Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:08, 1 August 2013

This user has opted out of talkbacks

This is DangerousPanda's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 15 days

Pudeo's block

I didn't link your username in a comment on Pudeo's talk page (and therefore you didn't get a notification), so, in case you care to know, I unblocked Pudeo (talk · contribs), an editor whose unblock request you rejected a few days ago. As I said in my review notice, it was obvious the offending edit was a mistake -- as Pudeo stated during his first unblock request. -- tariqabjotu 02:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I cannot believe you can see that as a mistake - it's very clearly not, and I've re-read that entire exchange a dozen times or so. However, in your unblock you've now trashed the blocking admin and myself - poorly done. It's one thing to accept that it might not happen again, or to give a huge amount of benefit of the doubt, but to trash my (and the blocking admin) ability to read the English language is absolutely uncalled for. You can let the editor off, but don't trash the admins who actually did their job while doing so. Disgusting. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Rather than be baited into any more puerile pissing contests by people who refused to actually read and instead want to make ridiculous accusations, I'll wait for Tariq - after all, it's myself and Tariq SOLELY who should be involved in this conversation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised you still think the block was warranted, even after reading Pudeo's second explanation of what happened. Again, here's an obvious possibility of what happened. Pudeo initially started typing Statement 1:

It's positive that you have a very tight scrutiny here, but I think it would be best for all of us if you assumed some good faith...

Maybe he continued by writing Statement 2:

It's patronizing, a bit offensive and discouraging.

He signs and previews the comment and at some point decides he wants to add something else between Statement 1 and Statement 2. That being said, he was going back and forth between different tabs, perhaps multi-tasking with something on or off the Internet. He may or may not have taken a break from the comment, because something else demanded his attention. Perhaps a friend from South Africa wants to Skype with him. Maybe he saw some news story on TV that briefly captivated his attention. In any event, he eventually returned to the comment he was making and continued by inserting, before the end of his comment, Statement 3a:

...didn't prejudice a group of editors as a bunch of hooligans...

Again, he's probably still multi-tasking with something on or off the Internet. Maybe he needs to attend to something on the stove, maybe his wife is calling him, or maybe someone on Facebook is having a conversation with him and tells him to go check out a hilarious cat video. Regardless, he returned to the page he was editing. He might have thought he already written something between Statement 1 and Statement 2, and obviously couldn't find it as there clearly was nothing between them. He just assumes he's mistaken -- that he never wrote anything else, or that in his hurried state, accidentally deleted it. He doesn't realize that he did write Statement 3a, but in the wrong place. So he proceeds to instead write an equivalent statement (Statement 3b):

...did not hint the editors interested in this project are a bunch of hooligans...

And, continuing with Statement 4:

...that are prone to doing every sort of abuse.

He doesn't preview and, viola, there's the offending edit.

Now, if you return to Pudeo's second explanation, you'll see my conjecture is not precisely how it went. But it's a reasonable conjecture that could have been inferred after viewing the initial edit, and certainly after Pudeo's insistence that what happened was a mistake:

Apparently my edit has text inserted in the wrong place, after Cailil's message too. The "prejudiced as..." after Cailil's message is part of my original wording which I changed for the final comment. I must have written that in the wrong place after being disoriented by switching browser tabs while writing it. I apologize for not previewing changes and not noticing it before I posted it.

Indeed, the only thing he's guilty of is not paying close enough attention. Editing mistakes are common. Someone accidentally removes another person's comment. Someone accidentally posts a comment in the wrong place. This kind of thing happens all the time, and when people make such mistakes, the proper response is to either just fix the mistake or ask them what occurred. Particularly when the editor in question is a long-time editor with no history of such behavior, such bizarre edits enjoin third-parties to assume some good faith. For some reason, that was not afforded to Pudeo, certainly by KillerChihuahua and apparently by you as well.

Instead both you and KillerChihuahua assumed that he intentionally, and maliciously, manufactured an attack by Cailil and then responded to it. This just doesn't make sense.

First, people have watchlists and can look at the edit history of a page. It is exceedingly easy for someone to just click the diff link in the watchlist and notice that someone else's comment from more than a week earlier was modified. You'll see that KillerChihuahua noticed very quickly, less than an hour later. Unless you think Pudeo is stupid, no one would do such a thing.

Second, there was no attack. You and KillerChihuahua allege that Pudeo "inserted a personal attack" into Cahill's comment. After the insertion of the mistaken text, one gets the following:

Given the history of offsite targeting of individual wikipedians who make edits that might be unpalatable to the Men's rights movement - what steps will this project take to uphold wikipedia's values and its standards for conduct towards others ... didn't prejudice a group of editors as a bunch of hooligans.

I don't know how you ascertain an attack from that. Heck, I don't understand how you ascertain anything from that, as the comment makes no sense. The portion "didn't prejudice a group of editors as a bunch of hooligans" just looks to be inserted haphazardly at the end of a complete thought. Rather than think that, I don't know, it was inserted haphazardly at the end of a complete thought, you two thought that it was meant to generate an attack. Again, what attack? I don't know. Mind-boggling.

Third, Pudeo's actual comment is not a response to the haphazard text. Putting aside, once more, the fact that the mistaken text makes the last sentence nonsensical, it is obvious from reading his comment that he felt Cailil hinted the editors interested in the project are a bunch of hooligans. How do I know that? Because those are his precise words. Yes, he said hinted. Why would he say hinted if he was (intentionally) surreptitiously putting the word "hooligans" in Cailil's comment? Pudeo's comment, whether you agree with his sentiment or not, makes perfect sense in response to Cailil's remarks. Pudeo obviously felt that Cailil was suggesting ("hinting") that those interested in a men's rights project were "prone to every sort of abuse" ("hooligans") and so we needed assurances they wouldn't act in such a manner. Pudeo felt that this sentiment (which is how he interpreted Cailil's remarks) was "patronizing, a bit offensive and discouraging".

