User talk:DangerousPanda/Archive 11

So since I am an employee creating a page for my company, you deleted it?

There wasn't even anything biased about it and nor was it complete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datamunk (talk • contribs) 14:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The article was deleted because you did not indicate that the company had any importance at all. You should review Wikipedia:Your first article, but as I noted on your talk page, editing articles with which you are affiliated with is discouraged. Toddst1 (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The "article" showed no signs of notability. Wikipedia is not a place to list a business; it's an encyclopedia of notable topics. The WP:COI is just one of the reasons why you're unable to see those issues objectively. If someone unrelated to the company wants to create a draft that actually meets Wikipedia's requirements, they can ... or someone can try to take it through the articles for creation process if and only if they can meet the notability requirements. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops! I think we collided here. I'll generally unblock someone who was blocked for username only, provided they hadn't already been spamming, etc., which this one had not. I did the unblock at the same time as you were declining it. How do you want to handle it? No intent to step on your toes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The biggest issue is that the unblock request was not placed by the editor themself, and had to be declined for that reason alone. It would, however, be a shame to pollute their block log with a re-block. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yo, Bwilkins, tahnks for putting pending changes on Lesbianism in erotica! Just out of curiosity: do you stalk Dennis Brown's talk page, or was it just an odd coincidence? Also, is this kind of situation what PC is for? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I shall admit to being a TPS in this situation :-) It is my understanding that it is exactly this type of case that PC is useful for - more often "high profile" articles, but this one makes sense IMHO. If someone calls me to the carpet on it, I'll be surprised (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA#MMA_Event_Notability. Kevlar (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You got a sense o' humor! (Didn't know that. I thought maybe, only the Bugs.) CHEERS, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

*sigh* Apparently I'm only known for my stunning good looks, not my sense of humour. Oh well (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Bwilkins the tag placed on the article was correct But User:Nyttend made a move as here making Shuayb (prophet) moved to Shuayb removing the unnecessary disambiguation. Please review it once again and move the page Shuayb to Shuaib as was tagged. As the proper Romanization of Arabic is Shuaib not Shuayb. Thanks. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, how do I move the page to my user space if the page has been deleted? From my understanding of your denial and what Spartaz said that is what I'm being told to do. I'm not trying to cause headaches just new so if you could help me out it'd be awesome. I guess I need clearer directions. I'm brand new at this. Mariolennox (talk) 12:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's go all MIB3 for a second and go back in time. On November 15 I closed a community discussion on a band, that based on the policy-based discussion had a consensus to be deleted. 4 days after that, an editor came to my talkpage all snarky, and provided non-policy-based arguments to undelete. The then went ahead and nominated themself for adminship over their horrid perception of Wikipedia policies with the intent to "get back at those who wronged them". 3 weeks after the deletion, you arrived on my talkpage, citing brand new information and requested immediate undeletion. No polite asking, nothing policy-based (you did, after all, link to information that was not even available when the article was deleted). In fact, when you edit this very talkpage it tells you in a nice red box that "if you are here because I deleted your page: first, read this key policy/process document. I am always willing to undelete/userfy based on an intelligent discussion". You did not ask for it to be userfied to become a draft (which I had advised the previous editor)...you were pretty adamant that I undelete to articlespace or else. Obviously, I declined based on how you asked, and the non-policy-based arguement, and I removed the post as uncivil. Indeed, I'm not convinced that there is not WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT going on related to that article. If you read my comment on the poorly-concieved WP:DRV you submitted, I clearly gave you instructions:

• Comment by deleting admin If you wanted it userfied so that you could work on it in userspace, or via WP:AFC, why didn't you simply ask me? Instead, I received an unsigned message on my talkpage simply requesting undeletion based on the exact same reasons that I had already addressed immediately above that message. If you wish it userfied, please confirm that you will not move it back to userspace until you have had it vetted by a well-seasoned editor, AND you can 100% confirm that no sockpuppetry or collusion is taking place regarding this article

When the DRV was closed, those assurances were highlighted. In your WP:REFUND request, you refused to provide those assurances. In this very thread, you continue to refuse to provide those assurances.

So: read the policies you have been provided. Read the advice I had given to the first editor who arrived at my talkpage (it was available the first time you arrived here). Click every single link. Understand what led to the decline to undelete. Understand that your attitude/behaviour has not been conducive to people wanting to do you favours. Then, look carefully at the directions you were provided. Then - and only then - will I userfy the original article for you. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Like I said I'm pretty new and I wasn't trying to be rude and for that I am sorry. I'm still learning the ropes here and I did not know userfication was a thing until yesterday. If it came off wrong my apologies I misunderstood the undeletion process. I read that if new and relevant information the made the band notable came up you can request undeletion. Clearly I was mistaken. How can I prove I'm not any form of puppet? I have initiated a WP:checkuser to provide some assurance via user:fred bauder. I was on WP editing (albeit a userspace draft of a new page which is not yet complete) before I ever weighed in on Crown the Empire. Please advise. Thank you. Additionally, it will not be moved back into the userspace until it has been vetted by a seasoned editor.Mariolennox (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • We don't do checkusers to demonstrate absence of multiple accounts. I'm afraid you'll have to make decisions based on editing behavior. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Fred. I'm still awaiting Mario's reply ... some nugget of something that will lead me to go beyond the level of WP:AGF I'm already at ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• • • So if WP:AGF Exists, why am I still demonstrating I'm not that person? What do I need to do, I've asked multiple times and it's fair to say that yes I acted rude (without intention) but the fact is there is no concrete step you are telling me that I need to do. That is not acting in good faith on your part. If there is something you want me to do I think it's reasonable and fair for you to tell me what it is. I've read all of your links/steps, if you want I will personally ask you to review the page before it is returned to the userspace. I would not have requested a check user if I was performing some form of puppetry. Look at my contributions, none involve the other user other than the Crown the Empire discussion. Mariolennox (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You will find the article here. Note that userfication is a temporary process. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. I will let you know when it is ready to be reviewed and will ask you to do it. Mariolennox (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to this site and was making the changes on my UC2B page that were asked of me, as I removed all sentences too similar to their original sources and replaced them with my own wording but it was still taken down. Is there anyway it can be put back up? and please let me know if there are other changes I need to make. Thanks Ckenny120 (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I would go back to the concepts listed in WP:FIRSTARTICLE - at this point, I'm not even sure the article you started meets basic notability requirements. As the article was a pretty flagrant copyright violation and the changes were still significant close paraphrasing, there is no way to undelete in that form. I would recommend working through either articles for creation or a personal draft, but please do not re-introduce any of the copyrighted materials back onto Wikipedia (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I just found this so disregard my last message. But am I still allowed to cite those sources I hope? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckenny120 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, spoke too soon. Just took a look at the notability guidelines. Ckenny120 (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

While I understand that both TheREALCableGuy and Supermariokart64 were edit-warring, I don't think it is particularly fair to block Supermariokart64 for 36 hours and TheREALCableGuy for 72 hours. I think the times should match out of fairness. Just one editor's opinion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Normally I would block them for exactly the same length - it's the way I work. Usually. However, Cable's block should be for 2 weeks. That would make Mario's 2 weeks - which is wholly unfair considering it's their first block. So, I lowered Cable's below where it should be (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see your point on that one. I only seen the red bar with the current block time, hadn't looked at the block log, so I didn't know it was an escalation. My goof. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bwilkins! I noticed your comments at User talk:Flyer22#Your account is blocked. I see when I go to post here that you don't accept criticism ("if you are here because] you want to... attack me... expect them to be quickly removed [and] consider the consequences", the latter clause being a threat I suppose), so I can't really say what I wanted to say. That's OK. Some of us are sensitive about criticism, and it's to your credit that you're honest about it.

So instead, I'll offer you this nice hot steaming cup of "quietude" for your drinking pleasure. If you want to substitute for "quietude" some more pungent brew, well, that'd be OK too. Herostratus (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Herostratus, I don't say that I'm above (or beyond) criticism. Outright attacks are what's not welcome here. I prefer appropriate and respectful discourse as a solution to issues, not attacks. So, please critique if you find it necessary ... just let's do it nicely :-) ...oh, and a cold beverage right now sounds awesome, but coffee will do nicely (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Per your comments regarding the ability of any admin to change any admin action you have done, I have unilaterally restored the rights to Philipmj24 as there was some question as to the necessity. I've asked for an uninvolved admin to review the articles with Philip. This should not be seen as a comment on your right or judgement, but as a less than optimal solution to a less than optimal problem. It was done as a necessity to end unnecessary drama since Philip neglected to try to contact you and work out the issue first. Feel free to ping me if you have any question or comment on my actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, thanks for the voice of reason. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you consider restoring the FINA articles you deleted? I would prefer to see them go through the AfD process rather than getting mass deleted out-of-process.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. However, Dennis Brown's comments were that an uninvolved admin should take care of that. They could have been undeleted by me this morning, but it's not possible for me to do that now. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll just make a post at WP:REFUND and point them here and to the discussion. Ryan Vesey 22:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Feel free. Although I am the bigger man, as long as the editor in question has outright lies about me on his userpage, I feel very little desire to be of further assistance to him (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

While inappropriate, they were not lies, but merely one editor's opinion of another editor's conduct. I removed the comments and left a note on his talk page about it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate you doing that - it is a lie, because it's not the ANI report that led to the restoral of enhanced rights: I stated from quite early on that I would have simply done it myself. Making it look like it was a justice-was-served situation was therefore a lie. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The IP you reverted actually belongs to Phil, hence why I posted an additional comment in response. Left him another comment on using the IP for such purposes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought someone said his IP's all geolocate to Missouri ...that one says registered in TX from what I remember. Right now he's socking if it is him (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I reverted all but one.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for that, and for your measured comments during the kerfluffle (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad to be done. As I said elsewhere, best to let the folks without the extra bits handle it now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I thought I had asked for page protection via Huggle. Turns out it had an error and didn't do anything. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No prob. Cheers. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you (probably accidentally) used PC level 2 on Peter Carl Fabergé and Lesbianism in erotica. PC level 2 "autoreview=review" should not be used at this time. You could change them to level 1 or fully protect them as you deem appropriate. Gigs (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Just in my opinion, where there is many autoconfirmed socks being used, a PC2 can be applied under IAR. However, it still could've been an accident. gwickwire^talk_edits 00:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I likely just chose what made the most sense based on the circumstance - I certainly did not want to fully protect when some IP's were valid. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want PC for IP users that's "level 1" or "Require review for revisions from new and unregistered users". The other option of "Require review for revisions from everyone except Reviewers" is what people call level 2, and lacks community consensus for use currently (though as gwickwire pointed out, I guess anything is possible if you can justify it under IAR). It doesn't help that none of this stuff is obvious from options on the protection page. Gigs (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Technically, PC2 also allows IP edits to be pending review, but doesn't let confirmed users edit either, unless they have the reviewer userright. gwickwire^talk_edits 01:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This article does not already exist. There is a link forwarding to a page on the single device invented, where a little back information is present under a history section. A sloppy article that goes off on a tangent about the person, while being about the one invention. Ray Butts has invented more than this, worked for many label under Sam Philips, and contributed much more than this small amount. I just do not have time to write the whole thing. The idea is to create a proper bio page on the person, then elaborate over time. Have separate pages for the inventions of most significance, take off the rambling history on some of those to make it more concise. Was this suppose to be the whole idea behind this open source, make the site better.

