Misplaced Pages

User talk:DangerousPanda: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:08, 30 May 2012 view sourceRyan Vesey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers26,108 edits Apologies: comment← Previous edit Revision as of 09:46, 30 May 2012 view source DangerousPanda (talk | contribs)38,827 edits Civility on WP:ANI: um, noNext edit →
Line 341: Line 341:
::: From your replies above, it seems to me like you don't want to consider the possibility that your phrasing might have been unclear, or that asking you to clarify does not justify such an aggressive response. I'm afraid I'm a little disappointed by that, and more so by the "battleground" terminology you're using. We're all human, and we all need to remind ourselves "I could be wrong" from time to time. ::: From your replies above, it seems to me like you don't want to consider the possibility that your phrasing might have been unclear, or that asking you to clarify does not justify such an aggressive response. I'm afraid I'm a little disappointed by that, and more so by the "battleground" terminology you're using. We're all human, and we all need to remind ourselves "I could be wrong" from time to time.
::: Cheers, ] (]) 05:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC) ::: Cheers, ] (]) 05:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
:::: Um, I never referred to ''you'' as naïve. Period. I was ''perhaps'' slightly aggressive towards the person who was leading you down the garden path, but never towards you. (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span>]) 09:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


== Adam Dunn on EWN == == Adam Dunn on EWN ==

Revision as of 09:46, 30 May 2012

Note: please do not use talkback {{tb}} templates here unless you are referring to discussion areas that I have not yet been a part of; I do monitor my conversations
This is DangerousPanda's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 15 days 

Article deletions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Near-incoherent rants

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

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

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

I have put these incoherent rants back on to show a) the person clearly is not the educated "professor" they claim to be, and b) how misguided some people are. Heck, they cannot even identify the correct Wiki - this is "Misplaced Pages". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear "professor", thanks for your kind words, and all in caps too! My profession is listed on my userpage - indeed, I write for a living, and like you, I teach the occasional class at one of the local universities. I'm obviously far from being anonymous. Like you, I have an advanced degree - which is useful when it comes to content, but obviously does nothing for behaviour.
Misplaced Pages (not "the wiki") is a beneficial project, however is not (and likely never shall be) a reference for students. As a professor, you already know that. It's user-edited. Although all articles/statements must be sourced, it's not the same as academic work,
I have never edited the same articles as you - so really, you're not someone I "disagree" with in terms of article content. As an administrator, however, I am required to uphold the rules and policies that you agreed with when you began editing this project. I repeat: you agreed to the rules and policies. That include conflict of interest, no legal threats, but more important right now, not evading a valid block. If you were a student and behaved the way you are in a classroom, you'd be blocked from entering the class - just as you are right now.
Financial support and even political support are great: what we need from you are supporting the rules and policies that, once again, you agreed to. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Reading this has made me chuckle! And has put me in a really good mood! --Chip123456 (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I found it amusing too. More in sorrow than in anger. Oh well, back to high school I go. :) Toddst1 (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Have you seen the teenagers these days? I'd be in sooo much trouble if I was back in high school right now (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
If only ... one can dream ... -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Careful; this isn't American Beauty (film) :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Is this better?

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

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

Is this in jest or a joke?

Closing this - turns out, the editor is just a little pissed off that they were rightfully blocked, so they came here hoping I'd take their bait. Seeing how much fiction they've written since on this topic, they're still trying

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


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

Obviously no rational human could read it as a personal attack - and even some irrational ones would not have been able to stretch their imagination that far. Thanks for checking, just in case. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
You wrote as follows: “You're actually calling the PhD's? Turns out you're more dangerous than I realized.”

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

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

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


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

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

…then I very much appreciate your stopping by on my talk page with the complement. Greg L (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
No matter what was meant, there is no way that it could even be considered a violation of civility or personal attack....even if read out of context. As such, any level of anger - misplaced or not - is pretty much moot. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John R. Palmer

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

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

AKA

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

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

Thank you!

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

Could you please do something about that?

