User talk:DangerousPanda/Archive 13

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

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)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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)

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 ^{my talk page!} 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 Wikipedia. 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 ^{my talk page!} 16:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I opened up a sockpuppet case here since they've returned once again. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 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 Wikipedia? 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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, Wikipedia 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 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 Wikipedia." 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 Wikipedia? 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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)

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

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.

---

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 Wikipedia: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^{*Let's talk!*} 06:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(Just to clarify the above) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 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)

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.

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^{bons mots} 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^{bons mots} 17:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you again, I'm just trying to clear some of the Unblock Request backlog. What do you think about this one? Their last note to you seems sincere, they've agreed not to add the problematic ELs and to reach out to other editors for assistance.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:31, 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^{bons mots} 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^{bons mots} 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)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/7SeriesBOT 3

I would like to draw your attention to Wikipedia: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)

• Replied, cheers (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

RFAR notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia: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—

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

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

• Congrats on skipping the RFC/U/Admin I wholly invited you to start with (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Disengaging from TSC

I've removed your comment from his talk page. Please don't post there anymore, no matter how harmless you believe your comment, as all it does is stir him up more. Plus, this particular one wasn't harmless, it was gloating, which is uncool. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Gloating? I think you horrifically misread or misunderstood the comment I left there. Offensively so. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Unblock

I didn't "remove valid questions or comments." I copied and pasted my old Unblock request, and accidentally added a question from the last time someone commented. When I noticed my mistake, I deleted it.

If you'll notice, the same "valid question or comment" that I "removed" was right below in my last unblock request- AND was signed and dated from BEFORE I made my most recent unblock request. Please stop accusing me of things I didn't do. Why would I even do something like that?

Talk to Vitto; he granted me a global exception. I have an exception on EVERY Wiki except for the English one. Personally, though, I have no idea where you would find it.

Why on Earth would you block VPNs for logged-in users, anyway?

And why do you talk to voluntary contributors the way you talk to them? I don't have a "case" that I'm trying to help; I'm not fighting jail time. I'm a person who volunteers his time to edit Wikipedia, Wiktionary and Wikisource in multiple languages so that some guy can go get paid to give speeches about what a great job he did in "creating" Wikipedia. "Don't push your fortuitous luck"? Why would you say something like that to a volunteer? I don't have to help any Wikimedia projects. No one has to help any Wikimedia projects.

What on Earth could I possibly have to gain from asking you to unblock me? Do you think I love doing this just to pester you? No; it bothers me greatly that I have to go through this red tape just to be allowed to do something I was able to do about a month ago, something that I don't have to do at all. Kraŭs (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the first part of your discussion above, I acknowledge we all make mistakes (even me) - when I arrived at your talkpage due to the unblock request, there appeared to be problems - I saw the removal of a question and brought it to your attention in a polite manner, as I should - no accusation stated nor intended. I gently prodded you to ensure those mistakes didn't recur. I did dig for your global exception, and could not find it. I'm not asking someone else - you can always use the e-mail function to do so. You already know why Wikipedia needs to block VPN's for users - even logged-in ones, so I'm not sure why you'd bring that up. Regarding the second-to-last paragraph of your statement above, I'm not sure what you're talking about - you appear to be smearing certain individuals, so please stop. Above all, my philosophy on this project is what it always has been: everyone has something to contribute - even though you have very few contributions to the English Wikipedia, they are appreciated. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue with you about the relative depth or breadth of my contributions to Wikipedia in comparison to this person or that person, whether English or otherwise. But please do not assume that this is the first or only username I have had here, nor that all of my edits have always even been under a username. Kraŭs (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not making that assumption - you posted an unblock request related to the global version of WP:IPBE - I merely replied that I did not see such global rights attached to your account, AND that your current userid did not show the requisite number of edits/problems with IP blocks to warrant the granting of local IPBE. There most certainly is no assumptions or suggestion about other ids: merely the one linked to your request (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:53, 1 August 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!!! 301man (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very kindly ... I'm moving it to my barnstars page right now! EatsShootsAndLeaves 00:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia pseudonym (or an IP) without his parents' knowledge and permission? Seems better for Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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)

I'm not sure an advocate for letting teenagers handle deleted content, more extreme than bukake images, is the best mentor for youth. How has Thine Antique Pen turned out? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:14, 1 August 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)

All meetings are pleasant; some more pleasant than others. Thanks for this, and good luck! EatsShootsAndLeaves 00:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you for this remark. </satire> Ha! Ima gonna run for crat and pull your tool license, boy. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Heh ... I'm still going to put this on my Barnstar page :-P You can't pull my tool license, my wife will complain I already voluntarily left my tool license in the desk drawer :-) EatsShootsAndLeaves 00:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Funny that all this was happening while you were being raked over the coals at AN. Best be more careful next time, dear Bwilkins, because, as you well know, Eric Corbett had a point. You know (I hope) I'm not one to call for civility blocks (if I were an admin I might chastise you a bit for that, but block, no), and I see this as a good time for a learning moment, so to speak--that we should be very, very careful of such blockage, and that we should make sure that equal treatment applies. </takes off papal hat>. Carry on pal, Drmies (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, if you thought the AN part was fun ... have you dropped by WP:RFAR yet? EatsShootsAndLeaves 10:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have now, thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration declined

This is a courtesy notice that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Wingard again!

He's back again User:Babyrock75 he's using that account and an I.P. address! I re-opened the sockpuppet investigation. But this is just getting too out of hand at this point!! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 18:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Ponyo beat me to it. Gone. Toddst1 (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The SPI is malformed, however Babyrock75 is a  Confirmed sock (no sleepers found).--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

A User edit warring

A user named "Darkness Shines" like his history of "block logs" suggests, he's again carrying out edit wars in the pages like Chuck Yeager by removing the sourced materials, and claiming that they are "linkvio", i tried to confirm from him, that why he's making such edits, he's makes the discussion which is not even coherent to the subject, it can be seen here[1], have a look at his offensive language too. OwnDealers (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Yup, he used bad words. Where's our second grade teacher? Page protected to stop you edit warring with DS. Toddst1 (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and now he's removing the talks, he probably given up, @ Toddst1, kindly read your talk page, for more detailed explanation. OwnDealers (talk) 06:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Shoe Fest

This festival is not minor. It has had national acts in perform there in previous years. I would like to at least be able to recover the page so that I can update it and make it more significant. Please undelete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwsausen (talk • contribs) 17:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

http://www.jambase.com/Festivals/Festival.aspx?festivalId=9358 If you dont already know jambase is a credible live music source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwsausen (talk • contribs) 17:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Your assistance please

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fadil Husayn Salih Hintif -- its the very first nomination User:DBigXray made on articles I started.

I see from my comments that this was one of the problematic articles where the nominator kept editing the article, after making the nomination. I find this a very troubling practice.

I am going to request you restore the article's full history, and its talk page, as other deleting administrators have done.

FWIW List of Guantanamo Bay detainees was probably not the best redirection target. It has been out of date since March 2006. Over the years I have suggested ways it should be updated, with no one disagreeing, but with no one supporting my suggestions either. So I changed the redirection to Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Geo Swan (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) DBigXray did not continue to edit the article after nominating it for deletion. They made one additional edit after the nomination and that was to add a {{notability}} tag. An IP did make 4 edits to the article, 2 that added {{cn}} tags and 2 more a day later that removed the information where they added the cn tags. One other named editor made one edit that removed two stray [[. The rest of the edits (19) made after the nomination were made by you. There appears to have been some removals by a now blocked editor approximately 10 months prior to the AFD nomination. There was nothing that happened during the nomination that would be troubling. GB fan 11:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

How about that...

You wrote;

"Jimbo more than once has instructed that Fram may not post on their talkpage - something every editor is permitted to request. Posting on Jimbo's page (or any other editor's talkpage) is not a right." (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Good to know. No need to reply. Have a nice day. - thewolfchild 23:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Unblock LordComputerHero

It is really unfair that LordComputerHero has been blocked for ever so unblock him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.220.212 (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) LordComputerHero can either request an unblock through the Unblock Ticket Request System or Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee. They should read Guide to appealing blocks before using either one of those avenues. GB fan 15:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

After looking at your contributions, DiscoSpinster beat me to blocking you. GB fan 15:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Continued edit war by User:Gu1dry

Hello,

after beeing blocked several times (last block for a period of one week, unblock request declined) for edit warring, User:Gu1dry unfortunately continues edit warring: Sony Xperia together with other edits Sony Xperia second revert and Snapdragon (system_on_chip) hidden revert

Do I have to wait for breaking the the three-revert rule (probably for both articles) or can I report it now at the Edit war noticeboard? --DrSeehas (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

DrSeehas, you are breaking the WP:MOS, introduction lead, third paragraph, as it states, "Style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." The original style of the article did not include the bottom headers, it was reverted, there was a discussion on the talkpage & you continue to ignore it. Since you can't agree to all the valid points I have pointed it, it reverts to the first major contribution of the article, which was not to include the bottom headers. Additionally in that same article by having some of the tables with a font-size of 85% and others with a font-size of 100% your are breaking the consistency of the article (see the quoted text).

