of it above when suggesting a block - otherwise a block would not have been appropriate at so early a stage. Another brain spasm I guess.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Alpha Bricks

You know what, I should have mentioned that here and not there, my bad. I know you're one of the good ones™. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No issues, and thanks ... kind of you to say. I learned from watching other good ones, and you're one of them (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Silar

[21] --> [22].VolunteerMarek 20:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This user is continuing to sock puppet [23]. Given that they got indef blocked for massive copyright violations, it'd probably be good idea to block the socks too (I haven't had time to check if the new edits are copyvios or not).VolunteerMarek 17:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

DIREKTOR

What is your decision regarding the DIREKTOR? BoDu (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, my "decision" was that it was ridiculous to bring that to ANI as blocking was never going to occur for that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it was not ridiculous to bring that to ANI. I quote the WP:DE: "If the reverting continues, and they are inserting unsourced information: Revert, and request an administrator via Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI). Provide diffs of the multiple reverts by the tendentious editor. Keep your post short (no more than 250–500 words), well-diffed (multiple diffs showing evidence), and focus on user conduct issues (the tendentious editor is not engaging in discussion / is inserting unsourced information / is ignoring talkpage consensus)." BoDu (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I personally did not feel enough time had been spent trying to resolve the issue with the other editor one-on-one, or on the article talkpage. I saw this as a pure content dispute with a couple of parties being partly in the wrong in how they were a) trying edit, b) communicating. RFPP might have been wise when many editors are all involved. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

How can you resolve this issue one-on-one or on the article talkpage? BoDu (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Like anything else, it's easy if you really try. Even easier because this is the internet, and Wikipedia has frameworks and mediation available. Of course, smart people with open minds don't usually need formal routes (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

User DIREKTOR either has, or does not have source. There cannot be compromise here, so no need for a discussion. BoDu (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? If "discussion" and "compromise" are not in your vocabulary, or indeed in your plans for Wikipedia, then good luck - no need for us to continue either (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Generally, my plans for Wikipedia is to reach a compromise everywhere possible in accordance with Wikipedia policy. In this case, a compromise is not possible because the policy says that WP:OR is prohibited. What is compromise between keeping the OR and removing the OR? BoDu (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox missing

Hello Bwilkins. I'm Roy Alexander. I am hoping to create my first Wikipedia page on the subject of a 3-D version of the periodic table of the chemical elements - developed in the latter part of the last century. It reflects the first recognized arrangement of elements, a spiral 3-D representation by Alexandre-Emile Beguyer de Chancourtois, a periodic table published 10 years prior to the first of Mendeleev. I tried to make a sandbox, but cannot find it. Please respond if I am in the right place to start, and where I am to communicate in the future. Roy Alexander roy01@comcast.net 3/8/2012 ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4851athanasia (talk • contribs) 21:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Done it for you. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Rita Ora

Hello Bwilkins. Thank you for the action you have taken in both raising the protection level of Rita Ora and blocking the user for the edit war. I am aware that editing sanctions may be imposed at any time and do not necessarily endorse the frozen version but this is why I need to speak to you. It may appear that I was the other party in the edit war but my edits have all been in good faith and I'd like to explain why. Once I've done this, I would be most grateful if you made one minor edit on that page for reasons I shall explain. But first, to sound you out. The question of "origin" was down to two locations and both had sources (ie. Shkodër vs Pristina). The editor who first mentioned Shkodër is User:Olsi and he in turn provided an Albanian language link from Top Channel. I read it and can make out that this is what it says about the family. Olsi and I discussed it briefly here. But prior to that, before it was clear to me what is what, I tried to resolve the matter with the Pristina argument here, and I tried demonstrate good faith with User:Durresary|1 here and here. Put simply, I am not party to either argument, and the dispute is between Olsi and Durresary. However, I and not Olsi have been more instrumental in the edit war with Durresary because his edit goes one step further than simply restoring Pristina. Look at this, two minutes after my restoration of his preferred source and content[24]. THAT is what it's all about, and why the article was protected in the first place. Durresary's reasoning for leaving out the sovereign state reflecting historical accuracy? Here! Commentary in the wrong place is not so much the issue, it is the snide remark. The overwhelming consensus is to observe historical accuracy and his statement offered no reason to remove the section. To that end, I need to ask you to do either one of the following things (as you have the power to edit):

• 1) Amend Pristina, Kosovo for Shkodër, Albania because that is the source being used. Durresary shows signs of amateurism and never amends the source each time he restores his version.
  

OR

• 2) Restore the correct source for Pristina. Restoring this would be easiest to save messing about - no new material has been added since that edit so there is no fear of any blanking.

As things stand, we have the statement alongside a source which supports the opposing entry! But even if you decide to do nothing on that note, please could you restore "then Yugoslavia" or something to that effect because it really is futile for any editor to think he can spread culture-fascism by rewriting the history book. All editors worth their salt support historical accuracy and the only opponents are opportunist IPs or short-lived editors who come and go to make one point. There has never been a serious call for consensus to reverse this feature and those who like to remove Yugoslavia or Soviet Union etc. always end up losing. This is why I ask you please to change that part if nothing else. Many thanks Bwilkins. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

As I have no business trying to come to WP:CONSENSUS on that article, what you propose MUST be discussed on the talkpage of the article itself. This will generate appropriate consensus, and will be beneficial once the blocked party is no longer blocked. I cannot take a side either way - so please, discuss the edits, and once consensus is made (remember: it's not a vote) make the protected edit request (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure you know what I was getting at. Durresary is a certified disruptive account who has not made one constructive contribution since he joined. My honest opinion is that this isn't even a real person but an account launched to push POVs whilst protecting the conventional identity of the puppet-master, very possibly part the User:Sinbad Barron franchise. If indeed this is a genuine account, I doubt the editor is even aware he is blocked. You see, you froze the article per his non-constructive version and he in turn has no reason to even log in otherwise. It has been a single issue with this user (a tell-tale sign) since his arrival. Now you've frozen the page, he isn't going to join a consensus, he'll be turning cartwheels in celebration that his version came out on top. And besides, as I told you, the country of birth was not the issue, it was place of origin; that means the consensus needs to be reached by Durresary and Olsi, not me; I am neutral on that. What I was merely doing was applying a timeline which is conventional practice and constructive. If you wish to resolve the matter, I implore that you block Durresary indefinitely, and reduce the protection level for established users. I assure you then that there will be no disruption on that page. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have told you the way forward. Period (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary you told me the way backward. You've handled this badly Bwilkins I'm sorry to say, and played right into the hands of the non-constructive party whose only intention was evidently to disrupt. You will NEVER get that user onto a talk page, he hasn't even appealed his block, anyone can see that it is a duff account. Do you know the way to initiate discussion with someone like that? Also, is this page to be frozen indefinitely? I make no secret of the fact that I intend to standardise the page from this erroneous layout the minute it is lifted. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for undeletion of "Andrew Weinreich"

My name is Courtney Boyd Meyers and I'm the feature editor for The Next Web (http://thenextweb.com/author/courtneybmyers/). I've written two articles on Andrew Weinreich (http://thenextweb.com/entrepreneur/2011/07/30/where-are-they-now-new-york-citys-dot-com-entrepreneurs-part-one/5/ and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/courtney-boyd-myers/meetmoi-wants-to-pay-for-_b_768820.html ). I've been in touch with InsideSiliconAlley and validated all the links and historical accuracy of this article as well as would like to add two new links of articles that came out in the past month referencing Weinreich as the founder of social networking (http://technology.plidd.com/facebooks-ipo-marks-the-end-of-the-web-2-0-era-the-social-web-is-the-new-king/ http://www.usatoday.com/video/facebook-vs-google/1427765045001 ). Because of the historical significance of social networking particularly in light of the impending Facebook IPO, I would like to assume authorship of this piece and see it undeleted. This is with the permission of InsideSiliconAlley.

CBMWiki (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)CBMWiki

Same response as at WP:REFUND. Please do not WP:FORUMSHOP. Also, if you have any business or personal relationship with the subject, do not write about them (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

What I have described is neither a business nor personal relationship with the subject.

The only thing I've described is subject matter expertise.

Please take the time to read what I wrote and review my writings. I'd like to be writing in accordance with the rules but fear you misunderstand what I have proposed. Please advise.

108.60.141.179 (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)CBMWiki

I'm proposing you write a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT, and have some "senior" editors have a look before it gets moved into articlespace, but gave mere warnings just in case. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Drift Chambers

I noticed you commented on Chamber's blocked yesterday, He seems to be unblocked and back at it again: [25]. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You are being discussed at . . .

