User talk:DangerousPanda/Archive 9

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

User talk:Distributor108

Bwilkins, how do you feel about giving them some rope? It seems to me that the online training session is not paying off. Dragging it out further serves no purpose; I think we need to shit (revoke TPA) or get off the pot (unblock) and possibly indef block again, for really indef, if needs be. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Then we hand him a short short leash (i.e. restrictions - possibly civility restriction). It took him forever to even admit they are an issue - yet they handed themselves barnstars for teamwork (thus denying the problem further). WP:GAB says they need to acknowledge what was wrong - they really have not. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have children? Or, remember when you was a little one? It's harder and harder to admit that you were wrong as time goes on and you're pressed on the point. They admitted to "combative editing"; I'm going to unblock and see if they know what they were admitting to if that's OK with you. I await your directions, general. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"General" LOL ... I would unblock with a longer explanation - force the words into their mouth, so to say "You have agreed to not be combative with other editors. You have agreed to seek WP:CONSENSUS and not be tendentious. You have agreed to be WP:CIVIL and to not attack others. Any repeated violations will lead to an immediate reblock"...or something like that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you signed your copyrights away I'm going to copy and paste. Thanks! 1 Lt. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Be my guest :-) As you were! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributionBWilkins, however you seem to be unaware or unable to comprehend WP policy. Please re-read all WP polices and understand them before making further irrelevant posts on my page. Distributor108 (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Riiiigggggghhhhtttt. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Assume ignorance

You know, that assume ignorance essay is pretty good. Why not move it into Wikipedia space?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You're not the first to ask. So, I moved it to WP:IGNORANCE ... I wanted to use WP:AI but it was already taken (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed that reference

I apologize for naming you as the blocking admin there. I think I just saw you as the 'oncoming storm' of this based on your very intense-sounding rhetoric. I've put it right, kind of shows that we all end up making mistakes from time to time. -- Avanu (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, your own mistakes (especially a bizarre interpretation of policy) are becoming more and more sublime (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of AV News page

Just curious why the AV News page is being deleted while its primary competitor Antelope Valley Press is allowed to have its page here unmolested.

Granted we have only been in business for six years but we are every bit as a legitimate news organization as AV Press and even more so than AV Town Crier, whose page is also allowed to be here I note.

I also point out that the City of Lancaster is a major advertiser with us as is the local professional baseball team.

Please info me as to what more I need to include so that our page will be left on site or restore the page.

Seeker4264 (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop pasting the content of the article across Wikipedia - as an administrator, I can view the former deleted content. First, understand that Wikipedia is not a directory of business - it is an encyclopedia of notable topics. Second, the fact that your only reference is the newspaper itself is not sufficient - we work on verifiability. Third, the fact that an article on a similar topic exists does not mean yours should too - there may be many reasons (such as notability), or indeed the other article may not belong here either. Fourth, what's this about "our" ... do you work for the subject? If so, please see WP:COI and WP:PROMO. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, then please explain why a page about a newspaper called the Antelope Valley Press is more notable than a page about a newspaper called the AV News when BOTH publications cover the same area of Los Angeles County. Why are you allowing them to stay up? As for the pasted and deleted content, after my first attempt to create the page was deleted I thought there might be a format issue so I copied the entire AV Press page as a template and then REPLACED ALL OF THE TEXT ABOUT AV PRESS with the text about AV News and the website link thinking that would resolve the issue. As for my use of "our", that was my outrage and having a page deleted almost as it was posted and I should have worded it better. I do not work for the AV News but I was asked to see about getting the page up by others who think people looking at wiki should be aware there are more media outlets in the area than AV Press. I am not sure what other references you need other than the bloody website. Perhaps you could can the head-up-your-ass attitude and give me an example or two of what the lord god almighty Bwilkins finds acceptable?

SO here's the question: Is wiki about getting information out or playing favorites? How much does AV Press donate for such wonderous exclusivity here? Because I simply do not see any other reasonable explanation why AV News keeps getting deleted.

Seeker4264 (talk) 10:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Once again, you're copying/pasting the entire contents of either other articles, or your article. Stop - I have the tools and ability to read via links to the article, thank you very much. Based on your reply, I'm assuming you didn't click a single blue link that I provided you in my first reply - those were vital for you to understand this project. Your increased vitriol and personal attacks have now led to a very short 24hr break from this project - congrats on that. While you're away, try reading the policies I have provided you - they're all blue links. You'll understand a lot better. Read especially WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I'm not "allowing" anything to remain, there are millions of articles - I can't police them all (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, the Antelope Valley Press article actually includes some suggestions (and proof) of notability. It's also referenced to other sites than itself (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Seeker4264

Hiyas there BWilkins,

I Hope you don't mind, but i upped the block for User:Seeker4264 to one week, and disabled his talk page access for repeated personal attacks. As far as i can see it is nigh impossible to have any form of civil conversation with him right now. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No issues. Can't say I didn't try to assist. Signed, Adolf (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capri Anderson (2nd nomination)

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.

---

How exactly do you get "delete" instead of at least "no consensus" for this? The version of the article from the first AfD (which I didn't create or even see, btw) was all about "her relationship with a star", and apparently the article was recreated so many times back then that it was salted. But then after she was nominated for pornographic awards in multiple years, I created the article again in my userspace, and User:Chick Bowen not only saw it and approved of it, but s/he even moved it into mainspace. Would an admin have done that if notability wasn't present? And I don't understand why articles I create lately are deleted when they do pass the guideline. I shouldn't have to keep explaining this to people, but just because WP:PORNBIO is under discussion doesn't mean it should be ignored. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm certain that you read my rather detailed closing message (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I did, but it should be consensus in conjunction with guidelines, not just consensus. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. My close was 100% in line with policies. Thanks for making my point for me ... it's easier when that happens (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. WP:PORNBIO is under discussion, but it's still a guideline. Some people seem to think that just because it's under discussion means that it should be ignored (which is exactly what the delete !voters said), and I haven't seen anything on Wikipedia that says that that's what that means. To be honest, it almost amounts to votestacking (which I'm not accusing you of doing, btw). Let me ask you this: how, exactly, does Anderson not pass WP:PORNBIO? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Policies outweigh guidelines, as I noted in my close. The policy of most-restrictive (especially in BLP's) must apply. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

People always say things like this when I make a good point and they can't answer my question. I guess Wikipedia has turned into a place where people can just ignore guidelines they don't like and get away with it. And it doesn't violate any policy either, but I doubt you care. Whatever. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:52, 29 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 question to my TPS's

Now that I have an editor who has copied my unique, detailed sig verbatim (see here), is it:

1. time for a major change of sig
2. time for a minor change of sig
3. time to not give a crap

See here if desired (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If someone copied mine i would change it. How about a change of colour if you don't want a wholesale change.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Why You deleted the Bollywood Xplorer

May i know why you deleted the Bollywood Xplorer on (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement (CSDH)) ground? Please check again whether its come under this or not. I believe you have acted improperly. I want to go for Dispute resolution process or Arbitration Committee directly.--CrazyAboutBollywood 19:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyAboutBollywood (talk • contribs)

Here's a better idea: make a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT. Make sure it meets WP:FIRSTARTICLE - including reliable sourcing, notability, and our WP:MOS. When you think it's ready to actually be an article, check with a few wise individuals. Until then, it remains deleted and is protected from being recreated. You don't jump from deletion to ArbComm ... that's ridiculous (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by a few wise individuals? Clear me first. No body is helping here. Lots of admin creating only regime instead of helping the users like me. I have checked this deleted article with the duplication detection tool easily available on the internet. It is showing only 3% relevancy. I have also checked other wiki articles with there website, the tool is showing 17% relevancy. Why that are not coming under this criteria? I know you will say that i should not compare the deleted article with other existing articles. Ok being a common wiki editor its not my right to ask to a admin? As far as i know about wikipedia it is a unbiased, the why this biasing? I have checked This wiki article is present on wiki since a long time, so why deletion now? It seems it is only due to some user who don't think this article should present on wikipedia and tagging for deletion and a few admin favoring that users blindly. Why? Please Please let me know what should i do now? --CrazyAboutBollywood 19:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyAboutBollywood (talk • contribs)

I have advised you on what to do. Go. Try it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok Thanks for your reply. How to decide who is wise individual? If i believe i not getting any wise individual, will you help me in creating and reviewing the articles? May i create the deleted articles freshly again?--CrazyAboutBollywood 20:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyAboutBollywood (talk • contribs)

Please re-read my original reply: the article CANNOT be re-created right now - I have implemented protection because of the repeated violations. Read the blue-linked policies/documents, especially WP:USERSPACEDRAFT. No, I cannot assist in creating - it's not a topic of interest/significant knowledge to me, so I am unaware of valid sources at this time. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok let me know How this deleted article violate the copyright? If u checked, will u provide me the duplication content reference. This article has only 13 words relevancy. How it is violating the copyright? Wiki guidline says that couple of sentences can be quoted and it is safe. How it is violating the copyright?--CrazyAboutBollywood 20:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyAboutBollywood (talk • contribs)

I believe you have acted improperly. I will go for dispute resolution process.--CrazyAboutBollywood 20:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)--CrazyAboutBollywood 20:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyAboutBollywood (talk • contribs)

See WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING. Dispute resolution is for existing articles - yours does not exist. Do you have another account? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

CrazyAboutBollywood I don't think you are getting it right. Threatening or abusing any wiki editor is not the way to go forward. I think it is really sensible to read all the wiki policies Bwilkin has laid for you, especially notability. The article in question is not deleted only because of copyright infringement, it also doesn't meet the wiki notability criteria, which is rather the main reason for deletion, I hope this helps. Fanofbollywood (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Please will you review my case

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:SlimVirgin_reported_by_User:Betty_Logan_.28Result:_.29

The source issue is no longer that important in the debate (that is being sorted at RS/N), and I'm not seeking administrative action, but there has been a major dispute over the structure of the article. Slimvirgin is making major structural changes to the article to the List of vegans article without a consensus. Following the Passion of the Christ incident, you advised me to go Dispute Resolution to resolve an editing dispute. I have done this and she is refusing point blank to engage at dispute resolution, and has now asked her friend on the vegan article to write a program to remove all the citation templates, which frankly is ridiculous: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_templates_and_tools states the citation templates should not be removed without consensus. I have requested at the 3rr case that while the DR case is going on structural changes to the article should cease, and should only being undertaken within the remit of DR now I have opened the case. This is advice you gave me, and now an editor is just ignoring the process and planning on making even further changes. I am not asking for any blocks, just that all editors (including this admin) seeking to make structural changes to the list be compelled to gain a consensus at the open DR case. I think my request at the discussion is very reasonable, and I don't see the point of going through DR if editors aren't bound by it. Betty Logan (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• I tried it your way. I think you generally have higher ideals than most of your peers, but your aspirations on here just do not meet the reality of what Wikipedia really is, so I'm leaving, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_refusing_to_participate_in_dispute_resolution. Thankyou for how you dealt with Armbrust; I know he let you down a bit but you were always good to him, it was nice to see someone else value what he did. Betty Logan (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

ani

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Need_an_uninvolved_admin_to_close_a_POINTY_MfD Nobody Ent 02:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

AN/ANI

You'll never guess but I THOUGHT there was something odd about the content where I was editing. Not being a regular on that page I sensed unfamiliar surroundings; but it's late evening (early AM now) in the UK and I fell victim to the confusion. I'll remember for next time. Thanks for dealing with it and I hope that will be an end to it. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Help please

You recently protected 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings because of persistent edit-warring. I am encountering further difficulty in making any progress, and I request that you view Talk:2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings, and advise me how to continue. I am being told to "wait for another editor", that frequently opposes me, and am being reverted without adequate explanation.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:DR (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblock on hold

I see that you placed an unblock at User talk:Notshane on hold back in February. Perhaps you could have another look at it. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the last time I looked the discussion wasn't going well. However ... if you're OK with the sample article he did, then you are free to unblock IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Help with updating one picture

Hello Bwilkins, I work for Kurupt's record label and he has directed me to somehow change his picture on his Wiki article. He strongly dislikes the picture that was used to represent him over the years in his article. I believe the file name on wiki commons is Kurupt in Abu Dahbi or something like that and its a horrible picture of him. I requested confirmed status/permissions manually last night to simply update the picture and was denied status and referred to you by another admin stating major conflicts of interest. i do not wish to change any wording of the article, in fact i believe the wording and information listed is highly correct, except official website but thats not an issue right now. I went ahead and updated the picture to Kurupt's liking last night without confirmed status and the picture I found he is ok with and everything seemed to be ok but now I'm getting notices saying the picture might be deleted in seven days and so forth. Can you please help me in achieving my goal of getting a new picture of my boss on his wiki? This shouldn't be a hard task. Thank you for any help on this. Scunni (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If the current image is on Commons, then you should probably upload the current one to Commons as well ... they have different processes (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Why have you deleted the CAFA Cougars page?

• Cafa cougars · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I wish to enquire about the reason for which you deleted the CAFA Cougars page. As far as me, and all members of the team are concerned, it is both relevant and informative. Leatherdaddy69 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leatherdaddy69 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone tagged the "article" as not being notable. Indeed, in my verification the team does not appear to meet the notability requirements, especially as per WP:FOOTY. You may wish to be further aware of WP:COI (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Why delete A-fu Teng?

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.

---

Please read the page carefully before you do something like deleting a page. It was relisted after references were provided, and the consensus after the relist is to KEEP. It's obvious from your comment "Consensus is to delete" that you have not read the page carefully like you should. Please respect other people's work who provided references as requested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A-fu_Teng Timmyshin (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess you didn't come here to discuss it nicely. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That's the response you can provide? Whether I'm nice or not is beside the point, the point is you have not been responsible when you deleted the article, and you don't have the manhood to admit your mistake. You claimed it failed WP:Music. For the criteria listed on WP:Music, even if you had read the article for 1 minute, you can see the artist met #2, #4, not to mention 3 references from non-trivial national sources which meet #1. An editor doesn't have to be perfect, but making a major decision based on 2 inaccurate pieces of information and then refusing to admit & correct it only shows at the least that you are not qualified and not responsible. Timmyshin (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Whether you're nice is part of the point: civility is part of the code of conduct. There are probably editors who will look less favorably on a deletion review request if the discussion is a string of personal attacks by you than if it is a polite discussion about your differing interpretations of the sourcing of the article and the consensus from the deletion discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop diverting the issue. In my original post I used 2 "pleases" and talked about "respect other people's work" and somehow that is interpreted as uncivil, and "personal attacks"? So only begging is allowed on wiki? Look, we are all unpaid volunteers on wiki. From your link I can see wiki emphasizes "respect". When the page was first deleted, I spend hours finding and properly citing sources, romanizing the name, translating the titles of the sources, and he comes in and deletes it just like that, without even reading the page. I don't need to be personally attacking him, he knows well how much time he spent before he deleted the article. If he can honestly say he spent as much time as the other reviewers on that page, then he has my apologies. Timmyshin (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If I may ask, did you do any vetting of the sources, or did you just go by the discussion on the talk page? I noticed there were three sources in the article, though I don't think any of them were in English. Also, one of the delete !votes was kind of conditional: the user indicated that he might have to reconsider if sources were found. Based on that, I'm not sure there's a clear consensus; I don't think you made a "serious mistake," but I think I might have relisted or closed as no consensus, if I'd been the closing admin. Do you think that at least restoration to user space might be a good solution, to allow Timmyshin to continue to develop the article and hopefully to pull in more sources? —C.Fred (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This is one that I dug for some additional resources, combined with the discussions. I found some translated articles, none of which convinced me of meeting WP:BAND...in part due to reliability, but also content. I'm never beyond userfying, but discussion has to be polite first. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't clear from the closing message; thank you for clarifying. I'm happy with the close of the AfD; I'll leave it for Timmyshin to indicate if he wishes the text moved to his user space. —C.Fred (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

he'll have to be a heck of a lot more civil, if that's the direction he chooses :-). But he already knew that because it's visible every time he edits this page (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Where is your response to me pointing out the artist meeting #1, #2 and #4 on WP:Band? Stop using civility as an excuse to divert the issue. Timmyshin (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It's clear from the closing message that you did not "dig for additional resources" before you deleted it. Where is your response to the fact that there was no consensus but you insisting there is? Timmyshin (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Really? How do you determine "consensus"? Even if it was a !vote, you have a nominator, two well-reasoned deleted !votes, and a keep !vote - 3-1 if tally mattered. You're really going to have to work harder at your WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I'm not using Civility to skirt the issue, so that's a red-herring: when you edited this page, you read the top that says I will not, period, discuss the deletion if your discussion included incivility and attacks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:33, 4 May 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.