The same goes for the Snapdragon article, you changed the style of the article for no substantial reason. Additionally in you "work" to add spaces to headers, remove trailing spaces in tables & adding spaces to cite web parameters, this too breaks this same rule. 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢  16:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Help please

I picked your name from some admin list and I see you have a fair history. Could you please look at my user page. I have not edited for about two years after I gave up from harassment stress from other editors. My IP changes from time to time so maybe that is related to it. Anyway I have not even made an article edit yet and have attempted to link my old IP account to my current IP and I get what appears to be harassment from some editor about being a sockpuppet with some hundreds of other editors. The editor BullRnagifer seems to keep an IP hatred page for his battleground behavior. Is this classic for IP editors to get jumped on like this? Can people really edit without an account? If not why is it allowed? If Wikipedia is just a constant barrage of harassment I need to not be involved with such a place. It seems it belongs to a certain group of editors that won't allow anybody else in. Please see if I am out-to-lunch and this is warranted or whether this editor is just a large dog eating me for a snack. I have attempted place warning for this person to prove his attacks or STFU politely but he persists. Thanks. 174.118.141.197 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I found the hitlist that is being kept at [[2]] here. I highly doubt all these IP addresses from all over the world are the same people. Looks like an excuse to kill IP editors only. 174.118.141.197 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I have replied to this IP hopping blocked user here. We don't allow sockpuppetry here, and many of this user's IPs have been blocked for socking and disruption.

The IP states: "...harassment stress from other editors. My IP changes from time to time so maybe that is related to it." Indeed! It is not "harassment" when numerous editors and admins tell the IP to stop the socking and create an account because their use of dynamic IPs creates a socking problem. They need to use ONE account, and get all their editing history collected under ONE contribution history. Sock accounts are only allowed under certain conditions, and this user does not qualify. Avoiding the scrutiny of other editors is not allowed, especially when one's behavior is often disruptive.

IPs who do not disrupt can edit in peace and some actually do very good work. They have no problems here. This IP has drawn negative attention on numerous occasions and thus should be required to create an account. Right now they are still blocked (on other IPs they have recently used) and are thus evading existing blocks. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Your actions to discourage new IP editors looks well documented. It is hard to understand how Wikipedia could allow editors with this type of behavior to exist here. I am not a sockpuppet and have never been blocked. Trying to lump me into a bad apple bin and then say I am bad also just doesn't cut it for me and shouldn't for any other thinking human. I find your hounding behaviour of myself and other IP editors appalling. It would appear you spend the majority of your time on Wikipedia causing trouble accumulating your "hatred list". You have posted more of your "nobody is good enough for me" filth on what seems to be my old IP that I walked away from two years ago due to attacks on me at that time. One more time. Leave me alone to edit articles and stop spreading unsupported and unproven lies about me. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no trouble with new IPs who are not disruptive. Block evading socks are not welcome here. Just do what everyone has told you to do (create ONE account) and edit collaboratively, and you'll be just fine. You have a lot to gain and nothing to lose by doing so. Just cooperate. No man is an island here. If you won't cooperate, you don't belong here. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Repeating yourself blindly without even reading my text isn't doing it for me. You have stalked my IP address page. You have stalked me here. Your bullying tactics and fabricated "disruptive" garbage just lost me as your audience with your uncivil behaviour. Now go away and edit something productive. WP:IPs are human too 174.118.141.197 (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Using my watchlist is not "bullying". Watchlists are used for many purposes, including responding to replies and attacks. You have no right to privacy here. Get used to it. BTW, ALL IPs are humans, which is why using multiple IPs is considered sock puppetry. Stick to ONE account. Just create one. Your continued failures to cooperate are one of the key identifying markers for you. Other behavioral tells are for us to know, and you to guess... Several times you have been blocked by IP location, but also by your behavior. I'm not an admin, but even they have recognized you and blocked you. Blame yourself or them, not me. If you edit from one account and are cooperative, you'll do fine here, but I suspect you lack the ability or maturity. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Just more incivility from you. Again. Just leave me alone. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The harassment continues despite your help I have warned User:BullRangifer on his talk page one more time.[[3]] Thank you.174.118.141.197 (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That's the problem with using a dynamic IP. It automatically causes what may be good editors to violate our sockpuppetry policy by "evading the scrutiny of other editors." Just follow the advice on the template on your user page and create an account. You get more privacy, powers, rights, tools, etc.. You have nothing to lose and a whole lot to gain. If you are a good editor, you have nothing to fear. You could be gaining a good reputation here, instead of suffering the indignity of being lumped together with the majority of vandals and others who use IPs. Not all IPs are vandals, but most vandals are IPs. Note that I am NOT accusing you of being a vandal at all. If you had an account, none of this would be happening. Why people choose the masochistic path is beyond me, when they could have a much more enjoyable and fruitful experience here. No one is trying to prevent you from editing. You have a very legitimate option which also prevents you from living in perpetual violation of policy. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"You have a very legitimate option which also prevents you from living in perpetual violation of policy." What policy is being violated by editing as an IP?

"If you had an account, none of this would be happening.". If you were not harassing me none of this would be happening and is not related to IP editing at all.

Your texts above indicate such severe prejudice against IP editors you can't even make a logical argument anymore. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion

The discussion on your talk page above has made mention of the discussion here regarding BullRangifer's actions. [[4]] Thank you. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Wingard is back... AGAIN!

I have re-opened their sockpuppet case for the umpteenth time! here. Any help you could give would be appreciated. This is beyond ridiculous. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 23:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). Already blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

A task for 7SeriesBOT

Can you wander of to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_bot?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm already there :-) ES&L 16:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh you, you...sockmaster. ;-) At least I know now.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild

I've had to disengage from interactions with User:Thewolfchild again for issues on Talk:Aircraft carrier, again. I let the situation escalate instead of withdrawing, and that's on me. I'm considering filing an ANI, but it may take several days, as I have a severe infection, unless Nick T or someone else beats me to it. I thought you should know. - BilCat (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw that. Good idea to self-impose an WP:IB there for now, until you're ready to file. If I were you, I'd also keep your "evidence" off-wiki for now, lest you be accused of NPA's or something ridiculous like that ES&L 11:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. I'm not sure if I'll file at this time or not. I know my own behavior hasn't been exemplary in this situation either. We'll see what happens next. I am sorry that User:The Bushranger got dragged into this again for defending me. He doesn't deserve that. - BilCat (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

TWC misunderstands Wikipedia policy so badly, that they bring out the worst in people. For example, they wrongly accused you of an NPA IIRC, and then removed a warning from their talkpage when they were advised of such. That's petty, and 180 degrees against what the whole damned community has been trying to teach them. ES&L 11:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries; stuff happens. (Interestingly he completely reversed the order of events in this in obvious spin...)- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

And now this. The hounding needs to stop. - BilCat (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Arb

Doesn't scare me :) Glad you're running. --regentspark (comment) 22:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

LOL ... thanks. That might be the oddest "nomination statement" I have ever made in my life. I'm very glad you're in the mix (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

+1. Toddst1 (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As someone who ran because no one else was at the time, I hope you appreciate the gravity of your situation :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I do recognize it ... and it's not a lark by any means. However, it also is not something I have ever desired/perceived as a "goal" in my Wikipedia career. Like everything else in my life, if it succeeds, I'll work my ass off for it. I hope you recognize that people like myself do appreciate that you stepped in where a gaping hole had existed ES&L 00:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You've never done it before? It's even more fun than RFA. I wind up doing it every year just because I look at the group that will wind up on Arbcom if I don't run and shudder.—Kww(talk) 05:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind admitting that he has my support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I would ever stop laughing if you, me, and Kww all got in. -Beeblebrox (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Apology

FWIW, I have to apologize for already including my opinion on my guide. While I still hold the same concerns about your candidacy as I posted, I do not believe that it was entirely fair to post it before giving you a chance to answer the questions.

You are welcome to answer the questions if you choose to, in the event that other people want to see them, and I will still read them and comment on my guide about the answers, though I probably won't change my opinion due to the nature of the concerns. Because of that, if you choose not to answer them, I will understand that too. --Rschen7754 05:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this, you can imagine my surprise to find your "decision" made when I had only made 1 response - it did remove from the objectivity that you typically have in your guides. Yes, it stings that your "concerns" are 180 degrees away from reality, and that concerns me more from a personal perspective than anything else: in other words, my reasonable name being smeared by someone who had a grudge and expressed themself and picked their diffs carefully. As you're someone I respect, I not-so-rhetorically ask "how does one fix that".

In the long run, however, there's an old adage about "the kind of thinking that got you into the mess will not help get you out of the mess" - as the theme of my statement says, perhaps it's a slight shake-up that ArbCom needs ... many on this project believe that the sheep aren't leading us into green meadows, so replacing sheep with more sheep isn't going to help. ES&L 10:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I know all about grudges... check out WP:CUOS2013 (specifically my nomination), and compare the list of candidates with the results. That's what happens when you say things that may be right, but are just unpopular. And I do think that you mean well, and have the right motives.