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Suggestion_for_new_crats.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,637,157) 00:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

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

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

RfB

You should go for an RfB. I believe you are qualified to be one. You definitely would have my support.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,719,140) 11:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalizing Syria Page

Hi, could you please help me to stop vandalizing the page Syria. Some users tried so many times to remove reliable sources, since it doesn't match with their personal point of views, even though its a current fact and happening. Your help is really needed since its doesn't seem that they are willing to stop removing this fact. The abusers are Kudzu1, nableezy, Sean.hoyland and TaalVerbeteraar. Thank you. Ahmad2099 (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're totally understanding the concept of WP:CONSENSUS yet ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Highstakes00

Before you unblock this guy I would like him to respond to the questions I had put to him regarding his behavior. He removed this one with the unblock request[26] These are valid questions to his excuses for creating the socks. As I believe was this a valid question[27] why would his very first edit be an unblock request? Darkness Shines (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

TopGun once again

I have reported User:TopGun for edit-warring over Folland Gnat. FYI he also faces a topic ban. It is hard for me to correct his defective edits (imho) without falling into his edit-warring trap. AshLin (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3

I am writing you a heads up before hitting save: I don't know if you are aware of the current RfC on the Arbitration committee, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3 (specifically here).

However, the case is about some, to the public, minimal checkuser evidence (at least, the part that we are shown) that is used in order to block an account as a sock of a banned account. The presented evidence is that both users use 'rply' and '--' in edit summaries (there may be more, but it is kept away from us - it should be noted that the banned account is gone for a long time). I now pressed Recent changes in the toolbar, and saw your account as one editor using 'rply' - and digging further, also '--'. I am here to inform you that I will be presenting diffs from you to the RfC - I am in no way suggesting that you are a sock of either (or both) accounts in the RfC, and I apologize for this suggestion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

As long as people read clearly and realize it was rhetoric, all should be well. However, if someone files an SPI ... LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track)

Thanks for the understanding. SPI? That would be useless - you must be a sock of both accounts - and in case you don't live in the New York area .. you obviously are either editing through a proxy to appear somewhere else, or recently moved out of the area. The use of '--' and 'rply' (not to mention the obvious 'qck qck') makes it a clear case.  ;-) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiqi55 and 1RR, now at ANI

Hello Bwilkins. I have asked for opinions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Next steps for User:Wiqi55 — advice needed. Diffs of him exceeding his 1RR are given at User talk:Wiqi55#Your unblock condition from December. You might possibly want to comment since you issued some previous blocks of this editor. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Question RE: WP:PERM

Just curious for my own judgement system, this request was one I would of granted if I were an Admin, actually I had posted a "nudge" on an other Admin's page to take a look at it fearing that my comment was causing Admin's to overlook it. What did I miss ? Mlpearc (powwow) 22:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Serbia100

Has revert user page twice now since you added welcome and explained about usepage. Mo ainm~Talk 22:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've had to take action to get their attention. Bah. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Editor seems to have some knowledge which could be of benefit to the project, hopefully they will come back and use that on articles. Mo ainm~Talk 11:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Above user has restored their page since returning from their block.Mo ainm~Talk 12:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

defacto and his sock

Thanks for spotting the ridiculous duck. Feel like closing that sock bait on ANI? Toddst1 (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Am I reading [28] this right? It appears Miszabot ate two sections of the ANI discussion including the one where you duck-blocked DaftEco and never archived them. Toddst1 (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Meh, no need to mark as complete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Bwilkins. I just wanted to apologise for my comments at WP:REFUND. I could have expressed my opinion without resorting to an inflammatory tone. Hopefully next time we chat will be on a more positive note. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Preventing further appeals by Treasury Tag until 2013

There are 14 comments in favour vs 7 against (excluding Fastily, who voted), and with a strong solid opening statement and with three of the oppose comments challenged against none of the support comments. How did that not pass? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTAVOTE. Something as serious as preventing appeals has a much higher threshold, and POLICY must be valued (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I supported the six months ban on a further appeal (mainly to show that more effort is needed next time). However I agree with your above comment and close at AN. Sorry to drag this out, but I wonder if it would be worth refactoring the "contrition and assurance" comment in your unblock decline. I (and I suspect several others who opposed an unblock) am not looking for a statement of contrition or assurance. What is needed is a brief but plausible plan about how future editing would be changed to avoid past problems. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like "assurance" to me (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status ECOSY

Well - the logotype is made for ECOSY - Young Europeans Socialists by me. I have permission to upload it, but they are not sure they want it to be 100% free. In politics you don't want the opposition to use your logo in the wrong way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glanzelius (talk • contribs) 11:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Make that reply on the original thread in Requests for Permissions - we try and keep conversations together around here, as someone else may action it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Kidculver

Bit confused about your last unblock decline on the above, his comments on your decline [29] are different to his request [30], did you mean to post that on a different page?--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

He made a legal threat, and claims to have contacted OTRS, and is making his threat because of the OTRS delays ... they match perfectly (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I meant. His request was

"JohnCD no legal threats were made. obviously you haven't read through my threads. if you had, then you would have realized that i did email the appointed wiki reps according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_error_(from_subject). I simply want to know how long i have to wait for someone to respond to my email so that the matters on Camryn's page can get corrected. How is the wiki volunteers team can respond to me almost instantly, but when i send an email to someone who can get something done there is no response? BEST, steven tamez"

and yet in the decline you posted it was a response to

"I was waiting a long time for unblock my account. I hope and patient to be free but even though,I have repeated ;I dont think that limitation isn’t fair for copyrighting.I won’t repeat my mistakes. I want you to unblock my account for my additives.There is no wrong I have doing to expand Vikipedia titles ,although if there was any mistakes, it is about to my inexperinced.I beg you to unblock my account and provide to my additive. I believe you’ll take into account for this and I am waiting your reply."

--Jac16888 ^Talk 12:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, see the problem now, and fixed (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well - I don't understand how to reply there.

Well - I don't understand how to reply there. It's not the most user friendly system in the world. I just want to upload a new logotype i have created on Wikipedia. I have permission to upload it, but they are not sure they want it to be 100% free. In politics you don't want the opposition to use your logo in the wrong way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glanzelius (talk • contribs) 12:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Posting a photo

Thank you for your reply. I do not look forward to change any information on the page I mentioned since I represent that celebrity. What I want to contribute is a legal photo from the celebrity which we want to have on wikipedia page instead of a public photo from some news website. Please let me know how to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefinalmiracle (talk • contribs) 09:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the image use policy? Are you sure you want to licence the photo under CCbySA? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I dont mind licensing the photo. The license will be limited to "Usage on Wikipedia only" . I did try to submit that form . I could go through all process but yet the submit button was not getting enabled despite of filling all the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefinalmiracle (talk • contribs) 12:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Fabish Boaitey

He's back disrupting hip hop articles, adding random unsourced artists to associated acts, removing warnings and the like. Can you deal with him? Thanks Secret ^account 16:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The photo will be invovled in the pyroptosis will be my own drawing based on the journal paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aiyaya (talk • contribs) 06:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

J'accuse

Hi Bwilkins. To put it very bluntly, I think you could have dealt with the Hghyux situation better. Cussin' is OK for us more robust editors, but I don't think they were in the appropriate register to be used there. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, (contrary to unpopular belief) I never said the comments were appropriate ... I merely was trying to play Devil's Advocate and get them to understand that multiple meanings occur in the written langauge. I was trying to bring them around to better ways to engage/withdraw and perhaps the "thicker skin" concept as well. I really was trying to find a solution for them ... but of course, some editors just like to misread the obvious and fuck things up for everyone (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

So what do I do about incorrect submission?

I submitted the "My Library" (seminal Javascript library that was deemed "irrelevant" back in 2008) for un-deletion (or at least incubation). You indicated the submission was incorrect, but why did the site allow me to submit such a thing? In other words, I just clicked a button and there was no indication this was an incorrect action.

The guy who deleted it ("Pedro" or something like that) was going to help on this a couple of years back, but I've been busy. And yes, I am the author of the original page (as well as the library in question). There isn't any question that is relevant (at least in the context of Javascript libraries, which are mostly dubious creations). The question is how to "prove" the relevance when discussions regarding the history of such things are relegated to newsgroups and blogs. Mine is discussed mainly in the former as I do not make marketing deals (e.g. link exchanges) with bloggers.