Had either of you recognized at least one of these three points, even if you couldn't personally relate to an incident where an editing mistake was made, you might have realized the absurdity of the allegations levied against Pudeo.

What you see as "trashing" you and the blocking admin was a necessity to make it very clear that the block was unwarranted. Pudeo now has this black mark in his permanent block log -- nothing, unfortunately, can change that. I know many people (myself included, and I imagine yourself too) would be unhappy if their clean block log of many years was tarnished by a lengthy unwarranted action against them. So, should Pudeo run for adminship or some other position of responsibility, I want it to be very clear that KillerChihuahua's block should be completely disregarded; in fact, I regret not being clearer about that in my unblock statement in Pudeo's block log. I see my remark in the unblocking statement on Pudeo's talk page as quite respectful, especially considering I honestly found the actions of you and KillerChihuahua to be hasty, illogical, and inconsiderate. I never said anything about your ability to read the English language; on the contrary, I said I was at a loss as to how this was missed. I understand that, just like with Pudeo's questionable edit, mistakes are made when people don't pay attention.

I don't need to give deference to the idea that a mistake will not happen again or that, unlike two other admins, I'm not jumping to absurd conclusions. I am not letting anyone off; I am doing my best to erase the injustice generated by two admins who shot first and asked questions later didn't ask questions. If anything is "disgusting" here, it is your strident insistence that your interpretation is right -- that Pudeo's edit was "very clearly not" a mistake -- despite allegedly reading Pudeo's explanation a dozen times and despite multiple people now pointing out your mistake. Or perhaps "ironic" might be the better word, as you have criticized Anthonyhcole for not assuming good faith, when you were/are unwilling to do the same for Pudeo. Perhaps "ironic" might be better, as you explicitly called OrangesRyellow "clueless", but are offended because you think I suggested (as I most certainly did not say) that adjective applied to you. Perhaps "ironic" is appropriate here, as you said two editors have "no apparent ability to read" and then feel affronted by me allegedly implying that you can't read English.

I was just pointing out my block overturn as a courtesy, and just expected you to mentally acknowledge your mistake and move on without responding. But given the way you have treated me, Anthonyhcole, and OrangesRyellow for politely, and rightfully, challenging your judgement, absent an acknowledgement right now that the block was unwarranted and that you'll drop the matter, I am eager to bring this matter to ANI for confirmation of the impropriety of the block and admonishment of your tone here. -- tariqabjotu 18:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Tariq, first, I appreciate your arrival. Even reviewing your statements above, I still see a far different possibility as to what happened, and it's one that actually makes more sense overall without any conjecture. That is, of course, my point of view having reviewed the entire sequence of events a half dozen times - including 4 more times today. So, it seems that we differ on the interpretation of what happens - and you know what, that's ok.

Above all else, I am not at all averse to your unblocking - if it was indeed as you see it, then we'll never have a similar situation again from this user, and that's awesome. If I was right, we've either corrected the behaviour (which is the goal of a block), or you've given them enough WP:ROPE. I will have faith in you that it's the former (i.e. you're right, and I'm wrong).

The problem seems to be now between us - which surprises me. You see, I dislike admins trashing other admins. Your unblock was based on your belief (which I still disagree with), but you trashed me and the blocking admin in your unblock - that's 100% inappropriate. It's your belief that the block was unwarranted - I still disagree. Was it possible to phrase your unblock in such a away that you didn't trash people? Of course - an ounce of WP:AGF with something such as "although I can possibly understand the POV of X and Y, it's my belief that...". Maybe the word "disgusting" was a bit beyond, but with some of the sickening things going on across this project, I'm literally becoming disgusted.

So, I have never treated you poorly - whatsoever. Did I want you to know that I was appalled by your choice of words? Damned right. Do we disagree? Clearly, yes - but that's human nature. Have I attacked you? Nope. Have I treated you poorly? Nope. I expressed my personal feeling about what your wording did - hoping that you'd choose more neutral wording next time.

In terms of the other 2 editors you mention, they came right here to attack - there was no politeness whatsoever, and they showed zero good faith whatsoever. They had no business approaching me in the manner they did. Indeed, when I'm simply waiting for you to advise me why you used such an inflammatory unblock request, I was lambasted - not cool, not kosher.

I have no idea what you mean by "my tone here" - I felt attacked by you, and then was literally attacked by 2 editors while I was trying to understand why you did what you did to me; I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to have a bit of a "tone" after that, if you consider my original shock/disbelief as a "tone".

So yes, it's possible that a whole whack of people fucked up. However, there are two victims: the now-unblocked editor and me...and you're sitting there saying that I'm supposed to have accepted unwarranted attacks and still be a victim. Fantastic. Go ahead, take it to ANI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me, judging from your comments in previous incidents, that you have hardly any ability to assume good faith about non-admins and your comments about admins essentially needing to cover each other's asses even when they disagree is indicative of you having a very snobbish attitude about what it means to be an admin. I can chalk KC's initial block up to being swept up in the moment as often happens with our "civility" enforcement, but for you it seems to be a persistent problem of assuming the worst of non-admins. Tariq was indeed right to unblock and his expression of surprise at the block and your decline is well within reason.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That's offensive, clearly false, clearly unproven (or unprovable), and goes 180 degrees against my philosophy and actions on this project. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding me unblocking Pudeo. The thread is Bwilkins' response to my unblock of Pudeo. Thank you. -- tariqabjotu 22:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm ... so, a discussion between you and I now needs drama? Looks like you have wholly minsunderstood the contents of my concern, and rather than clarify it with me, you'd rather take the low road to drama. Brilliant, really. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Help mediating?