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

What; block 2 or 3 more people in addition to the 2 from yesterday? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't know but personal attacks continue.If we want to maintain some level of discussion those things should be dealt but of course as admin its your discretion--Shrike (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Constantly sanctioning multiple users who are reacting to AnkhMorpork's behavior is not going to solve the problem. Take the diff that Shrike supplied for example Andy calls out Ankhmorpork for substantially editing comments that have already been responded to. Ankh says "unfuckingbelieveable". Andy responds in kind, Shrike runs to an admin to look for sanctions against Andy. Maybe its just me, but that doesn't seem right. Dlv999 (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
It's not right. It's running to mommy (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's deescalate

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

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

ANI notice

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

Ah, yes ... filed more than 2-1/2 hours ago, and regardless of the big orange box saying you had to advise me of the filing, and at least 2 others who said the same thing, I'm finally getting this message. Thanks. I'm quite pleased that I was actually advised of it one section above. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
On the internet, banners are invisible. As I noted on Brendon's talk page, my efforts (back in January) to simplify the wall o text atop ANI failed. Expecting editors unfamiliar with ANI to know to notify folks isn't realistic (as indicated by the many editors who don't). Nobody Ent 14:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I must say that simplification of the header would be a very good thing indeed. Or failing that, perhaps we could make the requirement of notification as obnoxious and unmissable as possible; header creep is par for the course on Misplaced Pages, anyway. (Bwilkins, I came here to inform you that the obvious sock you blocked earlier is confirmed by CU to, in fact, be operated by the very same individual with whom you interacted below.) AGK 22:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocking

Apparently the poster doesn't a) understand Misplaced Pages, b) understand life, c) understand WP:AGF, and/or d) understand that a forced "apology" is no apology at all

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


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

Edit-warring was still edit-warring - no matter the WP:TRUTH. As I noted on ANI (if you bothered to read) I was unable to take action on the other edit-warring party because of connectivity issues. Next time, read the policies and entire situation before making such rash comments (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)And on top of that, the reason why RedRose was reverting was because the IP wasn't citing the source whey got it from. They say they got it from amazon.com but where from? This user was calling advice given to them a threat and called the reverts threats too. So I support BWilkins on this one.—cyberpower Online 20:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

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

I'm sorry, I don't do punishment here to anyone. The IP was never punished. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

216.31.246.114

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

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

They were reblocked as a CU block (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I see that now. Not that it's terribly important, but I wonder why, even after the 12 hours expired, the block didn't expire with it because when I looked at it before, it didn't yet have the CU block.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Samestate

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

All Sons & Daughters

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

War criminals in Canada

If people cannot read, then there's no sense having this remain open for misguided editing

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


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

There's only one editor who probably should be blocked. You guys had a long time to fix this, and it's still simply a WP:CFORK ... the editor who moved it back is probably the one who should be blocked (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Since the article has been blocked it has not been possible to collaborate on fixing it. As a consequence research and editing was perhaps ten times more difficult - a failure that cannot be used in good faith to delete the article - we are all busy with other bussiness and the block has placed other priorites in our path.
Secondly the editor who violated the three revert rule about the NPOV tag has removed it himself - what could only be understood as an indication that the Conflict had been resolved and the original consensus of no WP:NPOV had been reestablished.
Moving of the article was done unilateraly - without a Afd discussion. This is a clear unilateral escalation of the conflict one again - asserting ownership of the article depite aquiesing to a new consensus on the talk page.
I consider such a move little more then petty vandalism - especially that it was done in an underhand fashion.
Regarding the WP:CFORK this has not been discusseed. We do not understand how this recomensdaion could possibly apply to this article not what options might exist to comply with it if it were demonstrated to be relevant. To use it to justify abusive action without a discussion appears high handed even if it may be correct and suported by other admins - this is not a corteous way to reat relative new comers,
About you threat of banning of JunoBeach - we believe he had reverted a malicius act of a much more experineced user, once again calculated to get him into trouble. That even if he erred he was acting in good faith - a very stong case against a bannig. If we are offered no other recourse I shall take this to the arbitration committie where we can expect an impartial hearing. BO; talk 11:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
ArbComm? Are you fricking serious? This is a content dispute, and is outside of the remit of ArbComm. Did ANY of you actually follow WP:DR? Did ANY of you draft the potential article on the talkpage and get consensus for it during the time the article was locked? THAT is what the purpose of the lock was. No, instead you're whinging about it now. You had your chance - and I even TOLD you all of this before, yet you did squat all. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
We are very serious and commited to imporove[REDACTED] in good will. We are also committed to resolve this dispute without any bans or threats of bans. We even welcome your input - if you keep to facts, policy and norms and avoid a patronising tone.
Regarding ArbComm - I think they can decide for themselves what is the limt of their mandate. It was you however who escalated this from a content dispute by threatning to ban a user who has made an ernest grievence. I have placed a number of policy related questions but all I got were comments on nettiquete.
I also have to request that you respond with the same level of seriousness and not cal our attempt to re-establishing a consensus is whining. This is also a point of Nettiquette BO; talk 12:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I have never suggested a WP:BAN...I suggested that this would be a WP:BLOCK for edit-warring, as was originally stated when the protection was put on the article. If you're not going to read, please go away (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ifore2012