With that being said, some of your comments have come off as a bit rude to some people, and some people have been genuinely offended. The fact that a few guide writers have picked up on some of your comments, and specifically different instances (most of them before or unrelated to the PumpkinSky block), shows that this doesn't seem to just be an isolated instance or opinion. People tend to be very harsh on arbitrator decorum after last year. As a functionary/arbitrator, you have to be extremely careful about what you say - we know what happened with "not a Wikipedian" and "PETTY FASCIST IDIOT". Even as an administrator, it's hard for people to take you seriously if others are criticizing you on what they perceive to be failure to follow the civility policy.

Even if you perceive the accusations are unfair, I think it would help if you did not give the accusers anything to latch onto. I do think that if you took a little bit more time to write your comments, and knew when to hold back, it would go a long way (and it's more than just staying away from "f-bombs"). There's usually a balance of diplomacy and tact that is appropriate; you want your comments to be taken seriously, yet you want to be respectful in the process. It's not easy, and I miss that occasionally. Again, you may not see a need to, but if there are significant numbers of well-respected people concerned over your comments, it may be something that you reluctantly have to do.

Would your problems disappear overnight? Probably not, but IMHO over a period of time where you showed restraint, things would get better. Even years after my screwups (1 and 2) I still can't get CU here, but oh well, things are at least better.

I've also found that a complete break from Wikipedia helped me in 2010 - no watchlist checks, no alternate account, no logging in, no editing for at least a month. Unfortunately, that break came too late, after I got into a nasty argument with my roads colleagues, ragequit, and made a complete fool of myself at ANI a few months before.

Oh, and on a side note, I've been unhappy with certain things ArbCom has been doing (specifically with private information and functionary management), but I think the current crop of candidates will bring about a bit of a shakeup.

Anyway, this was longer than what I wanted it to be, and it borders on the sort of ramblings I write at 3:30 AM, but hope it helps you understand my (and others') perspective. --Rschen7754 11:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your block of Epicgenius...

...for editing warring on my talk page, he's still editing (not on my talk page) as of 10 minutes ago using his alternate account Epicfailure 2. [5] He seems to know that he shouldn't be doing it, because that edit was to remove the note on his talk page that it was an alternate account of Epicgenius, so he was trying to cover his tracks. (Of course, it still says that on the user page).

He also has another account, Ef alt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, never mind, he's editing his own talk page, forget it. Still, it might be a good idea to point out to him that the block is for the person and not for the account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Do, however, tslk a look at User talk:Epicfailure 2, it's a bit wierd. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I thought that, considering what Epicfailure was writing on his talk page now, that he might or might not be Epicgenius, that I had perhaps jumped to conclusions, but here's Epicfailure 2 requesting rollback, and claiming to be Epicgenius: [6] and here's Epicgenius confirming that they are the same person: [7]; here's Ef alt claiming to be an alternate account of Epicgenius: [8] and here's Epicgenius confirming that they are the same person: [9]. So, despite Epicgenius writing on Epicfailure 2's talk page that Epicfailure 2 "COULD be Epicgenius or it could be one of his friends (or not!) fucking around with the account", his own statements affirm that Epicfailure 2 and Ef alt are alternate accounts of Epicgenius. Nothing wrong with that, of course, unless Epicgenius attempts to use these account to circumvent his block, or denies that there is a connection betwen the accounts, which us avoiding scrutiny, and a violation of the socking policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

So, Epicgenius has now tagged the Epicfailure 2 user page -- the one that still says that it is an alternate account to Epicgenius -- for speedy deletion, so he does appear to be taking steps to hide the relationship between the two accounts. This is after using the relationship to get rollback for Epicfailure 2. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I am placing BMK's report of Epicfailure 2 back on this talk page due to possible accounts of sock puppeting and bock evasion by Epicgenius as evidenced in the edit histories of the following two articles' edit histories:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=R32_(New_York_City_Subway_car)&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=R42_(New_York_City_Subway_car)&action=history

Fan Railer (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I rather wish you hadn't undone my deletion here, but it is true that Epicfailure 2 is Epicgenius (by his own admission in the diffs above), and that Epicfailure 2 made several hundred edits today, which is blatant block evasion on a massive scale. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) To be fair, Epicfailure 2 hasn't edited since Canterbury Tail extended the block a week for evasion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. It is sometimes hard to keep track of edits made by a blocked user with another account especially when edits are as numerous and recent as they are in this case.Fan Railer (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

@WritKeeper - Is that so? I hadn't correlated the times between those events. Nevertheless, Epicfailure 2 should be blocked just as Ep alt was.

Epicgenius clearly knew that he wasn't supposed to use his socks for editing while blocked, or he wouldn't have edited the Epicfailure 2 talk page to downplay the connection, had the Epicfailure 2 user page speedy-deleted to remove the connection that was there, and then tried to remove the connection from Epicgenius' user page using Ef alt, with an edit summary that said somethng like "Stop f****ing lying, I'm not Epicgenius". All of that is clear evidence that Epicgenius was attempting to disconnect from his alternate accounts so that he could use them to edit with.

The thing about Epicgenius is that I think he's well-meaning, and he may, overall, be a net-positive to the project, but he makes a lot of little mistakes, doesn't react well when he's corrected, and has exceedingly poor judgment. As I said elsewhere today, I don't think extending his block even more would be as effective as having an admin read him the riot act, restrict him to one account, and take away his semi-automated tools. He works much too fast to be giving any real thought to what he's doing, which exacerbates the problem of his poor judgment. He needs to slow down (something that Pburka told him just yesterday) and give real consideration to his edits, this isn't a race that he has to "finish". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:, I'm truly contrite regarding the alternative accounts. However, semi-automated software like STiki allows me to revert vandalism extremely quickly, sometimes at 10 edits per minute. Post on my talk page if you have any questions; you are no longer banned from my talk page. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 18:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedian in community notice

Dear DangerousPanda/Archive 13

As a Wikipedian interested in African subjects and specifically Cote d’Ivoire, we thought you might be interested in the following opportunity.

WikiAfrica is looking for a Wikipedian in Community from Cote d’Ivoire to play a pivotal role in its Kumusha Takes Wiki project. This might be a position that you would consider. Or it could be the perfect opportunity for someone you know from this country, please spread the word! For more details, please look at this page: (Redacted)

If you have any questions about the above, please contact isla on (Redacted) : Isla Haddow (talk)

I'm not sure how might have pegged me for being interested in Uganda, and canvassing people on Wikipedia to go to an off-wiki website is wholly inappropriate. ES&L 11:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Bwilkins,

Excuse me for the inconvenience, it should have been Cote d’Ivoire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanpauldelange (talk • contribs) 11:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom elections

Congratulations on not being elected -- you get to maintain your sanity for at least another year! :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was more than 100% successful in my primary goal ... and will appreciate my sanity more as the months go on! ES&L 09:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice

A Season of Forgiveness - an Olive Branch

Across many faiths, and in many countries, it's a season of friendship, family, celebration and forgiveness. Throughout this year, I have been unfortunately involved in a number of on-wiki "altercations". To those involved, please know that there has never been an intent to demean, belittle, attack, or anger you. However, through either my actions, or the wording I have used, I have offended and/or angered a number of you, my on-wiki colleagues and fellow human beings. For this, I apologize profusely and sincerely. For most of you, we have been able to resolve these communucation challenges together - however, there are number of you where this was unfortunately not possible. In a very small number of those cases the situation escalated to a point where I requested that you no longer post here on my talkpage. In the interest of personal peace, and in the spirit of true forgiveness, I rescind any such limitations. May we take this opportunity to work peacefully together towards the common goal of open knowledge for all   (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

...but in 2014 it's game on. I like this. I don't think we've fought, but I know we've seriously annoyed each other on occasion. I'll work on that too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

My calendar skips 2014...probably because it's in base 9 :-P I consider you one of the good ones, and if we've "annoyed" each other, I'm 100% certain it's because you and I had the best interests of everyone at heart, just different views on the best way forward in a specific situation. Cheers! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Well said. N^oformation ^Talk 06:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• I think that, indeed, it's time to leave things in the past. I know that I was the one who started with the wrong foot with you back in July 2012, and I apologize. I was a bit much immature and made comments and actions I sort of regret, and for that I apologize (again). I hope that we can have a normal wikifriendship from now on, even when we have our differences on a couple of things, but that's usual :) Now, about my guide. I want to make clear that it has no personal views of me about the candidate out of their suitability for ArbCom, so don't think these comments are directed at you as a person, but as a candidate. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• While I know that this announcement doesn't cover me (we haven't interacted that much and as far as I can remember, those interactions were positive), I would like to say that this is an incredibly generous gesture and something I'd like to see more people do; it's awesome to see someone make an outreach like this. Thank you for it. Best of wishes to you, Bwilkins, for this season and beyond. Acalamari 18:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:COIN#Michael Mic Neumann