I could really use some help mediating with what's very obviously a hostile editor. Long story short, I decided to AfD an article rather than outright delete it because there was some assertion of notability. It turned into a fairly long and overly dramatic thing where I've tried to explain things to an editor, only for them to pretty much systematically abuse and insult me on the talk page. It's really getting stupid now and it's enough to where I'd personally think a short 1-2 day block would probably effectively get the point across that personal attacks are not kosher. I think it's the same person as User:Anfasimov2013 (who I also think is the subject of the article, although he denies it). I've asked outright since I don't want to automatically assume that it's the same person. The editing style is the same. I really should've just ignored the small assertion of notability and outright deleted it. No good deed goes unpunished, eh? In any case, can you step in here? He's pretty obviously not going to be reasonable to anything I say. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

ITs not the same user as me, Tokyogirl so please stop saying that. Style of writing is nothing like mine, and no I am not Anthony Fucilla, merely an avid fan..thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anfasimov2013 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• All I know is that you started editing about the same time and you're saying about the same thing. I might get someone to run a check just to make sure. This way if it isn't you, you won't get blocked in the process if the other user ends up getting blocked for harassment. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Wingard is back

User:Wingard is back in the form of User:Fredrik75, continuing to do daily updates and editing the same pages. Anyway to block them from re-joining the website?? They obviously do not learn their lesson! 71.233.227.127 (talk) 04:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing offensive about the message, unless you're a block-evading sockpuppet, and don't want anyone to know you're back to break the rules some more. What a better way to keep in the shadows than to edit-war and try to hide your identity. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

They're back for a third time, this time under User:Spiritual75. It's unbelievable that they're continuing to be this desperate in their attempts. 71.233.227.127 (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Like clockwork, he's back! User:Barba75. 71.233.227.127 (talk) 05:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Another one: User:Mimmi75. They're not even attempting to hide it. Nor are they realizing why they're being blocked. 71.233.227.127 (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Just so you know, Wingard is back AGAIN. And while they waited until Friday, it's best to keep an eye out on them incase they do go and change things on Monday. User:Wingard1975 is the name. Let's hope sixth times a charm! 71.233.227.127 (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(stalking) Hate to chime in, but like clockwork, they're back, AGAIN. Judging from this pattern of history, Wingard is not using this block as a lesson and seems to return every day at continue vandalizing and not following Wiki policy. Surely there is a way to block their IP, simply? livelikemusic 16:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's not call not-following SOAP's agreement "vandalism" - that word has a very strict meaning on Misplaced Pages. When I block the userid, it also blocks the underlying IP address for a few days. I cannot personally see the IP address - you would have to open an WP:SPI listing all their socks so far, and request perhaps a rangeblock ... not something I can do. Yeah, I can keep blocking the obvious ones when I'm notified - but not much else (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I will definitely look into opening up a SPI. Thank you Bwilkins! livelikemusic 16:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I opened up a sockpuppet case here since they've returned once again. livelikemusic 16:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Article on myself as a published Author deleted

Hi, I recently posted an article on myself and it was deleted for "non verifiable sources". I can not think of how to verify some of the information without pointing towards links to works I have published and which are for sale (such as an Amazon link?) or to my personal website (http://www.pradigen.com). In either case, any information I give about myself is necessarily "unverifiable" such as age, location of birth, etc. I believe both links above are frowned upon because they are "promoting myself" and so did not post them. It seems like unless an author or entity is extremely well known then they are not noteworthy enough yet to be listed in Misplaced Pages? I'm not sure what to do here. I am an author in America with a published work. How would you suggest I go about rectifying any issues with the previous page. It was for Robert Street (American Author and Activist). Thanks for your input, I really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRADIGen (talk • contribs) 17:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I did already explain - see both your talkpage, and your request for permissions entry. Let me know if WP:COI, WP:AUTOBIO, WP:PROMO and WP:GNG are unclear. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much!

		Cookies!
		Theonesean has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for confirming my accounts. theonesean 17:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"munch munch...thankpshspht" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Disparagement

Now I know you and me aren't the best of friends, but I don't really think you need to be so "rough", if thats the right word, when talking about me. If you have a problem with me, could you please raise it with me instead of other people. Your ""Baron" - whoo-ti-doo" comment was a bit unnecessary in this regard, so, can we all just get along? ★★RetroLord★★ 14:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Retro, you told me once that English was indeed your first language. Please clearly read the exchange on their page: that person is TRASHING YOU because you call yourself "Baron". My comment to them, if you read it in English is "so what if they call themself Baron...they deserve the same respect." There is no possible way to read that as an attack on you, or at all disparaging against you. I will encourage you to re-read my original comment in ANI, and my comment on that other editor's page: you're allowing your hatred of me to colour what you read, even when I'm 100% on your side. You need to stop doing that, PDQ. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Badanagram

Hi, I don't want to increase the drama at ANI, but could you make a couple of corrections? You put your bolded comment before my statement about unblocking. Your commment was saved 15 minutes after mine. Could you move it to after mine? In the same vein, your subsequent comment "I commented before this one was wrongly lifted" is also incorrect. Could you strike the part about commenting before (unless you're referring to some other comment)? Thanks, and regards no matter what you think of my actions here.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, my comments were written and I clicked "submit" before yours. I turn to a different window, only to come back and find that I had edit conflicted - when I re-submitted, my edit summary clearly stated "ec". As such, I did comment before, but it was not saved until after ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

All of what you say occurred to me, but it still leaves the impression that I read your commment before I unblocked (particularly the second comment). I noticed you added {{ec}} to your first comment, and that makes sense, but normally the conflicted edit would come after the one that was saved first. Even if you don't want to move that comment, you could change the second comment from "I commented before" to "I tried to comment before", which, in my view, would be more accurate. Anyway, at this point I'll leave it up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I have retracted my assertion, sorry if I've edited the wrong section Badanagram (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The AN discussion about Baboon43