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

Looks like a perfect example of what I'm trying to write up here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Great, cheers. You'll have to let me know when you've finished the essay. GiantSnowman 15:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

Keep up the good work!

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

Block

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

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

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

Question

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

Normally he cannot mark it as "not done", but his reasoning is impeccable (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, because I always find myself wishing to put no, because I made a NAO for that user....so it allowed or not?--Chip123456 (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
As I said, they may NAO but NOT close it as done or not done (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. --Chip123456 (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

sock evading?

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

Of course, you'd have to be a little more clear as to what thread you're randomly talking about. But that apparently isn't your style. Good luck (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm referring to "disgusting". The attitude of "two wrongs make a right" is not helpful. Understand adminship is time consuming but to turn a blind eye to the actions of user:Bjmullan is to the detriment of Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.250 (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I guess you'd have to prove that he violated any policies whatsoever. It's normal/common to label IP pages. Besides, I didn't close it - nice try. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Is it normal for a user to reveal another users place of work? And to tell them to fuck off? Sorry I thought you closed the notice. I thought the notice had been closed for socking? With no proof. Yet I would have to prove that Bjmullan is a sock. Different rules for different users? I have already shown Bjmullans edit of abusive language, making a threat against a user's job, and suspicious edits for a novice user. That seems more than enough proof.
If someone is dumb enough to edit anonymously from their place of work, then WHOIS can clearly be used to identify them: that's one of the reasons why userids are actually more anonymous than IP addresses. There's nothing wrong with using the sharedip template or other identifying information on ANY IP address talkpage...it's considered common knowledge. Saying "fuck off" may be uncivil, but not blockable...especially based on the individual circumstances. Suspicious edits? I edited for a year as an IP before registering - my initial contributions under this account were pretty good: suspicious, no. Please learn to sign your talkpage posts with ~~~~, and feel free to take back your snotty original post (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
snotty? Ha! I think you need to spend a bit more time away from your computer.86.150.188.221 (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