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:COIN#Michael Mic Neumann. You were involved in a prior discussion about that user. -- Lexein (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, the matter was closed soon after this was posted. --Lexein (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Thanks! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Cyberpower678

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

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

—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 22:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cyber...hope your Christmas was blessed! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It was thanks.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year

I know it's a little late to wish you a Merry Christmas (I hope your Christmas went well), but anyway, have a happy new year. Epicgenius (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It's never too late (especially considering that many people celebrate Christmas on January 6 - not me, but many). I hope yours was good, and that you have a safe New Year ES&L 10:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy 2014 from Cyberpower678

—cyberpower _Online^{Happy 2014} — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—cyberpower _Online^{Happy 2014} 00:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Bwilkins

Pratyya ^(Hello!) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Too much for my small brain

I was just getting used to the schizoid nature of ES&L and Bwilkins. You've now added a third personality. I'm already confused enough. You're clearly doing this to persecute me. --Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'm replacing Bwilkins. It'll be fine, mon ami ES&L 09:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Will this redirect to User:Ailuropoda melanoleuca infestus, for alliteration's sake wouldn't User:Ailuropoda melanoleuca melancholia be less sad.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This brought a smile to my day

If you just read your username and the one of the person making the edit in here you get a viable edit to the panda article. It works even better when reading my watchlist (and yours for that matter) since they are right next to each other. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 16:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

May I bring your attention to...

this? BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Block extended

Hello most dangerous one,

I extended the block you made on IP 103.9.114.58 as it's still being used exclusively for block evasion. My last three month block had just expired on the 21st and low and behold the sock was back making the same edits and throwing around the same personal attacks the very next day.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

...and now extended to 1 year by JamesBWatson.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No issues. I was merely watching a overly-full AIV pool and decided to step carefully in ES&L 10:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For helpful Advice. Qlalet505 (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Response to Harassment by Uyvsdi

Hi, I feel that your response to my statements of harassment by Uyvsdi was inappropriate:

>>>"Wow. Not sure why 14.x is communicating with people using edit-summaries, but they sure have posted some doozies that could lead to a block. Thanks for bringing those to our attention" DP 14:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)<<<

I think that's pretty obviously an unreasonable, poorly considered, immaturely rendered statement, and due to the lack of balance probably ought to be escalated to the next level up. If nothing else, claims of harassment and Wikilawyering should be taken seriously, not treated with contempt. I have posted nothing that should lead to a block, and nothing I have posted will lead to a block. If it did somehow lead to a block, it would be to the disadvantage of Wikipedia, and not to me, because I have spent a lot of valuable time editing articles, and have tried to be polite, respectful, and balanced while doing so, though I admit I have made mistakes. I did not make this complaint lightly, and I repeatedly warned the offender before making the complaint. I want to know why you, as someone responsible for dealing with complaints such as this, is choosing to deal with it in this irresponsible and unbalanced manner. I suspect bias on your part due to Uyvsdi being a "named" user. Please apologize for the wording of your statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.145.148 (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope. It has nothing to do with anyone being a "named user" - I edited as an IP for awhile before creating my account. What it has to do with is the inexcusably inappropriate edit-summaries you were using. Some examples:

• this edit and it's summary "Deleting a bullshit reference and replacing it with a legitimate one"

You lost all credibility in your complaint with that one DP 00:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

What, swearing on Wikipedia is illegal now? Link me to the page that says that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.145.148 (talk) 09:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

As I have said for years, "someone else's incivility or actions may explain your own, but it will never excuse it". Failing to keep a cool head escalated a situation. Besides, you've yet to show any diff's that prove harassment, and without those diffs, the claim is considered to be a personal attack. I certainly didn't mean to anger you, but you're not proving a case, and instead you're making a case against yourself, which I'm certain you did not mean to do DP 10:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

PC2

Welcome to my world :) (Seriously, this kind of thing seems to happen to me a lot.) Jc wasn't enthusiastic to start with and hasn't edited since January, and Kevin has dropped out. Still ... it looks doable to me. I've found people to be pretty forgiving with big RfCs; just do what you can in a reasonable time frame, and feel free to punt on some questions, if you think the voters didn't provide enough information for you to make the call. Let me know if I can help. - Dank (push to talk) 17:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. That wasn't a dig at Jc, just commiseration with your situation 2 days ago ... glad to see you've got 3 again. - Dank (push to talk) 15:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

PC2 RfC closing

(cc to User:Jc37 and User:DangerousPanda) Hi, since I just now saw the call go out, I was wondering if you guys had considered how to go about closing the PC2 RFC? As I said on the talk page, I'm just now starting to look at the !votes, and have no opinion of my own on the merits. Pakaran 03:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for userifying User:Geo Swan/Flyway Film Festival Geo Swan (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I added some references, and moved it to article space. I looked at the discussions at the film wikiproject, and I think the nominator was premature. Geo Swan (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Accounts

Please stick to one account in a given discussion e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sopher99 00:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. And when you think about why, you'll kick yourself. DP 00:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Ersroitasent

Hi DP, assuming they are happy with me reviewing the block and have acceptable answers to the questions I intend to ask. It looks like the main issues with Ersroitasent are all related to WP:ARBPIA so I'm considering one of the following sanctions depending on their answers:

• 0RR restriction
• Ban from editing all articles (not talk pages)
• Topic ban

How does that sound to you?

Though if they don't come up with answers which demonstrate an understanding of what edit warring is, how to avoid it and why I won't unblock. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

My biggest concern is that they have no clue what a long-term edit-war is .. let alone 3RR, 1RR, or 0RR! In other words, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD mean <0 DP 23:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

They're a confirmed sock so I've declined the request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me guess ... their original account(s) was blocked for (ta daaaaah): breaking some form of 0RR/1RR restriction? DP 11:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix

I feel you are being extremely heavy handed by giving me an edit warring charge or appearance of edit warring charge. It is pretty obvious from a little observation that the Hendrix article is tightly controlled by several people that in general do a good job of editing and caring for it. However the writing quality is not always so good on it. It uses kind of a convoluted writing which ends up being a little precious and sounds to honorific. I reverted back to an edit I made. That is not edit warring. I request that you remove the warning from my page. You can respond here I will watch this page for a day or two. There is no point in working up some state of ill will with this article. A new person should be able to come in and edit the article without being confronted if the edits are improving. The other person blanket reverted some good edits. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if improving and based on WP:CONSENSUS, then you're right, we do welcome edits by new editors on any article. The basic rule is this: if you make an edit and it's reverted, you may NEVER re-make the same or similar edit until you have discussed it on the article talkpage in order to obtain new consensus. DP 23:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

O.k. but I still request you remove the warning from my talk page this time. I feel ganged up on by a very small circle on that article and this is my way of trying to open the article by discussing this issue with you. I also have to say that my edit was then immediately partially restored by the person that blanket reverted it. That was done without an edit summary so they acknowledged with out credit that the edit was superior https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jimi_Hendrix&diff=next&oldid=595607642 and that was not really an even handed fair way of doing it. This tells me that the article is too tightly controlled and that is not healthy for the article. I won't threaten to take it off my watch list but if the article becomes impenetrable with a coterie of users then it takes the fun out of it. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed the article from my watch list and will not be interacting there anytime soon for the above reasons. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to remove the warning - it's tacit acceptance of it being read when you do so. You were edit-warring as per policy, and as such, the warning was valid. You were failing to establish new consensus through discussion. Your recent discussion on that talkpage was a general "about recent edits" as opposed to proposing new wording for something in order to encourage discussion - instead, your attitude there was "my edits rock, so screw off you bunch of losers" - which is no way to get anything done either in real life, or in the community of Wikipedia (yes; community - something you agreed to when you created a userid). You'll note something important: I personally have never edited the Hendrix page - my warning was as a neutral 3rd party who reviewed a series of edits by a number of editors. I have no horse in the Hendrix race - so you most certainly cannot accuse me of bullying, ganging up on, or otherwise being a part of any controlling element: I'm just a neutral admin. DP 11:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"my edits rock, so screw off you bunch of losers" - which is no way to get anything done either in real life, or in the community of Wikipedia, that is not fair for you to say. It was a bad experience editing there. Now you are a bad experience to run up against also. I made one mistake by re-adding an edit accidentally and was jumped on by the people that are focused so tightly there. It is engendering ill will for you to mentally paraphrase my attitude inaccurately. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It's very fair, because it's exactly what you did - all your edits are available to be seen, plain as day. It's impossible to deny your edits - your intent might have been different, but the image of what you were doing speaks far more loudly. I wish you luck as you continue your Wikipedia journey - you have much to learn DP 01:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I really loved the last part of your reply here. gsk 18:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

EasyTherePilgrim, Fightcats & Golden Prime

Hi DP I am aware that you are the administrator who reviewed the block appeal by EasyTherePilgrim. I just came across some new information that proves the following 3 accounts that recently made nonconstructive edits to our Tiger versus lion are all related - they are EasyTherePilgrim, Fightcats & Golden Prime. I just posted my findings on Callanecc's [talk page] as he was the original administrator who investigated the sock puppetry of Golden Prime, and I think you may want to take a look. Thanks! BigCat82 (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Daan0001