I'm just letting you know since you know about the discussion. It's getting flooded with comments which are started to become personal, like speculation about Lukeno's beliefs and insinuating that I'm dishonest, or disingenuous, or however it could be termed. I hope it doesn't need to be watched but I saw the comment against me this morning and went to the user's talk page to try to make peace, and then saw he was getting a bit personal with another editor as well. I'm worried the whole discussion could get derailed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The first discussion you linked to has been closed. The second link is someone insinuating that you make insinuations ... an insinuation that may or may not be unfounded :-) At least he says you're "too smart"! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Way too much mudslinging. Whatever happened to the idea of being civil and collegiate? Apteva (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Apteva ... I do wish you yourself would learn to be civil and collegial. Your snide, sarcastic and snippy comments - plus the badgering of anyone who dares speak against you - show that civil and collegial are either not in your personal dictionary, or that you have long forgotten their meaning (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Really? All of my comments are civil and collegiate. Apteva (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Right ... and all the edits that led to your topic ban were correct. It's the utter lack of self-awareness of the effects of your actions that simply dumbfounds me. Your comments are far from civil and collegiate, and your previous (and apparently still current) belief that your edits were somehow actually helpful to the project (including its collegial nature) is simply baffling (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The edits that lead to the topic ban were a content dispute that should have been resolved through dispute resolution. The other parties refused to mediate and instead proposed a topic ban on the subject. That is never the way we resolve content questions. We always welcome all sides to every issue, and work towards finding a consensus that all parties can agree on. Can you find one edit that I have ever made that was not helpful, or at least in good faith? There are 10,000 to look through. Can you find any edit that I ever called anyone a name or did not treat them with the utmost civility? Can you find anywhere that I did not conduct myself in a manner that would be appropriate for a college classroom? (that is what the word collegial means) Apteva (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Now you want to try and quote the dictionary to me? Absolutely unbelievable - and absolute proof of your uncivil attitude towards others. Well proven, so thanks. Now - go away, and stop badgering the people who are trying to protect the project against "I'm smarter than you" people like yourself (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Am I allowed to close the RFC/U per Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing, or does that require a sysop? That page doesn't specify who is or isn't allowed to do it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd poke an active admin who has not !voted in that thread, to be honest. No sense ruffling feathers or having anyone dispute its veracity (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Obscure remarks

Just curious what exactly are "snippy comments", and how they relate to hampering my ability to "see things, and fix them"? You do realize, I hope, that during the time that the sanctions have been in effect, there have been thousands of corrections and improvements that no one will ever see, at least not until someone else sees them and fixes them, or the sanctions are removed so that I can fix them, if I can even find them again? In what universe does that benefit our millions of readers? A good editor, who sees corrections, is willing to fix them, but can not fix them, due to some very obscure sanctions, how is that helping? Why would making "snippy comments", whatever they are, justify making yet more people not benefit from those errors and improvements? Who benefits from the sanctions that I am under? No one. Who benefits from them being removed? Everyone. If this is exactly what you mean by "snippy comments", I wish everyone would make more "snippy comments". Apteva (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

How ironic. See above (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Please visit my talk page. I need to discuss 2 topics with you on there!

I have sent a few messages out to people to visit my talk page for my latest questionnaire and I am inviting you to visit and comment on my talk page for you to give me your thoughts on the latest questionnaire. Questionnaire #3 is the best topic that I have come up with. Also, I would like for you and a few other people to discuss the topic that is right above the Questionnaire #3 topic. I do not mean to bother you or anyone else with this, but I just want to know peoples thoughts including your thoughts on these 2 topics. :D Keeby101 (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll reply right here: um, why are you asking me (or anyone) those questions? I have neither the background nor the interest in those topics, and would therefore not be the right person to ask. We do have specific Projects that are related to specific groupings of topics - find the right project, and ONLY ask those questions if your intent is to work on articles about them (right now it looks like you're asking people to do your homework for them). Don't randomly ask on your talkpage - or randomly ask disinterested people - about those kids of topics (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Technoquat & Technokumquat

Hi, what do you think about these two accounts, Technoquat is banned from en.wp and Technokumquat seems awfully similar to the other one,, I filed an SPi on this, did I do the right thing here? I reported the account to SPi, but I have doubts on this, what are your thought in this situation? Thanks in advance :) Prabash.Akmeemana 18:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Technoquat has been involved in Socking activities quite often. Prabash.Akmeemana 18:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

THUNK a cappella

I apologize, but your comments that you posted on the Request for Undeletion page seemed to have confused me. If I created the THUNK a cappella article in my sandbox, would you be able to approve it and allow it to be uploaded into articlespace? Please advise. Additionally, this article is a part of WikiProject Chicago and Wikiproject Illinois, so this is a notable contribution to furthering the development of the Chicago and Illinois Misplaced Pages articles. Mer253 (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

First, you're still logged into the wrong account - beware of WP:SOCK

Second, the whole reason I'm saying that you need to create it as a sandbox is so that you can FIX all the dozens of issues. Misplaced Pages doesn't care it it's part of a project - it still needs to meet all the policy-based requirements. Putting it in a sandbox will allow you (and others) to work on it for a couple of months until it remotely resembles something meeting WP:FIRSTARTICLE. As you kept creating it live, it cannot be created now, and will need some extra hoops to be jumped through (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