User talk:Nirzhorshovon

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

Bringing them to an Admin noticeboard when you've not tried actually discussing things with them was pretty bad, however. You have just as much responsibility and authority to try and actually engage them. Of course, spamming it across 2 noticeboards = even worse. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I did. Notice the top of their talk page. (To clarify - I don't know much about outreach, and I also am not one who regularly welcomes new editors). Why is asking others for help a bad thing?
That aside, maybe I'm mistaken, but I see posting to AN and AN/I (at least in this case) as trying to be informative, rather than (as opposed to considering it to be) like yelling to the teacher that someone's done wrong in class. Though I know there are those who just see those two boards as the "adversarial drama boards", but to me at least, they are (like the VP and elsewhere) merely noticeboards. A hammer is just fine in and of itself as a tool, it's only in how it's used that could be problematic : ) - jc37 12:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
The top of their page has a template. Welcoming is good (I do it dozens of times a day), but a template is not an attempt to have a discussion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Respectfully, look again please. - jc37 12:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
*sigh* Your "note" gets lumped in with the template because of the way the eye parses the page. Separate section heading for information outside of the Welcome template - after all, they are separate messages: one is an introduction to the rules, the other is specific. On top of that, it was barely done today! Taking them to an admin board so soon? Talk about WP:BITE (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
So you see AN and AN/I as only a place of complaint? I see it as a place of notification, which includes things like WP:3PO. And I don't see an "incident" as necessarily needing to be something "bad". But from your comments, I am guessing you disagree? - jc37 12:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Ahh, changing gears now. WP:ANI is only a noticeboard for complaints that need immediate action. WP:AN is for non-urgent announcement-type things. Your post might have been good for WP:AN as a "heads up" - but even still, it appears to be waaaay to early for even that. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I thought about that ("needing intervention")after I hit submit (which was part of why I then posted to AN) and considered removing the notice after I posted to AN. But I decided to go ahead and leave it at AN/I too, since: a.) it was already there b.) someone had posted a vandalism template to their talk page (so at least one other editor "may" have had a difference of opinion as to the new person's edits) and c.) as I know from WP:CANVASS, posting a 'friendly notice" to multiple noticeboards is not necessarily a bad thing. And the more eyes the better imo.
All this aside, colour me shocked at the negative response I got from it. I'm not exactly sure what POV I'm supposed to be pushing here, but to my mind what I was intending was: Please take a look. This is a new editor who I think needs help. And maybe someone more experienced than I in this area would be of such help. - jc37 12:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Your last paragraph confuses me...what do you mean negative response and POV in this situation? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Well at the moment, just to consider your responses (and not anyone else's), perhaps you meant them differently (and I now can understand that part of it was due to not seeing all my initial edits to their talk page due to the templated text), but your comments above surprised me. I think (I hope?) that we're starting to understand each other more now though. - jc37 13:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Yworo

Would you mind having a talk with User:Yworo. After disconnecting myself from the ANI thread, his talk page and the Taos article, he saw it fit to edit the Stephens City, Virginia article (one I am currently editing) as some sort of weird oneupmanship or something. He is obviously escalating things and I am just trying to do some work. - NeutralhomerTalk23:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This would be the second time his has insulted my Aspergers saying "implementing Misplaced Pages wide consensus, FAC does not override the technical issues experienced by the disabled". - NeutralhomerTalk23:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with your Aspergers. I regularly bring this issue to people's attention. How would I know if Aspergers has affected your sight? I can document my involvement with this policy on multiple articles. I surprised you don't know about this "rule" yourself, since you are so into rules. Yworo (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Yworo, even if I had seen this before blocking ... the only difference it would have made would be to duration (it would have been longer) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks BWilkins, much appreciated. I'm going back to work on the Stephens City page. Thanks again...NeutralhomerTalk23:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much for yet another false accusation, Neutralhomer. That makes about five now. Yworo (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
You know what Yworo, I also read it as an attack, clearly and without any other possible meaning based on the phrasing. As such, it wasn't false - it was perhaps your unclear phrasing that led to possible alternative interpretations (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Leave me alone please!

Request received. As I am not WP:INVOLVED, administrative functions will still be carried out if needed (hopefully they won't). My talkpage is always open for assistance. You asked for advice on ANI - you were given a lot of it, yet you seem to be ignoring the parts you didn't like/agree with. Advice is to re-evaluate yourself first before "not liking" others

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


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

I will accept that as a formal request. Indeed, my post yesterday was merely to assist you editor-to-editor, as have pretty much all of my interactions. As such, rather than reconcile with you, I will continue to only provide any and all administrative functions should they arise. All the best (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you  Brendon ishere 10:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A barnstar for you!