Is competency the issue here? —Soham 13:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, that's yet to be seen. DP 17:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay. —Soham 08:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for Creating a article with title "Isrg Rajan"

Hi! DangerousPanda, Through this I would like to request you for creating an article entitled Isrg Rajan.
Thank you!
Iraag (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course not. Nor should anyone. Please don't do this again DP 09:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

A message with regards to the Adminisrators notice board

I am required to inform you that I have made a formal complaint to the administrators notice boardCowhen1966 (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, DP, our friend Cowhen1966 started a thread on ANI involving you. Also, he has threatened to commit suicide. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 22:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Be careful, saying "our friend" sounds a wee bit sarcastic :-) I would rather continue to treat User:Cowhen1966 with the same level of respect that I have since day 1 - I have taken the high road in all interactions; it's Cowhen who has attacked me DP 09:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Mathematically impossible

I think this suggests the close was premature [10]. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, but meh. DP 00:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Render unto arbcom

Bad idea [11] -- I suggest you revert and simply let the arbcom clerks take care of it. (You're right, of course, that it is stupid and disruptive, but wp:deny is the way to go here). NE Ent 12:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Seemed like a good idea at the time. Taken a life of its own since DP 00:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Doubt

Do you not think that if I want a new edition war I don't need help? I need help because I didn't cause the war and I am treated as if I had caused. I don't understand why when I make a change, the previous version is priority and I can't touch it without speak with the other user and when I defended the previous version the change is the priority and I can't make nothing. Can you explain me this, please?--EeuHP (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You're only permitted to make the same edit once. Period. Otherwise, you're edit-warring. Read WP:DR as instructed, as this seems to be a problem of yours on quite a few other articles too DP 00:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't answer me. Why when I defend a change and other user defend the previous version, the previous version should prevail? And why in the opposite situation, the change should prevail? If I do something, I'm bad. If I do the other thing, too. Why? And, please, don't use my "shady past" as a reason. I only say that if the previous version should prevail until the consensus, Lecen is wrong.--EeuHP (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I did answer. However, the longer version: I don't know anything about your past, other that a quick review of some of the articles you've edit-warred on. You're right, it's not fair. WP:BRD is the way it's supposed to go. Well, sometimes someone does BRR instead. There may or may not be good reasons - for example, if wp:CONSENSUS has already been recently established, they may have a right to Revert a second time. However, in most cases, you have to take the high road and actually follow WP:DR - don't be dumb enough to get suckered into an edit-war because you're then just as guilty of edit-warring, no matter whether you're right or not. DP 00:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The image that I defend was put by user The Emperor's New Spy in 2011 and Srnec change it one month ago. Why he will find a consensus if Lecen gives him the reason all the time without explanations? He left the dialogue in my talk page when I was locked.--EeuHP (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Final time: WP:DR. 'Nuf said. DP 01:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

In less then 24 hours EeuHP did [this https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Peter_III_of_Aragon&diff=596987585&oldid=592853856] and this. I know where this heading to and I'm interested in being part of. EeuHP is unable to understand how this encyclopedia works and the talk page discussion he opened (which has been mocked by another editor) is merely an excuse to force his way. I believe he should understand the proper form. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

userfy

Please userfy Edge on the Net, this is the world's only and largest LGBT news network. I'm convinced there are archived Internet sources available, as well as inside industry reports, and possibly reviews on their world-only LGBT news apps. i hope to add these and relaunch the article in time. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ultimatae ?

The plural of ultimatum is ultimata. Interestingly, this is the second Latin correction I have posted in a week, and I don't recall any previous Latin corrections that I have posted to Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps in Latin, but in English, the plural of "ultimatum" is "ultimatums", or, alternately, "ultimata". BMK (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

My point was that DangerousPanda had proposed that an editor be admonished for issuing ultimatae. The plural of 'ultimatum' in Latin is 'ultimata', not 'ultimatae'. The plural in English is 'ultimatums' or 'ultimata', as BMK said. In any case, DP's plural was incorrect, but the error was not worth a minnow, let alone a trout. However, cooking and eating a trout is sometimes a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Question

I don't know if you remember me much, but I reached out to you many times in the past under my old username, ТимофейЛееСуда. You've been very helpful to me many times, and I thank you for that. In my recent successful RfA, I promised to be opened to recall with specific terms similar to User:TParis/Recall. Before I make any edits that require the mop, I wanted to cement my own recall process, including a list of editors who can specifically call for the recall of my administrative rights. Due to my high level of respect for you and your opinion, I wanted to know if I could include you on said list. Thanks, -- TLSuda (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm honoured that you would consider me. Yes, I would happily be on that list (and happier if we never have to go there!) DP 21:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope that it never comes to that, but I feel that if I surround myself with level-headed smart people, I'm more likely to be stopped and trout'd before I make a mistake. -- TLSuda (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing me

Thank you for reviewing me. If you don't mind may I know the cause of your review? IN Panda 16:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't review you ... I reviewed the new userpage you had created, and it met the standards. DP 16:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah! I am taking about that. Once again thanks! a lot take care. IN Panda 17:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

May I copy the style of your signature, if you don't mind? I really liked it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndianPanda (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears you already have. You need to remember to always sign your talkpage posts with ~~~~ DP 17:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!!! IN Panda 17:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Everything's Rosie

Hi,

I recently created a page for Everything's Rosie TV Series but I believe it was taken down.

I have copied the page to my user page, would it be possible to review this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FlyingFeatherette

Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingFeatherette (talk • contribs) 09:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

First, what makes it notable according to Wikipedia's standards? (hint:nothing so far) Second, every other word is an adjective ... describes characters as "playful", etc. This type of WP:PUFFERY is unacceptable in an encyclopedia. That's just a start  :-) DP 09:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I have amended the text for the page and taken out the WP:PUFFERY. With regard to it being notable, the subject in question is a popular children's TV show in the UK and Europe. FlyingFeatherette (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Compare what you have there to something like Wonder Pets...that's a fairly good example of something you could be emulating. There's still a lot on your draft that needs trimming DP 18:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for the advice, I have adjusted the page along the lines of Wonder Pets

Thanks FlyingFeatherette (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Confirmation request

Good Evening! DangerousPanda, I would like to request you for confirming me. If possible please confirm me because currently I am unable to upload images on Wikipedia. Although I have left a request for confirmation on Requests for permissions/Confirmed INPanda 17:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Please don't try forum shopping. Users should very rarely be uploading image to Wikipedia, as they primarily go to Commons, as per the answer at WP:RFPC. You MUST show advanced knowledge of the image use policy and WP:COPYRIGHT before uploading anything, anywhere DP 21:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear DangerousPanda, Editing, uploading, contributing on Wikipedia is not a rocket science. Please don't misuse your rights. I know you are operating multiple accounts on Wikipedia and yes there no copyright violation, but I have also noticed that you are representing different characters and yes that is a copyright violation. Please stop it and yes I must say that you are annoying minor and new editors on Wikipedia with the help of your multiple accounts. INPanda ^Talk 16:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You're correct; this place isn't rocket science. We expect new editors to at least listen to sage advice. When I first began, I edited as an IP address for awhile in order to learn how to progress. There is nothing wrong, illegal, or contrary to policy/process about my use of alternate accounts. I have a primary account, User:DangerousPanda that has administrator rights, and many many thousands of edits. As per WP:SOCK#LEGIT, I also have a secondary account - User:EatsShootsAndLeaves. That account does not have admin rights, and I typically use it on either non-secured internet connections, or areas where I do not intend to use my admin responsibilities. I also have a number of WP:BOT-related accounts, which are all listed on my user page as per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. I am most definitely NOT "representing different characters", nor acting in any way that violates any policy. I appreciate that you have FINALLY attempted to discuss issues with me directly - that is a requirement whenever you're having a conflict with another editor. Please click and read the links I have provided so that you can better understand Wikipedia policies so that your confusion and concerns are lessened ES&L 16:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It may be possible that I am wrong, but I think this talk page is stating "different characters". Please don't mind. Well, this is not my issue you may ignore it. INPanda ^Talk 16:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean then by "different characters"? I am always the exact same person no matter which account I am using. I never act differently. Both accounts have their own talkpage, and I answer both with whichever account I'm signed into based on network reliability. Could you define what you mean by "different characters" because I'm truly at a loss as to what you mean? ES&L 17:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thread is Monopoly on Wikipedia.Blethering Scot 19:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For assuming good faith beyond the call of duty! Theroadislong (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Haitian patty

Hello, DangerousPanda. This may be nothing, but it appears that Haitian patty was deleted on or about 17 February (according to this) and then re-created on 6 March. I don't see an AfD discussion, so maybe it was deleted by CSD or PROD. I happen to remember that the page existed before 6 March because I nominated a non-free image from the page for deletion back in February. As I say, it might be nothing of importance, but I wondered if something strange was going on, and lack the admin tools to look into it on my own. Cnilep (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

From the log: 13:41, February 14, 2014 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Haitian patty (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement) DP 01:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

...and having reviewed the "source" and that article, it still massively violates WP:COPYRIGHT - that's even closer than a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE DP 01:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it and taking care of the problem. Cheers, Cnilep (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Help

You are right I am getting hurry. Please help me with some good guidance in exploring the Wikipedia and editing it without any conflicts. I also assures you that I will follow your commands. I am sorry about the spellings and grammar errors, actually I contribute using Opera mini in BlackBerry 8530 . ♪♫•*¨*• .¸¸wOWINdia^talk 17:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Number 1: stick to one account, and one account only. Your random switching between accounts that don't seem to be legitimate is odd. There's nothing in WP:SOCK#LEGIT that legitimizes your 2 accounts.