Thanks in advance for your help on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.15.4 (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to provide some better/clearer links to what you're talking about ... even tracking the contribs of an anonymous IP isn't helping (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ronjohn

The instructions do not state I have to listen to "counsel" in addtion to that the guidelines make no mention into the amount of edits one must have before applying. Please refrain from adding your biased opinions regarding my application or telling me that it will be torpedoed unless you plan on purposely doing so. --Ron John (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"Biased opinions"? Yeah, I've been through RFA twice, and know what it takes to succeed on this project as a whole. Any wannabe admin who does not listen to "counsel" will never make admin; period. However, please feel free to transclude your RFA ... you'll get lots of additional counsel. Off you go (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Ron John appears to believe he has completed his self-nomination. Perhaps, rather than deletion, the best option would be to transclude his RFA for him and to step away? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh ... what, and be the cause of whatever unwelcome "counsel" he receives? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a shame it got closed as quickly as it did. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I see it's open again. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I am going to enjoy every moment of this RfA. I'm anxious to see how he responds to all the opposes particularly to my "Oh god no" comment.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 11:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't take too much joy in the discomfort of others :-) Unfortunately, my bet is that he retires angrily afterward, rather than take any of the comments constructively (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

And your recent post on their talkpage is 110% inappropriate: they have already stated they will NOT withdraw and want it to proceed. They have also clearly stated they will not accept any discussion about it on their talkpage - that is why it was removed, and re-adding it is therefore disruptive. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That explains what you posted on my talkpage so I'll remove it.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 13:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are we putting up with this? There is no way this is going to pass and forcing it to carry on is disruptive. This is a clear SNOW closure, which I would have closed immediately if you hadn't posted a "please do not NOTNOW". I thought I'd come over here and discuss it first. RFA isn't a place for an editor review, comments do not appear to be adding new information and so there is no point in carrying it on. Would you have any objection to a SNOW closure, am happy to explain on his page. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Second that. I can't tell you how many times I was tempted to close and I'm still tempted to close but, I agreed not to do so.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 14:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Tom Morris closed it. Cyberpower, I'm glad you didn't - remember you participated in it so it would be completely inappropriate for you to close. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

WTT: the editor has (in at least 5 places) said he declined a snow/not now close. I'm with you - this is not editor review, but hearing from a dozen more commenters was important. Even now he's complaining it was closed (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

wrong

as a new user how am i suppose to trust someone that is violating wiki policies themselves by heeding their warnings? as i mentioned in my unblock request i stopped after a user posted on my wall that it was a violation...i understand that i have to read through the links which u posted but by you not unblocking me it seems you feel blocks are a punishment which is wrong and telling me it should take another day to read through the links therefore u will decline the request is a violation of wiki policies. blocks are to prevent further violations not punishments. Baboon43 (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocks are not punishment. It was clear that your disruption would continue because you did not understand even the most basic of Wikipedia policies - THAT was protecting the project, and THAT was why I declined your unblock request (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

still not a good idea because while i was reading the links i could not ask questions to other editors because i was BLOCKED...the block feature not only prevents editing of articles but simply communicating with the wikipedia community and that i feel is injustice and the project was already locked for 3 days from editing i should of mentioned that. Baboon43 (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you're not prevented from asking questions or communicating. {{helpme}} is still available to you when blocked. Protecting the project for 3 short days is not an injustice when someone is being disruptive. There's no time limit to improving this project - giving you an extra day to be properly prepared to edit within the guidelines is a fortunate thing for you, rather than having been indefinitely blocked from the project the first time. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

you misunderstood me i meant not being able to communicate is an injustice but i meant there was no reason of keeping the block SINCE the project was already locked for 3 days so its not necessary for my block to be on...i wasnt aware of the help me feature thanks for that Baboon43 (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no way technically to prevent disruption on Wikipedia, yet still allow you to communicate outside of your talkpage - and trust me, there are many many times when we even remove access to that. You were afforded the luxury of continued communication, as per WP:AGF, but the project was protected as required (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I suspect he means that as the article he was editwarring on was protected then his block was more punitive than preventive. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Undeletion request SensoMotoric Instruments GmbH

Hi,

my company has added the page SensoMotoric Instruments GmbH (it´s the name of the company) and we were asked to add URLs. Now I have the all needed links:

http://blog.humlab.lu.se/2009/12/09/eye-tracking-180-people-in-three-days/

www.emotional-engagement.com

http://autonomos.inf.fu-berlin.de/technology/eyedriver

http://events.r20.constantcontact.com/register/event?llr=opkebjcab&oeidk=a07e57geyr3d1743bc3

www.eyetracking-glasses.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u5mI6PoNkk&list=PL5429CC21E46401B2&index=1&feature=plpp_video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjbMmc1S18g&list=PL5429CC21E46401B2&index=2&feature=plpp_video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGzUe_UbDtc&list=PL5429CC21E46401B2&index=10&feature=plpp_video

and I do not understand why the page should be deleted. There are also other pages, which look like ours and they are not deleted yet(e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobii_technology ) Hopefully, now could be the page new created.

Sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senso m (talk • contribs) 12:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

1. You cannot write an article about a subject with which you have WP:COI;
2. None of those "sources" appear to be reliable;
3. Youtube or blog links are clearly not permitted
4. The existence of any other article cannot justify your own (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for Permission re: Use of Photo

Kmbgm469 (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)kmbgm469

Normally please respond on that page, as many admins can action things, and we always keep conversations together. However, you'll note that we cannot take your word: the owners of the copyright will need to provide formal proof of valid release of copyright to WP:OTRS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I am totally confused as to how to respond to your questions. I'm also overwhelmed. How does the photographer give you proof that he has given us permission to use a picture he took of Ron Williams? Kmbgm469 (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)kmbgm469

The owner of the copyright clicks on WP:OTRS, after first clicking on Wikipedia's WP:COPYRIGHT rules and image use policy. On the OTRS page they have instructions to prove they are willing to release the images according to Wikipedia's requirements. Please also see the huge menu of links I provided on your talkpage (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Why?

Why leave this in, when it's clearly a personal attack on good-faithed editors? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Because action is quite likely to come from his rant, one way or another. It's better to have the leopard show his spots so very publicly. We don't typically remove vio's of WP:NPA unless they're extremely offensive (racist, etc) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

edit warring

Hi BW, trying to gauge the punishment for edit warring? I have seen other users blocked for set periods of 24 and 48 hrs for sustained edit warring, so why is it that User:Gravyring has received an indefinite block for 4 edits over 4 weeks? Only 2 of the edits were the same and I believe 2 edits were attempts at gauging consensus. Also in your block denial you quoted a wiki policy that not many users are familiar with let alone new users. Do you expect new users to know all the wiki policies? I suggest you take time to review the block and perhaps be less aggressive in your request denials. This is wiki not a Battle ground as you put it.Hackneyhound (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as punishment. Blocks escalate, and are often based on mitigating circumstances. The user you note not only continually made provocative edits on an article, that article is subject to very strict guidelines due to its political nature. The additional mitigating factor was their behaviour towards others: this is a collaborative, community project: actions against that concept are not well-received - that's CORE policy that everyone agreed to when they created an account. So, a simple edit-war could start at 24 hours, escalate to 48 and so on, but add mitigating behaviours, it jumps up exponentially. You ALSO should know that indefinite is not the same as infinite - indefinite means "until the community is certain it will not recur" - as the unblock request did not convince me (and I'm one of the lenient ones), then there's no choice but to decline the unblock. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Serbia100

It must have slipped passed you but this user has restored their inappropriate user talk page. SÆdon^talk 19:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Help us develop better software!

Thanks to all of you for commenting on the NOINDEX RfC :). It's always great to be able to field questions like these to the community; it's genuinely the highlight of my work! The NOINDEX idea sprung from our New Page Triage discussion; we're developing a new patrolling interface for new articles, and we want your input like never before :). So if you haven't already seen it, please go there, take a look at the screenshots and mockups and ideas, and add any comments or suggestions you might have to the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh noes, a legal threat!

You said this a week or so ago on a heavily edited page, so I won't find the diff, but you should know that "this is what happens when a tornado meets a volcano" made me laugh so hard that I choked on a carrot when I read it just now. If I had died, I have no doubt my family could have sued you for wrongful death. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

LOL ... I'll take near-choking as a true sign of approval! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

deleted my page...

3/30/12 I created a band paged named M3rcy and it apparently didnt meet the standards. I was wondering what I need to do to have the page up. I had references toward the band that the new band had emerged from which did have tangible references and was learning the html required to create a history to follow but the page was deleted before I could fix it. Now the new band doesn't have an album and live shows are pending but everything will be coming this year. So what do I need to make the page tangible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MercyLino (talk • contribs) 23:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia is for articles about subjects that are already notable. Articles about the potentially notable and the up-and-coming are going to be deleted as a matter of course. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Please, look into Baboon43's behavior and edits. Thank you.