User:Cla68

What do you think about User:Cla68 now that he has changed it? I'm inclined to withdraw the DRV on the grounds that the MfD is no longer necessary, but I'd like your input first. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 14:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It could be closed ... however, the concern would be that once the heat is off, he adds it again. Granted, DRV is just going to re-open the MFD and not make a real decision - OTHER than confirming that early closure of such discussions in wholly inappropriate. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Some people just don't listen…

So basically, on Escape the Fate I removed all these bands under this associated acts section that have like barely (if not anything) to do with the band and and this guy non-stoppingly reverts it. He's been blocked for these reasons before. And today, I left him this talk page comment clearly saying it's in a guideline not to do what he's doing (which it is) and then he goes back to the article, reverts me again and gives a threat. Can you do something about this? • GunMetal Angel 21:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Geez, reminds me of someone else whose case recently slipped into my archives (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, things are getting weird now, you may want to check the history for Escape the Fate. I'm feeling the page may need to get a full protection soon because there's other users (if not sockpuppets) that are doing the same thing to the page and re-adding all those bands. I've decided to stop reverting at this point (I've done two more reverts since the last 24 hours that I've reverted) so I'm staying in the safe zone now and not going beyond that. But have given each and every user a talk page comment telling them to stop before going on. This guy seems to be the most recent concern. ………Why is it so hard to follow the rules? • GunMetal Angel 22:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

We've reached a consensus on my page, I was confused and thought he was a vandal but now that I've checked his contributions I can see I was mistaken. I will leave you to your edits Gunmetal. TJD2 (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

GUMS - Galway University University Society

Wondering on what basis you deleted the Galway University Musical Societies wiki page? I can't seem to think of any explanation.

We recently composed a 7 page booklet on the history of the society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.203.219.138 (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make it notable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Funny angry people

I just read your exchange with the uncommonly tempestuous Seeker4262, and I was highly amused. I have never seen anything quite like it, Wikipedia will be a much duller place without him/her. Nicely handled.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit, the entire thing was quite surreal. The guy was provided every piece of assistance possible, so an indef block is unfortunate. If only he'd put that kind of energy into making an article that actually met the policies/requirements, then it might have been as a minimum a DYK. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Recall clerking

I'm updating User:MBisanz/Recall and was wondering if you would be willing to serve as a clerk? MBisanz ^talk 21:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's complex ... but I will agree to be one of the clerks. I'd say it's an honour to be asked, but I'm sure that's a mixed message! :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Mixed emotions are a good thing. I grabbed you because our paths don't cross often, but you still seem like someone capable of making reasoned judgments. MBisanz ^talk 23:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully I never need to be used :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

User:123.243.76.19

Hi BWilkins, could you please see my proposal on User_talk:123.243.76.19 to move content discussion to Talk:Bob_Carr. I was blocked on my first good faith edit to Bob_Carr previously. I'd like a community consensus sought. Thanks. —Preceding undated comment added 13:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC).

All article discussion should have taken place on the article talkpage anyway. Blocked users may only use their talkpage to request unblock, not other dicussion (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

2011–12 NHL season

This edit where you wrote "can never be the top of bracket for the #8 team" is wrong. Immediately below the ladder it reads "During the first three rounds home ice is determined by seeding number, not position on the bracket." See also [2012 Stanley Cup playoffs‎]] and 2011 Stanley Cup playoffs‎ and 2010–11 NHL season and read the discussion at Talk:2011 Stanley Cup playoffs#Playoff bracket: Conference Finals ordering of teams. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Odd that ... this is, after all, the beginning of the third round - which puts my edit squarely in line with what you quoted (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Jay's Musik Blog

Here is my proposal that I am working on to post to RSN. Give it a look over and your opinion on your talk page if you want to? Thanks!HotHat (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a ridiculous argument. The articles I write that appear in various newspapers may meet WP:RS, but my personal blogs sure as heck do not (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

if that is your stance then we need to change the USERGENERATED policy because as I see it the website above meets the criteria right on because of his past work experience with regard to Christian Music Review and now New Release Tuesday. Sorry, that I just don't quite see it like you do on this issue.22:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Users not adhering to WP:SPEAKENGLISH on talk pages

Hi Bwilkins,

Sorry to bother you, but it has been drawn to my attention that a user has engaged in an edit war over Template:History of Georgia, and has since started to canvass other users by posting comments in Georgian and not using English, as per guidance at WP:SPEAKENGLISH. I've posted a polite caution to the users, but you may wish to hop over and intervene if you feel it is necessary. GeorgianJorjadze (talk · contribs) has been warned once before about not communicating in English. Wesley☀Mouse 23:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Hello can you please check these accounts: user:wakwakwiki, user:banimustafa, user:soufray, user:StrictWikiEditor, user:Jerashray all these 5 accounts refer to the same person.--94.249.93.242 (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

For block evasion and admin shopping while blocked, I have extended the block on your registered account to 1 week. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

War criminals in Canada - Request for Unprotection

I am requesting the page be unprotected per WP:RUP. The request is to allow updating the sourcing of the article since 20 new sources have been uncovered on the talk page. This is neccessary to sort them in such a way that WP:N and WP:Vis not only established but also demonstrated. The same goes for WP:NPOV. BO; talk 04:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

...and how about WP:CFORK? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your meaning? BO; talk 11:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You want to be an admin. Does the article deserve to stand alone on its own, or is it a mere content fork from something else? This is quite possibly the easiest question out there (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Good question but the question is not that simple to me. First of all I have become invested in that article. Second from an info-centric view there is a good argument to give it a specific article - It covers a non trivial intersection of material from other article while introducing new and specific information that is either too specific for the other subjects or altogether off topic for them. Thirdly from a wikipedia point of view it satisfies WP:N since there are so far about 4 (academic) books on the specific subject. BO; talk 14:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi - I wish someone would nominate it and get rid of it - if its going to be kept, we need to do something with the article sooner rather than later, especially the lede - User OrenB is working on the lede in his userspace, which I great and this is what he has so far - User:OrenBochman/ToDo#Alternate Lead Sections - Youreallycan 05:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

AJona1992's AN/I

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. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 23:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

War criminals in Canada - to the point

In case I am ever in your shoes:

1. when would you censure a 3 revision revert violator and when would the article be fully protected and for how long.?
2. To what extent an admin's self-associated with an article's subject be considered involvement (e.g. you have delared to be a Canadian Admin - would that even be considered WP:Involved when you help out in a dispute on an article critical with Canadian policy?
3. After protecting an article is is customary for the protector to follow development on the talk page? or should other channals like ArbCom be used to sort things out?
4. when can we expect to see the protection removed ? BO; talk 02:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm literally aghast at how much of this you have mistaken (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope this revised version is something you can better respond too - I have removed much of the background and assumption. Thanks! BO; talk 10:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

...oh great, now you have refactored it, and completely changed the meaning of my reply. Don't ever do that. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey I am trying to get your input in good faith ? Why are you avoiding the questions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrenBochman (talk • contribs)

I'm not avoiding: I'm teaching a man to fish :-) Refactoring is bad, bad, bad ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I tried to reintoduce the original version using <DEL> but it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrenBochman (talk • contribs)

Yes, did you see the mess your edits made to this talkpage? I was forced to undo them all (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep I was tryin to fix it - when you reverted. BTW The preview looked ok but the saved version was obviouly broken. I'd have opened a bug in Bugzilla - if I figured out the issue. Anyhow I'd prefer at this point if you deleted this section altogether. BO; talk 21:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

HELP ME PLEASE

Go look at my talk page one editor is trying to get notable stuff deleted from this encyclopedia.HotHat (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the user to be a SOCK, just look at the other times Asjetruss0009 tried to get Dara Maclean speed deleted, and W23fffd tried to get The Rescue deleted.HotHat (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be canvassing, and I suggest you stop (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I will stop, I will even go one better, I am out! Have fun dealing with the trolls.HotHat (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for confirm status date 10/05/2012

Dear Sir, I think there might have been a miscommunication as my heading mentioned that I would write about brands and organisations. I was mentioning you of the fact that I do take up assignments from them in writing creative prose. I would similarly like to share what i have discovered while doing so in to wikipedia so that the people around the world will gain a glimpse of inside Sri Lanka.

I do not represent any company or an organisation in wikipedia in my username, please do provide me with an advice on how to obtain the confirmed status as I would greatly appreciate the assistance of yours. I am however currently have edited minor changes in few articles. Looking forward to hear from you. (Thewordbar (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC))

The best way to obtain confirmed status is to actually edit articles! Remember that all information must be verifiable through reliable sources, and that articles must be about notable topics. There are millions of articles that need your help ... it only takes a few positive edits to become confirmed (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Your forgot to sign

Hey Bwilkins. Feel free to ignore and delete this, you forgot to sign [[1]]. Just thought I'd let you know. MrLittleIrish ^(talk) 申 14:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle/Friendly seems to forget to do that these days ... a lot. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Need a diff to be deleted.

Can you please delete this diff please? It is a bit crude and there is no need for someone to need to go back and view it.

Thank You, Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 19:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblock?

Re User talk:Spc 21, it sounds like they messed up and won't do it again - would you be agreeable to an unblock? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

If you think it's believable this time, go ahead. I'm not overly convinced, myself. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the user understands what to do differently now. I would unblock per WP:AGF.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

he'll has pretty much shot himself in the foot based on his latest comments (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll leave the block as it stands.(See their latest edit summary too!) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I think he shot himself in both feet. It's a strange feeling to be blocked, believe me I would know. I don't know why but one tends to lose it if they can't get themselves unblocked as quickly as possible. I remember showing some impatience when I was waiting for ArbCom to review my unblock request because I couldn't stand being blocked.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 12:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

And I sympathize. WP:GAB really suggests that people shut up and calm down before requesting their unblocks. I smell a new essay ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No, no essay today. Today's Mother's Day so I'm not going to be very active today but, get yourself indefinitely blocked and have your only way to get yourself unblocked to send an appeal to ArbCom and you will start to lose it after a few days. You can't imagine how I felt at that time because I was violating a policy, that I didn't even know about at the time, left and right.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 12:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I mean I'm going to write one :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Have fun.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sympathy

I happened to come across this while going through the recent changes, and I have to say, I feel sympathy for the user, as I went through the same thing of not really listening to advice and such. I, too, edit warred, but I don't think I was as uncivil. I was at first around when I joined, but my last block for edit warring, which was indefinite, might I add, I wasn't much so -- not that I can recall, anyway. Just something I noticed. Hope you don't mind me commenting. =) - Zhou Yu (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I too am sympathetic but the community awareness sure is missing (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Near-incoherent rants

(note: I, Bwilkins added this heading as none was originally given to either of their posts from different IP addresses)

WHO ARE YOU? YOU ARE ANONYMOUS AND SEEM TO HAVE INFINITE POWER TO BLOCK WHOEVER YOU DISAGREE WITH. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME ADDRESS AND AFFILIATIOINS. CLEARLY YOU HAVE AN HIDDEN AGENDA. PROFESSOR GEORGE PIECZENIK

I NOTICED THE EDITORS IN GENEWIKI ARE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. ARE YOU A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT? PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND YOUR ACADEMIC CREDENTIALS. YOU ARE SPREADING ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF MISINFORMATION. YOU ARE THE INTELLECTUAL EQUIVALENT OF SNOOKI AS A SOCIAL LEADER, EXCEPT SHE HAS THE COURAGE TO IDENTIFY HERSELF. THOSE SHE SLEEPS WITH ARE ANONYMOUS. NICE TO HAVE A LOT OF CONTROL AND POWER WHEN YOU ARE ANONYMOUS. DOES THAT REMIND YOU OF ANY POLITICAL REGIME? YOU HAVE ASKED FACULTY TO SUPPORT YOU AGAINST THE GOVERNMENTS DESIRE TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS ON WIKI. I HAVE GIVEN WIKI THAT SUPPORT BOTH IN GETTING STUDENTS TO SUPPORT WIKI AND FINANCIALLY. NOW, I HAVE TO REVISE THAT OPINION. I WILL INSIST THAT STUDENTS NEVER USE WIKI REFERENCES AS THEY ARE JUST MADE UP BY HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITHOUT TRAINING IN PROPER REFERENCING. WHAT YOU ARE GOOD AT IS FORMATTING, NOT AT SUBSTANCE. YOU HAVE MADE FORMATTING THE CRITERIA FOR A KNOWLEDGE BASE. AND BEING ANONYMOUS. MORE IN SORROW THAN IN ANGER, PROF. GEORGE PIECZSENIK — Preceding unsigned comment added by GPieczenik (talk • contribs) (or at least block-evading socks thereof)

I have put these incoherent rants back on to show a) the person clearly is not the educated "professor" they claim to be, and b) how misguided some people are. Heck, they cannot even identify the correct Wiki - this is "Wikipedia". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear "professor", thanks for your kind words, and all in caps too! My profession is listed on my userpage - indeed, I write for a living, and like you, I teach the occasional class at one of the local universities. I'm obviously far from being anonymous. Like you, I have an advanced degree - which is useful when it comes to content, but obviously does nothing for behaviour.

Wikipedia (not "the wiki") is a beneficial project, however is not (and likely never shall be) a reference for students. As a professor, you already know that. It's user-edited. Although all articles/statements must be sourced, it's not the same as academic work,

I have never edited the same articles as you - so really, you're not someone I "disagree" with in terms of article content. As an administrator, however, I am required to uphold the rules and policies that you agreed with when you began editing this project. I repeat: you agreed to the rules and policies. That include conflict of interest, no legal threats, but more important right now, not evading a valid block. If you were a student and behaved the way you are in a classroom, you'd be blocked from entering the class - just as you are right now.