Number 2: only welcome users who have edited. We have a wide range of welcome templates, each of which typically has a reason behind it - for example, a user who tries to create images as {{Welcome-image}}. On top of that, since the Welcome template encourages them to contact you if they have questions, you do not have the knowledge to respond to them ... so in about 1000 more edits, you might be "qualified" to answer/welcome people

Number 3: slow down! Wikipedia is a huge learning curve. You've now made 3 poorly-planned admin-type postings (two at Teahouse, one at ANI), and now been the subject of an admin noticeboard filing - this is all 100% due to your lack of knowledge/experience.

I'll think of more. DP 17:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

DP, did you ever stop to consider that you're possibly just being troll'd here. Elizium23 (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm in WP:AGF mode :-) DP 18:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you DP for being Wikipedia:AGF. Well after thinking a lot I have decided to stick to only & only single account i.e. User:WOWIndian. If possible please shift my contributions to my account, User:WOWIndian and close the recent created account i.e. User:IndianPanda. ♪♫•*¨*• .¸¸wOWINdia^talk 14:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately we cannot merge contributions or delete accounts. Linking and redirecting one to the other was wise...besides, you never know, a few years from now you might need a valid alternate account :-) ES&L 16:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Lea Michele

Hey there, you previously pending-change protected Lea Michele a little over a year ago. Given the article doesn't receive that much attention, compared to what it used to... I think it's safe to remove that. What are your thoughts? Gloss • talk 23:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

There were IP-based issues 2 days ago, and plenty of edits per month ... I'd say PC is still doing its job DP 09:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL

Just fucking delete my account, get the point. —Orestes1984 (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You're smart enough to know that we cannot delete accounts on this project. You don't want to edit, then simply go away ... that is how you "delete an account". So, "get the point" yourself DP 15:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Review request

I have nominated Enquirykaro and Wisdom IT Services India Pvt Ltd for speedy deletion as it was seems to be an advertisements masquerading as articles. And it should not be ignored that the main contributors User:Enquirykaro and User:Jobsmate has been blocked from further edition, please review it as soon as possible and take the necessary action. Thank you! (take care ) WOWIndian ^Talk 09:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

No urgency. One of my colleagues with the tools will deal with it. DP 09:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding recent events

Hello there. I wanted to let you know of this discussion on my talk page. It appears that the reasons for User:Mark Marathon's (MM) block are a bit unclear to user Anthonyhcole, and given that I asked him to apologize to me for some comments he made about me at the AN and on MM's page, and he did, I believe it appropriate for me to follow through on my side and consider his requests as stated at my talk page. Upon said consideration, I do not think it appropriate for me to take a position for or against unblocking Mr. Marathon, but I DO think it would be helpful if you could clarify if there were reasons for Mr. Marathon's block other than the dispute between him and myself at Rangeland and the ensuing AN, and if so, what they were. Would that be possible? Thank you either way, and best wishes. Montanabw^(talk) 05:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I've read Mark Marathon's page. I replied there more than once. Have you see that? DP 09:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I did. However, Anthonyhcole seems to believe that MM was blocked solely due to his edits at Rangeland, while I read your comments "The statement in the block log, and a very quick perusal of the recent edits are blatantly obvious" to indicate that other behavior besides placing tags may have been a factor? At my talk, Anthonyhcole first demanded (rudely), but now apologized (pretty much) for his behavior and politely requested that I suggest that MM be unblocked. RexxS suggested that if MM expressed a suitable reassurance as to future behavior, that could do the trick. However, I do not want to interfere with your legitimate admin action, and I did become rather irritated at MM in the matter, so I lack objectivity in this case. Thus, I was just wondering if you could help us all out with a wee bit further clarification so as to assist me in getting back on the high road and decide my next steps. ;-) . Montanabw^(talk) 20:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, IIRC it was those edits I was speaking of that led to the block. Anthony's complaint was that I had either a) read the 3RR report and acted on only 1 side, or b) that I was in some kind of friendship collusion. I even confirmed to Anthony that it was "recent changes" review that drew me to the block. I also searched out the 3RR report and clarified just that, and that someone else could issue additional blocks as required since I had not reviewed your actions. From my review of MM's page, my last post there was the end of the story ... not even sure why there was any need to rehash at this time DP 09:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your most gracious clarification. I hope this also answers Anthonyhcole's questions as well. Given that you were acting solely on MM's actions, standing alone, I believe my inquiry has concluded. I see no reason to respond further. It's a thankless job to be an admin, your efforts are appreciated. Montanabw^(talk) 02:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Full Protection

I see you have protected the article Total Siyapaa fully. I think it was not necessary especially when the duo have stopped and are engaging in discussion on talk. —Soham (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Extremely sorry. I see the "Persistent spamming" comment now. —Soham (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Panda, can you instead block the spammer instead of fully protecting the article? Or at least reduce the protection time a bit? —Soham (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

There were multiple dynamic IP's, so no. Also, there's a way of requesting edits to a protected article in the meantime. DP 15:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Needed help

Hi Panda, there is this one user, Ibnebatutaji who I think might be a paid adovate. The article's talk page got an edit request— to include negative reviews for the film, it includes few reliable sources too otherwise I would have not bothered. This edit request on the talk page is getting removed by Ibnebatutaji with edit summaries that allege sock-puppetry and he hasn't proved it. So if you could please help. Thanks. —Soham (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Need to clarify myself

Hi, i need to clarify myself for my future edits as I do not want and neither intend get into blocks.

• My questions I was Blocked for 2 weeks period and no one responded for my unblock request within 2 weeks period. Why?
• My edit on [12] adding upcoming project Happy New Year (2014 film) got me into block or rather any other future project which i had included on pages got number of warnings. In this discussion [13] User TheRedPenOfDoom was the only person (who I know made the request for my block) I've seen still keeping on removing the content on ONLY Indian film actors pages. This is the current discussion regard the same. [14] Could you please clarify me where I should stand. Because I do not want to get into any blocks again for adding a project with reliable source. Many Thanks. Daan0001 (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• The fact that nobody responded to your unblock request is likely twofold. First, there are possibly few admins currently reviewing unblock requests - we're all volunteers. Secondly, your unblock request was not even WP:GAB-compliant, and could not have been accepted. See WP:NOTTHEM specifically, as the moment you start blaming or mentioning other editors in YOUR unblock request, it's likely to fail.
• You haven't linked to the right spot on WP:AIV, and I'm not going to go digging. You were reported for vandalism, and vandalism can take many forms. I carefully review the actions leading to the report, based on the concerns raised AND typically look at the edits of others at the same time. I CAN tell you that this warning was bogus. It was a tit-for-tat warning because YOU didn't like being warned for your actions - that's unacceptable at any time, and would have added to the length of the block in most cases. You even edit-warred on HIS page to keep it there: again, wrong and unacceptable. You then went on a streak of removing sourced figures without a single kb of discussion on the article talkpage. So, again, without reviewing the original report, there are a half-dozen reasons for your block - I guess I'm surprised it was such a short one, considering that it's your third block DP 17:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate your response. Would you please clarify to me, if I am to follow according to this discussion? [15] Any movie with a realiable source which have started filming can be added to actors filmography? Regard my three blocks mentioned they were all due to adding movies with reliable sources to actors filmography. So I would want to prevent any other in future. Thanks Daan0001 (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Guidance needed.