The Echosonic article needs to be mainly about the Echosonic. There is NO article on Ray Butts.

This new article is trying to improve the site, yet I cannot get a reviewer to take a serious look. I've had it turned down because the style of the writing. Despite it still being better than the article you quote. Someone was nice enough to re-write it to the preferred style. Now you are giving me this. I'm new to this site, but the review process is seriously flawed. Cruzado (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Per our many guidelines on Notability:

When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person... Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and is all that that person is associated with in source coverage.

Your topic is only notable for one event, which means he fails on this criteria, instant fail. Sorry. gwickwire^talk_edits 02:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

And that is the flaw in your logic. You are obviously NOT a history expert in the music industry. Notability and fame are two different things you do realize. Not everyone is going to know every person that is notable. That is why such text exist to note and document such things. This is not a forum for fame, only the most recognizable names. He was notable for many more things than just the Echosonic. Many things done for Gretsch Company alone, not just the invention of the first humbucker pickup either. There are many notable things. Other reviewers have already agreed that he is notable enough. Now I have (with the contributions of others) gotten it written as preferred, and now I am dealing with someone that obviously does not know their history, but is acting like they do. What do I need to do to get someone to take the time to look at this subject with proper attention and education to the subject? This is getting ridiculous. Cruzado (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that if you're going to continue being uncivil to me, or those who watch this page, then we're done; period. You knew that when you first started editing this page, and of course you also knew that when you signed up to this private website. The people who answer here typically have good knowledge of the policies, and some of us have extensive experience writing about music topic.

The two articles were indeed different, in fact your newer one was superior. However, having read them both, I can assure you that only one of them could stay. We either have an article on Butts and the EchoSonic is a redirect to that article, or vice versa. Pick one of the two articles, call it the host, edit it appropriately, and choose which stays.

Let me know. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, not quite a week ago you blocked User:Liberjbkdverkgrj for one week for continuing to add "-Lynch" to Naya Rivera's name in the infobox of Rivera's article despite many reversions and requests to stop.

A couple of hours ago, you reverted User:Wzreyxcitvboyuinoim, a brand new user, who made the exact same edit Liberjbkdverkgrj has been making. It seems extremely likely to me that this is the same user, attempting to evade your block by creating a new account. If so, I imagine an extended block is in order. Thank you very much for your actions so far, and continuing to protect this and other articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I would bet it is too. However, 1 single edit does not give me enough feathers to invoke a WP:DUCK. Keep an eye on them, and let me know if it escalates (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Thank you. BTW, where's the line in this sort of quackery, three? Assuming it is the same person, I'm gathering that a different IP was used—the block is supposed to prevent a new account being made by the same underlying IP, right? Or is that only for permanent blocks? At any rate, the Liber account block expired a few hours ago, so I'd imagine that will be used soon enough. I'll definitely let you know if/when it is. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if you'd care to take a look at the edits of the new editor User:Curatrice such as [1]? The tone and approach (disruption by editing image details) are the same as User:Eff Won recently enjoyed using; the only difference is that the target is an old enemy of User:DeFacto rather than User:Lucy-marie. That's easy to understand in the light of the uncertainty at Eff Won's SPI [2] as to whether she was a sock of DeFacto or Lucy-marie, to which I think the answer is "both - same person all along". Or would you rather I opened and documented a new SPI? I fear that would be a slow process and take up the time of several editors, so I'm hoping you may find it all sadly familar and think it appropriate to nip this in the bud. NebY (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Bwilkins! You (rightfully) declined the unblock request by 86.40.202.170. The user is continually protesting their block and misusing their talk page. They say they are not a vandal while their edits are obviously vandalism. Please revoke talk page access for this user's block. Vacation^nine 22:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm having good faith that the discussion underway there will be educational for the editor, and the unblock requests have yet to become an abuse of the process ...yet. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know that you were nominated to receive a piece of free merchandise by an anonymous editor (not me, though I !voted for it ). --Go Phightins! 22:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Literally, I'm speechless. I was unaware that I had been nominated, let alone supported. Still speechless (✉→BWilkins←✎)

Ever since I first saw you on the project, I've always admired how you conduct yourself. Plus, you add some humor on occasion, which is appreciated. Go Phightins! 01:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, DangerousPanda. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 10:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mtking ^(edits) 10:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm..don't see anything there (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to bring to your attention that an IP user, 69.247.190.207, has been making disruptive edits and has ignored all warnings I've left. In addition, they've been previously blocked twice for the same issue. At your earliest convienence, could you let me know if you could block them? Thank you! Regards, Creativity97 23:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

They have not even edited today. They made one edit yesterday that was not vandalism, as far as I can tell. The last edit on the 1 appeared to be a valid attempt to help. Not sure what we would be protecting immediately by blocking them (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I understand what you mean by that. Thanks anyway. And just curious Catfish Jim, why did you say "wow"? Creativity97 01:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Creativity... The "Wow" comment related to the way in which this IP editor has been treated by yourself and others. Please review WP:VANDALISM and WP:BITE before issuing any more warnings. It's only vandalism if it's a deliberate and malicious attempt to damage the encyclopedia. When you see edits that muck up formatting or introduce trivia to an article that isn't strictly necessary, ask yourself if that editor is really in need of a telling-off or whether they could do with some guidance.

Also, check the timings of supposed "vandalism", whether the "vandal" has been warned correctly (have they had the correct warnings in the correct sequence, i.e. level one, level two, level three) and whether they have had enough time to digest each warning before asking an admin to block an editor (it's usually more appropriate to file a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism in any case). The usual sequence of events is to issue a level one notice when you see what might be a deliberately disruptive edit, then to issue a level two if the editor vandalises subsequent to that warning, then level three, then level four, then file at AIV.

Looking at the sequence of events leading to the IP editor's last block:

• Jeff G left a friendly note at 20:55, 2 September, to say he'd reverted an edit the IP had made.
• Between 01:48 and 05:12, 3 September, the IP made seven edits, none of which were disruptive
• At 17:43, 3 September, you left a message on the IP's talk page to say "You've been warned several times now, so please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits to Meg Cummings, Pamela Barnes, Ben Evans (Sunset Beach), List of The Young and the Restless characters (1980s)#Joanna Manning, Palmer Cortlandt and Opal Cortlandt were all not constructive. Please stop. "
• At 17:46, 3 September, you left a message on The Blade of the Northern Lights talk page: "Hello there. I would like to bring to your attention that an IP address, 69.247.190.207 (talk), has been making persistent disruptive edits and vandalism to articles within the scope of WP:SOAPS, after ignoring several warnings from me and other editors. I'm contacting you as I've seen you've blocked IPs before for such matters like this. I've undone many disruptive edits made by them now, and it's really becoming a bother. "
• At 03:29, 4 September The Blade of the Northern Lights blocks the IP for a week
• At 03:30, 4 September The Blade of the Northern Lights leaves a message on the IP's talk page saying that they're blocked
• At 21:56, 12 September, the IP makes his/her very first edit since your initial warning.

Does that seem fair to you? I'm going to ask Blade to comment on this too. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It took me a while to refresh my memory on this. Basically, when I originally blocked the IP, it was making a lot of seemingly arbitrary edits to the infoboxes of character articles, many of which were GAs, by either adding way excessive detail or removing seemingly important information. The IP was repeatedly warned and showed no signs of responding to any of the concerns being raised. This is exactly the kind of edit I blocked the IP for in the first place; while it certainly made sense to AGF when this first started (and it's probably being done in good faith even today), now it's a matter of refusing to listen to advice and warnings. It reminds me a bit of this guy, who was doing something similar on kana articles. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for the awesome work you do for Wikipedia. Keep up the great work! TBrandley 02:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks ... not sure what I did to deserve this recently, but thank you! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You blocked this person for a week for repeating vandalism on Naya Rivera. It just happened again. Since it was more than a day since the block ended, I reverted, put a 4im vandalism warning on the user's talk page and came straight to you, rather than reporting it through channels. I figured you'd want to handle this one yourself. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Wilkins, can you see the Revision History of Chile please; I hope I'm not disrupting the work of bots there. Thanks in advance and Merry Christmas. --E4024 (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Somebody disrupted Chile's Spanish article. I reverted them. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I was just looking over an October Signpost thread and came across this comment of mine to you. That was out of line, sorry. I think I was pissed off with you over something else at the time and overreacted. I was addressing your heading not the idea. I think the idea is a good one. Jimbo is proposing transferring some more powers to the community in the new year, and that may include changes to admin appointment. I just wanted to say that I would support either Looie's representative democracy model in the above-linked discussion, or a version of the model you pointed to, over the present ordeal by fire. Though, of the two - for probable efficiency, humanity and effectiveness - I prefer Looie's model. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I never saw that reply! I appreciate not only the explanation, but the fact that you took the time to explain it. Cheers! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI. The NLP article was semi-protected because of multiple new IPs and new SPA accounts. Full list here. It looks like a recurrence of an earlier meat farm based around one of the serial IDs adopted by Comaze who is subject to the original arbcom ruling on NLP. I am putting a case together for Arbcom enforcement over the holiday period - there are a lot of forensics and links so it is going to take time. I saw your advise to Umesh Soman - the latest of ten SPAs created in the last six weeks or so - which I hope s/he follows but there is a long history of edit warring SPAs on the account. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Understood. I've watchlisted their page - that welcome emanated from an RFP/C request. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!----Snowded ^TALK 12:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bwilkins. Following the thread at ANI I'm wondering if we need an additional pro-forma SPI for this case. With this quite obvious pattern of usernames I don't see the need for CU hunting any sleepers. But Aakeem00 has been left unblocked as of yet and I'm inclined to indef this one too as the sockmaster. What do you think? De728631 (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I said in the ANI thread to take it to SPI :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You recently redirected concentrated benefits and diffuse costs to tragedy of the commons...however, as far as I can tell, there are absolutely no reliable sources that specify a connection between the two concepts. Also, the results of the AfD were 2 keep, 2 delete and 1 redirect. Yet, there are plenty of reliable sources which support the notability of this concept:

• Coleman, John - Democracy's Debt Dilemma Harvard Business Review. 24 April 2012
• Farber, Daniel A. and O'Connell, Anne Joseph - Research Handbook on Public Choice and Public Law 2010
• Schneider, Friedrich and Rowley, Charles Kershaw - The Encyclopedia of Public Choice 2004
• Olson, Mancur - The Logic of Collective Action. Harvard University Press. 1971
• Taylor, John B. and Weerapana, Akila - Principles of Microeconomics 2009
• Nechyba, Thomas - Microeconomics: An Intuitive Approach 2010
• Persson, Torsten and Tabellini, Guido Enrico - Political Economics: Explaining Economic Policy 2000
• Tomasi, John - Free Market Fairness 2012
• Public Choice: Why Politicians Don't Cut Spending. LearnLiberty.org. 20 April 2011
• Boaz, David - Well Worth the Money. Cato. 22 Aug 2011
• Boaz, David - What Big Government Is All About The Freeman.
• Ikeda, Sandy - Two Kinds of Government Failure The Freeman.
• Giberson, Michael - Concentrated benefits and dispersed costs

--Xerographica (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There were actually 2 who mentioned redirect. I felt it was a better choice than the delete it would have been, as per WP:PRESERVE. So why not expand the other term with some of the ref's you provided so that it makes even more sense? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