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

Rant

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

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

GeorgianJorjadze: Mingrelians & Svan people

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

+See also the arguments of the neutral point of view, the arguments (Talk:Mingrelians and Talk:Svan people) of the availability of sources on the two points of view, the arguments of criticism of sources for and against. There is dominated by only one point of view (and Svans Megrels - subethnos Georgians, although the source of this is not unique). But there is another point of view - Linguistics - reject it, even in the presence of sources. --RosssW (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
BWilkins, I thought I best inform you that GeorgianJorjadze blanked his talk page again and removed the block notifications. I have restored them back (if that is the correct procedure, not 100% sure). But it does look like he isn't learning anything from the comments put forward to him. Regards - WesleyMouse 16:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

John Foxe

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

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

ANI notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is BWilkins is OK?. Thank you. -DePiep (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I suggest we take 24h off. -DePiep (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I suggest you read what was provided to you not only at the Bot owners noticeboard, but apparently also in ANI. What a senseless waste of time that was. Why can't people simply read the answer they're given rather than automatically discard it without digesting any of it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Whatever your friends say over at ANI, I can laugh for yours this: As I am both an admin, and a bot owner, why do you dispute ... -DePiep (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
What was either rude or arrogant about that? I giftwrapped the answer for you at the Botowners noticeboard. I was polite, and shared knowledge freely. Your response was "nonsense". The simple question "why do you dispute the answer" was clear and friendly ... not sure what your issue with any of them really is - there's no possibility for anyone to read them as rude or attacks - anyone (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

SACHKHOJacademy User Page

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

It cannot promote your company/organization, and cannot be copy/pasted from another source. In addition, your username is clearly promotional, and you'll want to go to get it changed quickly (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
What type of username should it be, Is Sachkhoj ok with you, as academy word might promotional for you? Redirect the page to Sachkhoj(SACHKHOJacademy (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC))

Thank you

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

Help

I need some help. I need a neutral 3rd part to resolve an editing issue here with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz here --> Jessicka

"Art Slant, Juxtapoz, Coagula Art Journal, & Hi- Fructose are all reputable 3rd party Art sources. Saying these articles are written by friends is purely speculation on your part. Jessicka's wiki page clearly states that she's an artist. Listing past art shows with 3rd party references is just like listing the albums she's released as a musician in her discography. Both are wiki relevant & significant"

Do you think you could point me in the right direction? I just need a 3rd party to have a look.

Thanks! (Lifespan9 (talk))

Most

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

N8VEM

Hi,

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

Thanks!

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

Civility on WP:ANI

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

I am permitted to show emotion. Nothing is said comes anywhere close to a personal attack. However...I sense one coming with people with such misunderstandings... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
By the way, the person clearly did understand what was said. A frivolous complaint was brought to ANI, and the entire community is being trolled. Do not coddle such people, because they know the rules better than they are pretending. Their goal is to badmouth their "enemy" - do not give them the firepower to do so (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to drag this out — real life intervened, and I wanted to reflect before I responded. I agree that the ANI report was not well-conceived. DRV was the obvious next step, and even that was likely doomed at this time. There was no "pattern of abuse" identified in the ANI that rose to the level that anyone was going to act on. The binding together of two unrelated deletions contributed to some of the confusion in the discussion.
Having said that, call me naïve, but I am reluctant to label something as definite "trolling" if it might be done in good faith, no matter how misguided. And regardless of whether it is trolling or not, I cannot see that incivility and personal attacks help the situation. If it's trolling, then you're giving them what they want and encouraging them to do it more. If it's not trolling, then you're responding in a way that will make the editor defensive rather than receptive.
In the specific case of the misunderstood copyvio claim, now that you've pointed out the pivot phrase in your paragraph, I can see where the subject changed, but I did not understand it that way before, even though I read it several times. Given that, I think it's entirely reasonable to ask you to clarify the claim (you seemed to be making).
From your replies above, it seems to me like you don't want to consider the possibility that your phrasing might have been unclear, or that asking you to clarify does not justify such an aggressive response. I'm afraid I'm a little disappointed by that, and more so by the "battleground" terminology you're using. We're all human, and we all need to remind ourselves "I could be wrong" from time to time.
Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Um, I never referred to you as naïve. Period. I was perhaps slightly aggressive towards the person who was leading you down the garden path, but never towards you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Adam Dunn on EWN