Since you are the last administrator who left a message, which he removed twice (here and here, on Baboon43's talk page (previously, he has used 70.54.66.158), therefore, I am approaching you for help. He constantly ignores and discredit all the peer-viewed sources provied by the other editors. He doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind:

• Ahbash follows shafi madhab
• Ahbash follows Ashari doctrine

Currently, he is engaged into edit-warring in the name of "expansion" without even getting consensus from the other editors who have been on that page for years. Please, looking into that. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Your signature

Hi. Just to let you know that this user has copied your signature. — Abhishek  ^Talk 15:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Although imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, normally we at least acknowledge our sources! Thanks for letting me know. Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank You

After over a week of waiting, I am finally welcomed here in wikipedia! Thank you Mr. BWilkins! Talk to you soon! Flywitheli (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You were welcome the moment you arrived - not everyone gets a formal welcome notice - you seemed to need some background (following your request for permissions), so I thought I'd help you out. Welcome aboard (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

ABUSE BY YOU

Normally I delete abuse, but this is currently used as evidence of behaviour
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, As the section title mandates, you are abusing or incorrectly using administration powers. You have recently deleted an article, "Victim of Xen," that cites sources indicating it's significance. Your reason: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)) The article stated that Victim of Xen is a video game (with citations of the fact) and also stated what it has been noted for (gender-swap comments by credible third parties in further citation). I suspect that you are unaware that is perfectly acceptable to have a vested interest and to contribute to Wikipedia (personal opinion, but I can't imagine that you would openly lie, given the administration powers). Please restore this article and assist in Wikipedia's growth. Sincerely, Sam Smolders (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC) P.S. You can remove that personal comment about you lying after you read it for both our sakes, if you wish it (as long as you've read it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smolders (talk • contribs) 15:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC) As you will have seen at least 3 times i nthe page edit notice, although I'm quite happy to politely discuss my deletions, any request that suggests I lied, abused powers, or similar will result in this request getting all of the attention it deserves (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Hi Bwilkins This is your first communication with me despite my request for assistance in account activation (circumvention). Your severe action, circumvention of support, lack of communication, and inproper citation for reason as to why you deleted the article (the reason you supplied is incorrect, as the article contains real world material (digital software available online) and multiple citations from reliable sources) invites at least this reaction, does it not? There's little much other way to continue without calling you out on the fact. Can you please restore the article, given this. Unless you feel there are grounds for open discussion and can expand upon the reason as to why it should be deleted. Sincerely Sam --Smolders (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Hi, Bwilkins. Just wanted to point out that Victim of Xen is a computer game, so it doesn't fall under the narrow WP:CSD#A7 you quoted when deleting it. I'll restore it if Smolders wants me to. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Are games that are distributed online not web content? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Not if you have to download and install them. Flash games, like Desktop Tower Defense, would probably be web content, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Could you suggest what needs to be done for Ankitbhatt and Ashermadan following the report? It seems that they need to stop those comments, which they do not seem to do, hence I feel a block is necessary. Should I open an RfC or something like that? Secret of success 12:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think Ankit has been looked into. Could you suggest whether a block is needed for Ashermadan, because he just vandalized my talk page today? I don't think he shows any sign of changing, as of the moment, given his attitude. Secret of success 12:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello DangerousPanda. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Please confirm my account Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed#User:Khan810 Khan810 (talk · contribs) 16:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

No. You clearly don't get Wikipedia yet. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Disscussion for Deletion of Bbuddah... Hoga Terra Baap 2

Hello if there is not any problem in the page then why do you want to delete this page Khan810 (talk · contribs) 16:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There's major problems with the page. The film is not notable yet. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Smolders

Hi Bwilkins! This is Tristessa over from WP:UTRS. I've received and declined an unblock appeal from Smolders (talk · contribs), a user you blocked recently. However, I've noticed that the block reason and template you used for the indef appears to be wrong — you used {{UsernameHardBlock}}, but the block seems to have been to do with COI/spam editing (and there's a sockpuppet template on his userpage) since his username appears to be perfectly alright. For the sake of clarity to the user, I've explained this in my decline e-mail and I've reblocked as WP:SPAM. Cheers, --Tristessa (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, his username isn't quite right. You'll notice in the only article he's worked on, he inserts his name into the infobox ... and redlinks it for future use. In that way, he does meet the original. Otherwise, it works either way. Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Amber Rose

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Amber Rose". Thank you.--Ron John (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no involvement in that article, outside of an administrative capacity (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit notice for User talk:Cyberpower678/Flipper/Hash

Can you make an edit notice for that page up there and have it be transcluded from User talk:Cyberpower678/Flipper/Hash/Editnotice?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 12:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed what you did for me. Are you sure it's working? I don't see it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't even understand what you were trying to do - it made little sense; but I did what you asked, nevertheless (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Because I only have the power to create an edit notice for my userpage and my talk page, I need admin admin assistance for my subpages. Since only admins can create and edit editnotices for subpages, in userspace, I asked you if you could create an editnotice in mainspace for that page and have it transclude from a page in my userspace. Nevertheless, Worm did it for me.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 11:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi - An invitation

I'm not exactly sure which editors who have been involved in the original discussions I should notify of this - Bad Faith and Mr Bratland - but rather than mistakenly leave out, I'll instead include. Regards, Rivercard (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I still don't think ANI is the right place, as per the previous thread. WP:RFC/U is likely best. Thanks for letting me know (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it ruined your day or anything...

...but still, I've clarified at Jimbo's talk page that my issue wasn't with anything you did, but rather the response he got on the talk page. I should have been clearer earlier, sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate that more than you can imagine right now :-) Sometimes it takes random messages like that - and from the user - to remind me that most of what I do is considered positive around here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Screwball23

Likely should get a friendly word about tendentiousness again as he seems to be at or past 3RR at Bob Turner (politician) already (4RR in 30 hours) -- he has only recently come off a 1 month block which you imposed for tendentiousness.

1. [31] 21:32 10 Apr
2. [32] 20:32 10 Apr
3. [33] 23:24 9 Apr
4. [34] 15:09 9 Apr

In each case being the first in a series of contiguous edits - he ha made on the order of 60 edits on the single article in just 2 days. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Making 4 reverts outside of the 24hrs is gaming the system. The nature of his other edits also include edit-warring. Escalated to 3 months block (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings

Is it possible to introduce consensual changes to a protected page? What kind of discussion should I undertake when material is deleted because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT with no explanation being provided? There has been a rather savage editing cycle on the page although I have focused on adding material as opposed to removing it.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 16:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Follow the directions. Once consensus for the change has been reached, someone may request the edit to a full-protected page as per the directions on the page. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Block of John Foxe

Hi, I wanted to ask you a question about this block. I looked at John Foxe's recent edit history, and the only violation of his 1RR restrictions I could find were at Oliver Cowdery where he reverted User:Kingliam at 13:18, and then reverted me at 13:16 the next day after I had re-added some of Kingliam's cited additions. While this is a technical breach of 1RR (by 2 minutes) I feel both reverts were made in good faith. I later re-added the material again with a better source (per his objection) after which John Foxe started a talk page discussion about the reliability of my source. I personally felt like the discussion was beginning to get somewhere when the block happened.

Anyway, I was wondering if you might reconsider your block, or at least shorten it. One month seems excessive for a minor violation of 2 minutes. I'm also slightly worried because there are currently four AfD's open on articles created by John Foxe, and it would be nice if he were able to participate in those discussions. (He seems to be having a really bad day today.) Lastly, I'm embarrassed that I was involved in the edit "war" that led to his block. Thank you for your consideration. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

He has both violated 1RR both within 24hrs, and just outside - which is considered to be gaming the system. The length of the block was an escalation from his previous 2 week block. At some point, he'll take his responsibilities to the project a little more seriously. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Here you said that you should block me for edit warring. I have read Wikipedia:Edit warring. I'm not trying to be arrogant, but I don't see my actions to be a violation. I made one reversion and I explained my reversion on the talk page, and reminded the users about the discussion on their talk pages. When I received no response, yet the reversions continued, I reverted again, again asking the users to join the talk page, and again leaving an updated response on the talk page. I made no further reversions. But, I think you see the situation differently and find my behaviour to be edit-warring. So I guess I would like to ask you where I went wrong? What should I have done differently? Not cause I'm trying to be stubborn, but because I really don't know. Thanks,VR _talk 23:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

My biggest beef with you was telling them to withdraw their complaint. They were right to file it, when and where they did. Don't dare tell them to withdraw based on your own unique take on the purpose of the board. It does take 2 - or more - to edit-war. The main 2 parties should have both been blocked; period. Even if discussion is taking place, that does not permit continued edit-warring. You appear to have been doing your own slow-edit-war, which even looked like tag-teaming at times. Your arrival on AN/3RR to lend nothing but support to a party that was also edit-warring was disingenuous. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Is everything ok?