They mentioned redirect but failed to offer any reliable sources to substantiate their suggestion. That's because it's a concept within public choice theory. It's discussed in the special interests section...which now contains a link that erroneously redirects to the tragedy of the commons. So...given that I seem to be the only active editor who's familiar with the field of public choice...it would be great if you could read over those references or take my word for it that CB/DC is notable enough to warrant its own entry. --Xerographica (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to go back and change it to delete - which was the only other possible close based on my reading of the ref's and policy-based arguments provided. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you please articulate the shortcomings of the ref's and specify exactly which policy based arguments that you are referring to? As far as I can tell...it's a notable concept with numerous reliable sources supporting its notability. It was only proposed for deletion because the editor was unfamiliar with the field of public choice. --Xerographica (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It was nominated for deletion because X presented no evidence that the concept is notable, or that most of the quotes relate to the concept. He's now created a second article about the same concept under a different name, although, he's added some (unsourced) background, and at least one of the quotes appears to be on-topic. He's created a number of articles which consist only of a dictionary definition and a collection of quotes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a relist? It would be nice to get something out of the AFD one way or another. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

"No consensus to delete" is something (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

So is "no consensus to keep." I'm hoping that with another week of discussion, there could be a consensus one way or another. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That's what "no consensus" means - no consensus to keep, no consensus to delete. Based on the arguments, it was never going to become a DELETE, so it defaults to keep (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Any reason why you thought a redirect to Miss Universe Germany would not be appropriate here? --Michig (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see enough support for doing that, yet. However, as redirects are cheap, I would not jump to deleting such a redirect if someone created it. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Bwilkins. Can you userfy Star Wars and Indiana Jones connection at User:Erik/Star Wars and Indiana Jones connection? I'd like to merge the "Shared themes" section somewhere (though I doubt I'll be putting the "List of references" section anywhere). I'll then delete the user sub-page. Happy holidays, by the way! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 14:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I made a suggestion to include the aforementioned section at Talk:Indiana Jones (franchise)#Shared themes with Star Wars. Appreciate the help! Erik (talk | contribs) 16:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Did your closure of the AfD for List of Other Backward Classes also apply to List of Scheduled Castes? Both articles were tagged, and I intended for both to be included in my request for userfication, but because the discussants pretty much ignored the second article (and it has had even less editing attention during the AfD than has been applied to the OBCs article), I think it may be appropriate to conclude that the AfD for the Scheduled Castes article needs to be restarted.

Also, as closer, do you have any thoughts as to how long it would be reasonable to wait for the promised improvements to List of Other Backward Classes? --Orlady (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be honest - I didn't even see the discussion on the second, so yes, I would re-AFD it - refer to the results of this AFD. In terms of fixing - well, it's the holidays throughout the world ... give it a couple of weeks as a minimum (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I started a new AfD for that article. As with the first one, it's a request for userfication, not for deletion.

I agree that at least "a couple of weeks" is appropriate. My main concern is about what to do if that starts to drag on to "several months". --Orlady (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

To BWilkins, please see wp:AN#request admin help to close improper AFD. Thanks, --doncram 02:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm mentoring LuK3, an RfA candidate that withdrew, where you were neutral on. Part of this has him closing AfDs before they are official closed, to help him learn how to judge consensus. There are a couple that you were involved in, and I think that hearing your perspectives on them would be beneficial to him, helping him get a better grasp on the process. If you have the time and inclindation, you are invited to comment. [3] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

Hey Bwilkins, I appreciate your comment at my mentoring page. Determining consensus at AfD, from what I can see and past experiences, can be tough. In addition to knowing to the policies and guidelines, you need to apply them to each AfD discussion. I will be doing 2-3 AfDs a week and unofficially closing them. If you would like, your comments would be appreciated. Thanks, and I hope you have a good holiday and New Year. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem! Good luck! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:AN#request admin help to close improper AFD. --Orlady (talk) 02:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello! It looks like you recently deleted the page David Alvarez (actor). I am not quite familiar with the voting policy for taking down a wikipedia article, but it appears that the vote was 4 to 2 in favor of deleting the page. Can you tell me a little bit more about how the decision was made? It seems to have qualified for deletion because David Alvarez did not want the page, according to the person who knows him personally, and he hadn't done anything since being in the show. I was the original creator of the page back in February 2009, so I have a special attachment to this page. Thank you!Broadwaylover 08:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broadwaylover (talk • contribs)

There is no "voting policy", it's a policy-based discussion to determine consensus about an article. The strength of the discussions is what leads to the final decision. In this case, the subject was borderline in terms of notability as per our guidelines to begin with and could have been deleted easily. Add this to their own desire for the article to not exist and we have a slam dunk. Pretty much like I explained on the AfD closure, IIRC (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Curious, do you mind having Disney Channel International undeleted? It's one of MX896's creations, but it seems like a reasonable redirect to Disney Channel (International). Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the undeletion. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, DangerousPanda. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Black Kite (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

cyberpower is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

As one of my wikifriends, I would like to wish you a Merry Christmas. I hope you had a great one.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 01:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You have removed my information about Taio Cruz's touring history from his page, stating that it is 'un-necessary and non-important detail'. Obviously you are a god on here and an insignificant nothing like me should not question your wisdom, however I can't see why it is necessary and important that some celebrity is wearing Taio's sunglasses brand (a recently added reference you did not remove) but an actual fact about his live performance history as a musician is deemed appropriate for deletion. Also, why did you feel it appropriate to state that my edit was 'good faith' - could this imply that my other edits are, in your opinion, not? Holly har (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to stop being combative around here. I never made ANY comments about the sunglasses - I personally don't care. I stated the edit was good faith, because I believe it was - indeed, it's a whack of your other personal attacks that are not good faith, and I have already brought those to your attention. If sarcasm and attacks are going to be your modus operandi, then I do not see much longer of a future on Wikipedia for you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

For a god you are a bit touchy. Thank you for the helpful threat. 13:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Holly har (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

And thank you for proving my point about combativeness. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

At least I've learned how to use the colon. Holly har (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Based on http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=User_talk:Holly_har&diff=prev&oldid=211111872, I'm inclined to cut her a little slack on arguing that the page has been controlled by Cruz's PR department in the past. I agree she has gone beyond any amount of slack I can allow.—Kww(talk) 15:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Clearly I made a mistake by unblocking her. It's just a shame that it wasn't clear given the evidence I had at the time. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd have done the same (I wasn't in any hurry, but I was sitting down to unblock her when I found you already had). Her primary mission on Wikipedia has revolved around a handful of photos. We'll have to see if she can get past it.—Kww(talk) 16:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you say 'in the past' because Musikshun, who has admitted to being an employee of Taio Cruz, was active on the page as recently as 29th November. With regard to my activities, what's wrong with putting photographs on pages? I thought that encyclopedias need images. What happens is that usually I am the first person with a photograph as I don't bother if there are other good pictures up already. Then other people take my photo down, sometimes without even putting up one instead (as recently happened on the Sky Larkin page). The effort I have had to keep my few photos on pages has been so much that I am not really inclined to put up more of them, even where I have photos for pages which are still completely without images.Holly har (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

And before you say that the aim should be to have the best encyclopedia, rather than just keep my photos on pages, I would point out that I agree with that. My photo of Taio Cruz was objected to because it was not flattering enough. However, I would have thought that the point of this project was to show people as they are, rather than as they would like to be. It was even suggested that the photo of Taio was not suitable as he is 'grimacing' - actually he is singing! Holly har (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You have left a cheeky message on my talk page. As you represent Wikipedia I am taking this commrnt as an organisation libelist point and therefore will be putting in place the steps to compensate me for this infringement. I will give a period of 7 dats to make a formal apology to me for suggesting I am not adult. I consider this accusation to have been placed on my page to purposely cause defamation and as such will raise an ordinary action under the defamation act 1996 (Scotland). Freidster — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freidster (talk • contribs) 19:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Congrats! Your request to be blocked for legal threats has been accepted. As you know, of course, I do not represent Wikipedia, I represent the community of Wikipedia (including you). As you also know, saying that one option is "adult" is never defamation. And, as you also know, the truth is always the full defense against defamation. I do, however, apologize on your behalf for believing that CSDing the articles of someone else simply because they CSD'd one of yours. Good luck. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sad, no? Seems to have been going on this way for four years. I've changed the image to one that none of the factions thinks is right.—Kww(talk) 02:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Such bizarre behaviours surrounding such a low-level "celebrity". You'll just have to protect the WP:WRONGVERSION and see if they both give up (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually I really like the new main photo, although I suspect that the Cruz faction won't (even though he is wearing the sunglasses). Thanks a lot for having a go at sorting out some of the major problems with the page. Holly har (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I was peeking through the list of current PC protections and noticed a pair of articles you'd set to using level 2 PC. It's my sense that there's no consensus for the use yet of Pending Changes Level 2 (see, for example, Wikipedia:PC#Effect_of_various_protection_levels, Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 1, and at least one discussion at WT:PC.) I actually supported PC2 in the RfC, and would have likely supported it's use on those two articles, so I hope I'm not sounding snitty, but I do worry that use of it will cause more drama than it's worth until there's community consensus otherwise. Anyway, cheers, I'm a big fan of your work here. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, someone brought up that I accidentally used PC2 - of course, when nothing in the interface says "don't use this", it's easy to accidentally use :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Bwilkins, I see that you like Kant, so at least I'm not in the wrong place.

Please excuse my misstep yesterday.

The content disputes on the related talk pages have begun causing me to loose a little sleep. I've been relying on my intellectual prowess and debating skill to try and use reason to bring the discussions around to some reasonable conclusion, but neither pure reason nor practical nor critique of any sort for that matter impresses some of the denizens I've encountered.

At any rate, having read a little more reading of policy, it became apparent that a couple behavioral issues related to those policies have been taking place on one talk page in particular. So, before dealing with the content dispute there--which may be intractable at any rate--I'm gong to seek to have those behavioral issues examined in the hope that if those can be rectified the discussions related to content can proceed according to relevant WP.

There are three incidents relating to specific policy points relating to three editors for which I've drawn up another preliminary text. I was thinking of posting that on my Sandbox for comment/editing. Does that sound like a plan?

Two of the editors are very experienced, and one seems to be a PhD, but in an field unrelated to the scope of the article at issue, and he refuses to addresses the facts in the socio-political scope of relevance, while another geneticist who made a somewhat sycophantic statement of fawning admiration on the article talk page is doing the same. The third incident is somewhat isolated, but does address a specific policy point and represent a related incidence of attempted dissimulation of a sort.

Since the text is longer than 500 words and relates to three editors, I don't know how to proceed, but it seems to me that because they are all interrelated and happening on the same talk page, it would be desirable to streamline the arbitration process to the extent possible. I realize this is a bit overblown, but the object is to check the associated types of behavior in order to facilitate the type of discussion envisioned in the relevant policies.

Here is basic summary of the gist of the complaints and a couple of preliminary links:

• Tritomex has refused to discuss anything related to the socio-political scope according to the definition in effect by consensus, and simple repeats the same points about an ethno-religious and genetics basis for indigeneity, and attacks me for discussing socio-political aspects that offend what I presume to be his religious sensibilities.
• Moxy has flip-flopped on a key position related to inclusion criteria that he had voiced prior to the introduction of apparently decisive RS by Dailycare with respect to said criteria. After refusing to address the factual content of the sources, Moxy basically makes a declaration that would seem to be the equivalent of an admission of his lack of competence to be discussing the subject matter of the article at all.
• HaleakalAri has attempted to misrepresent my presentation of the content of one of the sources in order to evade addressing said content and cast me as arguing in bad faith.