Financial support and even political support are great: what we need from you are supporting the rules and policies that, once again, you agreed to. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• ... and couldn't be bothered to identify his posting here ... thank God for Sinebot! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Reading this has made me chuckle! And has put me in a really good mood! --Chip123456 (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I found it amusing too. More in sorrow than in anger. Oh well, back to high school I go. :) Toddst1 (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen the teenagers these days? I'd be in sooo much trouble if I was back in high school right now (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If only ... one can dream ... -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Careful; this isn't American Beauty (film) :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd gamble that you've got the real Professor George Pieczenik there. See http://federal-circuits.vlex.com/vid/pieczenik-v-domantis-20894040 and http://nj.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110323_0000600.DNJ.htm/qx ( key word being "conspiracy" ). DeistCosmos (talk) 06:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm torn. Yes, the original edits struck me as being him. However, the tantrums do not strike me as someone with an education. You see where the problem lies (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, did he ever get a serious beat-down from the judge in one of those two cases. In other words, he's carrying over a civil litigation fight onto Wikipedia. I was right: his WP:COI is preventing him from editing objectively in certain areas of this project. His original legal threat also cannot be ignored: he represented himself at least more than once as a litigant, and could therefore be expected to do so again. The threat was therefore probably more pressing and with substance than most of our day-to-day NLT violations (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this better?

Talk:List of CAD programs. Greg L (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion is good....seems to be well-restrained. Key argument in any list: if the product is not worthy of having a article, it does not belong on a list. Lists are effectively disambiguation pages. Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this in jest or a joke?

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.

---

What do you mean with this: “dangerous”? Of course I can (may) talk to anyone I chose in real life. I’ve run my edits by cited Ph.D.s to make sure the material I write is correct and factual and correctly paraphrases what they mean. And everything is properly cited. Is there something wrong with that? Without even a ;-) emoticon at the end of that post, it looks like a breathtaking personal attack. Please explain yourself. Greg L (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously no rational human could read it as a personal attack - and even some irrational ones would not have been able to stretch their imagination that far. Thanks for checking, just in case. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You wrote as follows: “You're actually calling the PhD's? Turns out you're more dangerous than I realized.”

Not everyone has the same sense of humor as you do. On Wikipedia’s talk pages, the lack of in-person interaction deprives the recipient of facial expressions and body language. Without the courtesy of even an emoticon (they exist for a reason), one can easily assume that what one writes is what they mean.

None of this is helped by your above response, which lacks the word “sorry” or anything of the sort, and instead speaks of “rational” people. That sort of thing can actually come across as flippant and glib.

Given that you blocked me three days ago for being up front and writing precisely what I thought of another editor (I don’t admire editors who can be disruptive beyond all comprehension on Wikipedia but get away with it because they can use faux wiki-pleasantries while doing so), perhaps it ought not shock you that I actually took you at your word. Greg L (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. But, thank you—I think. If you actually meant this:

You're actually calling the PhD's? Turns out you're more dangerous than I realized. ;-)

…then I very much appreciate your stopping by on my talk page with the complement. Greg L (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No matter what was meant, there is no way that it could even be considered a violation of civility or personal attack....even if read out of context. As such, any level of anger - misplaced or not - is pretty much moot. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:44, 14 May 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.

John R. Palmer

Hello Bwilkins, I would like to say Hello! to you, and I also wanted to inform you that the page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_R._Palmer&action=edit&redlink=1 has become a redlinked page unfortunately. Your user page states that you were a major contributor, so I would love to inform you of this change! Thanks, Ax1om77 (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do know it's been deleted, and took part interest deletion discussion. I still believe he's more notable than 10% of the people we do keep articles on. I do maintain a draft in my USERSPACEDRAFT. Someday all that past work will pay off, I'm sure. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

AKA

Good decline, I missed the previous block for BLP violations, else I would have blocked him myself - probably indefinitely, considering the user's past history. Dreadstar ☥ 00:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I must have been in an excessively chipper mood to have not extended it myself :-) Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

	Helpful Hero
	Thanks for all your help on Wikipedia! *-Ax10m77-* (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please do something about that?

[2]--Shrike (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

What; block 2 or 3 more people in addition to the 2 from yesterday? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know but personal attacks continue.If we want to maintain some level of discussion those things should be dealt but of course as admin its your discretion--Shrike (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Constantly sanctioning multiple users who are reacting to AnkhMorpork's behavior is not going to solve the problem. Take the diff that Shrike supplied for example [3] Andy calls out Ankhmorpork for substantially editing comments that have already been responded to. Ankh says "unfuckingbelieveable". Andy responds in kind, Shrike runs to an admin to look for sanctions against Andy. Maybe its just me, but that doesn't seem right. Dlv999 (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not right. It's running to mommy (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's deescalate

Brendon111 just is not, and will not hear you any more -- it's become personal for them if not for you. Now that he's raised his concerns at ANI, it will be better from them to get advice from others, and more prudent (and less work) if you walk away. Nobody Ent 14:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Thanks for notifying me of the ANI ... first I've heard of it. It doesn't take much searching through his talkpage to see that I've busted my ass to a) help him, b) inform him, and c) get him unblocked. It's not personal for me, I'm simply trying to diffuse his meltdown (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  Brendon ishere 14:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes ... filed more than 2-1/2 hours ago, and regardless of the big orange box saying you had to advise me of the filing, and at least 2 others who said the same thing, I'm finally getting this message. Thanks. I'm quite pleased that I was actually advised of it one section above. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

On the internet, banners are invisible. As I noted on Brendon's talk page, my efforts (back in January) to simplify the wall o text atop ANI failed. Expecting editors unfamiliar with ANI to know to notify folks isn't realistic (as indicated by the many editors who don't). Nobody Ent 14:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I must say that simplification of the header would be a very good thing indeed. Or failing that, perhaps we could make the requirement of notification as obnoxious and unmissable as possible; header creep is par for the course on Wikipedia, anyway. (Bwilkins, I came here to inform you that the obvious sock you blocked earlier is confirmed by CU to, in fact, be operated by the very same individual with whom you interacted below.) AGK [•] 22:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocking

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.

---

Yesterday, you blocked an editor for making accurate edits to a page, which were being continually reverted by an administrator. The edits have since been verified and posted by other editors. I suggest you now apologize to the editor in question and block the administrator who started the edit war, who so far, has avoided all censure. But then, they're an administrator. Enough said. TVArchivistUK (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring was still edit-warring - no matter the WP:TRUTH. As I noted on ANI (if you bothered to read) I was unable to take action on the other edit-warring party because of connectivity issues. Next time, read the policies and entire situation before making such rash comments (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)And on top of that, the reason why RedRose was reverting was because the IP wasn't citing the source whey got it from. They say they got it from amazon.com but where from? This user was calling advice given to them a threat and called the reverts threats too. So I support BWilkins on this one.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course you support each other. There's a shock. Nice to know that one of the vaulted administrators escaped a block due to a "connectivity error". No such error impeded the poor editor who was proven to be correct. Now your connectivity error has cleared, I'm sure you'll be imposing the same ban and punishment. As you say, an edit war is an edit war. But it takes more than one person to create one. But only one victim was punished. And "if you bothered to read" you'll see that the editor cited Amazon.com as their source. But alas, they're not an administrator. I'm ready for my block now. TVArchivistUK (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't do punishment here to anyone. The IP was never punished. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:45, 17 May 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.

Samestate

Hello, I was wondering do you think this is notable under MUSICBIO.HotHat (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

All Sons & Daughters

Do you think this one is notable at all?HotHat (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

War criminals in Canada

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.

---

Hello, the "protect article" expired and the same problem editor Redirected/Moved the article. I have placed it back. Would you please block this Youreallycan editors account. Thank you. 09:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JunoBeach (talk • contribs)

There's only one editor who probably should be blocked. You guys had a long time to fix this, and it's still simply a WP:CFORK ... the editor who moved it back is probably the one who should be blocked (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the article has been blocked it has not been possible to collaborate on fixing it. As a consequence research and editing was perhaps ten times more difficult - a failure that cannot be used in good faith to delete the article - we are all busy with other bussiness and the block has placed other priorites in our path.

Secondly the editor who violated the three revert rule about the NPOV tag has removed it himself - what could only be understood as an indication that the Conflict had been resolved and the original consensus of no WP:NPOV had been reestablished.

Moving of the article was done unilateraly - without a Afd discussion. This is a clear unilateral escalation of the conflict one again - asserting ownership of the article depite aquiesing to a new consensus on the talk page.

I consider such a move little more then petty vandalism - especially that it was done in an underhand fashion.

Regarding the WP:CFORK this has not been discusseed. We do not understand how this recomensdaion could possibly apply to this article not what options might exist to comply with it if it were demonstrated to be relevant. To use it to justify abusive action without a discussion appears high handed even if it may be correct and suported by other admins - this is not a corteous way to reat relative new comers,

About you threat of banning of JunoBeach - we believe he had reverted a malicius act of a much more experineced user, once again calculated to get him into trouble. That even if he erred he was acting in good faith - a very stong case against a bannig. If we are offered no other recourse I shall take this to the arbitration committie where we can expect an impartial hearing. BO; talk 11:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbComm? Are you fricking serious? This is a content dispute, and is outside of the remit of ArbComm. Did ANY of you actually follow WP:DR? Did ANY of you draft the potential article on the talkpage and get consensus for it during the time the article was locked? THAT is what the purpose of the lock was. No, instead you're whinging about it now. You had your chance - and I even TOLD you all of this before, yet you did squat all. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

We are very serious and commited to imporove wikipedia in good will. We are also committed to resolve this dispute without any bans or threats of bans. We even welcome your input - if you keep to facts, policy and norms and avoid a patronising tone.

Regarding ArbComm - I think they can decide for themselves what is the limt of their mandate. It was you however who escalated this from a content dispute by threatning to ban a user who has made an ernest grievence. I have placed a number of policy related questions but all I got were comments on nettiquete.

I also have to request that you respond with the same level of seriousness and not cal our attempt to re-establishing a consensus is whining. This is also a point of Nettiquette BO; talk 12:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have never suggested a WP:BAN...I suggested that this would be a WP:BLOCK for edit-warring, as was originally stated when the protection was put on the article. If you're not going to read, please go away (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:36, 18 May 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.

216.31.246.114

216.31.246.114 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Hi, I was just about to close the ANI discussion, and I noticed that the IP appears to still be blocked, even though it should have naturally expired. Can you take a look? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

They were reblocked as a CU block (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that now. Not that it's terribly important, but I wonder why, even after the 12 hours expired, the block didn't expire with it because when I looked at it before, it didn't yet have the CU block.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ifore2012

I have blocked for 48 hours for this, following your sound advice. If you disagree please feel free to unblock. Thanks, GiantSnowman 15:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a perfect example of what I'm trying to write up here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Great, cheers. You'll have to let me know when you've finished the essay. GiantSnowman 15:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions! SwisterTwister talk 16:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep up the good work!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For all the things you do! JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Article deletions

Hello Bwilkins I created two pages for ‘Bastian Gotter’ and ‘Jason Njoku’ and they have been deleted instantly. I believe these pages should not be deleted because they represent the co-founders of iROKO Partners, a company backed by a US hedge fund who have brought the second biggest movie industry online from a region still believed to be a sleeping giant contrary to popular belief. As a result, the company and its founder have been receiving a lot of media coverage. Please see the following links: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17896461 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/9190749/Facebook-investor-Tiger-Global-takes-stake-in-Nollywood-film-distributor.html http://www.forbes.com/sites/mfonobongnsehe/2012/04/04/tiger-global-backs-nigerian-internet-entepreneur-in-8-million-round/ http://edition.cnn.com/2011/BUSINESS/08/02/jason.njoku.nollywood.love/index.html

How can I proceed with getting these pages approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayoak (talk • contribs) 13:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me just say that the iROKO article is barely allowable - I'm contemplating nominating it for deletion now. As such, the two personnel are clearly not notable outside of the company itself, and should not have article of their own (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bwilkins What do you mean barely allowable? The company itself has significant media Coverage from BBC, CNN, Forbes, Techcrunch, Telelgraph (Just a few to mention) and Jason Njoku is at the forefront of the company and is mentioned in various articles as the founder of the company and is clearly notable outside of the company. If you feel that's not enough, what can we do to get an article on Jason Njoku allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayoak (talk • contribs) 11:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Who is "we"? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bwilkins, I mean we as a representative of the company iROKO Partners. So, when i say we, I mean the company. Excuse the miscommunication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayoak (talk • contribs) 15:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Then stop. WP:COI editing is not good, neither is WP:PROMO. You're clearly not objective enough to see that these people are not encyclopedic (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Block

Umm...I think you've made a rash decision in blocking TopGun. You may want to reconsider, seeing that this was not a normal case of reverting. There was a sock making personal attacks involved. See user talk page for further comments. Mar4d (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, you 2 have EC'd with me 3 times on his page. NO, it's not rash. AGF on admin's abilities to read on thw 3RR page. Edit-warring to remove/hide ANYTHING is inappropriate - note: it's only 12 hrs, not as per normal escalation (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

As long as I retain the copyright to the images I upload (it appears after reading the Image Use Policy that I would), I am fine with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpryhal (talk • contribs) 20:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Question

Can non-admins do this. --Chip123456 (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Normally he cannot mark it as "not done", but his reasoning is impeccable (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, because I always find myself wishing to put no, because I made a NAO for that user....so it allowed or not?--Chip123456 (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said, they may NAO but NOT close it as done or not done (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Chip123456 (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

sock evading?

You've closed a notice at ANI, and taken the side of a user who has abused wiki policy, used abusive language and failed to declare a previous account. Fucking disgusting! Bjmullan and yourself must he pretty good friends. Admin my arse.

Of course, you'd have to be a little more clear as to what thread you're randomly talking about. But that apparently isn't your style. Good luck (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring to "disgusting". The attitude of "two wrongs make a right" is not helpful. Understand adminship is time consuming but to turn a blind eye to the actions of user:Bjmullan is to the detriment of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.250 (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess you'd have to prove that he violated any policies whatsoever. It's normal/common to label IP pages. Besides, I didn't close it - nice try. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it normal for a user to reveal another users place of work? And to tell them to fuck off? Sorry I thought you closed the notice. I thought the notice had been closed for socking? With no proof. Yet I would have to prove that Bjmullan is a sock. Different rules for different users? I have already shown Bjmullans edit of abusive language, making a threat against a user's job, and suspicious edits for a novice user. That seems more than enough proof.