DangerousPanda I would like to have more rights on Wikipedia, since most of the new editors/ users kept on dominating stating newbie* newbie*, how far it is true that a editor for more or less than 1 year cannot nominate a page under WP:CSD? WOWॐIndian ^Talk 12:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing that technically prevents you from appropriately nominating an article for CSD, as long as it meets the strict conditions for each category. New users certainly need to spend a lot of time learning a) those conditions, b) when CSD cannot be used, and in fact the entire set of deletion processes. Have you been unable to tag something for CSD, or has it simply been declined? Without specifics, I cannot make guesses DP 13:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You may find this helpful WP:CSD, just make sure they are well within the criteria for speedy deletion otherwise use PROD or AFD. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you User:DangerousPanda for guidance, I would like to learn more about WP:CSD WOWॐIndian ^Talk 13:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

There's lots you need to learn...for example, please learn that you don't need to link my name when you're talking to me on my talkpage - I will already get notification - I don't need dual notifications DP 13:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

39.32.187.61 is the Ip address of Ibnebatutaji traced to Pakistan

Total Siyapaa is a Indian Bollywood movie with a Pakistani lead Ali Zafar. even though the movie got overwhelmingly negative reviews the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Siyapaa) gave wrong information that the movie got positive reviews and got good opening. the page was protected and couldn't be edited. When I submitted edit request this adminstrator Ibnebatutaji started wrongly accusing me of being a sock of varkley. I am new in Wikipedia editing. I heard this name sock for first time. This vvarkley guy is old user. You understood that accusation was wrong and blocked this Ibnebatutaji. Now he showed his ip address as 39.32.187.61 which i traced to rawalpindi Pakistan. it's clear that Ibnebatutaji is a pakistani who is supporting the actor from his country and used his administrator rights to favour n Indian movie with Pakistani actor Ali Zafar. Wikipedia administrator can't be this biased. I hope Wikipedia takes action against Ibnebatutaji and blocks all his ip address. As I mentioned earlier I am new new in Wikipedia editing, so I don't know what to do exactly to publish the correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZORDANLIGHTER (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

...and I'll introduce you to WP:OUTING DP 13:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Suspicious activity

Some users are removing my comments and typing the same thing again in Total Siyapaa talk page. Their accounts were opened after a previous account was blocked. Does wikipedia has any way to stop a user who goes on creating sock after sock accounts in order to support his own statements and arguments.I know Accusation of sock without any evidence is considered personal attack and that's the reason I am not mentioning any name. But even if this users are found to be asock in the future(assumption not confirmed) but that won't stop him from opening new accounts to support his cause. Please Check the resent revisions in Total Siyapaa talk page--Whistlingwoods (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Keeping in view Whistlingwoods doubts I have initiated a sock puppet investigation against all contributors of talk page, including me and Whistlingwoods. Let admin at SPI decide to Whistlingwoods doubts Archtexlic (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Archtexlic, you have no authority to remove ANYONE'S posts from that talkpage discussion. I reverted your removal once, and I see you re-removed them. You cannot do that. Please re-add their comments. Be advised: your account is brand new, and I'm pretty sure you are the sock DP 19:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring

User Mersin01, who you warned for edit warring, has continued his/her actions with disruptive edits on the article Sari Gelin. He/She keeps reverting sourced information calling it vandalism and fraud information [[16]]. After warning the individual to stop, the actions continued. Ninetoyadome (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you block the user that keeps reverting edits in the Sari Gelin article and protect it from nonconstructive reverts? i sent the user a message asking them to explain the cause of the reverts but they ignored it. 2602:306:CF36:6280:3D83:7A1D:EC35:AF67 (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You're one of those who keeps reverting edits...should I block you, or are you someone whom I already blocked today evading that block? DP 20:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Total Siyapaa page needs to be protected again

please protect the page in correct revision https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Total_Siyapaa&oldid=600826764 before socks of LanguageXpert does another mischief. He is back with a new sock.--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) You have filed an SPI, so stop requesting for protection. Protecting the article just because of one sock is not worth it. – Soham (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:AE#ZORDANLIGHTER

An editor who you blocked on 17 March has been reported at AE. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DP 11:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Total Siyapaa

Hey there, you dangerous panda, you. There's some interesting things going on at the Total Siyapaa talk page. Specifically, there's some removal of content on the talk page that I don't believe falls under any of the exceptions at WP:TPO. If you could take a look and let me know if/how I'm wrong, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks! Greedo8 00:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

As you've already been advised, it does fall under exceptions (obvious sock of blocked editor) DP 11:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Alas, I had already asked for your input before the Kite of Blackness appeared. However, as the saying goes: two heads are better than one. Your reinforcement of the position has set aside all my concerns about the possible misinterpretation of the policy in question. Thanks! Greedo8 15:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible bot activity

Hi DangerousPanda, are you around? Flat Out let's discuss it 11:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

What'up User:Flat Out? DP 11:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Have a look here you will see a run of new accounts creating user pages in sequence, and then same sequence adding new user bar. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You might need to go back 50 to see the string of new user page creations. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Very odd - identical userpages all being created at the same time. I blocked one of them, including the underlying IP of course. We'll see what happens DP 11:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Now I'm wondering if its a school/college activity. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a Wikimedia UK event at the Royal Society of Chemistry. The abuse filters are being tripped because we've got ~30 people editing form the same IP, but there's not much I can do about that. Please don't block any more accounts; I've unblocked Mikesaxby (talk · contribs). Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It should have been better "advertised" :-) DP 11:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, in a perfect world, there'd be a great big banner on the log saying "please don't block this person"; in the imperfect world we inhabit, I'm open to suggestions as to how to advertise it better. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that what the WP:AN is supposed to be about? I have left a note of apology on the talkpage of the single user that I blocked DP 11:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps if the new users mentioned they were participating in an activity when they created their user pages? Flat Out let's discuss it 11:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

DP, Possibly, but we hold quite a lot of these events—admins would quickly get sick o the notifications. It only seems to be a problem when there are more than a dozen or so editing from the same IP. I'll see if there's anything I can do about that for the future. Flat Out, that's a good idea. I'll bear that in mind for future events. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell I only picked it up because I patrol the recent changes by new accounts and there was a clear pattern emerging. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would be because we're trying to teach them how to edit, starting with some simple exercises. But I take your point, and I'll see what I can do about it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

(I'm at the same event) We need to look at the wording of the warning (template?), too. "...apparent WP:SOCK and unauthorized WP:BOT", even with links, is not very meaningful to new users. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it was an "attention-getting" block to be honest. If there was a bot, it was caught. If it was a sock, it was caught. If it wasn't either, there's still forcing an attempt to communicate while the project is temporarily-protected from what truly APPEARED to be an serious issue to multiple editors. DP 13:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, give over BW! I've acknowledged this could have been handled better and promised to do what I can in future, but lots of people creating userpages is hardly a "serious issue". If it were in the mainspace, sure, but they can't do much harm by listing their interests on their userpages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you're misreading here HJ, and your aggressive tone surprises me. You're right, creating userpages is not an issue. When there are a dozen identical userpages all created within seconds of each other, it gives the appearance of bot-editing, hence the block. If it's wrong (which in this case it was...and I apologized) then it's really no-harm, no-foul. However, if it had been a bot situation, you wouldn't be ramming me right now, would you? DP 16:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Which user pages were identical? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It certainly got the user's attention. It also stopped them from learning what they were there to learn, and it left them confused. There is little use in getting a person's attention if you don't clearly communicate to them why it is you have done so and what you want from them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Today there are users participating in a workshop, and they have included "Hello, My name ....., I am participant of "Free Your Knowledge 2014" Writing Competition from Jakarta Theological Seminary in Jakarta Indonesia." This helps anyone patrolling recent changes by new accounts to see that the run of new accounts and user pages aren't being established by bots. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Users may indeed choose to do that, but we can't mandate it as, it would out them as being at a certain place and time, and possibly employed, studying at, or otherwise connected with an institution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarification please...

Bwilkins closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fadil Husayn Salih Hintif as redirect after deletion. Are you User:Bwilkins?

Many administrators who close AFD as redirect, redirect without first deleting the article. If you are Bwilkins can you tell me why you made the opposite decision?

FWIW List of Guantanamo Bay detainees is not the best choice of redirect target, for various reasons -- mainly that it is almost 8 years out of date. I've made numerous proposals to bring it up to date, which you can see at Talk:List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Other Guantanamo captives articles were redirected to the article summarizing the captives from their nation. Geo Swan (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am Bwilkins (it says so on my userpage :-) ). Withouth reviewing the specific deletion, any time there are either: a) BLP issues, b) promotion issues, c) chances of improper re-creation, most admins will take the "delete and redirect" route DP 08:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Redmen44 AN3

Looks like you beat me to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Redmen44_reported_by_User:Flat_Out_.28Result:Not_blocked_.29. I was going to add the following before edit conflict with our edits:

• Note Redmen44 was recently blocked 31h for warring on 6 March 2014.—Bagumba (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment That last 12:29 edit by Redmen44 contains the classic edit warring edit summary—verbose, and telling others to start a discussion: "Page is cited and there are multiple links that prove without a doubt that this is a living person. Please discuss further on talk page." This is followed by retaliating by posting a warning on the accusers page of edit warring. In light of this, Redmen's two previous unblock requests sound even more empty. —Bagumba (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Another situation like that won't be permitted, no matter what his excuse - it will be a long block for User:Redmen44 if he even dreams of edit-warring again. No need for AN3 reports, you can come straight to me. Those kind of games are wholly unacceptable - one either understands WP:BRD or one doesn't - it applies in all situations DP 14:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

At it again at Bo Ryan now, lots of reverts with "season not over" on edits by registered and IPs alike. This one will only play nice once reported and then start "gladly" having a discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Betterthansuchasyou again

Thoughts on these edits? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Merlin the 2nd back with IP account

Merlin the 2nd is back to using his/her IP account User:50.98.103.127 - doing the exact same type of edits that got them banned in the first place. Was wondering if this is someting you can take care of? -- Moxy (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

WOW that was fast ....on a side note I have asked that Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada be locked up at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection -- Thank you !!! -- Moxy (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Help

DangerousPanda, it's Goburst can you please review the University Canada West Talk page. I need to form a consensus because as of now it's me and another editor; this is not a consensus. Please, take a few minutes to see my referenced contributions and content on the University Canada West Talk page. I would appreciate if you could weigh in.