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

It was not intentionally snotty - although, after seeing your own snotty "closure" of it, I did half-intend to be snotty. You raised an issue that did not yet deserve to be there. You even admitted it. As such, don't raise it there, yet. My comments advised that when the DR was complete, if issues remained and the EW went forward to bring it back. Nothing else, and nothing snotty. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
It's amazing what a good night's sleep will do. After reading your above note, I went back and read what you wrote at EWN, and it's like a whole new entry. I even checked the history to see if you'd re-edited it. I know I specifically reacted to your statement that other things hadn't been tried, but what I was most annoyed about was the lack of help, but I see now that you did suggest another avenue, TE, which I didn't know even existed (I did mention that I may be on the wrong board). Honest, yesterday, I wasn't drinking or anything! There was still attempts to talk to him directly, and a DRN section where he refused to respond, but reading it today, I don't see your comments as snotty, at least, not enough for me to get all pissy on your talk page about it. Regarding my closure note, I think that had a lot to do with frustration of trying to help out someone else's page, and not getting any help to do so, but that's not specifically your fault either. Anyway, in retrospect, I should not have gotten all excited about your response, and thanks for having a calmer attitude than mine yesterday. Sorry for the mental twitch on my part. -- Despayre   16:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
If only others would look at things with sober second thought :-) Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Language dynamics

Hello HandThatFeeds and Bwilkins,

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

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

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

Penyluap, you do talk shit all day long :-) Although much of what you say above is understandable, the genesis of the "dispute" isn't: he went to the bot owners noticeboard and complained (incomprehensibly at first) that:
  • a bot didn't have a stop button (which isn't required in policy)
  • when he clicked the bot's talkpage, it went to some user's talkpage (which is actually correct)
  • he couldn't therefore turn the bot off (which 99% of the time requires blocking anyway)
IMHO the best way to show was what I did: provide him with an EXAMPLE to use, and once again, I will 100% guarantee he never tried to stop my bot, so failed to make use of the wealth of information/opportunity (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Bot policy leaves a great deal to be desired, it really, really does. The docs need to show that a button is not required, they no doubt do, and the information is poorly presented according to the logical entry point and path followed by this editor. Which pages has he read, and which pages did he go to first looking for the information ? Telling people one a time is inherently not as useful as improving documentation. As for the pervasive 'do not operate a bot without approval' logic lockup with 'you must demonstrate the operation of your bot in order to receive an approval', I'll leave that for some other crusade :) I think it seems I need a daily crusade, something to go off spouting shit about causing a ruckus, or frankly I just wouldn't be me. (maybe I'm just rattled that I'm making sense to you and need to make up for that :) however the difficulty people who think in programming have with understanding botpol is shutting them out of botlife and I can provide an example even in my limited experience) I will see if I can find the route through the documentation he took, or simply try to compute it myself (not easy now I am familiar with botpol, to clear my mind and startover, which is why opportunities like DePiep are so valuable) and update docs if I can manage it. Penyulap 16:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Signature

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

Unfortunately too obvious. Although I will WP:AGF that it was originally non-intentional mimicry, the sheer refusal to change once notified alters reality (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I see they have been blocked, which is a shame as they only needed to do a tiny thing, but as the block says, they were asked politely, several times. Thanks.--Chip123456 (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Popularity

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

lol ... yes, you don't get weird things if you sit around and do nothing (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
You said it! This place is full of the most wonderful surprises, you are now in a wiki love relationship, congrats! --Chip123456 (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