If someone is dumb enough to edit anonymously from their place of work, then WHOIS can clearly be used to identify them: that's one of the reasons why userids are actually more anonymous than IP addresses. There's nothing wrong with using the sharedip template or other identifying information on ANY IP address talkpage...it's considered common knowledge. Saying "fuck off" may be uncivil, but not blockable...especially based on the individual circumstances. Suspicious edits? I edited for a year as an IP before registering - my initial contributions under this account were pretty good: suspicious, no. Please learn to sign your talkpage posts with ~~~~, and feel free to take back your snotty original post (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

snotty? Ha! I think you need to spend a bit more time away from your computer.86.150.188.221 (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions, Bwilkins. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Nirzhorshovon

Thank you for trying to help out. I don't know if they will understand or be able to figure out how to respond on-wiki but this at least seems a step in the right direction. - jc37 12:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Bringing them to an Admin noticeboard when you've not tried actually discussing things with them was pretty bad, however. You have just as much responsibility and authority to try and actually engage them. Of course, spamming it across 2 noticeboards = even worse. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I did. Notice the top of their talk page. (To clarify - I don't know much about outreach, and I also am not one who regularly welcomes new editors). Why is asking others for help a bad thing?

That aside, maybe I'm mistaken, but I see posting to AN and AN/I (at least in this case) as trying to be informative, rather than (as opposed to considering it to be) like yelling to the teacher that someone's done wrong in class. Though I know there are those who just see those two boards as the "adversarial drama boards", but to me at least, they are (like the VP and elsewhere) merely noticeboards. A hammer is just fine in and of itself as a tool, it's only in how it's used that could be problematic : ) - jc37 12:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The top of their page has a template. Welcoming is good (I do it dozens of times a day), but a template is not an attempt to have a discussion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully, look again please. - jc37 12:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

*sigh* Your "note" gets lumped in with the template because of the way the eye parses the page. Separate section heading for information outside of the Welcome template - after all, they are separate messages: one is an introduction to the rules, the other is specific. On top of that, it was barely done today! Taking them to an admin board so soon? Talk about WP:BITE (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

So you see AN and AN/I as only a place of complaint? I see it as a place of notification, which includes things like WP:3PO. And I don't see an "incident" as necessarily needing to be something "bad". But from your comments, I am guessing you disagree? - jc37 12:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, changing gears now. WP:ANI is only a noticeboard for complaints that need immediate action. WP:AN is for non-urgent announcement-type things. Your post might have been good for WP:AN as a "heads up" - but even still, it appears to be waaaay to early for even that. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought about that ("needing intervention")after I hit submit (which was part of why I then posted to AN) and considered removing the notice after I posted to AN. But I decided to go ahead and leave it at AN/I too, since: a.) it was already there b.) someone had posted a vandalism template to their talk page (so at least one other editor "may" have had a difference of opinion as to the new person's edits) and c.) as I know from WP:CANVASS, posting a 'friendly notice" to multiple noticeboards is not necessarily a bad thing. And the more eyes the better imo.

All this aside, colour me shocked at the negative response I got from it. I'm not exactly sure what POV I'm supposed to be pushing here, but to my mind what I was intending was: Please take a look. This is a new editor who I think needs help. And maybe someone more experienced than I in this area would be of such help. - jc37 12:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Your last paragraph confuses me...what do you mean negative response and POV in this situation? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well at the moment, just to consider your responses (and not anyone else's), perhaps you meant them differently (and I now can understand that part of it was due to not seeing all my initial edits to their talk page due to the templated text), but your comments above surprised me. I think (I hope?) that we're starting to understand each other more now though. - jc37 13:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Yworo

Would you mind having a talk with User:Yworo. After disconnecting myself from the ANI thread, his talk page and the Taos article, he saw it fit to edit the Stephens City, Virginia article (one I am currently editing) as some sort of weird oneupmanship or something. He is obviously escalating things and I am just trying to do some work. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This would be the second time his has insulted my Aspergers saying "implementing Wikipedia wide consensus, FAC does not override the technical issues experienced by the disabled". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with your Aspergers. I regularly bring this issue to people's attention. How would I know if Aspergers has affected your sight? I can document my involvement with this policy on multiple articles. I surprised you don't know about this "rule" yourself, since you are so into rules. Yworo (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yworo, even if I had seen this before blocking ... the only difference it would have made would be to duration (it would have been longer) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks BWilkins, much appreciated. I'm going back to work on the Stephens City page. Thanks again...Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for yet another false accusation, Neutralhomer. That makes about five now. Yworo (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You know what Yworo, I also read it as an attack, clearly and without any other possible meaning based on the phrasing. As such, it wasn't false - it was perhaps your unclear phrasing that led to possible alternative interpretations (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Leave me alone please!

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.

---

Please try not to comment on my talk-page, not even occasionally. I don't need your guidance or anything (i.e. you may only unequivocally warn me and if I see the warnings are needless and counter-productive, I will seek help from others). If you truly care about my future, just leave me alone. I've had enough of you, I don't need anymore. Let others deal with me.  Brendon ishere 10:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I will accept that as a formal request. Indeed, my post yesterday was merely to assist you editor-to-editor, as have pretty much all of my interactions. As such, rather than reconcile with you, I will continue to only provide any and all administrative functions should they arise. All the best (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you  Brendon ishere 10:46, 21 May 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 barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	While we have crossed a couple of times - the way you handle your talk page is quite efficent and has much to teach any lurkers BO; talk 19:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Rant

You are a liar I has a previous run in with you after first being accused of vandalism for changes I made in good faith. Then after seeing I had a message I was banned I tried to do a quick edit. I was already falsely accused of persistent vandalism which was a lie in the first place. You then had the nerve to make a comment that I blame everybody but myself when in reality you were seeing a refection of yourself in me due to your lack of integrity. I was simply explaining the changes I made and offering to answer any questions you all might have but you responded to none of that. You completely ignored the evidence I layed out and acted like you were so above it all that no explanation was necessary to explain the false allegations.I was always open to discussing something anyone disagrees with but not when you are going to have a bad attitude.In fact the moment someone disagreed with me they should have attempted to discuss this with me before making allegations in the first place. You are rude and a snob. You sir want to blame everyone but yourself.I suggest you do the community a favor and resign as admin. You are incompetent,rude , and hostile. I also think it is no coincidence you show up soon after where everI suggest changes to improve an article and that sir is stalking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.132.7 (talk • contribs)

I have replaced this rant (although in it's correct location - at the bottom of the page). I can only assume that this was once you, and you're mad because I declined your unblock one day (by the way: you were blocked and not banned. Interesting that your comments above are exactly why I had to decline that unblock almost two years ago. Are you really holding grudges and anger for 18 months? It's odd your only other edit today is at an article that I have on my watchlist because of problems on that page long ago - and my last post to that page was (huge gasp) almost 18 months ago! Do yourself a favour: let it go. Then, review your interactions with people as we seem to have some kind of pot - kettle thing going on here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

GeorgianJorjadze: Mingrelians & Svan people

user:GeorgianJorjadze Refuses to debate ([4] and earlier ([5]) ...) and waging a war without discussion or explanation (see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#user:GeorgianJorjadze reported by User:PlatonPskov (Result: )) and now (see Mingrelians: Revision history and Svan people: Revision history). And then "no consensus", if he did not lead the discussion (it is gaming). Moreover, he ruled, without discussion. --RosssW (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

+See also the arguments of the neutral point of view, the arguments (Talk:Mingrelians and Talk:Svan people) of the availability of sources on the two points of view, the arguments of criticism of sources for and against. There is dominated by only one point of view (and Svans Megrels - subethnos Georgians, although the source of this is not unique). But there is another point of view - Linguistics - reject it, even in the presence of sources. --RosssW (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins, I thought I best inform you that GeorgianJorjadze blanked his talk page again and removed the block notifications. I have restored them back (if that is the correct procedure, not 100% sure). But it does look like he isn't learning anything from the comments put forward to him. Regards - Wesley☀Mouse 16:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

John Foxe

For reference, do you know where I can find a record of the unblocking of user John Foxe? Cheers, A Sniper (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

He was not unblocked - it expired naturally. Are you able to see this? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI notification

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 BWilkins is OK?. Thank you. -DePiep (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I suggest we take 24h off. -DePiep (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I suggest you read what was provided to you not only at the Bot owners noticeboard, but apparently also in ANI. What a senseless waste of time that was. Why can't people simply read the answer they're given rather than automatically discard it without digesting any of it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever your friends say over at ANI, I can laugh for yours this: As I am both an admin, and a bot owner, why do you dispute ... -DePiep (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

What was either rude or arrogant about that? I giftwrapped the answer for you at the Botowners noticeboard. I was polite, and shared knowledge freely. Your response was "nonsense". The simple question "why do you dispute the answer" was clear and friendly ... not sure what your issue with any of them really is - there's no possibility for anyone to read them as rude or attacks - anyone (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

SACHKHOJacademy User Page

Why my user page is deleted? What information you want about on Userpage (SACHKHOJacademy (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC))

It cannot promote your company/organization, and cannot be copy/pasted from another source. In addition, your username is clearly promotional, and you'll want to go to get it changed quickly (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

What type of username should it be, Is Sachkhoj ok with you, as academy word might promotional for you? Redirect the page to Sachkhoj(SACHKHOJacademy (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC))

Thank you

Thank you for the redirect of the Cheryl Cole song and hopefully album. I was getting tired of trying to explain exactly why they couldn't be articles. So I was letting it stay until someone else redirected. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 17:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Most

Where can i find a list of the most viewed wikipedia articles for the month April 2012? Pass a Method talk 18:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

N8VEM

Hi,

I didn't understand your comment about references you deleted on N8VEM. The comment was "no links to fora". Can you clarify?

Thanks!

--Wayne Warthen 21:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayne Warthen (talk • contribs)

Adam Dunn on EWN

Did you even read my complaint?? If it was not in the correct format, I apologize, however, not only did I provide links to previous discussions with this editor, I also gave you diffs where I tried to paste to his talk page, a glance at his talk history will see several such attempts by other editors as well, all blanked by Carthage44 without discussion. Additionally, I linked you to the article talk page discussion as well. On top of that, I linked not just to DRN but to the specific section *AT* DRN. Maybe you were just in a rush, but your reply comes off as pretty snotty, which would be reasonable, if *any* of what you said in it were true. I didn't take the time to attempt to file that report to have someone come along basically lie about it (I know that's the wrong word, but from my POV here, I'm not sure what the right word is). And regarding the subject itself, the pattern is continual, every time there's a baseball game. But that's ok, lesson learned, I will bring you an edit war you can understand. Yes, I'm annoyed by your response, redacting it, in part at least, is suggested here. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It was not intentionally snotty - although, after seeing your own snotty "closure" of it, I did half-intend to be snotty. You raised an issue that did not yet deserve to be there. You even admitted it. As such, don't raise it there, yet. My comments advised that when the DR was complete, if issues remained and the EW went forward to bring it back. Nothing else, and nothing snotty. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It's amazing what a good night's sleep will do. After reading your above note, I went back and read what you wrote at EWN, and it's like a whole new entry. I even checked the history to see if you'd re-edited it. I know I specifically reacted to your statement that other things hadn't been tried, but what I was most annoyed about was the lack of help, but I see now that you did suggest another avenue, TE, which I didn't know even existed (I did mention that I may be on the wrong board). Honest, yesterday, I wasn't drinking or anything! There was still attempts to talk to him directly, and a DRN section where he refused to respond, but reading it today, I don't see your comments as snotty, at least, not enough for me to get all pissy on your talk page about it. Regarding my closure note, I think that had a lot to do with frustration of trying to help out someone else's page, and not getting any help to do so, but that's not specifically your fault either. Anyway, in retrospect, I should not have gotten all excited about your response, and thanks for having a calmer attitude than mine yesterday. Sorry for the mental twitch on my part. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

If only others would look at things with sober second thought :-) Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Signature

Hi, BWilkins, how are you? I'm just wondering if this user has to change their signature under a WP policy? There is another user with the same signature, but he is actually called Nomad and the above user is called Leo711. It is very confusing, and he has been asked politely by 3 editors now .--Chip123456 (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately too obvious. Although I will WP:AGF that it was originally non-intentional mimicry, the sheer refusal to change once notified alters reality (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I see they have been blocked, which is a shame as they only needed to do a tiny thing, but as the block says, they were asked politely, several times. Thanks.--Chip123456 (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Language dynamics

Hello HandThatFeeds and Bwilkins,

I wanted to offer an observation to both of you (crossposting this, please respond if you like on my tp, as I don't watch yours)

I had noticed that there was an unintentional misunderstanding of a phrase which led to some unfortunate friction with DePiep, who as I understand is working with you guys helping with a bot request I think ? I'm not sure, but I think DePiep was asked to assist in an endeavour because he has remarkable skill and focus on categorisation and templates, would that be correct ? Well, it's a bit like a wall street banker requesting assistance in the ghetto, or someone from the ghetto asking for help in court. It doesn't matter which situation it is, the fact that everyone is using plain English doesn't mean their request will me interpreted correctly. You can change their clothes and their look completely, but it is their English language which is going to get them into trouble by itself (literally fatal consequences in both instances). DePiep has an ordered logical categorical thinking, whereas you guys spend all day long trying to empathise with people and give out good advice. So the innocent helpful statement "As I am both an admin, and a bot owner, why do you dispute .." is no problem at all for many people who empathise the same manner that you do. However, and this is a big however, when a person reads the same statement in a logical ordered methodical manner, it appears to be the issue of a decree from on high. If I may be so cheeky as to use some humorous satire to illustrate, and please don't take this as anything other than humour, it can sound like "Behold I am thy Emperor and my decree is law, how dare you doubt me you snivelling peasant" yeah, ok so I am overdoing it a little, however, what you were trying to say to DePiep is that you are familiar and experienced with the subject, however you didn't use those words, you clearly implied that meaning instead. Usually works well. But this reminds me of talking and explaining my ideas to Z, who programmed PALZ for me, I simply cannot explain what I want PALZ to do unless I phrase my language as computer code. It was really funny to both of us. Normally I would say things like I want PALZ to read from a list of languages where he can put his updates, and then read an edit summary to write in his edit and do that for every language on the list. He's like wtf ? And I say, oops, ummm, IF the name of the server EXISTS on the list of languages THEN read the server name and edit summary. DO each edit on that server with the edit summary UNTIL there are no more entries on the list. Then he is like "oh why didn't you just say so ? yeah cool, no problems." For DePiep, the comment is categorised as "I am an authority figure" then "I'm a bot owner" then "why do you doubt me" which creates a logic lockup and exploding CPU because you are not categorised as policy.