On 17 December EdJohnston cited an archive of a previous RfC relating to the scope of the article, with the edit summary There was an apparent consensus in March 2012 on the scope of the Indigenous peoples article in which he states that the consensus was to “keep the narrow internationally recognized definition”.

User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_28#List_of_indigenous_peoples

Relevant policy

WP:TPG

• Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for issues relating to verification, such as asking for help finding sources, discussing conflicts or inconsistencies among sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference supporting a statement is often better than arguing against it.
• Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.

WP:CIR

• Bias based

Some people's personal opinions are so strongly held that they get in the way of editing neutrally or collaboratively. If this continues to be disruptive, a topic ban is generally appropriate. Try this first before going for a site ban, because some people can make valuable contributions in places other than their pet topic. For some reason, it is very difficult to see your own biased editing, though it is easy to see others' biased editing.

• Lack of technical expertise

Technical knowledge is not usually a problem at all, as long as they don't delve into areas that require it. Not everyone needs the same skill set—and as long as people operate only where they're capable, it's not a problem.--Ubikwit (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I've posted a text User:Ubikwit/sandbox.If you have the time to look that over and comment as to whether you think it would be a viable and effective method to address the editing conducted described, or if you think it is trivial and would not be relevant as the policies are hard to enforce, etc., you comments would be greatly appreciated. It might be the case that in a content dispute such conduct would not occur, but I have seen one AE in which personal attacks were made with no sanction or even mention.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I have gone over the above, and gone over the sandbox contents a few times. The big problem is this: pretty much everything you say in the sandbox is exactly what every single editor should already know is policy now - there's nothing overly new or novel. It could be lifted from any ArbComm Enforcement decision that's already out there. The problem is that socio-political topics including I-P, The Troubles, and any other national-based topic (that most likely already has AE decisions) create emotion. You cannot "legislate" emotion - if you could, wars as a whole would have ended decades ago.

I laud your attempts to suggest ways forward, but they're already policy. I even more laud your attempts to wade into socio-political hot potatoes like I-P...it's a minefield that I personally stay far away from on Wikipedia, even though I have IRL reported from Afghanistan, Israel and Palestine, Kashmir, and other "hotspots". I personally find having a press encampment shot at around 3AM to be more pleasant that editing those topics in Wikipedia.

So, the way forward...is to go through all of the AE decisions. When AE enforcement issues need to be done, take them to the correct location. Edit as per our dispute resolution processes. Take the high road. Bow out when you need to. Don't lose sleep over a website. Recognize that some people cannot ever be reasoned with - and sometimes those people have "friends" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems clear that Marstarbartion‎‎ has been around on Wikipedia before, but what is not obvious is what account(s) were used. Is it appropriate or possible to file a SPI investigation request where a suspected sockpuppet is known but the sockpuppeteer is not? --Biker Biker (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately fishing is not allowed. I agree that it looks like they're a sock, you would have to look at their contribs, and look for a pattern - especially look for a userid that has recently stopped editing those same articles (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice one, thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The plot thickens, however (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Given the SP duckishness of those, I think there is enough justification for a checkuser to weed out more. So I just filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marstarbartion. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems everyone who worked on Lesbianism in erotica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) back when you P.C.-protected it was either an admin, a reviewer, or non-autoconfirmed, so no one ever noticed that you'd configured level 2 protection. I assume this was unintentional? I did a quick check of your logs, and it looks like you did the same at Peter Carl Fabergé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I still haven't figured out all of the intricacies of Pending Changes myself, but I was under the impression that Level 2 was off-limits for the time being. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you read my replies to the same topic above :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I have now. Is there any reason you haven't corrected it, though? Or did I miss something in my reading?

On an unrelated note, per the thread immediately above, I wasn't aware you were a journalist. Anything I might've heard of? It's my family business, as you may know. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, go back to to the related discussion on PC2 from December 15 .... waaaaaay up. That's why nothing has been changed. If someone else feels the need to fix it, they can - but for now its fixing the problem it was intending to fix, and I'm not the only one who made a similar glitch :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I read that section... I'm not trying to belabor this or anything, and maybe I'm just being stupid and overlooking something repeatedly, but I'm not seeing anywhere where you explained why you'd gone with level 2. And sure, someone else can fix it, but in the mean time non-reviewers' edits will be subjected to review, against consensus. Why not just fix it yourself? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I partially screwed up (re User:Cyberpower). (Now what do I do?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Put a message on his talkpage with the header "A sincere apology", and the first line as "I know you asked me to not post here, but...". That way, even if he doesn't read the rest of the message, he will have been guaranteed to have seen the header before deleting it. Don't self-flagellate too much - just basically say what you said above. Don't get into a back and forth about it if he doesn't reply, or if he simply deletes it - once you've been forthcoming, he'd look like a knob for not accepting it :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me. (Though it would be best to keep discussion of "partially" out of any such post, if the aim is to avoid being seen as further inflaming the situation.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You said you would block someone for using "copulating vulva". How about if someone had the username "vulva". Would that be blockable? Pass a Method talk 02:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

[4] — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you tag it with {{pp-pc1}}?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 00:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Why have you removed the URL to silk road on its page?--Torresvoll1 (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Because of an WP:AN report. Clearly, Wikipedia has no desire to promote access to illegal activities (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Silk Road isn't illegal in all countries and its possible to break laws on any site, ie making death threats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.17.138 (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you check me before I mess up again on User_talk:MBisanz#Changing_username? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 20:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my friend, I never said you messed up :-) He has chosen one of the names I recommended ... so that's a good thing! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it! MBisanz ^talk 21:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bwilkins, Thank you for reviewing my AFC submission and helping to clear the huge AFC backlog. I just read your comments declining the AFC "Glossary of Video terms" and I'm not sure I understand. Prior to creating the glossary I reviewed the Wikipeida Manual of styles/Glossaries and believe the Video terms glossary is within the styles guidelines for appropriate content. Wikipedia has numerous glossaries, which I tried to emulate as to style and prose, but none specific to the technical terms of interest to those in the video field. Your comment "We already have a process of specific categories that group topics together. As such, there is no need for a "glossary" - especially if it includes terms that are not already covered (nor will be covered) on Wikipedia". Would you mind expanding on your comments so that I might make improvements to the article? What is the process you reference for grouping topics together? Sorry if these are dumb questions, I'm new to this.Mejbp (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi- I posted on your talk page 14 December regarding an AFC deline here. I noticed that most of the other posts around it got replys. You seem quite busy on your talk page, so perhaps it just go overlooked. I would appreciate your reply, suggestions etc. Thanks.

Mejbp (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hoping you get to this before it falls off into the archive. Thanks and Happy New Year! Mejbp (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

hello,

thank you for your message. please note that personal attack is, if somebody accuse other people to abuse copyrighted maps. or to say:"these maps are ethnocentric propaganda". the Columbia University allows every non commercial using of these maps. I allready contacted Dr. Lawrence G. Potter from columbia university for making clear it again. the answer was OK!, the next step is making it official.

http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/maps.shtml

thank youSagapane (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You should never be contacting the "creator" of the work, however, THEY will have to specifically release the images to Wikipedia themself - we can never take your word for it. Advising you of copyright rules and emphasizing that you must follow them is NOT a personal attack ... calling someone a hater of kurds, etc IS a personal attack, and a vile one at that (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

hello,

to accuse somebody for abusing of copyright is a personal attack. becoz it s never happened. Sagapane (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You did violate copyright by uploading something that did not match Wikipedia's requirements of CC-BY-SA. Thus, no personal attack occurred. Stop claiming otherwise (✉→BWilkins←✎) 02:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if you can nominate yourself or not for RfBs, but I know that you can't do so/be nominated unless you are an admin. So are the requirements for RfBs the same as the requirements of RfAs? My name is Cory Machkovich. (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

They are no requirements to run for cratship. You don't even need to be an admin.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 18:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That may be true in a very theoretical sense, but no one should start an RfA or RfB unless he or she has a real chance of passing, and no one is going to pass RfB unless he or she is an administrator with very substantial experience. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I could see a non-admin with year and years of flawless article contributions and policy interpretations, along with a long record of insightful comments at RFA, UAA, and BRFA, but who's never seen a need to become an admin, passing RFB. Or is even that too naïve? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 18:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

In theory, yes - in practice, I doubt it -especially in today's RFA climate (which although often more polite, RFB still suffers fom some of the same issues). (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Realistically, someone who doesn't have at least 5 years of pretty much flawless admin background won't ever become a bureaucrat - not even worth trying. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 02:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, it's not quite that strict, Bwilkins. Yes, the community generally holds bureaucrats to a higher standard than ordinary administrators by virtue of their mandate to analyze consensus in difficult cases and be absolutely fluent in Wikipedia policy, but there is no general standard requiring at least 5 years of adminship prior to being appointed. The most recent successful RfB was for an editor with barely a year's worth of experience as an administrator at the time. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I know that it's not formally that strict, but as I said, realistically it tends to be. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have guestimated that a successful RfB candiate would typically have at least 3 years of administrator experience, rather than necessarily 5 years. But the point is that no new-ish editor or non-administrator has any chance of being successful, which was the question raised by the original two posts in this thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Bwilkins, since you are familiar with the partisan I/P article editing environment, perhaps you'd consider commenting on the following: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Comments_by_Ubikwit_and_Evildoer187.--Ubikwit (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the very very poorly-timed section directly underneath the Interaction Ban discussion about you? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Whichever you like. They are closely interrelated. In fact, the IBAN action could be seen to have been filed as a preemptive measure, though I'm not certain that is the case. My filing was under preparation when the IBAN was filed on the basis of request for advise I'd made to one of the administrators Talk pages.

I have posted a number of links that demonstrate at least inconsistencies, if not bias, in the administrative acts--or lack thereof--of a couple of administrators involved in these cases. I understand that these people are volunteers, but perhaps Wikipedia should have a conflict of interest policy in which involved administrators are required to recuse themselves from such administrative actions, let alone file them.