I have even monitoring your talk page for the past couple of days and I have reason to believe that you are under quite a bit of stress. Am I correct at assuming this?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No stress at all in real life. Had a good time away with family, the core of my faith is refreshed. What I will never settle for is false charges against me; period. I take my role seriously, and to see damaging lies/falsehoods about me by someone who I respected is extremely disturbing. I expect all people to do the right thing by nature. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That explains it. I hope it goes well.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 10:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Bill guide 4.png

Bwilkins - I was hoping that you might could and would use your magical powers to see if a file with the name File:Bill guide 4.png has ever been uploaded and or deleted. If it was deleted, could you and would you tell me why? Thank you -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It was deleted in June 2008 after a discussion at what used to be called images for deletion...precisely here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Adopt and help

I read your message and clicked on your talkpage because your message said I could, but then your talkpage said I couldn't. So I went back to my talkpage but couldn't figure out how to edit it because when I clicked on my "your talkpage" it took me to some help which I don't think was my talkpage at all. LOL. So I hope you don't mind telling me in simple words how to do this. Maybe I should get you to adopt me to but I might be older than you. Anyway I just wanted to help out on wikipedia but it seems it's very hard.--Kelly222 (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry I can't do an edit summary for this because I don't know how. My edit summary is : help and adopt. Thank you ever to much for typing the message on my page. I hope you haven't wasted too much time.

April 2012

The following discussion 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.

---

WP:BRD is not policy or guideline and you're not discussing, WP:CONSENSUS is. Even if it were a policy, you're not following it yourself. You were bold in your revert but now you're not discussing. Bad form.

Talkback templates are the correct way to communicate when attempting to draw the attention of another editor. I will continue to use them here and other locations despite your edit notice, particularly when you don't bother to read my edit notice indicating that I will move discussions to the articles.

Sorry if I removed your talk before moving it to the correct location. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You clearly horrifically misunderstand. If someone adds something, and it gets removed, someone cannot tag-team to re-add it - the discussion portion must occur for it is re-added. I'm happy to discuss my removal - but you never have cart-blanche to re-add until the discussion takes place - re-adding it twice is edit-warring (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised here, but I think you've made a slight error in judgment; since it wasn't vandalism you were fixing by removing that characterization in the first place, you were involved in a content dispute -- I think maybe you shouldn't have blocked there, but AN:3RR'd it instead. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually don't see how I was really involved in a content dispute there whatsoever. Unsourced (yet minor) addition, I removed it. Someone mindlessly reverted. I tried to speak to him directly, and he mindlessly reverted again. I'm happy to unblock him IFF they simply agree to self-revert until new consensus exists. if someone else wants to take over the block, feel free. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, I agree with jpgordon here, I do not think you blocking was appropriate here. You were involved in the content dispute, so you should not be blocking the editor and demanding that they agree to self-revert to get unblocked (that appears to me to be a use of using the block tool to get your way in the content dispute). Regardless, if Walter continues to edit war over the article, then anyone my re-instate the block. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, you have also misread the situation, based on the disgusting tone of your unblock. I give 2 shits about the article, and it is inappropriate for you to suggest that I was using anything "as a tool" in a content dispute. Absolutely beyond inappropriate. Un-fucking-believably inappropriate if you had even bothered to read and look at any of the background. Fuck, really - not a bad unblock, but an absolutley fucktarded comment above and unblock message. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I know there are some editors around here who are perfectly happy to fling swear words around and to receive them from others, but I am not one of them, so please tone down your language. I did look into the background of this case and read your comments. As you said above, you removed the addition, and Walter reverted you, you then reverted Walter (something you neglect to mention above), and he reverted you. At that point you blocked him, and then said you would unblock him if he self-reverted the article to restore it to the version that you edit warred to try and keep. Now it may not have been your intention, but that to me is undoubtedly a use of the block tool to forward your side of the content dispute. Using the block tool like this (even if you didn't realise it) will have a chilling effect on editors who are in content disputes with administrators. Clearly what I said has upset you, and I apologise for that. If there is anything in particular that offends you (which is not addressed by this message) please feel free to bring it up with me and I will try to clarify or redact. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly I have attributed a level of respect towards you that was clearly undeserved. I also do not slide into invective at the drop of a hat, but in this case it's the one thing that is clearly well-deserved. Once again, in English: I have no preferred version. WG edit-warred; period. My statement was clear: "self-reverting shows proof that you're communicating towards consensus instead of blind reverting". Your unblock statement, and your statement(s) above BOTH attribute a motive that most clearly does not exist. Your lack of desire to actually recognize that the messages you send that: a) edit-warring is just fine, and b) I personally have some kind of agenda speak volumes about your character. You never should have made those statements either on the unblock, nor here on my talkpage when you're obviously fucking clueless. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, WG edit warred, and I've never said he didn't. But so did you. Your edit warring seemed to indicate that you did have a preferred version (why else would you revert to it?). Your edit warring also meant you were involved in the dispute, and therefore had a conflict of interest. You say I'm wrong to say that you had a motive to want a particular version of that article live, but you edit warred to try and keep a particular version live. So clearly you did have a motive - again, why else would you edit war over it?

I fail to see how any of my actions have encouraged edit warring. If either one of us are indicating that edit warring is "just fine", it is you by partaking in edit warring. My actions, on the other hand, don't appear to have caused any edit warring. Walter has not continued edit warring after my unblock. Instead he actually went and looked for sources (which seems to be what you wanted judging by your edit summaries at the article). He discussed on the talk page (again, what you seemed to want). And also apologised to you, which you have opted to repay with scorn.

Your talkpage notice says Intelligent discussion is better than a diatribe or attack, this is something I wholeheartedly agree with. Please, do not leave another personal attack against me. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, and wrong...and the fact that your brutal unblock statement remains proves you have no desire to correct your errors, even after being advised otherwise. Although, one could say I am "vindicated" on the article in that the original addition no longer stands (I was found to be correct), your disgusting diatribe against me that has no basis in reality remains both on WG's unblock, and above. As such, I'm quite welcome to continue it on this talkpage. That you have failed to change it shows your a lot about you. I was quite prepared to apologize myself this morning, but clearly you have zero desire to amend what are obviously incorrect and damaging statements. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You should know better than to use the "I was right" defence for your edit warring. Besides, on the talk page someone else managed to reach a compromise, where the addition still stands but was re-worded. What part of the unblock statement is incorrect/damaging? You weren't involved in a content dispute? Blocking Walter didn't give you the upper-hand? You didn't try to force Walter into self reverting? As I said earlier, if you can give me specific problems I can work on mending them. Now to be fair, you have given some specifics (e.g. I actually don't see how I was really involved in a content dispute there whatsoever). But you haven't explained what makes you think you were not involved. You were edit warring on the article, you were involved in the content dispute.

Finally, take a look at the section below. Walter comes along and apologises, but you just can't let it drop, bringing up other problems you have with his comment on the talk page. His response is to offer to strike those comments (Shall I strike that statement and add something better and more neutral?), and you respond by yelling at him about how unclassy he would be to leave the comment there, that it would make him a hypocrite, that his comment is bullshit, that he's pretending they don't exist. He just offered to strike them, all you had to say was "yes please". Take a step back. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh for fuck sake, I was not trying to keep any "preferred" version, therefore I was not edit-warring, therefore I sure as fuck CANNOT be using any defence for edit-warring. Which fucking part of this to you not understand? You continue to add motive to my actions which I have clearly SHOWN did not exist. I have clearly shown you the other side of the coin, and yet you persist. Nobody NEEDS to offer to strike comments: they do it themselves based on a) their character, and b) the new information provided to them. This whole thing can go away if you re-fucking-read, and redact your own ridiculous conclusions towards something that actually fits what you now know and that does the least harm to ANYONE involved. Your motive-laden comments in the unblock request have been proven wrong, yet you persist in failing to redact, as promised. So, not only did you read incorrectly, you fail to keep your own promises. Fantastic leadership there Kingpin. This thread would have been a lot shorter if you had simply kept your promises (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

So you were just editing at random. and happened to revert to the same version multiple times? That wasn't actually your preferred version? Take a look at the history of that page; you were edit warring. It doesn't matter if you had some higher motive that you are unable to share with us. You were still edit warring, and you need to accept that. But all your actions so far appear to indicate that you are unable to accept that you were edit warring (for example, earlier you said Unsourced (yet minor) addition, I removed it. Someone mindlessly reverted. I tried to speak to him directly, and he mindlessly reverted again, here you mention all of Walter's reverts, but neglect to mention your revert inbetween, instead only saying that you tried to discuss with him (which while true, is not a license to then continue edit warring - Walter tried to discuss too, but that didn't make his edit warring okay)).

I am trying to understand why you edited to restore a paticular version of an article multiple times, why you then blocked the other editor who was trying to keep a different version of the article in place, and why you then said to them you would unblock if they restored the version which you had been trying to keep live. And I don't think it's unreasonable for me to conclude that you did have a slight preference as to which version of the article was live. All you've done is screamed and sworn at me about how you didn't have any motive at all to want that particular version, but you haven't explained what your actual reason was for your actions.