It's like the child walking past a building site, he asked one man 'What are you doing ?" and the man said "cutting rocks" and he asked the next man 'What are you doing ?" and the man said "Earning $3 per hour" and he asked the last man 'What are you doing ?" and the man said "building a cathedral". Same job, three views. Now, same worksite, and a different example, the Bishop, the painter and the stonemason all sat down together, then as three highly skilled and trained men, absolute masters of their respective trades, they would have practically nothing whatsoever they could talk about over lunch, and may well come away from each other never wanting to lay eyes on each other again, despite the fact they all work for the same cause, building the church. You three are ALL on the same side, trying to build an encyclopaedia, so let's not forget that. If you'd like my help I would be happy to assist and I highly recommend that the Bishop, artist and stonemason stay away from each other from now on, because it is not easy to talk to each other when everyone is speaking English. I will be happy to translate for you because I happen to speak all three languages and can translate from English to English to English with some limited success (although I am still learning, there are like SO many people who think I talk shit all day long, and they are no doubt correct too). Penyulap ☏ 02:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Penyluap, you do talk shit all day long :-) Although much of what you say above is understandable, the genesis of the "dispute" isn't: he went to the bot owners noticeboard and complained (incomprehensibly at first) that:

• a bot didn't have a stop button (which isn't required in policy)
• when he clicked the bot's talkpage, it went to some user's talkpage (which is actually correct)
• he couldn't therefore turn the bot off (which 99% of the time requires blocking anyway)

IMHO the best way to show was what I did: provide him with an EXAMPLE to use, and once again, I will 100% guarantee he never tried to stop my bot, so failed to make use of the wealth of information/opportunity (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Bot policy leaves a great deal to be desired, it really, really does. The docs need to show that a button is not required, they no doubt do, and the information is poorly presented according to the logical entry point and path followed by this editor. Which pages has he read, and which pages did he go to first looking for the information ? Telling people one a time is inherently not as useful as improving documentation. As for the pervasive 'do not operate a bot without approval' logic lockup with 'you must demonstrate the operation of your bot in order to receive an approval', I'll leave that for some other crusade :) I think it seems I need a daily crusade, something to go off spouting shit about causing a ruckus, or frankly I just wouldn't be me. (maybe I'm just rattled that I'm making sense to you and need to make up for that :) however the difficulty people who think in programming have with understanding botpol is shutting them out of botlife and I can provide an example even in my limited experience) I will see if I can find the route through the documentation he took, or simply try to compute it myself (not easy now I am familiar with botpol, to clear my mind and startover, which is why opportunities like DePiep are so valuable) and update docs if I can manage it. Penyulap ☏ 16:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Popularity

Your very popular today, keep up the good work, your attracting attention, in the most weirdest of ways!--Chip123456 (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

lol ... yes, you don't get weird things if you sit around and do nothing (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You said it! This place is full of the most wonderful surprises, you are now in a wiki love relationship, congrats! --Chip123456 (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For reverting this personal attack. Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 16:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Leo711

Hi, Bwilkins. This user has met the original condition set forth for unblock. I understand and agree with the sentiment expressed in your follow-up and have reminded the user of that message. I will not unblock this user without you first expressing an opinion. See ya 'round Tiderolls 22:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It was the sole condition for unblock, and the indef was based on his lack of desire to change it when asked nicely. Feel free to unblock, if you believe he's telling the truth: if any post comes out with a mimicking sig (of anyone), block'im (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Please reconsider Notability

Thank you for you help with the article on Sally Neal that I'm contributing. I appreciate your taking the time to look through the posted info, but I would ask you to reconsider the suggestion that this individual does not meet the definition of notability based upon the info to follow:

You stated that there are "Were hundreds of dancers in Jesus Christ Superstar" when to be accurate there are only 60 people who have listed roles in Jesus Christ Superstar, 16 of which are Dancers. The film is somewhat artsy so many of the cast names are not descriptive but this is a significant role.

Calypso is a foreign film (dubbed) that was not released in the USA and Ms. Neal was the star of the film. Not many people ever get to star in feature films so I'd have to believe there is definition of notability associated with this. Being an older foreign film shouldn't be an impediment for the work on Wikipedia based upon the existing precedent of associated cast and crew wikipedia articles. Names them themselves that are not more recognizable than Ms. Neal's. Case in point, the director, Franco Rossi has a wikipedia article that has serves as a template for the article I am preparing for Ms. Neal. The content of his article is similar and the references are quite sparse. Ms. Neal was the star of one of his films.

The Musicals are also hugely significant... all of these were during Broadway's heyday period. These are archetypical musicals that are still being remade today and they were choreographed by some of the most celebrated choreographers in history. Ms. Neal's roles were often named, speaking or featured parts. In her industry, her name is still known. Her work can be searched for an seen in the Library for the Performing Arts and the fact that she worked in these roles as an African-american makes her achievements historically significant and all the more unique. There is a biography in the works thanks to these achievements as her historical relationship to the choreographers is a story that should be told.

All of this seems very much in the spirit of Wikipedia to me, as I am connecting some historical dots and telling the story of someone who's time predates the internet yet who's name and work was significant enough that it can be found through general searching and also on Wikipedia itself. Seems like just the thing that Wikipedia was made for.

Thanks for your time in advance and I appreciate your continued input! Uberschall (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Muhammad images - Page is LOCKED

The decision has been issued for Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Muhammad images. As both the project page and its corresponding talk page have been locked, where is feedback and discussion on the decision to take place? Thanks. Veritycheck (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't you get it? There is no more discussion. WP:CONSENSUS has been reached, and you are now required to work within that consensus. Even your "sad day" statement shows that you don't get it; period. If you don't like consensus, perhaps you should go edit somewhere else? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough for you. My question regards feedback on the decision (RfC) itself and nothing else. Another editor has since pointed me in the right direction. There was no need to be rude. Veritycheck (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not being rude, but there IS no discussion on the decision. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ohconfucius

Did you notice that the edit war at issue ended a few days ago? T. Canens (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that 3RR wouldn't have been valid, but O-C certainly has been, and IMHO was still in the middle of an EW, and was quite likely to continue based on their statements (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank You

Hi Bwilkins, thank you for your note. I'm new to all this and am only on the foothills of the up-slope of a v. steep bell curve. Your correction was muchly appreciated. DaisyDylanDoyle (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, my user page

Hello, the user C3F2k added stuff to my profile claiming I am a sock puppet (which I am not, I forgot the password and email password to therationaldude account which is why I haven't used it ever since I made this account), and also giving me "warnings". You made a note saying that I was right and he should use the talk page like I suggested...is there a way I can delete those messages from my profile? Thanks SkyTree90 (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If you have abandoned one account, then you MUST follow the instructions on WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. You cannot delete any posts, but you may remove them from your own talkpages, as per WP:OWNTALK. This of course only counts if your original account was not blocked or under any restrictions (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, what you linked me too seemed though is for people actively using two accounts...so should I follow the "clean start" policy? I didn't really make a new account for a "clean start" I just simply lost the password (as well as my email so I cannot retrieve it). I just don't want something on my profile claiming I am a "sock puppet". I looked up wikipedia's definition of a sock puppet, and the entire fact that since I have logged on this I have not logged on the other account even once is contrary to the sock puppet definition I believe. Thanks SkyTree90 (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It's still under the same set of processes. The reason you cannot be formally considered a "clean start" is because I believe you're back to editing the same articles. So, link the two (eradicates any appearance that you're socking). Don't worry about accusations: it's always up to admins to determine. But if you officially link the accounts, it shows you're not hiding (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, can you check my page now and check if it is acceptable and following the rules etc? I used one of the templates. Thank you SkyTree90 (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Tonga National Tag Team

Tag20 is TAG RUGBY...And it orinated from ireland where it is widely played!! Also most popular is Australia, New Zealand and England! Other names know is Nztag, Oztag, tag20, Adult tag, rugger tag...etc etc Don comment or delet if you do know enough about a subject.

If Some tigger happy admins would just allow people to add content and NOT DELETE IT - IT WOULD HELP!!!!!! ESPECIALLY IF THEYRE NEW???

How about message that person and suggest improvement?? or perhaps DO THEIR OWN RESEARCH not just place judgement with what they think especially if they dont know the sport well!?? My article doesnt violate ANYTHING!!! - And its about a COUNTRYS NATIONAL SPORTS TEAM!!!! - Not a club for goodness sake! Sipooti 20:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipooti (talk • contribs)

because you're new I gave you great information how to proceed: write and article about the TAG variant. I even directed you to the cricket variant, so you could create and compare. The info on the national team then belongs as a part of the national rugby team. Easy. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Top Gun

Top gun is discussing a block made by you at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. It's in the context of a request for rollback restoration. Care to comment there? Toddst1 (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to say  Done. Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Tonga National Tag Team

gone through everything - nothing makes sense. how is this article different from other articles about national teams or sport. Some have very little information with no references and alot less than my article. so I guess I have to re write again? such time wasting. Wikipedia is not friendly. even after revisions , some accept, others delete. if it based on personal comprhension of articles regarding polices then this website is hopeless and lack substance. I might as well just go around editing and suggesting to delete what ever I want which is what it looks like for most admins here. SAD. Sipooti 23:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipooti (talk • contribs)

Seriously, have you read anything I provided? I recommended using Twenty20 cricket as a model.

First - as Tag20 does not yet have an article, start by writing it. Make sure it's referenced. Make sure it meets WP:FIRSTARTICLE.

Next, modify the Rugby national teams to who field Tag20 teams to include it - again, using the Twenty20 model.

You have a lot of work ahead of you just doing those simple but very useful things. Nobody has said that the information does not belong - but without an article on the variant itself, nothing else has notability.

Whatever you do, do not simply recreate the article without doing the first sets of steps in advance (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 07:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Tim Hawes Deleted

S.champion1989 (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Hi Bwilkins could you explain in details for reason for taking Tim Hawes's wiki page down. I am happy to make any corrections to this to follow all of your guidelines. It would just help me out to know exactly which parts didn't and also how I can change them now the page has been taken down? Thanks.

I have linked more than once to the biographies of living persons policy. It requires extensive third party reliable sources in any article about a person - it's not optional. The entire article as it stood failed that. I will, again, advise you of conflict of interest as well (in addition to using personal knowledge of a subject) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

S.champion1989 (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)I will gather extensive reliable external sources about this wikipedia page. I also believe that a lot of people will be interested in the history of a great songwriter/producer and that is why the page was made. How do I go about adding the external sources to this page as it has been taken down? Thanks.

Start from scratch with a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT. For example, here's a blank place for you to work on. Let me know if you have issues. Make sure you read WP:FIRSTARTICLE to really help (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Help?

Hi Bwilkins, are you busy at the moment? I need some help and advice, before I go completely mad. - JuneGloom Talk 18:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

What kind of help and advice? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I may have been foolish enough to get into an edit war with an IP (91.154.107.224), who I believe is a logged out Mathiassandell (talk · contribs). The first article was Paloma Faith discography. Apparently some of the text was creating another row in the table, so the IP bunched the words and grammer together. I asked them to stop doing that as it could make the text harder to read. However, they ignored me. We have both reverted each other and I did use rollback once. Have I broken 3RR? The next article is Paloma Faith. I undid one edit because it was unsourced, the IP has since returned and has blanked portions of the article. I asked them to discuss their issues on the talk page, but have been reverted and ignored. Is it possible for the article to be protected, so the IP will be forced to go to the talk page? The constant undoing of edits/being ignored was giving me a headache. Also, do you think I've could have approached things differently? - JuneGloom Talk 19:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it appears you and them were edit-warring. I have indeed protected the page. Have you gone through the steps in WP:DR? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I haven't gone through all the steps in WP:DR, though I guess you are the third opinion (sorry about that). I've posted at Talk:Paloma Faith about the blanking, hopefully the IP will respond there. - JuneGloom Talk 21:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I was a lot of help, but hopefully I started the discussion better - I have also left a little warning on the IP's page. If they are a logged out user, there could be other issues (WP:SOCK), but I'll WP:AGF (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not on the brink of throwing my computer out the window anymore, so I think you helped. :) Could you possibly undo this edit (unrelated to the edit war) to the discography page - [6]? It's unsourced (the chart isn't released until Sunday). - JuneGloom Talk 21:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, don't put it out the window yet :-) These electronic rock thingies are expensive (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Self-imposed user talk page bans

At one time you were of the opinion that a user could effectively page-ban another user from editing his or her talk page. Are you aware of any further development, pro or con, about that topic since that time? I was reminded of your position while reading through this current dispute. I don't think that it's going to go that way, but would like to be up to speed if it does. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It is still widely held that an editor can request another editor not post on their talkpage, in part due to the principles behind WP:OWNTALK. Now, an admin performing formal action is usually exempt from such "limitations" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the update. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies

Don't know about "classless", but I was tending towards snide in my comments. Needed to take 5 minutes. I'd just like to apologise to you if my comments have come across as unpleasant, I do still have great respect for you as an admin and an editor. I believe you're totally wrong in how you've handled this situation, but I'm sure we can agree to differ on that. So. Sorry again, I'll try to keep my standards back up to where they were. Worm^TT(talk) 21:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to make a remark, and I feel this section is the one to do it in. I did not intend to offend you by remarking that you were emotionally involved and did not mean for that remark to apply to the decision to block. Instead, I was referring to what was occurring after the block, both on Rcsprinter's talk page and at ANI. I apologize for any offence I may have caused. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!

Thanks for your help!!!! I wrote a thank you note to everyone but Im not sure where I wrote it?? LOL And thanks for that last edit! But especially thanks for your patience! ☻Ÿ 13:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipooti (talk • contribs)

A beer for you!

I just found this feature lol Cheers :) ☻Ÿ 13:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clampco Sistemi

Hi again. Regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Non-admin closure question, it's been suggested by Dennis Brown that we could discuss the issue between us. This is just a note to say that I don't feel this is necessary and will accept the wisdom presented in the experienced points of view there. My closure decision has been reviewed, which I will take as a sign that the decision was not as obvious as I thought. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Before I was an admin, I tried my hand at some NAC's. I too got my wrist slapped, and realized that non-admins should only touch extremely obvious ones, period. 2-1 is not obvious. Relisting ones with 20 arguments is also not a good idea - just leave those ones alone. However, one nomination plus 7 or 8 keeps from longstanding editors might warrant a NAC. Indeed, you start to recognize certain names on AfD, and you learn early which ones are very trustable (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. But I think most of us agree that it's more to do with editing experience and familiarity with policies than a question of simply being an admin or not. There's no reason why an editor couldn't accumulate enough experience and knowledge to make less obvious closes without becoming an admin. Conversely, an editor could become an admin having only performed obvious closes, and then possibly make a number of blunders through over-confidence. There seems to be no clear consensus on exactly what non-admins should and shouldn't close, which is presumably why it's not explicitly stated. Finally, regarding Scottywong's closing comment about !voting rather than closing, that's what I've done previously on a number of occasions. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Civility on WP:ANI

Hi. I wanted to share some thoughts about your recent contributions to ANI. If someone doesn't understand what you've said, then ideally you should simply explain what you meant. Saying things like "Are you fricking kidding me?", "Your massive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is affecting my reading", "If you're not willing to read, then there's no use even discussing.", and "ridiculous attempt at a red herring" are not only unresponsive, but they are also uncivil and verge on personal attacks. Instead of clarifying your point, they detract from it, aggravate other editors, and make you look bad. ANI is fractious enough. Admins should be a calming influence. Please consider striking out these phrases. In the future, when you find yourself about to type something like the above, please take a step back and try to see the other point of view. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I am permitted to show emotion. Nothing is said comes anywhere close to a personal attack. However...I sense one coming with people with such misunderstandings... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the person clearly did understand what was said. A frivolous complaint was brought to ANI, and the entire community is being trolled. Do not coddle such people, because they know the rules better than they are pretending. Their goal is to badmouth their "enemy" - do not give them the firepower to do so (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to drag this out — real life intervened, and I wanted to reflect before I responded. I agree that the ANI report was not well-conceived. DRV was the obvious next step, and even that was likely doomed at this time. There was no "pattern of abuse" identified in the ANI that rose to the level that anyone was going to act on. The binding together of two unrelated deletions contributed to some of the confusion in the discussion.