I did file the case described in my sandbox, but I opted to take it up as a content dispute, trying not to make any waves, and then this happened.--Ubikwit (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

regarding your recent edit of page GOVT. COLLEGE OF ENGG & TEXTILE TECHNOLOGY, BERHAMPORE.ITS OK.BUT CANT WE PUT THE NAMES OF OUR HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENTS IN THIS PAGE?MOREOVER TRAIN ROUTES HAVE BEEN DELETED.?

none of those people are notable: we don't list them. There's no need for train routes as this is not a brochure or advert (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not the author of the page deleted by you in February 2010. I can not see what was in that article.Here is the reference to you deleting it.10:44, 1 February 2010 Bwilkins (talk | contribs) deleted page Moon Mason (Expired PROD, concern was: Not notable. Importance/significance of this baby/child actor not established. Does not meet WP:GNG.)I was just about to create a page for Moon Mason and found that this deleted page existed.In order to answer the notability can I now mention this:Nearly every South Korean I meet knows who Moon Mason is and his 2 brothers.A google search for "Moon Mason" has as the first link this Wikipedia page Baby_and_I for the first Movie Moon Mason was in.The Baby_and_I page view statistice there are about 180 views per day and 17133 in the last 90 daysA Google Keyword search for Moon Mason shows 14800 Global Monthly searches for "Moon Mason".If it is undeleted I will try to fix it and get it up to date.Philiashasspots (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I have created and submitted for review the Moon Mason page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philiashasspots/Moon_Mason#Request_review_at_WP:AFC and User:Philiashasspots/Moon_Mason#Request_review_at_WP:AFC Philiashasspots (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

There' still nothing there that satisfies notability requirements for actors (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Listen up Wilko, You sent me a message saying I'm too new to add images (fair enough). Well, I feel I'm ready now to be able to upload images now. If you read my user page you will probably notice that I am interested in the lower leagues of football and editing them. Well, I have been doing that but I've noticed there's a number of less notable footballers who haven't got images on their Wikipedia page. Well, I feel if I am able to upload images, I could give these less notable footballers an image on their Wikipedia page. So, is there a chance you could grant me permission to be able to upload images on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomage (talk • contribs) 16:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey, Boomage! You actually should already have permission. The way it works is that only "autoconfirmed" editors can upload images to Wikipedia. One becomes autoconfirmed after their account is 4 days old and has accumulated 10 edits. That's what he meant by "too new", I think. Since you've already passed this mark, you should be able to upload images now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That said, the notability for footballers should be carefully adhered to, and any images must be ones that meet the image use policy - copyright violations are bad. You cannot just take an image from the internet and upload it to Wikipedia (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bwilkins. I noticed a familiar name as the AfD closer for Proactiv and wanted to let you know I'll be working with them to help them contribute in a manner compliant with WP:COI from the Talk page. If you watchlist the article, I'll be on Talk and would love it if you stuck around a bit to participate on our effort to improve the page. CorporateM (Talk) 18:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 6, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @811  ·  18:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You are obligated to provide evidence for your allegations. You have not provided diffs of my alleged personal-attacks after I was unblocked, despite your obligation as an administrator and as an editor (WP:NPA prohibits unsubstantiated allegations).

I am in the process of providing diffs to document your behavior, which will continue on my talk page, as I stated to you on my talk page in our last discussion.

You are repeating "rampage" and other personal attacks that were criticized at ANI by uninvolved editors. Please cease such personal attacks or be blocked by an administrator who enforces policy.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This is your final notice Kiefer: until you actually learn to read what has been provided to you, you are NOT permitted to post on my talkpage. In short: go away. Your behaviour based on your sheer failure to read all the links provided to you disgusts me. Stop your smear campaign (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you confirm it and give it the reviewer flag?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 16:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Operator holds permissions in his own right and seems unlikely to abuse them through his bot account. MBisanz ^talk 16:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 16:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm wondering if there are requirements for autoconfirmed users to nominate another user for bureaucratship or adminship. Are there any requirements to nominate another user for adminship or bureaucratship? Cmach7 (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the RFA page itself gives very basic info, in that basically anyone with an account can nominate someone else with an account. However, reality is this: the quality of your nominator can have a significant effect on your result. What I mean by this is that you need to remember that only people that the community has incredible trust in can become an administrator. If the person who nominates you is not well-trusted by the community, them nominating you is a pretty bad idea. You for example - based on your short history on Wikipedia so far, you have very little trust by the community as a whole: you should likely not be nominating anyone. The other important piece is this: don't nominate someone who has never asked to be nominated! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bwilkins,

You responded to me saying that the wiki I'm working on "heroes of the realm", the game itself is not notable. Could you explain to me more what that means please?And you mentioned that the owners of the images will need to be the ones to directly release images to Wikipedia. Does that mean they need to give you the image, then you'll give it to me so I can use it on the page i'm working on?

thanks

Wowren (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowren (talk • contribs) 18:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I advised you that the topic did not appear to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (make sure you click ALL the blue links in a) my original message to you on the Requests for Permissions page, b) the Welcome message I left on your personal talkpage, and any that I leave here for you). As part of the Image Use Policy, the owner of the images will see exactly how to release those images to Wikipedia. They will be able to upload them to the project, and you will then be able to use them in a complete/accepted article. Note that in the case of the game you're writing about, it's fairly new, and there's nothing to suggest it's notable - its existence is not enough to make it encyclopedic (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In order for the game company to upload their image for me to use, does my wikipedia page have to be approved by you guys first? or can they upload the picture while my page is still under review?

If they ARE able to upload the images before my page's approval, will I be able to use it right away (even when my page is still under review)?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowren (talk • contribs) 00:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned, we typically do not host images that are not in use in an live article somewhere. They could go through the process, but if the image never gets used, they will have gone through a lot of trouble - and probably some hard feelings - if they don't get used. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Taking a look at the specific complaints of Gaba, they seem to have some merit. But I think any attempt to address them is being lost in the back-and-forth with WCM/Muggins. The escalation *looks* like a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters and divert the discussion. If its not, its having the same effect. Its working quite well as Gaba is easily diverted/provoked. RE the lying accusations - I took a look at the diffs/links Gaba provided and they certainly show a pattern of being economical with the truth and disingenuous. I wouldnt call it outright lying however. The talkpage comments WCM makes to third parties about Gaba are certainly not telling the whole story. It might be worth asking Gaba to lay out just a strict point-with-supporting-diff complaint (like arbcom evidence submissions) and not to respond to threaded conversation until its been looked at. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your guidance. When I first saw the list of "offending" edits, I could not think of a proper response. They weren't really insulting or attacking SPECIFICO. So I focused on the trolling idea as a proper characterization. But you prompted me to take a closer look at talk page guidance, where I found the "laundry list" WP:UP#POLEMIC guideline. --S. Rich (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. Cheers (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't fully understand your comment "How successful was your WP:RFC/U?"[5] at"RfC PLEASE topic-ban User:Deicas". To what WP:RFC/U do you refer? Deicas (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Having just had to go through two of these in the last few months, I'm more likely to abandon the article than go through inflicting another 64K of this stuff on the world. Mangoe (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The edit-summary for that edit was quite clear: RFC/U certainly should have been the way to deal with that specific issue, not ANI ... it hopefully would have forced the editor to wake up and smell the coffee. My comment was rhetorical as I knew that people were wimping out of doing things the right way (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bwilkins. I saw only today that you closed the AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs on 22 Dec 2012.

I did not see the AfD until today, and therefore of course, could not have participated in it. While I regularly teach on the concept of "Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs" in Economics classes I teach at a small liberal arts college, and I could provide additional sources for the concept (if the article existed), I realize it is too late to have that discussion now.

But I have a different question: one about the process of the closure. Since it would appear that no consensus was reached, with about 50% favoring keep and 50% favoring a redirect or delete, what was the rationale under those circusmstances for making a change, and essentially removing the concept from Wikipedia?

I'm not an expert on AfD's, but it would seem that no consensus to make the change occurred in this particular article, and that the article should have remained in place.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Bwilkins. That was a serious question, and I am very much assuming good faith. I sincerely do not understand the criteria that was used to close that discussion, as it did not appear to have a consensus. Would appreciate your thoughts. N2e (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi N2e. Yes I agree that this change was problematical. I see a 3-2 headcount in favor of deleting or redirecting, which is not much of a quorum and not a supermajority, while the delete/redirect camp did not really have the upper hand in the argument either. So you're right. But you know, we have to work fast here, so mistakes like this crop up on occasion.

If the article had been deleted, you could go Wikipedia:Deletion Review. However, it was made into a redirect, so it's different. At any rate, while the concept is notable, the article was not too good, consisting mostly of a series of quoted passages (which are also copyright violations; we are allowed under fair use to quote short excerpts for certain purposes (such as describing/discussing the quoted work), but not to construct articles by pasting together string of copyrighted quotes). I suspect that's a main reason why the article was made into a redirect.

However, it still exists, and the history exists. I made a copy of the old version and put it in your userspace, here: User:N2e/Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. What I suggest is that you create an improved version (if you want to) off-line, then edit the article and paste your work over the redirect in one edit. If the quality is reasonable I don't think anyone will object to this.

If you want to work on it here on Wikipedia -- say, if you want to ask User:Xerographica, the main editor of the article so far, if to work on it with you -- you can, but then instead of a simple copy-and-paste you have to a more complicated procedure called "history merge", which requires an admin to do. BWilkins or any admin will do this for you. Herostratus (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would you disparage the quality of the entry? Do you not understand how Wikipedia works? It's a notable concept...so I created a stub+...which anybody could have contributed to. The problem had absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the entry and everything to do with editors and admins editing way outside their areas of expertise.

Here are three entries that I just created...are any of them not up to your standard of quality? If so...then, rather than making the effort to improve them, why not just nominate them for deletion? Better yet...why not redirect them to the tragedy of the commons? --Xerographica (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: This was discussed at length further up this page - if it was your intent to continue that discussion, it should have been done there - or at least you should have read it before starting a new section. In my review of the article, and the quality of the policy-based discussions, the article was actually going to be a delete - this isn't a vote, so beginning the discussion with numerical counts is a bit of a red herring - the keep arguments were policy-weak, while the delete and redirect were strong enough to well outweigh the keep !votes. As part of WP:PRESERVE I chose the redirect option. Yes, you CAN take this to WP:DRV if you believe the closure was policy-incorrect (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Bwilkins. I'm the one who started this Talk page section to ask YOU about YOUR rationale for closing the discussion without a real consensus one way or the other. I was not aware of any discussion higher up in the page, and had not seen it. I think you are confusing the comments of Xerographica with me.

I think your explanation of what was behind the closure answers my question, as does the helpful comment of Herostratus, above. I would be totally in support of poorly written and poorly sourced material being purged from the encyclopedia, at least temporarily, and then it can be re-added when/if it is ever better done by someone who cares enough to do it.N2e (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I cared enough to find all the reliable sources that supported the creation of a stub for a notable concept...a stub that anybody could have contributed to. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. It's based on Hayek's concept of partial knowledge. Expecting people to pop out perfectly polished entries goes against the entire concept of CROWD sourcing. And speaking of WP:BURDEN...where are the reliable sources that support concentrated benefits and dispersed costs being redirected to tragedy? It's been two weeks since I asked Rubin and BWilkins (see section above) to WP:PROVEIT and both have failed to do so. --Xerographica (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Xerographica, as you can see above, I'm partially with you, in the sense that I know that Concentrated benefits and dispersed costs is a viable concept in economics, is notable, etc. As I said, I teach this stuff, and it is in the college textbook I assign to my classes.

Having said that, you should slow down, and self-monitor your behavior so we can all make this encyclopedia better together. Wikipedia will be just fine if it takes a few weeks, or a few months, to get the article back.

As you can see in the discussion above, the administrator who closed the discussion did so based principally on the poor quality of the article. It sounds to me like, based on that admin (BWilkins) and the other commenter (Herostratus), that the article, were it to be improved to meet article criteria, could simply replace the redirect at some point in the future, when some editor or set of editors [[WP:BURDEN|cares enough to ensure that all of it is well-sourced. That could be me, if I get around to having the time to follow the idea Herostratus left for me. But if not, it will emerge in time. But you will hurt your own ability to be constructive in improving the encyclopedia if continue to be disruptive. Relax. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it's not really the quality of the article. For all I know, creating a set of passages quoted from other works is a fine way to get some concepts across. It is, however, also against our rules because it violates the copyrights of the quoted works. Whoever works on the article in future needs to describe the concept in their own words. Herostratus (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Herostratus, you should really head over to the Wikiquote project and let them know that they are violating copyrights. --Xerographica (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

N2e, you're not addressing the reason that the article was nominated for deletion in the first place...