Please reconsider Notability

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Leo711

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

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

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

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

Don't you get it? There is no more discussion. WP:CONSENSUS has been reached, and you are now required to work within that consensus. Even your "sad day" statement shows that you don't get it; period. If you don't like consensus, perhaps you should go edit somewhere else? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough for you. My question regards feedback on the decision (RfC) itself and nothing else. Another editor has since pointed me in the right direction. There was no need to be rude. Veritycheck (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Not being rude, but there IS no discussion on the decision. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ohconfucius

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

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

Thank You

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

Hello, my user page

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

If you have abandoned one account, then you MUST follow the instructions on WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. You cannot delete any posts, but you may remove them from your own talkpages, as per WP:OWNTALK. This of course only counts if your original account was not blocked or under any restrictions (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, what you linked me too seemed though is for people actively using two accounts...so should I follow the "clean start" policy? I didn't really make a new account for a "clean start" I just simply lost the password (as well as my email so I cannot retrieve it). I just don't want something on my profile claiming I am a "sock puppet". I looked up wikipedia's definition of a sock puppet, and the entire fact that since I have logged on this I have not logged on the other account even once is contrary to the sock puppet definition I believe. Thanks SkyTree90 (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
It's still under the same set of processes. The reason you cannot be formally considered a "clean start" is because I believe you're back to editing the same articles. So, link the two (eradicates any appearance that you're socking). Don't worry about accusations: it's always up to admins to determine. But if you officially link the accounts, it shows you're not hiding (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello, can you check my page now and check if it is acceptable and following the rules etc? I used one of the templates. Thank you SkyTree90 (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Tonga National Tag Team

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

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

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

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

Top Gun

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

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

Tonga National Tag Team

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

Seriously, have you read anything I provided? I recommended using Twenty20 cricket as a model.
First - as Tag20 does not yet have an article, start by writing it. Make sure it's referenced. Make sure it meets WP:FIRSTARTICLE.
Next, modify the Rugby national teams to who field Tag20 teams to include it - again, using the Twenty20 model.
You have a lot of work ahead of you just doing those simple but very useful things. Nobody has said that the information does not belong - but without an article on the variant itself, nothing else has notability.
Whatever you do, do not simply recreate the article without doing the first sets of steps in advance (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 07:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Tim Hawes Deleted

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

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

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

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

Help?

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

What kind of help and advice? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, I may have been foolish enough to get into an edit war with an IP (91.154.107.224), who I believe is a logged out Mathiassandell (talk · contribs). The first article was Paloma Faith discography. Apparently some of the text was creating another row in the table, so the IP bunched the words and grammer together. I asked them to stop doing that as it could make the text harder to read. However, they ignored me. We have both reverted each other and I did use rollback once. Have I broken 3RR? The next article is Paloma Faith. I undid one edit because it was unsourced, the IP has since returned and has blanked portions of the article. I asked them to discuss their issues on the talk page, but have been reverted and ignored. Is it possible for the article to be protected, so the IP will be forced to go to the talk page? The constant undoing of edits/being ignored was giving me a headache. Also, do you think I've could have approached things differently? - JuneGloom Talk 19:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it appears you and them were edit-warring. I have indeed protected the page. Have you gone through the steps in WP:DR? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I haven't gone through all the steps in WP:DR, though I guess you are the third opinion (sorry about that). I've posted at Talk:Paloma Faith about the blanking, hopefully the IP will respond there. - JuneGloom Talk 21:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Not sure I was a lot of help, but hopefully I started the discussion better - I have also left a little warning on the IP's page. If they are a logged out user, there could be other issues (WP:SOCK), but I'll WP:AGF (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm not on the brink of throwing my computer out the window anymore, so I think you helped. :) Could you possibly undo this edit (unrelated to the edit war) to the discography page - ? It's unsourced (the chart isn't released until Sunday). - JuneGloom Talk 21:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, don't put it out the window yet :-) These electronic rock thingies are expensive (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Self-imposed user talk page bans

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

It is still widely held that an editor can request another editor not post on their talkpage, in part due to the principles behind WP:OWNTALK. Now, an admin performing formal action is usually exempt from such "limitations" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the update. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies

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

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

User talk:DangerousPanda: Difference between revisions Add topic