Having said that, call me naïve, but I am reluctant to label something as definite "trolling" if it might be done in good faith, no matter how misguided. And regardless of whether it is trolling or not, I cannot see that incivility and personal attacks help the situation. If it's trolling, then you're giving them what they want and encouraging them to do it more. If it's not trolling, then you're responding in a way that will make the editor defensive rather than receptive.

In the specific case of the misunderstood copyvio claim, now that you've pointed out the pivot phrase in your paragraph, I can see where the subject changed, but I did not understand it that way before, even though I read it several times. Given that, I think it's entirely reasonable to ask you to clarify the claim (you seemed to be making).

From your replies above, it seems to me like you don't want to consider the possibility that your phrasing might have been unclear, or that asking you to clarify does not justify such an aggressive response. I'm afraid I'm a little disappointed by that, and more so by the "battleground" terminology you're using. We're all human, and we all need to remind ourselves "I could be wrong" from time to time.

Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Um, I never referred to you as naïve. Period. I was perhaps slightly aggressive towards the person who was leading you down the garden path, but never towards you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think I've said everything I have to say here. Thank you for your patience. Bovlb (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Last edit

Hey Bw. Oh, no Symbols etc like Tm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipooti (talk • contribs) 21:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No, this is not an advertisement (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sent ya a MASSIVELY incomplete email

Suggest ignoring it, but naturally feel free to look for significance in all 8 or so words of it if you like - hopefully I can complete the email I intended to send in the next few days... Egg Centric 01:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hi Bwilkins! an IP editor started a discussion concerning you at ANI. --SMS ^Talk 22:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, the infamous racist-with-a-single-braincell. Thanks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, before that comes across as a personal attack, all racists have but a single braincell - that's one of the reasons they're so misguided in their racism (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Indian Railways

hi, i am trying to develop this page, but some newcomers and IP users adding pics of several stations of india which is truly vain for the page. I request you to keep watching that page and stop others from editing improper materials without citations and all.Also check my contributions for that page and warn me whenever i do wrong editing. I consult others admins also to get over this issue.(please reply on my talk page) Thank you 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Strike through

I've seen it done but I wasn't sure what the purpose behind these things were. I am sorry for the mix-up. Now you've added yet another comment I am not sure what to do. Shall I restore the comment with the cross-out or shall I just leave it as it is? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Please re-add it, with the strikeout. Refactoring is a no-no. Feel free to then remove my comment, with my full permission (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Section now makes sense top to bottom. What is refactoring? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I was actually doing it myself, and got edit-conflicted with you. See WP:Refactoring talk pages ... especially this section (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit war?

Why did you protect the article until December(?) 2012? There's no edit war at all. Irvi made a move without a rationale, WhiteWriter reverted him without a rationale too and then I checked both claims and added the results on the talkpage for each use and made the appropriate edits. You may not be familiar with the geography of the region but the related articles White Drin and Drin have that spelling because of common use. I'm not trying to get you involved in discussion, but a protection that'll last about half a year about such a non-issue is rather uncommon.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You move-warred, and have now been formally warned on your talkpage as per WP:ARBMAC. Don't even dream of using WP:GHITS as a reason (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't understand what you mean "WhiteWriter reverted him without a rationale" ... the rationale was clear in the move: no consensus to do so. Read WP:BRD. Memorize it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

GHITS? ...these are google books/scholar results not raw google ones.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, I'm afraid you may have gotten the wrong end of the stick here. This article had been at the "Drin" title since 2005, without any objections. If anything was disruptive, it was the undiscussed and unexplained move to "Drim" on 25 April 2012, by Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs). Of the three following moves to and fro, by three different editors, Zjarri's move back to the original location was the only one that was accompanied by relevant arguments on the talk page, so I'm really at a loss to understand why he, alone among the four users, now gets an Arbmac warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, as there appears to have been no complaints (as per BRD) after the April move, that was stable for all this time. Move-warring today was therefore the violation. Perhaps all of today's movers should have the ARBMAC warning - feel free to do so. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

One month of inaction after an undiscussed bold move, on a minor out-of-the-way article that basically hadn't drawn any other edit for more than a month before that move and didn't draw any for more than a month after it, is hardly evidence of "stability" constituting consensus. The move back today was the first sign of any attention to the article at all following that first move, and as such a legitimate "R" part of BRD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see >1 month as meeting R. That said, move-warring occurred today; period. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no time limit to how "fast" BRD works. If nobody notices an edit in three years, then the next step in the discussion process will be in three years. By the way, I must also correct you on a point you made above, where you seem to imply that citing Google hits as an argument about a move is illegitimate. Google hits are explicitly recognized as one of the standard criteria in naming discussions at WP:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Multiple local names, and Zjarri's use of them is fully in line with common practice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine on both - although, the second is useful in move discussions but not unilaterally especially on restricted articles such as this one. As noted at ANI, I have provided one very valid ARBMAC warning. Probably 2 more due, but as I said, I won't be the one giving them at this point. I also won't remove move protection from the article until it's worked out where the name really belongs. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Dude, you keep protecting the WP:WRONG version - especially in WP:ARBMAC situations. Don't you know, there'd be peace in the region if you had protected the right version? Toddst1 (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm such a warmonger :-( (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If fine on both then would you please tell me why I did get a logged warning? I'm not even related to the cases you've been dealing with and ARBMAC warnings are supposed to serve as tools against disruption. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You read the whole thing I said, not just cherry-picking your favourite parts, right? Hey, guess what - edit-warring is disruptive. Turns out you've already been warned about ARBMAC ... which means discretionary sanctions against such disruption again. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that User:Irvi Hyka has of late made several unilateral, highly POV page moves without any discussion and oftentimes absurd rationales in the edit-summaries: [7] [8] [9] [10], and especially [11]. This is really starting to become a problem. Athenean (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's being dealt with in ANI. How else do you think I found the additional moves today? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I just want to tell you that Zjarri was already warned officially regarding ARBMAC, back in 2010. You doubled the log today... All best. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. As such, I have started a discussion on ANI in order to obtain some rough consensus for new discretionary sanctions against them (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The interesting thing about nomenclature debates is that they're all trivial. Nomenclature is all arbitrary anyway; there's no actual truth or factual basis in any issue. DS (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, someone has to eventually paint the bike shed. I have no experience in "move wars" but I am noticing from the discussion that the original mover now supports Black Drin. Therefore, I think that in this case "Black Drin" (the name it had since 2005) might be the "right wrong version" pending closure but that's just my opinion. I may be wrong. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have moved it to the right wrong version, as suggested - adding the alternate wording in the opening sentence. At this point, Zjarri has been firmly reminded of his previous ARBMAC warning (with apparently no repercussions for their poorly-timed re-move). It is quite possible that the other 2 parties involved in yesterday's move war have not been - and it's my recommendation that they should be. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haci ibrahim nehramli

I think you intended to delete Ibrahimov Ibrahim (Haci Ibrahim Nehramli) when you closed the AfD, instead you only got the redirect. I've tagged it for deletion under G6, but wanted to leave you a note in case I was mistaken or you otherwise wanted to take a look at it. Monty₈₄₅ 16:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Done --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Alton, Bordon and Tadley area (2nd nomination)

This wasn't a content fork as List of bus routes in Hampshire was created as a list of lists, instead of the usual format. Peter E. James (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Admin reaction nedded

I saw in White Drin article that you are neutral admin, and familiar with ARBMAC. Therefor i am asking for your fine comment. For any possible question or solution, i am here. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

WhiteWriter

User:WhiteWriter, who was involved in the Black Drin dispute moved the Kosovo-Serbia border clashes without any consensus(he somehow claims that this section started by him, represents a consensus, although it's neither a proper and official move discussion nor does a 4-day limited discussion, which basically only the most involved editors that supported the previous move noticed, represent a consensus) to North Kosovo crisis[12]. No consensus was reached about the same move proposal about half a year ago[13] when WhiteWriter first proposed to move the article. User:Majuru per WP:BRD moved it to the original title and asked from WW to start a move discussion, while WhiteWriter reverted him and claimed that Majuru was acting as WP:IDONTLIKEIT Of course WhiteWriter has been blocked about disruptions on Kosovo topics and talkpage abuse regarding them. On ARBMAC the latest log related to him is from 2011 when he was involved in any edit war with another user (Vujacicm (talk · contribs) issued ARBMAC warning and edit war warning for a slow-motion edit war with already-sanctioned WhiteWriter (talk · contribs) on Duklja. WhiteWriter also warned about edit warring. Toddst1 (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)). (Majuru has an ARBMAC log in 2011 too) Apparently there is a need for article protections/warnings/sanctions.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

After the edit-war finally a move discussion was started.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Zjarri, it is below your numerous years on wiki to sue me each time you disagree over something. We had 3 users agreeing on subject, with only you disagreeing, and that is (not the best one. but still) consensus. We will see what will new RM do, but previous one was 8/4 for move. Therefore, even that was consensus for move. Also, next time talk to me first over dispute with me, and not to mamadmins.. I could also do that in opposite direction, but that will not help. And, omg, block log. Well, you know, Bwil, Zjarri was possible sock of User:Sarandioti, major DE sockmaster. But Zjarri, that is behind us. We should try to cooperate, and not just to run to report, when that is NOT last resort. P.S. Bwilkins, sure that "report" by Zjarri was fabricated, as before... Read with care, or join request, and state your opinion, as editor first. That may be the best! --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Since when is 8-4 ever considered to be "consensus to move"? This is not a vote. We don't; go by simple majority. We go by strength of policy-based arguments. 8-4 was apparently rightly closed as "no consensus to move" and it therefor cannot be moved (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion was closed as no clear consensus for move so I fail to see how that could be interpreted as therefore that was consensus for move and I don't know how reports (?) can be fabricated. That being said it was appropriate to inform (even though I have just used the talkpage and haven't made any edits at all) an admin involved in previous such processes especially since an edit-war began based neither on sources nor on consensus (3 including you and someone who was deeply involved in the previous move proposal) and since that's done I'd suggest that we both don't use his talkpage anymore . Now that there's a move discussion it's also appropriate to post anything related to the subject there.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Black Drin

Hi Bwilkins, would you mind unprotecting Black Drin again? There is now consensus for the (old and current) "Drin" version among three of the four editors involved in the moves, and the fourth has not chosen to participate in the discussion on talk. Another uninvolved editor has closed the move discussion, and I don't see any immediate danger of new edit- or move wars at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Draft of New Article to Replace Deleted Article: Three.js

Hello Bwilkins

On 28 April 2012 the article for Three.js was deleted. See Articles_for_deletion/Three.js

A draft of a new article is being prepared and is viewable at one of my user pages: User:TheoA/Threejs

My strong personal interest in the proceedings is declared here: User_talk:TheoA/Threejs

Would kindly have a look at the draft article and indicate as to whether you feel the article provides sufficient and valid evidence attesting to the notability of Three.js? Also, any comments as to whether a neutral point of view is maintained will be appreciated.

Thank you,

TheoA (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how it's at all notable ... or what you're even asking for (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I was requesting your opinion as to the notability of the topic - which you have now kindly provided. Thank you. TheoA (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello again Bwilkins

Do you know about Warnock's_dilemma? I am a bit lost as to what do do. Should I wait some more to see if you reply? Should I offer the the page to WP:Articles for creation? Should I ask the opinion of he person who recommended deletion? Is the article not sufficiently NPV? Please do point me in the right direction...

TheoA (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, not notable IMHO (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

re: Speedy deletion of User talk:Plgpllc

The main intention of the tag was to alert an admin that this user was continuing to spam their user talk page after being blocked for spamming. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

First, please don't copy/paste the notice over here. If you need to alert an admin to do something, that's what ANI is for - mistagging things for CSD is unwise (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

For you

	Cake!
	Thanks for your work at DRV. Here's the cake you were promised at AN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yum! Excellent, and thank you! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW

I might have phrased this differently. I understand frustration can make us all a bit rude sometimes, I'm mentoring YRC on it after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Teach him not to rush process then. Step #1. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

He has actually made a great deal of progress and has been very hard working on this. More so that I thought he would have. He isn't done, but he is taking it very seriously. I had just bragged about this on his mentoring page, literally one minute before he went to ANI. I disagree with him on bringing it there, but I also disagreed with you on some points as well, so it all comes out in the wash I suppose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I wasn't even responding them ...funny enough. Wikipedia will be here tomorrow, and next week. It will be here long past this RFC on pending changes - and it will be here past the next RFC on pending changes, and the next one after that. There's no time limit. AFD's sometimes take 8 days ...or 10...or 14. Nobody should lose sleep over an RFC. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree on that point. We manage to mess up the process when we don't rush it often enough that rushing it isn't the answer. But as a favor, give him a chance when you can. A look at his diffs might surprise you, as he is obviously sincere in his efforts. For the most part, it is night and day compared to just a month ago. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned then that he can show bizarre tendencies so quickly, and so easily. Maybe a topic ban from any admin noticeboard would help his progress? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any action is needed or warranted. I don't have a real issue with him bringing it there, even if I disagree with him on the necessity of it. But today isn't his day. Most of his work is quite good when he is focused, he just hasn't got it as a habit yet. Most of the time lately at BLPN and on talk pages, he has been more civil than you. Should I consider an AN ban for you as well? ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Show me some actual (not impossibly perceived) incivility of mine, and I'll ban myself :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Midcent

Hi just wanted to let you know that I dont think you locking the talkpage of User:Midcent was necessary. It's a little too much in my opinion. I really dont care if he signs or not. But that's just my opinion. Caden ^cool 14:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, here I always thought you were in favour of following policy :-)

It was locked to avoid further pile-on, and because the ONLY purpose of a talkpage while blocked is to request unblock - which he was not doing. Therefore, it needed to be locked from both editors and the user. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I wasnt aware until today that signatures was policy, I thought it was just a guideline. I also didnt think about avoiding further pile on to the page so I must admit based on that you did the right thing. Just forgive I'm blond :) Caden ^cool 15:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, I noticed the blondness on your userpage LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate FPP. Please undo or link to policy justifying arbitrary action. See also [14].Nobody Ent 22:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

List of modern dictators

Hello. I saw you blocked List of modern dictators form being edited and i thank you. I was trying to stop edit warring from several users warning them on their talk pages. I see this list is quite problematic and i think we should make some kind of RfC to see if we really need the list, how it may be compiled and the overall thought of the Wikipedians about the accuracy and importance of this list. I've requested all users involved to provide if they support or not the RfC idea. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 03:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I have no interest in the article content at all - my involvement is purely administrative (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Justicejayant's ban

You blocked his account but he is still manipulating the pages as an ip, User:122.169.12.69 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_modern_dictators&action=history

This proves this was one of his ip's, and he publicly admitted to it top, in case you had forgotten. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_modern_dictators&diff=496415802&oldid=496415378

Please block his ip. I7laseral (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You had the IP wrong :-) Temporarily blocked the right one (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Jack Sebastian

Thanks for your even-handed look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Schrodinger's cat is alive reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: stale). The conversation on the talk page continue in an even worse vein, with Jack Sebastian (talk · contribs) insulting not just me (See here), but another editor too (See here). I am concerned about his approach with other editors who disagree with him—and it that I am not the only one to think this too. After starting the 3RR process against me, he admits to "getting an overview of your editing style and trying to figure you out" This is verging on WP:HOUND, especially as he has now involved himself in and RFN issue, reverting my edits on the FL List of James Bond novels and stories. A search of the ANI noticeboards shows me I'm right to be concerned to some extent: his name appears with some frequency, and it is seldom in a good light.