BWilkins, thank you for the prompt reply. I am sorry but what account am I supposed to be logged into? And okay, NOW I comprehend what you're saying. So, as I work on it in sandbox for a while and fix the issues, it can then be uploaded into articlespace? I appreciate this assistance.Mer253 (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You submitted a request to change your username to User:Marmery200 - that change has been actioned, and as of that point, the username User:Mer253 ceased to exist ... until you re-created it. You should only be using your new username, as per your request. Yes, you can work on it in your sandbox - but only for a limited time. Of course, by working on it, you're confirming that you are unrelated in any way to the music organization that you're writing about, otherwise, please don't bother working on it any further. It will likely take you a long time to try and "repair" all of the issues - there were multiple ones. But yes, after working on it for a couple of months, you will need to contact all of the deleting admins for their advice as to whether you have indeed fixed all of the issues. Do not move it into articlespace until you have verified accordingly (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Ma5terban3a

I had actually seen this as "masturbanza", with a Herculean effort to evade any filter (If he wanted to be "Master Banana", why not just come out and use it? I guess maybe he did, but it looked like someone was being sneaky that way). Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

IFMIF

Dear Bwilkins, what I am writing is a description of the project. It is an international physics project on fusion like ITER. I think it is not against the rules of Misplaced Pages. What is now on the IFMIF page is very poor and I want to add more detailed information. What I want to do is to create the new page on my webpage with images and then to update the old page of IFMIF after the approval of the whole international fusion community. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fscantamburlo (talk • contribs) 02:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

We still do not upload images until they're in use in an actual article. It is also rather inappropriate to do a wholesale replacement of an article - changes should be made incrementally to the article, ensuring that they have WP:CONSENSUS for them - after all, Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, and nobody wants to have their hard word suddenly replaced by anyone (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Finally figured out how to cite sources, references etc! :D

I would like for you to visit my talk page for 2 reasons, one is to discuss the map of the Sasanian Empire for one last time and two is to discuss if I cited my sources correctly. I really hope I did, it was really hard to do and I hope I did not cite them incorrectly. I tried really hard to do cite those sources. Also, I am sorry for the questionnaire #3, that was stupid and I do not know what the heck I was thinking at the time. Keeby101 (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Question

Let me start out by saying that I have a lot of respect for you as an administrator. I think you generally keep a cool head and approach things reasonably. I am a little concerned about RetroLord though. I am not giving what he says total credit but He did ask you to not visit his userpage. I only say that because from all appearances he appears to have good intentions towards the project and is (from what I assume) a rather young editor and possibly doesn't understand your good intentions. Maybe it might be better to not visit his userpage unless absolutely nec. until he gets his mind wrapped around things. I could be completely wrong and maybe he changed his mind but sometimes it just stirs the pot to go against his wishes (I understand why you were there (and the headline is a slight bit on the abf side for sure). Like I say, I think his perception isn't nec. right in this case, so please don't take this as a you are a terrible admin diatribe because it really is the opposite of how I perceive you. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying - however, I had to weigh 2 sides on this one. Having reviewed his exchange with WMF legal, I know for a fact that he will go apeshit if he feels he is being ignored (yes, not a positive behaviour for anyone, actually). Since he did his attempted echo improperly, he was going to feel ignored, and thus the apeshit behaviour was going to start within about 4 hours. Rather than have that, I took the risk to politely, succinctly, and non-threateningly respond to his question. I would rather have him hate me than to go apeshit on everyone else. I had no choice but to avert the poor behaviour, which would just make him look worse to the community than he already does right now. Indeed, I considered it a neccessity-visit to protect him AND the project. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree you were definitely polite and succint. I could be wrong was just my observations. Hopefully he understands this place better as time goes on, he can be a net positive (hopefully) I think if he can. Cheers. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think he can as well, he just needs to a) become less needy, b) get the chip off his shoulder, and c) learn to recognize when people are actually helping him (and that can include understanding critiques are actually positive) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and for the grammatically and/or English-challenged, "Apeshit" is not an adjective that describes a person, nor is it a noun. It's a well-known descriptor of behaviour, or a verb. There's no human being on the planet that could consider it uncivil or believe it's a descriptor of them - it's very clear, and it has always been a descriptor of behaviour. This is distinct from "Batshit", which is typically "crazy", which is typically directed as an adjective as a person, and would be a personal attack in most cases (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey HiaB, as I don't want to poke any bears or stir any hornets nests, do you want to advise him that edit summaries where he tries to have discussions, or make pointy statements in them are wholly inappropriate - talk about needing to learn, he's absolutely beyond community behaviour, and has the most incredible misunderstanding of norms/terms/concepts around here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as you removed my last notice as "unread" (Yeah, right), I'll state it a third time plain and simple. Stay away from my userspace and me in general. That includes calling me "apeshit". That includes bitching about my userpage being a violation of WP:NOTFACEBOOK. That includes questioning my english speaking ability. And finally, that includes holding discussions about me in your own userpage, or anywhere else on wikipedia as its starting to become harassment. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 15:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

When you start to prove your ability to actually read English, nobody will question it - especially me. I'll re-emphasize your "Disparagement" thread above where you clearly proved that you fucked up your understanding and reading, badly - and yet, you immaturely have not apologized. You advised me to stay off your talkpage except for admin issues - your screwup of an Echo attempt was an admin issue, as it protected YOU and the PROJECT. That said, YOU have been forbidden from posting on this page for anything except formal notifications - and look, how many times have you posted here since that? Again, when you prove your ability to read, I'll give you more benefit of the doubt. On top of that, I am VERY WELCOME and VERY REQUIRED to discuss your behaviour anywhere on this project, especially when directly requested. Don't even suggest that I cannot as that's absolutely ridiculous (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Final notice, a spelling mistake, echo attempt or not, does not require your intervention. You have been warned (4 times now) to stop. This IS harassment. Insinuating that you needed to come to my talkpage to fix a spelling mistake to prevent me going "apeshit" is a borderline personal attack. Your answering of my {{help me}} template is further evidence. FUCK OFF. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 15:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