I said If there is anything in particular that offends you [...] please feel free to bring it up with me and I will try to clarify or redact. I don't see how I've broken any promises. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me try this again, and once again in English. This is what I saw:

• An IP added a phrase that was uncited, and was non-encyclopedic WP:OR, I don't even recall what it was without looking back.
• I removed it with "Remove unref'd opinion"
• WG reverted with "You select this one unreferenced statement to remove" which led me to believe that WG had thought I had simply chosen some random statement in the article to remove, and NOT the fact that I had simply reverted the previous addition.
• I approached WG directly in order to verify with WG that he had seen that I was merely reverting an addition, not simply randomly removing things as per his edit-summary. It was not to discuss the possible addition of the phrase to the article, it was to verify if he had seen the actual sequence of events.
• WG refused to discuss, removed my question, and reverted on the article.
• At that point, it was apparent to me (at the time) that WG didn't wish to discuss, and was blindly reverting.
• It was therefore necessary to protect the project from what appeared to be mindless edit warring, blocked, and returned the article to the original state.

I have said this all before, and I don't see why I need to repeat it. It shows clearly what I saw, and what I acted upon. It shows clearly the chain of events that were apparent that caused the necessity to issue a very short block. It shows clearly that I had zero involvement in the text, or the article. How many more times shall I say it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(←) I don't really see that point in continuing this while you still seem to be in denial about that fact that you were edit warring. In a section below, you say "It does take 2 - or more - to edit-war" - but apparently that doesn't hold true when one of those two is yourself? If it takes two to edit war, how was Walter edit warring and yet you were not? In point four above, you yet again fail to mention the fact that you re-reverted Walter. In point five you say that Walter refused to discuss, and yet he did leave a comment on the talk page. You say I had zero involvement in the text, and yet you edited the text of the article, and even edit warred over it. You. Edit. Warred. I don't see why you find that so difficult to accept, or what makes you so sure you didn't. You said I was not trying to keep any "preferred" version, therefore I was not edit-warring, again, how exactly does that hold true? Edit warring is repeatedly reverting on an article, in other words, exactly what you did: first revert, repeated revert. If you didn't have a preferred version why did you restore a particular version multiple times? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? I just explained why I restored the particular version twice. Either you can't read, or choose not to read - I would expect it's the latter, but it's leaning towards the former right now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Above, you have only commented on one of your reverts, and that was to say I removed it with "Remove unref'd opinion" - that explains the reason for the first revert (i.e. that it was unreferenced). Now you say that you just explained your reasoning for both reverts. However, the second revert you have not even mentioned in your previous message, and subsequently you have not explained your reasoning for that second revert. At point five (where the second revert should be) you say that WG refused to discuss, removed my question, and reverted on the article, did you intend for that to read "WG refused to discuss, removed my question, and so I reverted him"? Because that might then be an explanation for both reverts. Incorrect reasoning, perhaps, because Walter did discuss, but apparently you didn't realise that at the time.

However, that is all rather academic, because it makes no difference to the fact that you did edit war over the article. Do you think that having a reason (which appears to be (a) it was unreferenced and then (b) the other editor wasn't discussing) excuses you to edit war? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I was unaware that you could not read. My apologies. As you were then. (PS: the secret is to bang the rocks together) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I'm not quite sure what's going on here but for the sake of both sides, I think it be best that both sides drop this right here and now before it potentially spurs into WP:BATTLEFIELD.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Cyberpower. As you know, I'm one of the more sane, polite, and helpful people around here. Bullshit (and liars) piss me off. Reality is, I'm closing this - in the absence of proof that someone can read, and a plethora of proof that they cannot, it actually allows me to better ignore the disgusting statements they have made about me. Others may read them and believe them, and a tremendous disservice has been done to this project, but hey, that's their doing and not mine. If I had known they were unarmed, I would not have started the battle of wits. Someday when they learn to read, they'll actually realize what was said, and amend their ways. Until then, they may fuck themselves. It was easy for them to fix - they chose not to. They high road would have been easier for everyone (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:39, 13 April 2012 (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.

A cookie of concord

I never meant to edit war and I recognize that my actions (removing a comment on my talk page before adding it to the new location) seemed suspicious, and so I offer this as a token of apology for my actions. I'm glad that the article in question is now better as a result of your persistence there. While I may have been frustrated by the situation, I hope I didn't display that or vent too much and hope that we can work together to make Wikipedia a better place. Thanks again for your perseverance and your tireless insistence in maintaining a high standard for Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Having seen this, clearly you're just talking out of your ass (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. I mean the gift sincerely. Just because I disagree with you and state that you're "full of yourself and that shows no class" when you misrepresent the facts to make yourself look better, doesn't mean I can't be contrite about it. Shall I strike that statement and add something better and more neutral? I'm not watching your page so talkback may be required. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't misrepresent shit all and you know it. Strike your bullshit, we'll all move on. If you leave it, and we'll all know how classy you really are. Otherwise it's called being hypocritical - you can't leave your insults in place, and fix them with a cookie like the don't exist. Again, you're an editor I used to hold in respect - not so much anymore. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well done then. Your classlessness has been verified. Classy people don't ask if they should fix their errors; they simply do it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Image question

Bwilkins, I am new to Wiki editing but have just completed (as of 10:15am ET, 4/13/12) editing and posting of the "Subra Suresh" Wiki entry and have attempted to post a portrait photo (68KB) through the Commons site. How long does it normally take for a photo to appear in the public Wiki entry? Everything seemed to go fine with uploading the portrait/photo. --LeeHerring (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you had spelled the name wrong, and someone has fixed it for you on the article, as it looks like it's there fine now. Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj and an "other ventures" section revisited

May I get you to come back by Talk:Nicki Minaj and comment again on whether she should have a section in her article about other ventures? An anonymous user—and I think it's just one with changing IP rather than a series of them on that talk page—keep suggesting the page should have one. The latest discussion thread (:D Ok) includes six or seven links—: several are to Minaj's website or the other companies' sites for the ventures, but there's one to the Chicago Tribune and one to MTV. The discussion could really use with more than two voices, and since you'd participated before, that's why I picked you specifically. Thank you in advance for joining back in. —C.Fred (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

And no I'm not the only one who has asked for other ventures this is the only thing i asked for on her talk page specifically.

Typoscan is working again

Just in case you haven't been following Wikipedia:WikiProject TypoScan, Reedy got this working again. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Request

I have been accused of hounding and an IBAN violation Here As sal has asked for a few weeks off from policing the topic are I am requesting a few admins to look it over and comment. Thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and a question

Hi Bwilkins, thanks for the welcome message! I requested permission to edit a semi-protected page, Tim Tebow's, and it appears to be granted but I still don't seem to have the option to edit it. I have read the Biographies on Living Persons policy and have citations for all of my claims (links to Bestseller lists, listings of the books on publishers' websites). If you could give me help with how to proceed that would be great.

Thank you!

• I think this was replied to appropriately on the RFP/C page. Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Block of User:Smolders

This may come as a surprise to you, but the user's name is actually Smolders - Sam Smolders. (He's on just about every social media site around, so it shouldn't have been too hard to check.) I don't understand why the block message that is on the bottom of his userpage, says his name is profane (I have no idea why anyone would have come to that conclusion, as it's not a profane word in any language that I know of), and having read his contributions I'm not seeing anything threatening; a bit hot-tempered at one point on your page, but he apologized for that, which is the expected behaviour. Did you write that block message? If not, could you help me to understand how it got there? Further, could you help me to understand how we wound up with a new user whose article was speedy deleted before he even had any explanation of what the problem was? (Yes, I know, it was probably a COI, but that's what we have deletion discussions for, and why we encourage experienced users to help new users understand the ropes.) Risker (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Risker. Indeed, I did do a lot of explaining to the editor what was wrong with the article, and with their COI related to it. You can also see in one of his versions how he included a redlink to his own name in one of the articles - which was clearly promotional overall. As you can see further up on this page, someone else actually let me know that the template I used was accidentally the wrong one - they corrected it on my behalf, from what I recall. What I did not block them for, of course, was their pretty brutal series of WP:NPA's across the board. I and other editors tried to steer him gently, and his response was aggressive attacks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