I appreciate that my own edits in the James Bond (character) matter are hardly a glowing endorsement of my editing, but he does have a way of aggressively twisting the truth round on certain matters and fired off responses much too quickly. Having said all that, is there any way to ensure that he does not cross a HOUND-line? Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but despite being asked not to insult editors, he's firing insults out again: could you please advise a course of action? If you don't want to involve yourself then I entirely understand, but any indication of where I could to just to ensure that he is just civil in his approach, would be appreciated Thanks so much. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in. I'm hoping that is the last word on this particular matter and that the other one does not get out of hand either. Your efforts are much appreciated. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Drive (4x Game)

StarDrive should also have been deleted. --Izno (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Declined unblock request at User talk:Blobmonster21

You may just possibly be interested in seeing this edit, since it refers to a comment you made. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

One more thought: I have never done a survey to find out, but I think of the times when I say "I am willing to consider unblocking if you do XYZ", in the vast majority of cases the user does not do XYZ, and is never unblocked. I see no harm in giving a user a chance to show that they are genuinely willing to change, even though I know they probably won't take up the chance. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I do agree - for me, it's often based on the previous level of issues, and the sincerity/honesty surrounding their unblock request (and the talkpage history). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

user:TreasuryTag

Hi. Why did you revert my community message on this banned user's talk page? 94.4.117.83 (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Because he is not banned from making future unban request; that was pure vandalism (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, so arbcom have come back with a final decision on whether he should stay or not, and you reckon if he tries to cause more drama by slagging people off, and going on about how unfair the situation is and playing the victim as usual, then we should just allow it, and go through the whole time-wasting motions of discussing it with him? I'm sorry but I was not vandalising that talk page - to be honest an admin really ought to revoke talk page access. If he wants to complain he can email someone in private rather than letting the world know and getting random observers sucked in so the whole messy situation can explode again. Then againb maybe I'm wrong, maybe it was just vandalism *sigh* 94.4.117.83 (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You're very wrong. He has his ability to appeal. The timeline for such has been set by ArbComm. To claim otherwise is vandalism. Grave-dancing doesn't become you, or anyone. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You really think allowing an appeal will benefit wikipedia somehow?!? 00:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.117.83 (talk)

Whether I do or not, that's not my call nor is it yours to make (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

How do you explain comments like this ? 94.4.117.83 (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The defensive part of me says "I don't have to explain it to you."

The pragmatic part of me says "It's probably the most self-explanatory comment ever to appear on that page"

The WP:AGF part of says "what exactly do you need to have explained to you?"

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The talk page lurker part of me says asking for an explanation for that edit is nothing short of trolling by an obvious ipsock. Toddst1 (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be wrong of me to delete the above comment by Toddst1, but I will ask you to ignore it as it is complete and utter garbage. Anyway, back to the original point. In that edit I've quoted, you appear to be actively campaigning for TT to be allowed to appeal as much as he likes, yet you state "it is not my call to make". That is what I was asking you to explain. This is all just resulting in unnecessary drama. 94.4.117.83 (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes, it would be wrong. --Chip123456 (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

My statment clearly says that TT should be allowed to submit any future unban requests exactly as permitted by relevant policy/body, no more and no less. For example, if BASC says 6 months, then so be it. As such, it is not your or my call to make to say "no more appeals ever" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

heymister14

Thanks for the note, but my replies have been at heymister's talk page, so I've copied your response over there without the TPS template. Feel free to add it back (or any other modifications, of course) if you prefer that it be left unmodified. Nyttend (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Call My Name (Cheryl Cole song)

Hello! Is there anyways to unprotected Call My Name (Cheryl Cole song) so the article can be created? I've created the article here but someone redirected it to that protected article. The song has already charted and has enough amount of content to be created, everything is sourced. Thanks. :) - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 17:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Saulo, I redirected it because it shouldn't be labelled "Cheryl song" at all. She's labelled as "Cheryl" on artwork, but still going by "Cheryl Cole". And sorry BWilkins, I didn't realize someone had posted this on your wall. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 21:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Knowz

FYI, I accepted this unblock request; the user was neither warned about edit warring nor notified about the edit warring complaint. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I saw that ... not sure I accept the "I wasn't warned about a rule I already know about" defence, especially when this was a 3-way block to all of the involved edit-warriors. Ethically, you'd have to unblock the other 2 now, which would be bad (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, one of the other two made the complaint, and the other was informed, so neither has a procedural or ethical leg to stand on in that regard. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, this is amazing mate. You blocked me from not only editing wikipedia articles but also blocked me from editing my user talk page. This is Arsenalkid700 (talk · contribs). In fact I only heard of the 3 revert rule a few days ago only because I have never gotten blocked before and now I have. Now I have also looked at the ruling and it says that the block should be for 24 hours and not the 48 given to me. If you dont unblock me, fine but at least lower the amount of hours. I have been a member on wikipedia for a long time and if you have the time to look at my past work (on the account you blocked; just look through the user page for my work) and you will see that I have made a huge impact on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football for well over a year. I understand my wrong doing and next time I shall inform someone else to handle the situation. And yes I admit my opener of "I know I am right" is not the best way to start but what would you do if you only had little time to edit and then all of a sudden you see that your blocked and that by the time the block is finished you have no time to edit because of what is happening in the real world. Now if possible (and this would help me as well) is there anyway I can be unblocked now for a small period of time and then starting at midnight (UTC) I am blocked once again for the duration of time left. It would allow me to finish my projects (or most of them) and maybe keep me off wikipedia while I work on things in the real world. Please take these into consideration. Thank you. --FootballinIndiaWiki (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

And now your block-evading account is indefinitely blocked WP:EVADE. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

And, "mate", if you noticed, your block was put at 48 hours to exactly match that of the other person involved in the edit-war, which is both fair and recommended. We sure wouldn't want you to be able to return to the article before they are. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Just to let you know that this editor is continuing his edit war here: Manuel Gomes (football coach). The war seems to be going on between this editor and the subject of the article. Aside from the clear COI issues here, the comments in the edit summaries show that they are doing this only to irritate each other. Despite his earlier denials, Arsenalkid700 (talk · contribs) is clearly aware of the 3RR rule and doesn't care. The other editor seems to persist solely to promote himself in the article, continually adding back a large amount of unreferenced, weasle-word ridden and in several places contradictory information. I have edited this page myself twice to strip it back to only referenced BLP information and then to revert a revert. I don't really want to get any more involved in this, but Arsenalkid700 (talk · contribs) seems now to be turning into more of a troll than a worthwhile editor and Mgomes neca (talk · contribs) seems to use Wikipedia solely to promote himself. Do you think more action is necessary? Fenix down (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Azure move

I just saw this in my watchlist:

(Move log); 21:16 . . Bwilkins (talk | contribs) moved page Azure Services Platform to Windows Azure ‎(this would be the proper title, see my talk page)

Which talk page discussion are you referring to? Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

check the talkpage for whoever tagged it for the move...this involved a deletion/move. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That's me. The whole thing collectively is called Windows Azure - it's not just the OS itself; in fact I believe the servers actually run Windows Server 2008 (R2)/2012 in reality.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all - Pointillist (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Death of a Wikipedian (at your hands, sadly)

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.

---

So, you blocked me for edit-warring a few months back. I haven't really felt like editing since then. You'll likely not remember the incident (though it's still on my talk page if you care), but that's not so important. What is important is that you seemingly-valued punishment of a Wikipedia editor over providing guidance. The ONE time I've ever had to interact with an admin after years of edits, yay, I was blocked. (Even self-reporting in an attempt to determine if I really violated WP:BLP or not; instead, you gave a snide reply with your ban.)

So, here's to you, for killing off a "good" editor (in my opinion; feel free to look at my other edits.) I'm not angry at Wikipedia; I'm just annoyed that *you* seem to value punishment over guidance and constructive assistance, especially when asked for!

I don't portend to change your mind on these types of decisions, but simply hope to inform you that punishment with no real explanation or discussion is not helpful, especially when said user seeks out guidance as to whether a 4th edit violates the rules or not (I broke 3RR for possible WP:BLP issues, and assumed you might give me guidance on that...) Instead, you'd rather ban me for 24 hours. Right when I was engaging in a talk page discussion to try to sort out the issue you banned me for. (Even better there, ban a user who's obviously taken an issue to a talk page to try to sort it out.)

Unfortunately, your 24-hour ban turned into me not editing for months. I hope you'll consider your actions as far as punishment vs reasonable dialogue go in the future (and you can do BOTH at the same time, imagine that!)

We're obviously losing Wikipedia editors. You personally caused one (me) to be lost. Please keep that in mind. I may go back to editing more in the future, but I don't expect that I'll start editing as much as I have in the past...unless I know that Wikipedia promotes a culture of helpfulness over a culture of punishment. You've only shown me the latter, unfortunately.

In short, "good job" on banning me on a technicality, when I personally sought out guidance on the issue but was instead summarily handed down a 24-hour ban, which turned into a personal permanent ban since I don't care for such bans from an admin who would not properly discuss the reasoning behind such ban.

We need good editors on Wikipedia. Your actions have driven off at least one good editor: me! So, please consider the repercussions of your fine-grained "3RR violated, must ban" actions and the like, if you hope to not continue to lose editors.

Again, I have nothing against you personally. I just don't feel like editing if the culture is "punish people if they break the rules a little bit!" rather than "hmm, enforce rules but try to help editors who break them, even if a temporary ban is warranted, to not break said rules in the future." I hope you understand the difference; if you do not, you quite honestly should not be a Wikipedia admin.

– 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Awww... it isn't that bad. After all IPv6 is enabled now, and you're probably the most famous pseudonym account resembling an IPv6 range. Nevertheless, though, when I was blocked (indefinitely!) I did not call it quits on Wikipedia. My block appeal led to an unblock within under one or two hours of the block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jasper, especially for amusing me by recognizing my IPv6 doc prefix pseudonym. :) I don't WANT to call it quits on Wikipedia; I just wish that admins would err towards the side of helpfulness rather than towards punishment of users! I intend to contribute more; sadly, I've been put off by this admin's personal decision. I'm just trying to inform him/her of the consequences of such abrupt bans, rather than being helpful towards the user(s) in question... :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I almost wanted to do the same things myself when I got blocked myself. I do see you have been bitten, and so was I. The current system of blocking for edit warring is not perfect at all and Bwilkins just had to carry out this current, albeit nevertheless flawed, system. I feel sorry if it seems Bwilkins has been mean to you - I thought the admin who blocked me was mean to me at the very first instant but remembered that he was just one of us.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I just went back through the whole thing. Where's the "punishment" - I don't do punishment. You and another editor both edit-warred, and both got an extremely short WP:BLOCK (not a WP:BAN, by the way - you're right, if you were banned after one incident like that, you should be pissed off). The block itself was upheld by yet another admin. A 1-day protection for the project is common: it's a "warning shot across the bow", and most intelligent people learn from it and move on to become good editors. Indeed, many people have argued that their first block was what made them stronger, better editors because they realized that even the most simple of rules was going to be enforced, which meant that even their edits to the project were going to be protected by someone, somewhere. Was it bitey? Um, no.

There's no humanly-possible way to blame the admin: I did not hold your mouse in my hands and edit-war on your behalf. I did not force you to ignore the warnings. I did not cause you to break the policies and rules that you agreed to when you created your account. To blame any admin for a single block due to your own behaviour would be bizarre to say the least. You broke a community norm; you were told to stop; you didn't. What else did you expect would happen? Blaming me for you not editing would be like saying "I hate cars because my dad once yelled at me for scratching his vintage Mustang Convertible with a rock".

The number of blocks that I have handed out is paltry. I think last month it sadly hit the 400 mark (the highest admin has 14,000+). Most of those are spammers. The second most are edit-warriors. Blocking is not my usual goal. My personal philosophy is at the very top of my userpage, and I stick by it every day.

We humans are separated from most of the animal kingdom due to our ability to analyse and adapt, rather than simply react. I encourage you to look at the bigger picture, analyse your actions within it, and adapt - don't get stuck in what was your reaction at the time. Do you have the potential to add to the project? Do you now recognize that your edits will also be afforded a certain level of protection from other edit-warriors in the future?

Finally, although you think you're attempting to be funny or dramatic with your metaphor of "Death" at "my hands", it's neither appropriate nor correct; indeed, it's a pretty disgusting accusation of murder even as a metaphor. If that's your sense of humour or drama, then you might not be the type of editor Wikipedia is looking for anyway. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say that I appreciate that you did actually go back through the incident...but you say "I did not force you to ignore the warnings." What warnings? There were no warnings to ignore. I was told to stop? When? By whom? If I was warned, I certainly would have heeded that warning. (Unless by warning you mean "read the rules and interpret whether or not WP:BLP applies on your own.") If you actually went back through the incident, you'd certainly have seen that no warnings were involved. Please don't claim to have done something you haven't done.

And of course I'm blaming you personally; your actions caused me to be less-inclined to edit Wikipedia. Whether or not those actions were correct is something we disagree on, but the result is the same. You say that we have "[the] ability to analyse and adapt." I would say you had a faulty analysis as to how to solve this issue, both in the application of punishment and the lack of analysis of the potential benefits versus negative consequences of said punishment. (And the lack of accepting that analysis even now after we have actual data.)

You fail to address the "seek out guidance" part of my message. THAT is the reason I stopped editing; not because of the ban itself. If your ban message had said "no, this isn't covered under WP:BLP because <reason>" or even just "I appreciate that you've stopped edit-warring and reported the issue, but I need to apply punishment equitably to be fair" or something else along those lines, e.g. giving me GUIDANCE instead of just PUNISHMENT. That is the difference between a useful penalty and a penalty that just...penalizes, to negative effect. You cannot disagree that your penalty had a negative unintended effect, even if you disagree over its appropriateness.