In this case you are overstepping just a bit (there are things that he does have to do as an Admin and discussing you on his own Userpage especially when he is requested by someone to isn't exactly his fault). Trust me when I tell you that edit summaries can hammer you too. You gotta learn to ignore those people that just get under your skin Retro. I say this like it's easy but truly I know it's not. I DO like you and want you to stick around otherwise I wouldn't have posted here. While I have had my own run ins with admin here, it's a losing battle and like I said on your userpage it really sucks when others (and trust me they will) always dismiss your input because you have a block log. Maybe think about that wikibreak, I took one for quite a while and only did super minor edits using an Ip for a while til I wasn't burned out on this site. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's assume just for one second that you are right he's out to get you. If he is the edit summaries and such only give him excuse to block you. Don't hand them the ammo to do that cause as dumb as it sounds other admin will still agree and then they look at your block log and they start thinking it's a habit we must do things more drastic...been there done that, not fun. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

A contract between User:Retrolord and User:Bwilkins

User:Retrolord, this is my one and expected final offer for you to make a comment on this talkpage for now:

1. I do not dislike you - in fact, it would be bizarre to dislike anyone you have only interacted with by text
2. I do dislike your behaviour - and that includes the passive-aggressive bullshit
3. I do not harass you - you happen to frequent pages I do, AND when you post a "help me", you invited me to help - and actually HELPING is proof that I don't dislike you and that I'm trying to mend whatever you percieve to be the issue between us
4. I do believe that you have things to add to this project - I'm just not willing to take the bullshit with the good from anyone

With this in mind:

1. I will agree to not respond to any "help me" requests on your talkpage, unless I am directly involved
2. I will continue to post in discussions regarding you that are started by others, but I will not start new discussions - UNLESS it arises from an immediate administrative incident
3. I will retain my right to take administrative action, where required, although I expect that there will be no need to do so

However, in exchange, you will:

1. Spend time reflecting - the "disparagement" thread above is proof positive that you are allowing your hatred to affect your comprehension. I expect you to re-read the entire situation, and actually recognize that I came to your defense in that discussion
2. Stop insulting others when you don't get "your way"

I'm pretty sure that all of this will help you to see that I'm 100% behind your editing here, but I'm willing to back off so that you can actually change your perception of me (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done ★★King•Retrolord★★ 18:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Excellent choice. I eagerly await your comments from your review of the "disparagement" section. Then we can move forward with the rest (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

They will have to wait. Its 5AM. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 18:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Contract violations by Bwilkins

Contract violations by Retrolord

• Insults others when they don't get their way, PLUS what appears to a pointy violation of their agreed-to editing restrictions by their actions in an admin-y area (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Question

I am asking this question here, as I think it would be off-topic in the ANI thread.

I did upload to flickr the image Arctic Kangaroo wanted deleted from the commons. It is a properly licensed image, free for anyone in the world to re-use, for any purpose, provided they honored the terms of the license.

I attributed the image to Arctic Kangaroo, as the license requires. I included a link to the license, as the license requires. So, I believe I honored the terms of the license. Subsequently, I uploaded his other images, also complying with the terms of his license.

You suggested I should erase the image, and the half dozen others, from flickr. Perhaps you thought I was claiming or implying they were my own work?

If, now that you know I was complying with his license, you still think I should erase those images, I'd be very grateful if you would explain why you think so, and why you think those uploads were a bad idea.

I already replied to your comment about lapsing from WP:OUTING. If you agree that Arctic Kangaroo volunteered this information, and I did not, after all, lapse from WP:OUTING, can I ask you to consider striking that comment? Geo Swan (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: You already know what I want, and my terrible impression of you. So... ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

AK and Geo ... I'm torn here. There's absolutely ZERO doubt that AK's granting of license for any images is 100% irrevocable, no matter what age they are/claim to be. As such, ANY attempts to revert that license, or to remove their use is dispicable behaviour. Period. However, I question Geo's reason for uploading them to Flickr ... was the goal to "keep a copy" in case AK continued trying to wrongly remove them? That would be a little bit pointy, IMHO.

So, in short, AK granted license, and is wrong to try and revoke it, ever. But, Geo's upload might have been pointy, which would have further inflamed things.

Comments? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Userbox question

Hi Bwilkins, on your userpage is a userbox stating, "This user might or might not have an academic degree, and considers the distinction irrelevant on Misplaced Pages." I'm curious as to what is meant by this, and I have two ideas in mind here: 1) do you mean to say that an academic degree is not a prerequisite to academic-level knowledge and scholarly understanding? Or 2) do you mean to say that knowledge and understanding are irrelevant on Misplaced Pages? To observe that a degree is just a certification of a presumed underlying reality (knowledge and understanding) is obviously and almost trivially true. They're much more meaningful to those outside a field than to those inside it. But this is a very different from saying that someone whose knowledge is deep only in the fields of 4chan, magic the gathering and video games is an appropriate person to manage an encyclopedia. On Misplaced Pages, it's mainly the latter that this argument is used to defend. It feels to me like shoehorning. What are your thoughts on this?24.19.234.62 (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

An academic degree is certainly not a pre-requisite for knowledge - and in fact, I find that PhD's are often problematic to this project as they're used to publishing WP:OR, which causes Misplaced Pages great problems. I'm most certainly not claiming that knowledge and understanding are irrelevant. I will also say that although I have a graduate-level degree, that does not make me smarter or more important than someone without one ... THAT is the most commonly-understood meaning of that userbox (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Those who rise to the top in business or politics are as a rule extremely bright, and enjoy a great deal of status. That's different from saying that they should be editors of an encyclopedia. Academia isn't a generic league of brilliant people, but people who have devoted their lives to studying and proposing solutions to particular kinds of esoteric problems. Just as you would not wish an authority on medieval history to do your plumbing…it doesn't mean the plumber is stupid, only that he's unlikely to be competent in medieval history. As for degrees, this never really comes up in scholarly discussions. Either someone has a sound understanding of the subject or one doesn't. A doctorate can only qualify someone in the subject of his or her dissertation; the objection "but I have a degree!" would be laughed at. It would be ludicrous to state that, for example, E. J. W. Barber is an authority on prehistoric European textiles because she has a doctorate from Yale: she is an authority because that what she's done with her life. But Misplaced Pages rarely attracts such top-tier specialists, so it may be difficult to conceive that this, not non-specialists bragging about their potentially irrelevant degrees, is what I had in mind.24.19.234.62 (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There are a great many subjects for which I could round up ten million people at random, force them to contribute as a condition of release, and the chance that any one of them would have something useful to add would be very low. Misplaced Pages does well for matters of common knowledge, but these tend also to be the subjects for which one would least need an encyclopedia.24.19.234.62 (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Misspell in a block notice