* User talk:Bwilkins#ABUSE BY YOU

* User talk:Bwilkins#User:Smolders

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Autoconfirmation question

Hello Bwilkins, I'm conscious, that your engagement here costs a lot of time, so I try to make it short. On April, the 6th 12:18 I asked for a confirmed status to be able to save a book containing background information on an event. This subject is better documented on the en.Wiki, so I'm forced to build my book here. I organize trips to the city staging this event on a regular base with varying companions and therefore want to equip them with actual information on our destination. As I didn't get any further answer, I don't know whether my request stands on weak legs or you just hadn't the time for an answer. Greetings from Austria & best regards WFL65 (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No issues - I'm happy to reply. I see your request as a bit of an oddity; the creation of "books" does require autoconfirmed status, and they're fairly rare. I did see that your editing history goes back over a year, but not quite to the 10 edits or so required to become autoconfirmed. Are you active on one of the other Wikipedia projects? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick answer. To repeat it shortly, yes I'm active on the German Wiki, but - as my field is Scotland and her distilleries - there is not so much to do here in the German Wiki ;-), therefore I've there not so many edits either. Frankly speaking, I'm more the user as the editor, and want to benefit from the books function. I won't edit any articles here, because I think, that my English is not good enough for en.Wiki. I know, that your position is difficult, because saving a book is an elemental function, but the privilege to do so, needs far-ranging authorisation, so you can only trust, that I won't misuse this power (what I promise to do). WFL65 (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done I did take a glance at your German contributions - which I see as mostly questions about the book function. I see no harmful edits, so oddly enough, just before you posted this reply I had already added the confirmed right to your account. I would recommend keeping your "book" as a user-level one until you think it's good for others - it does appear to be a topic that might benefit from being a project-level book. Good luck, and happy travels! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thx, that's exactly what I need! WFL65 (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

RE: saut68

Thank you for responding to my request to have my account confirmed. I understand your stance on the conflict of interest, however, I do not want to edit any of the text. I only need to provide the correct logo in order to keep our branding consistent. Is there a way for me to upload the image for administrative approval before it is actually put in place? Saut68 (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

As per the image use policy the formal owner of the WP:COPYRIGHT will need to send its release to WP:OTRS - only after that is approved will it appear. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86

Hi, you helped to resolve an issue between Sonicyouth86 and Cybermud and myself back in November 2010. You investigated the whole issue and declared it to be settled in this edit [35] and warned of sanctions if things carried on. Anyway SonicYouth86 is still complaining about the very same case 17 months later[36] and doesn't seem to be able to move on or accept any of your comments. I've retracted my reply and realise I should probably have stayed silent and contacted you straight away so apologies for not doing so. Here are the links in your talk archives [37][38]

Um, although I now know who it was ... unsigned bits by well-established users who know better probably don't get a lot of action here - I'm not a big fan of that type of anonymous complaint here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI Notification

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

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sockpuppetry block on User:Schrodinger's cat is alive. Thank you. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I hate to say "I was right", but "I was right". Doing that was like peeing yourself in a dark suit: it only feels good for a few moments, and nobody really notices but you. Odd move on your part. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This situation is wrong. Everything about it is wrong. Everything. The block on ThatManAgain was wrong being that it was based on suspicion, only, in the absence of any disruption or any other concern. The block on Schro was wrong being that it was given without a proper rationale and was an extension of the suspicion on ThatManAgain (metasuspicion?). Your decline of Schro's unblock request was wrong as it was based on an unWP:AGF interpretation of what s/he stated in the unblock request (if you were that concerned, you could have asked a question or two before unblocking, as routinely occurs, instead of forcing him/her to go through the rigmarole).

One editor in good standing has had to go through (and you wanted him/her to go through it again) the stress of getting him/herself unblocked, and a new editor is blocked without good reason. I hold admins to a high standard, and all three of you have manifestly failed and continue to fail because you persist in defending yourselves and each other instead of doing the right thing and just accepting responsibility and trying to repair the situation. It is simply not good enough. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Re-read. I was the only one helping. Your actions were a miserable failure, and did more of disservice to the editor than anyone else could have. Stop pretending you did the right thing when your misreading of everything I said is what led to a protacted block, rather than them simply saying "you're right, I won't collude again" and getting unblocked. Because of your actions, a full checkuser WAS done, and it wasn't very pretty, was it. It sure would have been less painful for the editor to say "I won't collude again" and move forward; wouldn't it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

*sigh* I probably should not have enjoyed watching you get slapped around at ANI; but I did - but only because I did say you were making a mistake before you even filed it. Before you try to be a hero, use common sense and actually understand the policies you're quoting (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:00, 20 April 2012 (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.

Request

Would you be willing to watch my user page and talk page and answer any queries that doesnt require my attention for me?—cyberpower ^Chat_{Temporarily Online} 23:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I have started my wikibreak and I'm not sure yet when I'm returning, if at all. So I would appreciate it if you could look over my pages for me while I'm gone. I will occasionally check my talk page.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 00:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I replied to this but it disappeared. Your pages have been on my watchlist for awhile. Be good! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair

While I accept the finding, can you give an explanation regarding the basis of that finding? A connection obviously does not make use of the tag obligatory for I/A articles so more detail is needed than The obvious connection is, well, obvious. Wayne (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Monty845's comment pretty much sums it up (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Monty845's comment is a fallacy arguement, specifically Affirming the consequent, Denying the antecedent, Begging the question and Fallacy of false cause. His comment is true for all 3,927,892 articles on Wikipedia. A connection itself does not allow the assumption that editors will always edit-war and disrupt an article in the absence of evidence that this has happened or will likely happen. The only arguement I see being given in the AN discussion is connection and this can not be used as the sole criteria for an article with such a minor connection per the intent of the ARBPIA case. Wayne (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you please block Iaaasi's sockpuppet?

Hi,

In the 3RR report, you respond to the user who admitted that he is a sockpuppet, but, forgot to block him. Could you please block Iaaasi's sockpuppet User:Bzg1920?--Nmate (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I see it's already been done. Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation???????? - Fortune FitzRoy, Duchess of Grafton

Hi, some of the above articles information has been directly copied and pasted from the sources content. Is this a copy right violation? Sorry to bother you it's just that you were an administrator on my watch list. Thanks.--Chip123456 (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If you can remove the copyright bits, please do so ... as long as it will still leave enough article (even a stub) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem! There is a high amount. Copy and pasting. When I have time, I will try to re word! Bit busy at the mo!--Chip123456 (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I didn't get round to doing the above quickly! I have tried to re word it. If it's still a problem, it will have to be deleted, which is of course, the last thing want to happen!. --Chip123456 (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Aldo Colombini article

Would you carefully and rationally read what I wrote on this article's talk page? Please allow me to clarify: I DID NOT list his company's web site as a reference....I listed it as an external link. It's a link to HIS COMPANY'S web site. I also listed, to source/establish notability as an entertainer 4 references. Of course, a person's web site isn't sufficient to establish notability....I'm fully aware of that. Of course I had the immedate flare-up of ego, but I took a few deep breaths and read what you had to say, with carefuly consideration.....I hope you're capable of paying me the same courtesy, if only considering the amount of time/contributions I've poured into Wikipedia over 7 years.Bddmagic (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz edit warring again

About a week or so ago, you blocked Walter Görlitz for edit warring, and it looks like he's been up to it again given I just took a look at the history for the August Burns Red article - a band I listen to - where he's edit warring with an IP address. I took a big look into the situation too and it seems he reverted the edits of this user many times even though the IP address was first to try to talk it out; although was kind of done in an angry fashion like "what the hell, man?" and so and such which may have not the best way to deal with someone doing something you don't approve of, but at least is still trying to settle the situation in a way which he did not do until way later. Although I did leave the IP address a talk page message to be nicer in comments. Just giving you this heads up. • GunMetal Angel 08:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, after Kingpin's absolute fuckup of the last situation (as you can see earlier on this page), including letting Gorlitz know that edit-warring was okay on Wikipedia, I've abdicated my responsibility on this one over to Kingpin. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Unblocking User:Femto Bot

Per User talk:Rich Farmbrough#User:Femto Bot, I'd like to unblock Femto Bot so it can continue useful tasks such as updating recent changes pages for projects. Rich has agreed to suspend the only task I think would be concerning vis a vis the ArbCom case, and given that, I agree with Newyorkbrad that the bot doesn't need to remain blocked for the sake of being blocked. Obviously, however, I'd like to know your opinion first. Cheers! — madman 02:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a bad precedent. Policy is that if the editor is blocked, the bots are blocked. Just because the editor does some useful things, it does not typically allow us the leeway to unblock them (see, Betacommand, Ottava, etc). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean "Just because the [bot] does some useful things". You are of course correct in your reading of policy, though I'm not sure that the policy is technically correct and am interested in initiating discussion of the policy when I would be more able to contribute to such a discussion. In any case, would you then have any objection to me adjusting the block to expire at 23:21, 30 April 2012 which is when Elen's block would have expired? — madman 15:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I did mean my wording as it was ... we don't unblock editors just because they've been useful, and since a bot is a mere extension of the editor, we don't unblock their bots simply because they (or the editor) have been useful in the past. It would be a bad bad baaaaddd idea to keep someone's bot unblocked whilst the user themself is, as it removes the whole "responsible for your edits" concept. If Rich's block was set to expire the 30th, and it has not been re-enabled to something longer, then yes - it would make sense for his bot to be unblocked as of that date as well. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I understand your logic now (even if I don't necessarily agree with it), and I have modified the block accordingly (there have been no further blocks or block extensions). On an unrelated note, it looks like you're suffering from a bit of Wikistress lately. Here's a happy bird and I hope you have a nice day! — madman 19:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Asia Food Recipe