And seriously? A "disgusting accusation of murder?" I suggest you don't watch any movies or read any books that have "Murder" in the title. Some of them use the word humorously, some ironically, some metaphorically (and some all three!) Some contain actual death, some do not. You probably shouldn't watch TV, play video games, or use the Internet either. You end your message saying that I "might not be not the type of editor Wikipedia is looking for anyway" because of *my personal sense of humor*!? (Which I'd certainly not apply to any article, unless it was an article requiring an example of that type of humor...) Think that over for a minute. Discriminate, much? Judge, much? Are there other classes or types of thought or other personal attributes that you think editors should not possess?

Anyways, despite all this, I'm still going to WP:AGF and not blame Wikipedia for your erroneous judgment. You are still learning, as are all of us, and you can still err, as you did here. Perhaps I erred as well, but I can't know that as you failed to provide guidance, as noted. I suppose it is unfair to Wikipedia to blame the entire entity for the actions of one person; though it's unfortunate that that person makes false statements about non-existent warnings and judges people based on their sense of humor, yet holds a position of power within the larger entity. I do hope you've learned from this incident. All I've learned is that I should be extremely careful about strict numerical guidelines, and should not attempt to make an edit based on other overriding rules that may or may not apply. (And I've learned that some admins don't want editors with certain personal views that are irrelevant to their editing of actual Wikipedia articles.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

2001:db8, I do have to agree that Bwilkins' block was justified. Both of you should just drop the WP:STICK on this, because this argument is not going to work out and you're not going to change the past.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't intend to change any minds, simply to point out my view; I primarily replied since I thought it repulsive that an admin would consider someone jokingly using a common metaphor on a user talk page to be someone who shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. If Bwilkins doesn't like the metaphor, that's perfectly fine, but suggesting that I *shouldn't edit Wikipedia at all* because Bwilkins doesn't like the metaphor is ridiculous. Anyways, I'm not going to spam Bwilkins' talk page any more, so I'll leave it at that. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:28, 16 June 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.

Message from IP

Hello again, Sorry to use this page but I don't seem to be able to get into your talk page. You sent me an email so you must have put something on my or your talk page. But I've had enough Wiki for a while. I'm doing some research on Tottenham Hotspur for the club's entry, through two of the club's fanzines. I'll log into Wiki again then. Cheers. You can always ring me - (Redacted) (I don't mind giving number out as I said to somebody called Tow).82.11.178.239 (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Herbolzheim (Lloyd actually)

Remember that you may not edit Wikipedia both logged in and logged out. You can always get to my talkpage by clicking "TALK" on my signature (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh

I'd edited the AN3 page and was about to block for a week ... to find you already had... Black Kite (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. However, according to discussions above, I live to block people ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

A question on Balkans editing

Hi there. At the moment, it is all quiet on the Balkan-related subjects so I'll take this chance to ask you - are you officially in charge of disciplinary on Balkan related editing? The reason I ask is that if problems do re-emerge, would it not be better to address you here directly rather than go through the formalities of ANI. Obviously if a user is being reported then I'd still link him to the section but I'm just curious as to what to do. If the other admins are happy enough to leave this one to you, it will just be painful viewing for them to read the same old blah-blah. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

All admins are responsible - in fact, I rarely get involved in ArbComm Enforcement issues. However, if the event is related to the breaking of ArbCom restrictions, either ANI - or more formall ArbComm Enforcement should be used (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

BWG Foods

Hi Bwilkins. I am wondering could you advise/help me on this one, an editor, Malachyhanberry -an SPI, is editing this page and has a COI, he is, qouting the additions he has made, "sales and retail advisory services director of BWG Foods". He has added certain onesided phrases, leading and such in the article which I have removed or tidied around SPAR Ireland is renowned as a leader in convenience retailing . I have added to his talkpage User talk:Malachyhanberry to show him COI and general style, the five pillars and such. Have I been abit heavy or blunt? I dont think I have but maybe an admin (yourself hopefully) interacting with him would help him understand WP:NOT. I dont feel it warrants AN/I, even with the COI, as it is only effecting one article and I believe he just types "sales speak" as part of his mind set if you get my drift. Thanks for your time. Murry1975 (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the welcome template you gave him with {{Welcome-coi}} which directly addresses COI issues. I have also removed some non-encyclopedic content - although it sure needs trimming. I'll add it to my watchlist for a bit (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the (very) quick response. Murry1975 (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Editor review comment

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.

---

Hi Bwilkins

I have just come across this comment on Thine Antique Pen's editor review, which I've removed as unfair and disruptive. First and foremost, Editor review is a place for constructive criticism, and there was nothing constructive about your comment whatsoever. Secondly, I believe a large portion of it was demonstrably false.

• Thine Antique Pen came to me for adoption on 20th April (which I didn't accept because I was busy), since then I've followed his progress. I've seen him come on leaps and bounds, under the guidance of a number of great editors, Dr. Blofeld, Anna Frodesiak, Demiurge1000 and ItsZippy jump to mind immediately. He's taken feedback on board and learnt from it.
• Creating stubs is an important role on this encyclopedia. Yes, it's not the most important. It's not the most glamourous, or admirable, but it has it's part to play. There are many roles on the encyclopedia, and article writing is only one of them - even if it is perhaps the most admirable, the most useful. Just because he does not write articles doesn't mean he doesn't have a place in the community. Would you like me to list different people who have excelled in areas that don't include article writing? I'm sure I can.
• Is he doing a good job of stub writing? Well, he's written something like a 1000 stubs, and I don't see his talk page littered with complaints or deletion notices. Either he's doing a good job, or the patrollers are doing a bad one. Not to mention the fact that he's written 3 or 4 good articles! I can't remember the last GA I wrote, but it was a while ago. When was yours?
• Requesting rights is not necessarily hunger for power. I read it as a misinterpretation of how the encyclopedia works - thinking that the tools lead to the work, rather than the work leading to the tools. Since he had this explained to him, he has not requested a tool (I believe, globally) - despite multiple uninvolved editors suggesting he get autopatrolled. It's a right that is appropriate for what he's doing, but he didn't request it, someone else did. That he agreed it was appropriate is not wrong.

Finally, your other comments were direct attacks on his character and unbecoming of you as an admin, indeed as a person. Had you forgotten that there's a person behind the keyboard you were referring to? I expected better from you. As I said, I've removed your comments. If you want to replace them with an actual constructive review of TAP, where you demonstrate his problems and you give him suggestions on how to improve, I'm sure he would appreciate that. Worm^TT(talk) 08:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• 3 GAs, 7 DYKs and about 2100 stubs. ⇒TAP 08:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd request that you return it. Based on his numerous appearances at AN, ANI, whinging about his inability to apply for more permissions (all well-proven), the comment was 100% valid, and stands quite obviously on its own. The suggestions on improvement are to do exactly the opposite of what he's now infamous for, which is being a royal pain in the ass. If he wants to focus on writing, and STOP whinging left right and centre, then he'll be a better person/editor. Every 19th edit or so (unofficial estimate), the whinging recurs, and it's not becoming of anyone. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No. It was at best unfair and uncivil, at worst a personal attack. If you must return it unaltered, do so, but I would be requesting more eyes on the situation. If you'd rather request eyes on the situation, feel free to take it to any forum, I'll be happy to join you there.Worm^TT(talk) 11:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It was 100% supported by freely available evidence, and doesn't even push the boundaries of NPA, nor uncivil. WP:SPADE. I expect you to return it (and if for some reason, you feel it necessary to include my clarifying statements above then feel free to do so). You and I BOTH know the review was 100% accurate and supported. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

(Random comment) I would be interested to know how he "totally lacks a CLUE", and "fails to takes any advice" is either 100% accurate or 100% supported.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can show me ANY 7-day period where he has NOT at some point made a statement about "not being permitted to request additional permissions", then I'll be fully happy to retract that :-) That's something he's been told to stop doing over and over and over again, and it's fantastic advice (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I must note that the "not permitted —" is when editors have actually asked me why I don't have certain things. ⇒TAP 11:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Come on TAP, show me a 7 day period where you haven't said it. Do it please. Tell me you'll never say it again - when you say it, even in the context you provide above, it's still coming across as whinging - almost like you're hoping someone will step in on your behalf (like what you ALREADY did with the one permission you have) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Since TAP has been criticised by the blocking administrator for not mentioning the restrictions on his requesting additional permissions when the subject comes up, I think this demand is completely ridiculous.

BWilkins, you seem to have some sort of issue with TAP; it's obvious that you find him very annoying, and the interactions between the two of you do neither of you any good at all. I have a suggestion. Take everything TAP-related off your watchlist. When TAP-related things crop up elsewhere, ignore them. Resist the urge to comment. Forget about him completely. This is likely to be much more productive for everyone concerned, and indeed for the project. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ooooh, such brillance. In order to remove him from my watchlist I'd actually have to have him on my watchlist, wouldn't I. Instead, he just keeps showing up where I already am making the same whining comments, and being chastised for the same damn things by others. Like I said below and elsewhere (long before your sarcasm and literally unhelpful commentary), I want this guy to succeed. I'm fully within my rights and responsibilities to point out his shortcomings, and what HAS in the recent past been an annoyance to the entire project. By pointing out just how fucking annoying he has been it gives him the chance to learn, so as not be so fucking annoying to the project in the future, and to be a great editor. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The last 7 days, actually. As far as I can find (having checked all talk namespace edits in the last 7 days), he has made no reference in the last week.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you find anywhere in the last 7 days where TAP has commented on his topic ban on requesting user-rights, and if not, can you retract your statement, as you said you would do. Thank you.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 13:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't try and reverse the onus here. TAP has been asked to prove it themself - and I'll be happily willing to retract. I can guarantee that I have indeed seen him comment accordingly in the last 7 days ... I'm just not going to be bullied into digging into it because I honestly don't care. The BIG question is, WILL HE NOW CHANGE. Focus on moving forward, which is what I have been pushing ALL ALONG (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

How could he prove a negative here? Without looking through all his talk space contribs (which I have already done) and providing diffs of every single one, showing that he didn't mention it? --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

100% Supported? On current behaviour? No, I certainly don't "know" that. I'm not going to be replacing it, for reasons most of the people responding to you in this thread have made clear. I agree, TAP is not a perfect editor, but your review was not a productive review, and WP:SPADE is an essay which has nothing to do with your statements. From an outside perspective - I'd had almost nothing to do with TAP until today - it was direct editor bashing. As I said, why don't you replace it with something constructive? Worm^TT(talk) 14:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Whilst TAP does seem a little materialistic and pushy at times, I would have to agree with Worm here. He's show a willingness to learn, and unlike certain other editors on here learns from his mistakes and always correct his mistakes if there are any. I've given him a lot of tips on creation and he really does appear to be learning from them. His Bulgarian and Moroccan stubs, especially Bulgaria are informative and quite valuable new entries. And he has shown himself to produce decent content like The Wedding Dance in which we together produced a GA quality article but the article is largely his. I think he deserves to be treated a little better and given a chance to prove himself. I personally am not a fan of the masses of beetle stubs his and several others are producing as they are unlikely to be expanded but I think he has a lot of potential to produce a lot of good content and we need keen, bold editors. He has a few flaws, and seems to get sidetracked very easily, but deserves a chance to prove himself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. And my review simply referred to the pain-in-the-ass portions of his all-too-recent history (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Word, Demiurge, and Dr Blofeld, to be honest. TAP came to me quite a while ago with numerous problems and I was unsure whether he'd cope here. He regularly requested rights he didn't need, reverted good faith edits as vandalism, made some poor NAC closures at Afd, etc etc. I've watch him slowly turn around his editing - he has taken on board a lot of advice that has been given him and has become a decent editor here. Of course, he's not perfect (are any of us?), but I am very impressed with TAP - he has not given up in the face of (sometimes unpleasant) criticism, he has taken advice from other users, and he has made a good contribution to the project. I would strongly challenge the assertion that he "believes that creating poor stubs is an actual substitute for writing articles": firstly, as Worm said, writing stubs is by no means an intinsically bad thing. Secondly, he has 3 good articles and 7 DYKs to his name. I would have agreed that he lacked clue a few months ago, but he has certainly improved recently; I don't think we can justly say that any more. TAP could certainly improve, but I have no doubts that he will, and am very confident that he will take in his stride anything that other editors believe he could improve. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, more than once, especially in what should have been a closure of this thread, how he behaves as he moves forward will tell all about the editor. Period. End of sentence. It's EXACTLY what I strongly hinted at in his editor review, and exactly what I have said in this entire fricking thread. Grow up people. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to note: some of the people commenting in this thread may be here because they were canvassed to be here: User_talk:Thine_Antique_Pen#WP:CANVASS_applies_to_you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

As one of the main contributors to this thread I can confirm that I was not canvassed in any way, having several hundred user talk pages on my watchlist, and did in fact send an e-mail admonishing TAP when I saw he was sending a couple of people e-mails.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfuckingbelievable. However, always good to have my point proven. Bravo TAP. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:13, 17 June 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.

Tanisha Thomas

Hey, can you tell me what I should do about this IP who continues to vandalize the page? I can't send it to protection because its only that IP, or can you get involve?. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 17:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably the edit-warring noticeboard, but I've nabbed them for a few days. Make sure you warn them appropriately, and follow WP:DR (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

your opinion

i would like your opinion on this comment by user:frotz, [15]. if this isn't islamophobia then what is? how do we deal with this sort of nonsense? the eurabia, dhimmitude and other similar articles are hijacked by people with similar prejudices.-- altetendekrabbe  10:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I cannot say that I see anything wrong with his statements, his tone, his request for valis sources. He's not advocating racism, immediate attacks, violence, etc. He has an opinion, as far as I can see (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you know

that one of your edits is being used as a bad example? See WP:VPR#Revised proposal:Proposal to ban instant blocking for all editors over 3RR unless a warning has been issued first and search for " because it's an example of a person offering an opinion of another person " and then " because it's an example of a person offering an opinion of another person". Someone should have told you earlier. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice one Doug, you want a stick to help you stir the shit?. If you want to know my opinion of Bwilkins its from what I've generally seen he's a very competent and decent individual. He had every right to comment on TAPS review. I thought it was a little harsh but you didn't see my hound him with the civility stick did you? I can think of far worse example of admin vs editor behaviour but I had just seen it and the editors commenting on that page were discussing how perfect admins were that's all. No offense intended Bwilkins and I don't think it was appropriate on my part to link it there, its not usually my style.. Regards.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Why the attack on me? If someone is mentioned on a board, particularly in this way, it's courteous to let them know. You seem to disagree which surprises me. Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see Dougweller's notice as an attack in any way - I saw it as polite notification that I (or at least one of my actions) was being discussed somewhere without me knowing. Cheers to both of you  :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Emailed. Have cancelled out my link at the pump as its irrelevant to admin blocking.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

XB70Valyrie Block

There appears to be something wrong with the block notice you placed at User talk:XB70Valyrie. It shows that the block is temporary rather than indefinite and it also doesn't display your sig. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

A bot substituted the notice which caused your signature to appear; however, it still stated that the block was only temporary. I have replaced the block notice. Please correct me if I made a mistake. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You're probably right - block notices have to be manually done when I use the device I was using last night, and I appreciate you fixing it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)