PROD reason was: rarely used term, and the article only consists of a (disputed) definition and a series of (probably excessive) quotes; and was removed by article creator. In addition, the rare uses seem to be, with the exception of some libertarian think-tanks, primarily referring to corporate lobbying, rather than the more general concept implied here. — Arthur Rubin

...and again...Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tax_choice

No sources have been provided that the name is used, and very few of the sources can be verified to discuss the same topic. I would accept a merge somewhere, if relevance is established, once the quotes are removed or placed in footnotes. — Arthur Rubin

...and again? Evidently we have different definitions of disruptive behavior. --Xerographica (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Since you commented in the thread on ANI wrt Arydberg, would you be interested in checking out his latest at Talk:Aspartame_controversy#birth_defects and determining whether this is a continuation of his old behavior and thus requires a reenactment of his topic ban? I'm not around much these days so thanks in advance for your time. Sædon^talk 03:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks, Tagremover (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I commented at ANI ... how in any deity's name does that make me even remotely involved? Do you have a clue what a) this project is about or b) what you're doing? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I just saw your block of Beeblebrox and I wanted to let you know that I don't believe his account is compromised - that's a pretty typical (though definitely extreme) reaction style for him at the end of a conversation like he was having. It's up to you whether you feel the behavior itself warrants a block, but I'm fairly sure that calling it a compromised account isn't accurate. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - he does lose his temper occasionally (see Meta about a year ago). Not that I never have... --Rschen7754 21:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It pained me to block him ... but I'm trying to AGF that it might be compromised. Beebs has worked to try and become a bureaucrat and an Arb ... this type of series of reactions certainly does not seem to be typical of someone who has worked on this project in the manner they have. I have posted at AN for further discussion/advice (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No comment on whether a block of some kind was necessary, but when a user is linking a long-standing subpage within his own userspace titled "Fuck off" within the edit, dropping the F-bomb is not a very good indicator of compromised-ness.<3, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No, clearly not accepting the trout on this one, but thanks. The Beeblebrox that I know and respect does NOT in capital letters say "FUCK OFF YOU PETTY FASCIST IDIOT" to anyone. Period. If I have been wrong in my evaluation of his character then it's my fault for looking up to him, rather than anything else (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

:/ Fair enough... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hey B. Just wanted to stop by for a handshake and "no hard feelings". I'm not super thrilled at being blocked and obviously I shocked you a bit with my foul mouth. Since a sitting arb saw fit to zap the edit summary I guess you weren't the only one. You may not agree with my explanation of why I did what I did but I trust that you at least understand it and we can put this whole incident behind us. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey B2 ... it's oh-dark-hundred, and I'm awake far too early - things like "blocking people I respect" on my mind I guess LOL. I do hope you see my perspective on this one: I will always understand getting pissed at someone (it's in my genetic makeup), but when I saw an account being used to express anger in an unexpected (and against policy) manner - and the real holder of that knew better, then I did honestly and truly fear that someone else was making you look bad, so I was trying to protect you in this case. Of course, we all know that if it was compromised, they could have unblocked themself (if they knew how). It was a difficult block to make, but if I saw the same unexpected behaviour from your account (and a few others I monitor), I would do the exact same attempt to protect the owner of the account in the future. Cheers. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect James Knowles (footballer). Since you had some involvement with the James Knowles (footballer) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Peter James (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like an editor you recently blocked is using a sockpuppet to evade the block. ElKevbo (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it's been taken care of. Oddly enough, his block was so brief, it had probably almost expired when he pulled that boneheaded move (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for closing above. Any comment regarding my oft repeated comments about LINKVIO etc? No need to change your closing comments so an answer here would be great. Just for clarification and my peace of mind, really. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

In your closure of WP:AN/I#Conduct and comments unbecoming of an admin - User:Maunus (which resulted in a site ban for user:Youreallycan) you write that "every human being is iresponsible for their own actions". I presume you mean "every human is responsible for their own actions".? Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's sad that it had to come to a site ban. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That's true. I was sincere in the beginning words of my notification of the site ban. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello!

I am very new to Wikipedia and still learning the ropes, but I understand you will be auditing the article I put forward so I just wanted to introduce myself - hope I've done so in the right place!

All the best,

Katia aka LondonEditorial — Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonEditorial (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think I'll be "auditing" it - it's in WP:AFC, and someday someone will get around to it. From what I have read, there's nothing in there that suggests/proves notability - it looks like an advertisement to me, so you probably don't want me reviewing it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that an arbitration case request, named Tagremover disputes, in which you were named as a party has been withdrawn by the filing party. The commenting arbitrators felt that the community was able to handle this issue at the current time and it was withdrawn by the filing party.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't make excuses. I'm providing (ongoing) context. :) I remember you. I don't give barnstars every day. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I ever suggested you were making excuses ... and I hope Shrike "catches my drift" about their behaviour (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that barnstar was 3 1/2 years ago... we're gettin' old... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, scarey isn't it! LOL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you please clarify how this is personal attack [6] and how it could construed as vandalism and no one asked me from stop interacting with user:Seb az86556--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The warning in ANI that you're only a couple of edits from indef of your own is sufficient. Your behaviour is appalling, and you know it. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

But my edit was before this warning.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly ... I couldn't have warned before you made it, could I? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I stricken the questionable edit in Andy talk page before I saw you warning but my edit as Seb page was sincere attempt to clarify things so its hard for me to understand how its could be labeled as vandalism anyhow per you warning/advice I will not participate in WP:AN/I discussion any more.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

... in the midst of reading through ANI, this had me chuckling for quite a while. Regards, m.o.p 12:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, although not directed at you specifically, you of all people certain do need a little humour this morning! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha, appreciated. To be honest, I'm not upset - if the community says that I've overstepped my authority, then I am obliged to agree with them and re-factor my response to something more in-step with consensus. I'm sure there'll be more discussion to greet me in the morning, but hopefully I've responded adequately for now. Thanks again. m.o.p 12:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I created a page for Angel bouchet but mistakenly used a lower-case "b" for the last name.I sent a request for this correction to be made but the page has now been deleted.Can you please help me understand why the page was deleted versus simply making the change?Thank you!

ShawnaShawna (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The "article" was deleted because the subject failed Wikipedia's notability standards, partcularly the standards for musicians (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:WQA-notice has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Duke: you seem to be spending a ridiculous amount of time evading your block in order to carry out some bizarre series of attacks against me. Here's a novel idea: read WP:GAB. Read WP:5P. Formulate some form of unblock request that actually can get accepted. Then you may follow the steps to MFD that user's page if you feel the need. You've worn out my good faith, and I will NOT be MFD'ing it on your behalf - I wash my hands of your immaturity (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

To avoid commenting any further on the RFA please see my comment here ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi; for my own understanding, can you explain why the Trademob article complies with the standards and not AppLift's? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomaso67 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it doesn't? What makes you think that BWilkins thinks that it does, given that he's never edited, or possibly even seen, the Trademob article? See WP:OTHERSTUFF and also this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly as Demiurge1000 says: you were clearly advised in WP:REFUND that if you believe that the other article does not meet the standards, then take it for AfD. I've never glanced at it - but I did glance at the spam you created (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you want a "framework" to base a technology article on, consider picking a recognised Good Article, for example one of the ones in Wikipedia:Good articles/Engineering and technology#Computing_and_engineering. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins, I have completed adding the items (billboard charts) that made Crown the Empire notable. Please review the page. It still needs a little more editing that I am not sure how to do but it's a start. I look forward to hearing back from you. I do not have the time right now (or in the foreseeable future) to make too many more changes in any form of a timely manner. Is there a way to put it back to the WP community for better/more timely editing?

Sorry it took so long, I'm in the US Navy and recent events have drawn my attention. It can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mariolennox/Crown_the_Empire#History Mariolennox (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, BW. I have just declined an unblock request at User talk:Laurieshaw8, even though you had left the unblock request open and invited the user to give further comments, with a view to possibly being unblocked. This was in no way a rejection of your decision, and I even encouraged the user in my declining message to take up your suggestion. However, I felt that it might be unhelpful to leave the request open, attracting who knows how many admins to spend time investigating the situation, only to find that the matter is already being addressed. I thought it better to close the request, while including an explicit invitation to make another unblock request when he/she has read your comment and is ready to respond to it. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Got it, and agree. I do think my request was on the generous side, but as I disagree that her edits were "vandalism" - more of a COI-based content dispute, I think the door needs to be open. Thanks for the heads-up. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Bwilkins. I don't have any questions about your votes, but why do you call Commons a cesspool. I know there are numbers of personal and sexual images, which is unacceptable to me and some people, ways of working I don't really approve, but I love Commons as it is a storage of tons of valuable free images (you can see annual POTY votes. We are working to keep Commons. I'm sad as this is said by a trusted admin of a project I respect most. I don't mean anything else, just a little of my thoughts. Regards Morning Sunshine (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree - Commons has a great possible role. But the issues there right now almost outweigh the benefits - and you have hit the nail on the head. As such, since nobody is willing fix it - even by fiat - it's a mess. That's not an insult to anyone, but to the mess that it has become (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you visit WP:VPT and offer input, if you have any, on the "Messed-up block message" section? I'm seeing an old block message when I look at Darkness' old contributions, and in particular I was curious if you saw anything unusual when blocking him. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Bwilkins. I have come across this user, Dapi89 after he made a series of harsh comments about a new reviewer at GAN. I warned him of his behaviour right on the GAN talk page, and he has continued, writing out a bunch of personal attacks to this new user, who is doing his best to help at GAN. The thread is here. Please take a look at it of you can; I think this deserves your attention. — ṘΛΧΣ²¹ 19:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not the reviewer is "high quality", it never excuses the level of incivility being shown by Dapi. Period. They have a pretty long block list - some for NPA too (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. I warned Dapi to stop acting like that. His comments are very damaging and not welcomed. I preferred to let you know about this before bringing it to ANI. Thanks. — ṘΛΧΣ²¹ 20:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh. I see you have already dealt with it. Thanks Bwilkins, and have a nice day :) — ṘΛΧΣ²¹ 20:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