I see that you left the last comment (so far) about the recommended deletion of Asia Food Recipe. I wanted to stop by and discuss a little further (without snowballing the issue or risking steamrolling the article). I left a couple of comments on the recommended deletion page [39]. I am looking to keep the article as I like the site (not a reason to put it on Wikipedia but it is the reason why I became interested in writing the article) and feel that it is noteworthy as it is the largest website in Asia for food recipes (it also has diabetic recipes for Asia food which I cannot locate anywhere else). I have no connection to the site other than using it myself (the deletion page refers to "[my]" press releases - these are not mine, these are from the site I believe). I guess what I am looking for is a way to improve the article so that it can remain. Do you have any tips that could help me understand what is needed for it to be noteworthy? I added two new pieces of information today including an additional source from "Top 20 Sites." Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. --Morning277 (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

GSG/Salaria duck

This seems pretty dumb, reappearing as the master when arguing a block as the puppet. Good catch, but I wonder if an SPI is in order because I had a vague feeling a few days back that there was another possible sock but it only made a few edits. Would a general checkuser be worth the effort? - Sitush (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Submitting an SPI wouldn't be bad, especially if you think others are around. The last was created right after the previous block. Go ahead (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Account

Do you know the "old" user account behind 64.160.39.210? Hipocrite (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems familiar - whoever it is has a gigantic hardon for Rich (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

A Concern

This editor really seems to be going crazy over some of his edits that were revereted. I think he will try and carry on his behaviour once his block has ended. I don't think English is his first language. How can I encourage him to be more resonable. The reason I say this is because I can see him being permanently blocked otherwise. Thanks SH 15:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you do, stay off his talkpage - you appear to be the bee in his bonnet, and further interactions between the two of you will merely cause more issues (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks SH 21:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Another Concern

Please help be with the bee in my bonnet! This editor (me) is NOT going crazy over reverts! But I am a little (just a little) irked that you didn't address the point I made. I know my block has expired and that it was a short one. HOWEVER, I am still convinced I did NOT violate the 1 RR. I won't recapitulate the issue here since I explained it as thoroughly as I could on the last explanation. I'm not sure if you read it carefully, but it seems you gave basically a wrote reply about not engaging in edit warring, rather than address my explanation. I know I can't compell you to review this matter properly, but I really don't see how I can be expected to refrain from behavior which I don't believe I engaged in. If I did, so be it, I will accept it, but I don't see it. Please see my previous explanation, and please don't go there with a predetermined notion that I am guilty of violating the 1 RR. The details matter. Maybe I am right.

Thanks, ProfJustice (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC), just another irrate editor (or maybe not).

if you are here because I declined your unblock request: since it has either expired, or someone else has unblocked you, understand that I do read very carefully. Don't push your fortuitous luck.

I fully investigate every unblock I decline. You broke 1RR; period; full-stop; do not pass Go, do not collect $200. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Your comment at WP:AN3

Hello Bwilkins. Re WP:AN3#User:71.239.128.44 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 31h). Betty Logan has asked a question whether she will get in trouble for reverting the IP again. From a quick look at the talk page, it seems that the IP has been inserting unsourced material. You might want to answer her question, since it's about your comment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Museum

Hi Bwilkins, thanks for taking the time to contact me. The page appears to be still intact but I would appreciate you proofreading it for me. I do work for the institution but hopefully haven't expressed any personal or professional opinions, rather I simply wish for the information therein to be accurate. Hopefully this doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algernon Rutter (talk • contribs) 09:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I just did some merciless editing - it was nothing but a brochure, and still is. I mean, it even listed prices of admission! None of the article is referenced to third party sources, yet it makes claims of having "the largest collection" of things - they'll all have to be removed unless you can find sites (not your own) that confirm them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That's right, I'm dragging you off to ANI, you abusive admin...

... for a friendly conversation, of course. Tlease see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#To_ban_or_not_to_ban.3F. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for editors permissions

Can you give editors rights to one on my colleagues? Va2005 is her wiki user name, there's link from her in the form of a kitten on my page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kirk33707 She will be or already is a member of WikiProject Thoroughbred racing Many Thanks Kirk33707 (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Um, no. We don't just hand them out - we need to see proof of positive editing. One warning: your colleague and you should probably not be editing the same articles - you wouldn't want to get blocked for WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT. Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup need on aisle three request for confirmation

Someone (markalyons) attempted to request confirmation, but didn't follow the instructions (understandable). I'm trying to cleanup, but don't know how to add the bullet point with all the links. Can you help? Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed#User:Markalyons--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thiyyar

You have recently deleted Thiyyar following a discussion at AfD. This is the third time that the article has been deleted, and there are others that have suffered similar problems. Is it time to salt? - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I've seen your response, thanks. I have subsequently had to comment regarding a later edit and I remain convinced that this current sequence of events is an off-wiki campaign. Nonetheless, the present target article - Ezhava - has a fair few experienced users watching it and hopefully things can now be resolved in an orderly manner. Again, my thanks. - Sitush (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Troublesome IP

A dynamic IP vandal who you blocked for making a blatant threat towards User:Murry1975 see here has now accused me of slander can you take appropriate action. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You've have to provide a diff to where they did that - I can't guess (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry should have made it clearer see here. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It is ironic that Ducky should mention IP:86.44.253.129 threatening User:Murry1975. Another IP:89.100.207.51, has also engaged in some sort of slanging match, and edit warring over Leixlip, the article's talk page and history, provides examples of poor behaviour. Weirdly enough, both IP's are located in Ireland - coincidence? The latter IP did resort to throwing an "impudent shit" insult at myself a matter of 24 hours ago, to which I did report to ANI, but it concluded as a misunderstanding. Maybe looking into both IP's would be an option? Wesley☀Mouse 00:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi again Wesley. No they are two different editors, Lily Allen is a content dispute, which should be civil if I havent been just let me know. The other has hopped again and is mentioned down below. They both behave different the 89IP is well versed at wiki the 86IP just seems to want to soapbox and pays no attention to guidelines or even worse [40]. Murry1975 (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bwilkins, remember the request at AN/I last weekend for a range block [41] ? The IP was blocked for a legal threat against myself, he has hopped as usual and against advice [42]. What would the best way to handle this be as he has carried on where he left off [43], [44] and accusing of slander. He is probably telling the truth about not trying to change his IP, it is dynamic, but he knows he shouldnt be editing. He has been warned enough times and block on several occassions for it. I dont know what else to do, reporting him everytime is, in my opinion, a waste of admin time and a filling in of space on AN/I. I know there are some people that cant be reasoned with, I would like to know what are the options on this editor? Converse everytime and hope at some stage hope they realise what they are doing is not right? I wont add to their talkpage with discussion yet as not to provoke them, but I will, as is nessecary, revert the vandalism if I see it. Murry1975 (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I have engaged the IP on DUCK's talkpage. If needed, I can start to protect some pages - this may encourage him to at least buckle down and create a userid. This will allow us to start the process of turning him into an actual productive editor, rather than having every single piece of his work being trashed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Cheers Bwilkins, its a pain in the €€€€ for everyone involved, as I said at the AN/I he has actually done some productive edits, mainly football stats but his lack of regard for policy and guidelines is an issue. These cases, hopping IPs that dont adhere to wiki guidelines, is, as I stated before a waste of admin time. Hopefully he will create an account and wise up on his editing pattern and calm down on his comments. Thanks for your help. Murry1975 (talk) 09:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Protecting Darren Gibson, James McClean, Shane Duffy, Daniel Kearns & Marc Wilson (Irish footballer) would be a start as they are the primary targets. Although he has given up on removing the Northern Ireland categories & now is making mass edits adding irrelevant categories. I don't see why his current IP 86.44.253.129 hasn't been blocked & why any other of his new IPs in the future can't be blocked once it's established it's him. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

No reply & no action taken against the IP if I was vandalising I'd be gone but nothing done about this IP. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi B just wondering if you would be willing to give your perspective again on where we are with this. Given there is a Range Block set up and his comments on ducks and his talk pages aren't on what should happen here. I appreciate there are good edits but rather a lot of bad ones as well, its possible they could be a good editor at some point but in my view consistency is important if he was a registered editor would he still be editing at the moment i think possibly not, but I'm not an Admin nor do i envy you being one as its a difficult task. They reason I'm asking is I'm sick of seeing good editors me included in the past as you know been driven away because of things like this.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This one is a challenge - and unfortunately it's happened in a couple of places (one of which got User:Betty Logan pretty pissed off at me). IP's can be problematic. They generate 3RR's by good editors and whackloads of invective almost without "punishment". I'm loathe to do too much damage to the project by dangerous rangeblocks of busy IP ranges. This might be something better discussed at WP:ANI in order to have the thinktank come up with the best solution (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)