You misspelled the title of an article in a block notice. I noticed it instantly because have a distinct style for a.mw-redirect, that recommend to all advanced users. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank You, Thank You, Thank You

I created my first Archive box today because of your comment on the Epiphany Eyewear's Talk Page! Just wanted you to know how much I appreciated your comment which empowered me to learn how to do it! Thank you! 301man (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

	The Big Smile Barnstar
	For empowering me to learn to Archive!!!! Thank you!!!

Arctic Pengaroo

Hey B, I noted your involvement in the current ANI thread regarding Arctic Kangaroo. It may not have escaped your attention that AK has substantial similarities in behavioural problems to a certain Tomnnnnn, who later changed his username and his behaviour. AK doesn't, of course, have the same problem with requesting dozens of user-rights on dozens of projects. And I have since learned that qualities that Tomnnnnn claimed for himself, which I flatly accused him of lying about, were actually true and real. (Egg on face? I had it.) And finally, of course, Tomnnnnn now turns out to be a very constructive and unproblematic editor, as you know.

One of the first things I did to point Tomnnnnn on that path was an adoption course. What the adoptee learns from the adoption course is useful; but in reality the important thing is to slow down the over-eager youngster. Every minute they spend reading and re-reading the adoption course, and then answering the questions, and then re-reading the questions because they got them wrong the first time, is an extra minute they are not getting themselves into trouble by trying to edit every page on Misplaced Pages all at once (or trying to win numerical AfC contests, or whatever else it is that clever kids do.)

Did this work? I think so.

Anyway, at my request, Tomnnnnn is willing to run through an adoption course with AK, with me monitoring and advising along the way. Tomnnnnn knows the ropes, and I know the underlying problems.

This would also require that AK actually agree to this and follow through with it, which may or may not be a hurdle. His current attitude would need to change, either during the course or before it.

If AK does agree to this, would you agree to a 3 month restriction from AfC, rather than a 6 month one? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

(Subject, of course, to him completing the adoption course, at a minimum, before the 3 months was up.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I'd agree to the 3 months if there was a some form of proper mentoring (including AFC's), so yeah, I'd likely be ok with it - the proof is always in the pudding (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but…if user is a minor, are we sure he should be "adopted" by a Misplaced Pages pseudonym (or an IP) without his parents' knowledge and permission? Seems better for Misplaced Pages to lose his contributions and move on.24.19.234.62 (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that's carrying paranoia a tad too far. Not all Wikipedians are predators and until developed countries stop allowing teachers to be alone in a classroom of kids, there's no reason to assume guilt by association of Misplaced Pages adopters. Child editors (well, at least some of them) may be the Nobel, Pulitzer, or Booker Prize winners of tomorrow. What we must not lose sight of however, is the fact that while we can train people in the workings of Misplaced Pages, it's not within our remit to help them on the road to adulthood, and if we stick to that premise - some of the adopters are still minors themselves - there's no need to obtain parental permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Thanks for your patience & guidance. May we meet again under more pleasant circumstances Superfast1111 (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

InLoveNoi

Hi Bwilkins, I saw your comment at the unblock request for InLoveNoi. If you would please look into the contribs of user "BrotherNoi". I have also opened a related SPI request for user Ryanspir. The point here being that I think the individual operating these accounts is simply playing games, evading scrutiny, and is WP:NOTHERE. I'm mobile so sorry for any typos and lack of convenience links. Appreciate your.attention. Zad68 12:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins! I would like your advice

I have recently posted a topic literally titled "URGENT NEED OF HELP!!! Citing my sources and how to cite them properly as well as how and where to find the right ones!!!!" and I would like your advice as well as help from other users! Please come to my talk page as soon as you can. Keeby101 (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

(tweaked for tone by Demiurge1000) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The map of the Sassanian Empire.

Hey Bwilkins, before I begin I would like to say that I am sorry for asking that question earlier about how to cite my sourced properly as well as the tone I used when doing so. :(

Anyway, I would like to discuss with you about a rather old topic that I had been giving a rest for a few days until recently. I have made a new map and added as many sources as possible to back it up. Kathovo and I had a talk on my talk page and he said that if I insisted on using that map as the Infobox image of the article, then we would have to try to reach a consensus with other users. So far, no one has responded to my latest comment on the Sassanian Empire talk page. I posted my latest map of the Sasanian Empire along with all of my sources to back it up. With that being said, is it safe to make my change to the article yet? Reason why I am asking this is because a long time ago, a user named Rupert Clayton told me that if no one responds to me within a reasonable time that I should be bold and make my change. So should I put up my map as the infobox image of the article now? Or should I still wait for a consensus to be reached? Keeby101 (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, considering the "rarity" of the topic, I would bet that there are only a handful of people watching the article. If nobody has replied in about a week, sure .. be WP:BOLD. However, do not be overly surprised if a month later, someone comes back (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I, Bwilkins, have intentionally renamed the section below as it was putting words in my mouth