We'll see when he returns if it's actually "dealt with" - the goal of a block is to protect immediately, prevent recurrence. Let me know if anything remotely similar comes from it once the short block expires (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I just wanted him to stop biting the users who try to help us at GAN. I will let you know if anything happens after his block expires. Thanks for the help. — ṘΛΧΣ²¹ 20:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This was pointless. I would have contested if I had seen it earlier. And for your information, Bwilkins, I had already said I had nothing further to say -- did you not read that? So you've actually continued it when it didn't need to be. As this new user isn't involved in the G.A review he is no longer an issue for me. Dapi89 (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, incivility means zero to you. The fact you have not withdrawn or apologized speaks volumes, and shows the block was indeed preventative, as is the nature of blocks. Thanks for proving me right (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I had already ended it, so it wasn't, it didn't and it doesn't. Bye. Dapi89 (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This relates to User:ObscureReality's actions. It started with this incident. I understand that he created the page, and may want it a particular way, but i did not expect to be accused of being unfamiliar with the English language just because I am from India. But it really did not bug me, so i dropped it. But then came this on my talk page (which i have since removed, as i don't want such stuff there). I replied on their talk page here, that i do not want any further contact with them. But i am forced to bring it to the attention of an administrator after the edit summary here. I think that the edit summary should be struck off. I believe it started as a content dispute; it should have remained so, and not get turned into a personal attack. Thanks. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 14:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked OR for the blatant racist NPA, and I have REVDEL'd the edit-summary (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! But they seem to continue their rants on their talk page, spewing even more blatant racism, and hinting at being disruptive by resorting to sock-puppetry. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 16:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked talk page access. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You declined an unblock request for User:Sudar123 and it seems like he has shown a greater understanding of the rules, can we make the unblock happen please? I'd rather avoid the bureaucracy of taking it to Arbcom, but if that is necessary so be it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Commented there, but how fricking ridiculous - he's been asked to prove himself. I want proof. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it acceptable for a temporarily blocked editor to be placing requests on his talk page for others to edit in specific ways on his behalf? User talk:Darkness Shines has three examples of this so far. He is blocked until Friday. I would think that he could find other things to do until then - on the bright side, at least he isn't socking. Elizium23 (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

ObscureReality, an editor you blocked here and who had his talk page access revoked by Fut Perf, is back again at his talk page, as an ip; and also on another article's talk page. Can this be labelled sock puppetry? Are their edits allowed, or to be reverted. I know indef blocked is not same as a banned. What is to be done in such cases? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I see that you blocked the ip for 48 hours. So that means their edits are not to be reverted, right? Can you explain to me/refer me to a policy page so i don't bother you more on this. :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 01:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If their edits to articles are unhelpful/unsourced/etc they can be reverted, just like any other editor. Only banned editors can have edits reverted on-sight (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 11:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

In relation to this edit, there is a range block that you evidently didn't see, as you can see here. I have no idea whether you know perfectly how to check for range blocks and just didn't think to do so this time, or whether you don't know how to do it. However, just in case you don't know, you can look at the IP edit history page and click on the link "Current blocks" at the bottom of the page. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

On that one I just didn't check, intentionally. The quick check of the IP itself made the reason for any possible block pretty obvious, and thus creating an account to edit was going to be the best for the project as a whole. Cheers! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. I did think it very unlikely that you wouldn't know how to check, but it didn't cross my mind that it might be a deliberate decision not to do so. JamesBWatson (talk)

It seems you were right, and no official action was taken. Do you know what I can do at this point? The editor with whom the conflict started has begun reverting any edits by other users to the articles in question. He refuses to engage in a discussion regarding content and simply attacks me and other users. The articles are uneditable, and it's not right that a user - registered or not - can behave in such a way. I'm not sure where to take this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see...so it might be better to take this discussion off the articles themselves then, huh? MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi,I just wanted to identify the problem with this page and what is required to prepare it for publication.Coaimhin (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

For the third time, the company was not notable. Wikipedia is not a business directory, it's an encyclopedia of notable topics. I left you a detailed message on your talkpage that links to all the important policies for your first article. When you asked to get Confirmed Status, I advised you the article was not ready for articlespace - why on Earth would you go ahead and move it anyway? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind deleting the above linked image? The user uploaded it as the logo for WXBQ-FM, which as you can see from WXBQ's website the above image is not their logo. WXBQ has had the same bunny rabbit logo for a good 15+ years now, so I have the feeling "the bull" logo is a hoax. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Just lighting this up again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously I'm loathe to delete things like that without wider consensus ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

[8] Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I see a ridiculous piece of what appears to be WP:HOAX ... what am I supposed to see? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

A very silly piece of edit-warring to keep a ridiculously pointless image in an article; I have dropped notes to both editors (the editor wishing to keep it in has reverted six times today). Black Kite (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure why it would appear to be a hoax when it is properly sourced, using online articles published by the University of Columbia. Of course it is ridiculous - it is an extinct fly named after a Playboy model! My only intent was to protect the article while it was featured on the main page. Per DYK rules, the featured image must be part of the article. None of the DYK reviewers protested against the use of the image; in fact, one of them suggested its inclusion. I would not have reverted a sensible tag, but tagging the article for systemic bias was just ridiculous. I sincerely apologize if I was disruptive. Surtsicna (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It reads like a hoax. The image of the person makes it seem like a joke. It should be a scientific article, not what it is now. The name of the bug is secondary to its characteristics, etc.

Perhaps the bug should have been scientifically named. The fact that the entomologist who named the genus and the species deliberately (and almost admittedly) made a joke out of it probably helps making the entire article look like a joke. Had I been able to access the entire article in the journal, I would have written more about the insect's characteristics. Unfortunately, I was not. Surtsicna (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The name of the bug is irrelevant - things are named after people all the time. However, just because the bug has a specific name does not mean that the article should be turned into a joke (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I won't be poking any bears. ;)

But I noticed you got the topic ban wrong. Everyone involved was basically agreed that he should be banned from Japanese literature, not just poetry. The concern is that, among the problematic edits he made that caused him to need to be blocked, only about 25% of them were related to poetry.

elvenscout742 (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

On a slightly related note, I notice that you used WP:POKE as the shortcut for "poke the bear" in your closing statement, but I don't think you really meant it, as it goes to WikiProject Pokemon. :) I'm guessing that you meant WP:BEAR instead. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

For the reference of others, I note you fixed both of the above here and all subsequent notes seem to be correct. I came here to thank you for an excellent close. Different to what I had suggested, but entirely in line with community consensus and sufficient, I think, for those who had called for more. There's been a few like this from the admin corps of late - renews my faith in the overall use of the mop. Nice work. Stalwart111 03:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

	Hello Bwilkins, Stalwart111 has given you ironic sushi, for all your excellent effort in resolving the above! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else ironic sushi! Enjoy! Keep up the good work!

Thanks for the note (and the sushi). We rarely get told if we do something good, but certainly hear about it when someone believes we did something bad (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the revert (Oops). it was a misclick. Have a nice day. — Hahc21^talk 15:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads up on the block for User talk:181.156.213.17. This nut has been vandalizing the article AN/TPS-43 onsistently and repeatedly since 2006. Always the same MO. Always IPs from Colombia. Started at 24 hours and grew to 1 year. He ran out of IPs at home, school and work (always in Colombia) and now he is trying mobile IPs. Please watchlist (article is currently semi-protected) and block on sight for 1 year as many admins now do. Thanks. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok. You'll note his unblock request ... since I don't think you're a murderer, I figured protecting the talkpage (as opposed to removing talkpage access) would work for now (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. That is his bad English. He wanted to say that and literally translated from Spanish (which I'm fluent on). having been blocking him repeatedly since 2006 you could say he doesn't like me much. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a minor comment, I always bear in mind WP:BEANS when I make a comment to an editor like Gaba p. Suggesting WP:DRN was a bit beansy, if you were to take a peek at the case he raised, he is alleging I'm opposing something I have not expressed any opinion on. Its a frivolous use of DRN and it is not only wasting my time but the time of the people who volunteer there. If you're saying my comments come across as childish, first of all thanks for the reality check, and second you might like to consider the irritation factor when you have someone like him constantly going on at you all the time. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we talk (not here) Till 12:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to use the e-mail me link (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay thanks Till 13:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Before I recreate this article, I would like to signal to you that she does actually pass WP:PORNBIO now, as she won a Best Supporting Actress AVN award in 2013 . Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 20:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

As you already know, it's best to create a USERSPACEDRAFT first --(✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry; I still have the article saved on my computer. But I'll omit the part questioning her sexuality due to WP:V. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Even still, from hard drive to userspace draft first - let a couple of wise people review the content and ref's before even considering moving it to articlespace (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"Attempts by some of the most patient and knowledeable editors are ignored. It's either indef-block and lose the potential for some good edits, start an RFC/U, or let this editor run roughshod over everyone. My choice is b." First, I'll assume you include me as a most patient & knowledgeable editor, but that assumption is not well founded. (Thanks!) Second, don't you mean "a"? – S. Rich (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of some people who have not been xero's 2 main targets ... but hey. In terms of my choices: a=block, b=RFC/U, c=let'em run free. b seems best, for now. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I was very happy in my mistaken assumption, and you won't change my mind in that regard! Thanks for clarifying for me as to what "b" meant. I'm getting weary of this, my back hurts badly and I didn't get out for a swim as I usually do, so figuring out these threads correctly is a bit difficult at present. But I'll read up on RFC/U and go down that road if need be. – S. Rich (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, once the thread had gone to some form of !vote, you really needed to stop posting. Your last 2 long posts have just taken things in a different direction, and now the !vote has stopped, and now you're likely to get nothing. Bad, bad idea because you actually had some traction for a next step (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Bwilkins, could you clarify what you mean by "I see that the "article" is being heavily edited by others with COI as we speak". I can assure you that I have no WP:COI. I only saw the AVSIG article's Afd having had what I found to be an overhasty cursory contribution from you to a question I had asked another administrator which served the purpose of undermining my question without addressing its substance. The substance there remains unaddressed. This perception was reinforced when I checked who you, the talkpage stalker was - to see who you were and where you were coming from. The first thing I saw you were doing was what I saw to be another underesearched Afd and this mistaken Afd seems to been accompanied by attacking a new to my eyes "innocent" COI editor who you have hardly welcomed to wikipedia. His username was in violation of policy and the article had problems with sources - but all, in my view, could have been easily and politely addressed. Anyway this is my view of this. I would appreciate apologies or explanation whichever you think most fitting. Yours another unhappy editor. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC))

I'm sure that you took the time to read this entire talkpage before a) assuming I was talking about you, and b) making such erroneous comments above. In case you missed what I was talking about, this section is what I'm talking about (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Bwilkins sorry for my confusion and I had seen your comment above but it didn't seem to refer to the article itself which only I had edited. I have written a little more on this on User_talk:AlphaVictorSierraIndiaGolf. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC))

I'm guessing you never saw this ;) maybe this is why they thought it was offensive...[[9]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I expect that I should probably wait until I'm at home before I view that? LOL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It's kid and workplace safe ;) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That apparently depends if you consider 70's psychadelic music and white pants to be "kid and workplace safe" ;-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear BWilins,

I believe you are the one who put the speedy deletion on the AVSIG page. The page is still there, but I can see why the request for speedy deletion. I have started an AVISIG/sandbox page, and hopefully in two weeks, we -- members of AVSIG -- will have a page ready to post that no adm. will have an objection too. Before I post it, I will contact you and others to review it first.

FYI, AVSIG is a real, well know organization in the aerospace community -- mainly retired military pilots and General Aviation (GA) -- and is famous for the starting the trend on Compuserve (then there was nothing but Compuserve) for forums for professional organizations we see all over the internet now. Its claim that it is one -- if not the first -- professional forum is true.

If you have any questions, complaints, suggestions, etc. please contact me at this thread. I will check it regularly. Also if you think there should not be a page on AVSIG -- even if we work it up properly in a sandbox -- please tell me. I have wrote several articles and edited hundred of others, but I have never had a speedy deletion. So I don't know the next step, and even if it is final.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Jackehammond (talk • contribs)

First, the article is up for deletion discussion, a process that keeps it open for 7 days for community discussion based on policy. Second, people who are related to the organization or have too close of a vested interest in the topic should not be writing the article as they (like yourself) have a rather skewed version of its notability. Also, sources, citations, and more reliable sources are absolute key. The linked words are key for you. If any of the above are "violated", then any article will "fail". (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the statement, "people who are related to the organization or have too close of a vested interest in the topic should not be writing the article as they (like yourself) have a rather skewed version of its notability," the following excerpts from the COI page seem relevant: "How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern is governed by common sense," and "subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while being careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia." It seems likely that subject-matter experts on the historical significance a forum are going to be people who have been active on the forum in question. I don't think that means that their views of its notability will be biased or skewed in every case. There are many aviation forums these days, and there are long-time Avsig participants who are active on several of them, but I haven't seen any of them claiming that these other aviation forums have special historical significance. I recognize that documenting the historical significance of an online forum is difficult, and I recognize that the job of a Wikipedia admin is not an easy one. --Palmpilot900 (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no. The people who were involved in the forum cannot speak to its notability. They can speak to its functioning and efficacy, but are not distant enough to even consider "historical significance" because they're thinking of significance based on its applicability to them, and not to society (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What about users who personally witnessed historical events? I'm aware of the "no original research" policy, but they're the ones who are going to be most likely to be able to find documentation of events relevant to notability. As for what other people are thinking, I don't have much confidence in our ability as human beings to know that. --Palmpilot900 (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What well-publicized, notable, historical event happened solely on a discussion board? Sure, Douglas Adams announced the birth of his daughter on alt.fan.douglasadams first, but it was then announced elsewhere afterwards ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

So now the criterion is that a notable event must both be well-publicized and happen "solely" on a discussion board? Being influential is not enough? If that's the standard, it seems like no Internet forum could ever meet it. Someone posted a link to a list of Wikipedia articles on forums. Do you think they should all be deleted? --Palmpilot900 (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe I said any such thing. "Influential" must be proven through external, third party, reliable sources. I haven't seen a link to other forums, however, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument in deletion discussions (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, swift action, thanks! --Bob Re-born (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The only Spam I like is by Monty Python LOL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding YSfan. Q asked him to remove the personal attacks and to his credit YSfan did. Of course if you did unblock him I suspect it wouldn't last long.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you saw his last 15 edits to his talkpage, you'll see he royally fucked himself over (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

And if that weren't enough, it looks as if he has gotten himself into deeper shit. GHBishop (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I knew it was him - painfully obvious actually. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

(As an aside, I can't tell you how difficult it is to restrain myself from using a similar tone/language in some of my talk page posts regarding certain .... (As an NCO in charge of a 40 man platoon, profanity had its uses.) Well, if I lapse (back) into profanity, I shall point the finger at you guys as my inspiration.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, better. Also gave me a good laugh. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Bwilkins/Essays/SMART. I have no idea if this was a page you have created yourself that has been overwritten or if it has been created by someone else, so I will let you deal with it. Best regards. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's an in-progress essay that I've never created a talkpage for ... interesting for a random IP to find it ... not likely so random. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

We have both interracted with this user. I would appreciate it if you would look at the current unblock request thread. I am prepared, as I have said, to monitor this editor's posts if s/he is unblocked, and I will, subject to the decision by Amatulic, the mentor. But I cannot be here 24/7 and I would be grateful if you could keep an occasional watch if I appear not to be on line.,--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

On a seperate issue, have you given any thought to protecting your userpage? I note that it has been vandalised six times this year - I did not research back past that, but there are many reverted vandalisms I notice without actively counting them. Obviously I could do it, but that seems to me to be meddlesome. You have your pages both protected only against non-reg and non-confirmeed editors. Your choice, of course. I protected my userpage after the 150th vandalism! --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that User:LGA is a sock of community banned Off2riorob/Youreallycan. Since you were the admin that made the final call, I have come here first. The edit pattern is somewhat similar, and started at about the time it was becoming clear that YRC was going down. Could you look into it, and if not, could you advise me what the next step is? I must confess that I can't recall ever asking for help at WP:SPI. I don't remember ever accusing anyone of being a sock before, either, so this is a big deal for me. Thanks! Jusdafax 06:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Why would you think it's a sock account? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"Strongly suspect" without some inkling of proof is not giving me the warm fuzzies about the whole thing. As such, you'll have to take it to WP:SPI if you really feel that strongly. I'm not sure why you think you "have to come here first" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bwilkins. I have been working in AfC for a while now and I came across a new version of Thiyyar, an article that was deleted in April 2012 following what appears to be a very heated discussion on the topic. Since I know little about castes in India, I asked the editor who created the article to elaborate on the subject, and this was his response:

Hi Freebirds, Thiyya is a different caste from Ezhava, the only common thing between these two groups that they belong to Other Backward Communities in India. Thiyya has got different culture and history. I had a look ezhava wikipedia page and found many errors. Thiyyar is independent and they got their own culture and even they look different from Ezhava people. This link is from a book would tell you the difference, Thiyya people mainly living in Malabar in Kerala state. and Ezhava is living in Travancore region in Kerala. There are many links in my wikipedia article describing about thiyya. Thanks for your help and highly appreciated. Please send a message to the administrator to get my article published.

I told him/her that I would ask an administrator about the block if I had a valid reason to contest it, yet the fact remains that I am no expert on the subject by any means. Can an unblock be made for this user's article? The AfC version of the article can be found here and the AfD discussion from the April 2012 deletion of the article can be found here. Also, if you would like to see the entire conversation between myself and the editor, please see my talk page. Cheers, Freebirds ^Howdy! 12:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

More pugnacious conduct

For a detailed knowledge please see this and this. Thank you. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Recently DS has been using templates that put people on a noticeboard and he has misrepresented himself as an administrator in the process by incorrectly coding them. You can see one on my talk page and here's the link to the noticeboard: [12] An arbiter has put a note on this page that says that several of us have questioned his use of those templates and we have tried to delete ourselves from his listing. As for myself, I merely copy edited at the page he rules over, which is International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh). If you have any information that would be useful about our situation, I would appreciate it. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Today the editors reversed DS at the noticeboard he put us on. I just wanted you know. See link above and history, if you are interested.Crtew (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is the first day I have done the talk and messaging on this site. Should I delete my post to user Drmies? I still think it was a pretty harsh message considering. Yes, I did not know that there were other changes with Eddie Money's bio page. I did notice Eddie Money's official site link is given on his Wikipedia page, so if that is to be reliable, then the birthdate I gave is the one found on that official site. I don't know what is considered a "reliable source". Even biography books get birthdates wrong sometimes. There are videos, available on Youtube, of Eddie Money shown on stage performing on his birthday, March 21 it seems. I do wish I could just ask Eddie Money himself. Would save confusion.Ok, I finally found the edit summary.I still don't know why someone put March 2 as his birthdate. Did they give a citation? Do citations have to come from books, or can they come from articles and other sources? It seems there are 2 birthdates out there from different sources, March 2 and March 21. I just thought it was March 21.

Oh boy. This Wikipedia editing is harder than I thought. Thank you for your time. I don't know how else to message you.

Take care

Debra71 (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You speedy deleted Talent2 under A7, but this was an article split from Novopay and was being actively worked on by two editors. Their product Novopay has getting massive amounts of publicity in New Zealand for the last few months. Whether the company itself is notable I think should at least go to a deletion discussion.

The article was tagged as {{db-copypaste}}, which presumably drew your attention to it. The tag refers to it having been copied from Novopay, not from any external source, but it was not appropriate because it is only a splitting of the article and not a duplication of it. A note of origin on the talk page or in an edit summary would suffice to satisfy licensing requirements.

Please consider restoring the article, and then nominating it for deletion if you believe that to be appropriate.-gadfium 21:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to encourage you to restore the article and if need be, it can then go through a normal AfD process to establish whether Wikipedia should have this page or not. Schwede66 10:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have re-reviewed the contents and still see no suggestions of notability. I may be willing to userfy, but there's nothing there that is ready for articlespace --(✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to work on this in my userspace. Schwede66 17:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Done, however, it IS an inappropriate copy/paste from another Wikipedia article - there will need to be some form of merging the history. See User:Schwede66/Talent2. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.-gadfium 03:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well. Gadfium, are you keen to lend a hand to tidy this one up? Schwede66 17:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Julia (programming language) recently had a 0.1 release and now has a robust package system, some industrial users, etc. It looks like its original article was deleted several months ago but people including some of the creators replaced it this month. It does have many 3rd party sources now, which was the original concern.

In any case, there's a talk page discussion about trying to incorporate whatever was in the original deleted text so if you would please userfy it for me I'd be happy to try that. Neo Poz (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh! I mean, please userfy the deleted version prior to the article's recent re-creation. Sorry about the confusion. Neo Poz (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Very good essay. Thank you. I've replied on my TP and revised the earlier edit. I couldnt figure out if the bear was gone or what. But the essay you provided gives me new insight. I certainly don't want to provoke unbearable comments. And I admit my posting was unbearcoming. – S. Rich (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It's all explained here. KillerChihuahua 11:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Can I go ahead and put {{Blocked user}} on User:Bridge Boy? The block is pretty far down and hard to see. – Brianhe (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That would be grave dancing, so no. The block notice exists chronologically where it belongs, and you can also see that he's blocked when you view his contributions. Indefinite is not infinite, so it's unnecessary at this time (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand why the template is applied to some blocked users, e.g. at random User:Orphadeus and not others. No big deal though. — Brianhe (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• In the general case, I agree with BWilkins; this template is almost never useful, and can often be seen as kicking someone when they're down (even when that isn't the intention). However, the reason it is used on some pages is that different people have different opinions on this, and there's been no project-wide consensus for or against it, in spite of several discussions. The last I saw, the default was to defer to the blocking admin; if they'd wanted one, they'd have put one. In this specific case, since (conveniently) the blocking admin was Bwilkins, we already know his take. But I'd say that putting blocked user templates on accounts that were blocked several years ago is not a productive way to spend one's time, regardless of who the blocking admin was. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my puzzling "conveniently" comment: I am an idiot, and for some reason when I saw this on my watchlist, I thought this was on WP:AN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

...heh, and here I thought that Dennis Brown 's page was ANIv2 :-p (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I still remember the good old days of WP:AN/K. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your knowledge in my Talkpage. I would like to clarify that I haven't involved in any improper behavior or sock puppeting of any sort. You can see that from my edit history. I have been editing in Wikipedia as an IP user for years but this is the only user account I've ever registered in Wikipedia. When I said "You know me" to user:Aarem, I wasn't indicating that he knows me from Wikipedia. He knows me from another internet forum. I'm sorry that the message was misleading. I don't think I've indulged in any nonconstructive edits in Wikipedia. I didn't enjoy user:Retrolord's comments in RFP because rather than dropping the message in my talkpage, he made that comment there and I had mistook him for an admin. I'm sure the administrators are fully qualified enough to evaluate my contributions. Having said all this, you can go through my edit history and if you find anything disruptive or any hint of sock puppetting, you can take the necessary action against me including permanent block. I'm ready to welcome any actions and even leave Wikipedia all together if needed. But I do personally believe that active users should be encouraged to contribute more. Thank You. JK (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

As far Talk:Malayalam_cinema#Page_protected is concerned, I was trying to build a consensus among the users involved in edit warring, as the person who twice requested the page to be protected, and was not a party to the edit warring/content dispute. Thank You. JK (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)