I have posted in regards to whether your comments are appropriate at the wp:an noticeboard. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Bwilkins telling an editor to "rot in hell" and "f-you". Thank you. Dusti 06:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(Just to clarify the above) Dusti 06:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Candleabracadabra, I'm going to WP:AGF that you meant well, but, a) you are required to try and resolve any issues directly with me first before opening an ANI thread, and b) if you had spoken to me first, I would have helped you to fix the words you were obviously accidentally removing from those phrases, and of course accidentally forgetting the entire context of the statements. As such, I could have prevented the backlash you're going to get. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

How much more acceptable is it for an admin to say "may you rot in the hell that is eternal block" than "rot in hell" to an aggrieved editor trying to get unblocked after a mistaken enforcement that is taking a long time to get resolved? A block that has also resulted in added sanctions as well as lots of assumptions of bad faith against said editor? Is it okay to threaten to lock their talk page when an editor says someone is an "amateur admin"? But you think you are in the right to tell them off?

I stand by my report and I think you should carefully consider the comments posted by uninvolved admins and concerned editors evaluating your actions. Based on your behavior I did not and would not feel comfortable bringing your bad actions to your attention. Your behavior casts you in a light of being punitive, nasty, disrespectful and caustic. I don't enjoy being involved with an administrator who chooses to act in that manner and then makes excuses for it. I'm sorry you've failed to see the error in your ways and haven't apologized as was (quite reasonably) suggested. In your responses to a discussion of your actions you are full of excuses and in are clearly denial about how you act and treat others. So I don't see that there's much more to be discussed. Take care and have a nice week. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

As you clearly have not read ANY of the supporting documentation, I'll take this opportunity to not reply to your baiting. I do encourage and expect all editors to take their issues directly up with me - TSC and I have already had a discussion, and "third man in" situations are rarely beneficial. You are REQUIRED to bring your issues to me first - I could have save you a lot of grief by showing you the error of your interpretations, and I certainly expect better from ALL EDITORS not to create inflammatory headings on AN/ANI - you put words in my mouth, and doing so is not only falsifying things, but is an outright lie. Please do not do that again (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I included some key bits of what you said in quotation marks. There was a lot more I could have included but I left it to others to review the fuller context of your comments as they did. How much more appropriate is it to tell an aggrieved editor to "rot in the hell that is eternal block" than to "rot in hell"? It's unclear to me why you think that is some great distinciton. You also threatened blocking of the editor referring to someone as an "amateur admin" and called on them to be indefinitely blocked for saying someone was a "shitty" admin. So unless you are trying to be ironic? you have very much cast yourself as a hypocrite. Regardless your comments and behavior were way out of line. I hope you will act more respectfully and considerately in the future. I know I said I didn't see the benefit of further discussion with you, but you falsely suggested that there was something dishonest about my report so I am answering you to let you know that you said exactly what I reported. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No - you pulled out intentionally inflammatory statements, out of context, which is ethically inappropriate. You lied to draw attention to your post. Also, coming to me BEFORE going to AN/ANI is not optional - it is a requirement, one that you intentionally ignored - again, to try and draw more attention to your AN. Your statements above are also WRONG both in face, and with whatever malice you are attributing to them - you have COMPLETELY created your own meaning, none of which is aligned with reality. Dispicable behaviour from you to say the least, probably more digusting than anything in reality. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• There's more discussion on the AN thread after it was closed; you should read it, as it includes a warning from me that similar behavior within 6 months will result in a block. One-off loss of cool is different than a pattern of behavior. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Although I acknowledge your comment above (I have not seen your "warning" on AN yet), I will reinforce the concept of context Floq (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Celticbhoy97

Hi, it seems pretty conclusive to me that Celticbhoy97 (talk · contribs) and 92.236.231.199 (talk · contribs) are the same individual; see this diff, which shows Celticbhoy97 signing the comment originally left by the IP. Plus, both accounts have very similar edit histories. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I agree completely ... but WP:BEANS and WP:AGF combine to make ... errrr ... they make something. Keep an eye on those two, and let me know if there are further issues (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Celticbhoy97 has apologized for the outburst and has acknowledged that they have read and understand WP:SOCK. Are you ok if I unblock a little early as a "lesson-learned" WP:GAB compliant request?--Jezebel'sPonyo 16:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead - as long as he understands he cannot edit those articles with the account and with an IP. Cheers ... and thanks for checking (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Will do. --Jezebel'sPonyo 17:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I went through all those requests this morning .. whew. I might have believed army guy, UNTIL his very last post on his talkpage. If he reallllyyyy believed he understood notability and COI, he certainly would not have made the comment he did about the article being deleted. So, I'm torn on that one - big time. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh, I missed that bit (that page is a mess and I saw it as part of the deletion notice when I was scanning the page for correspondence with the editor). I will leave it in your capable hands! --Jezebel'sPonyo 17:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I've disengaged - if you think he gets it, feel free to unblock with a note about what I just raised. WP:ROPE is rope - I just think he doesn't get WP:GNG yet, but we all screw that up sometimes. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It all depends on their answer to this. We shall see! --Jezebel'sPonyo 18:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

See also what I added to the bottom of his page. Cheers! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/7SeriesBOT 3

I would like to draw your attention to Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/7SeriesBOT 3 which you submitted a while back. If the request is no longer relevant, if you could indicate so, that would be great. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

RFAR notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Bwilkins 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—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, PumpkinSky talk 23:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Seriously?

Jimbo himself wants you to go away for half a year. You're really fucked. No amount of crooked friends of yours in charge of the rules can help you, so you better worry about yourself. You know, I wasn't planning on doing anything to you after you cursed at me, but ever since I've been the only one suffering despite being the only one who did no wrong. So fuck it, some one else needs to suffer, and you're going down. TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, I love how the only two admins who wanted me blocked are now in line to lose their administration. Perfect irony. TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)