Thanks--Goburst (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, can you delete a page, you deleted a user page with the same (mostly) content, its Ezekiel Pierre. Thanks, Reedman72 01:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reedman72 (talk • contribs)

Confirmed situation request explained

Both auto and confirmed are basically the same, yet autoconfirmed are less likely to be taken seriously because anyone can be autoconfirmed just after ten edits. According to this: [17], "In some situations, it is necessary for accounts to be exempted from the customary confirmation period." It is unlikey that autoconfirmed will be taken seriously more than confirmed by users who think that their POV ideas are more important than a legit source. It may not help with newly registered users, but more likely veteran editors will take you seriously because an admin such as yourself has given that special authority to that particular user. -- ♣Jerm♣729 20:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, "autoconfirmed" holds more "seniority" than "confirmed". Once you're autoconfirmed, we cannot "confirm" you. If you're having issues in a discussion, use WP:DR. Almost every single "veteran editor" is also autoconfirmed DP 22:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Igor Janev

Hi DangerousPanda,I am beginning undeleting procedure for an article relating to Igor Janev. Please, Help. This is legitimate request. ( It has been proven on 17 Wikies that article on Igor Janev was not a HOAX. See http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1449737#sitelinks-wikipedia I can see that the operator of these accounts has behaved foolishly and may well continue doing so, but I don't think deleting the page is the right answer for an encyclopedia. It seems clear to me that there's no hoax: he exists; he is an expert on the topic of Macedonia's international position.).--212.200.213.94 (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

So, use the WP:AFC process to create something that's up-to-snuff, and the community can review it. Copy/pasting a conversation from one page to another - esepcially in a format that is incompatible with the admin page - is unacceptable in all cases. ES&L 10:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear DangerousPanda, thanks for suggestion. Still my opinion is that anyone can institute the procedures for undeletion. This was suggested to me by one of Wiki administrators. Best wishes, --212.200.213.94 (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, fine ... but you make the request properly - do not copy/paste the discussion from elsewhere into the request. WP:REFUND is not a discussion - you submit the form, include the policy-based reasons why you think it should be undeleted. No need for supporting discussion. ES&L 12:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal

I don't know whether you can, or should, or would want to, get involved in this, but disruptive and extremely lengthy, personally attacking posts have been slapped on the article talk page by that user you dealt with the other day. This kind of behavior is disruptive and is threatening to derail any ability to come to a consensus on dealing with various issues in the article. If you can stop in at any point on this page it would be helpful. tx, Coretheapple (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough

Hi DP, I've closed the Arbitration Enforcement request regarding Rich Farmbrough and referred it to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! ES&L 12:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

D'angelo Harrison

Do you know anything about basketball?? Please do some research before you make such a statement. You are embarrassing yourself.--Mathgenious989 (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I probably know more about basketball than you will ever know. While we're on he topic of embarrassing, do you know anything about notability? As you say, "please do some research before you make such a statement. You are embarrassing yourself" DP 23:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Mathgenious's comment may be a little harsh (bordering on a personal attack), but I have found several sources that indicate Harrison's notability. He was a First Team all Big East selection after all. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It was a personal attack, but I was in a good mood and declined to block them :-) Adding those sources would be good. The only sources in the article at the time were Yahoo Sports and the team website DP 23:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hello DangerousPanda, it looks like the topic banned user Reece Leonard has decided to create the sockpuppet account User: Mark2017, in order to support his side in the previous discussion, as that sentence has come under dispute again. I would make a SPI case, but I did not want to make it seem as if I am violating the interaction ban. STATic message me! 22:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The sock is  Confirmed as Reece Leonard attempting to get around the topic ban. I've blocked the primary account for 72 hours and the sock indef.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

TYVM Ponyo! ... I was just out digging through CU's that might be online :-) DP 23:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, you are always quick on it Ponyo. STATic message me! 23:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

While we're at this, could someone also check Special:Contributions/Andthenwebecamenothing. Some of that users' edits aroused my suspicion a couple of weeks back. Their activity all seemed very Reece-like. Would be nice to get a concrete answer - one way or the other - now, instead of bringing this up, and possibly stinking up the discussion in September when Reece's topic ban would be up for appeal. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

And is there a way to check if Reece Leonard had previously logged in to his account using the IP 128.194.58.144? It's a Texas A&M University line, which he identifies himself as attending, and the IP has started messing around with various critical reception fields. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that is definitely Reece. Ponyo can you do a Check User on the above IP and new user? The IP alone should be able to be blocked per WP:DUCK test. STATic message me! 03:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, this IP is suspicious and seems single-purpose. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Homeostasis07, STATicVapor, does it get any more obvious than this? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

XXSNUGGUMSXX, your accusation is false. Geolocate my IP. 94.193.139.22 (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

DP this is a serious case of WP:DUCK. Can you please protect the article or block the IP? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a serious case of Jumping to conclusions, that's what it is. 94.193.139.22 (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you mind your own business please and not create a drama out of nothing? XXNUg did a mistake, get over it. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

How can I 'mind my own business' when you guys are the ones messing with me? An apology would not be out of place IMO, from you as well as X. 94.193.139.22 (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

In order to remain compliant with Wikimedia's privacy policy, Checkusers will only confirm links between IPs and accounts in rare circumstances. However, any admin can block IPs that are clearly socks.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi DP - I'm contacting you because you're an admin that seems to be familiar with this 'reece' situation. User:XXSNUGGUMSXX and User:IndianBio seem determined to strike-out my reply to the RFC on talk:artpop. They seem to think I'm a sockpuppet account of this 'reece' person - I'm not. I'd be grateful if you'd ask them to reign in their attempts to censor me. I've already contacted both of them on their talk pages, no reply yet from X, IB has simply deleted my message. Thanks in advance for your help. 94.193.139.22 (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's just say this: if you were suggesting the same ridiculous edits that Reece was known for, then the WP:DUCK test comes into play. Seeing as your current IP has been blakclisted in the past, it opens lots of additional concerns. Plus, Reece has already stupidly tried to evade his topic ban and block. Unfortunately his own history and actions is against you. The funnier thing would be if Reece actually believes that IP address is the only thing we use to tell if it's the same user ES&L 13:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Truly, I'm not him. I have no idea whether my response to the RfC supported Reece or not, because I have no idea who he is or what edits he's been doing. You guys seem to be assuming that anyone posting from an IP address who takes a position you disagree with on the RfC is a sockpuppet and therefore their opinion is invalid - that's a circular argument. I have no idea whether this IP address has been blacklisted in the past, I only got it this morning - how do I check? You seem to want me to prove a negative - how should I do that? 94.193.139.22 (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

People could be wrong in saying you are Reece Leonard, though WP:DUCK states "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck". In other words, the fact that your comments were promoting the same idea as Reece (which was to only use MetaCritic) shortly after he got blocked makes people suspect block evasion. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• I want to emphasize that I never reviewed your IP edits before responding - I was being very "general" about types of edits that would raise hackles, and the colour of a duck's feet. All I'm suggesting is to proceed with caution. You're very able to review Reece's edits - and if they look like yours, you'd be wise to change tactics ES&L 17:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

In any case, take a look at this. Quack quack. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Quack! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Dr Houshian

Thanks for deleting the pages created by this user, I reported it on Admin notice board also. I am new and trying to report and revert vandalism with my tireless efforts and tagging the articles for deletion if they lie under deletion policy. I am very happy that the pages I tagged for deletion were successfully deleted. A.Minkowiski (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your report on AN. Please see my reply there, as it was the wrong noticeboard, and you neglected to advise the user you reported as is required DP 21:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do that next time. But I informed Ruby Murray about discussion on WP:ANB who nominated Dr Houshian's second page for speedy deletion. A.Minkowiski (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: Jesmion

RE: [18]

Looks like he's evading now on various IP addresses [19][20], want to deal with? IMHO he's clueless and digging himself a hole by evading. I'm not even sure he's aware he's evading. I feel too attached to do anything about it - it was a WP:COMPETENCE block more than anything else.

[stwalkerster|talk] 02:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Suey Park

Would you be able to undelete the page's history so that it could be kept while the rest of the page is a redirect? I figure that the potential might be there, and it wouldn't hurt to have it while the name exists as a redirect for the present time. Thanks a lot! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok,  Done DP 10:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT elected British politicians closed as delete

The title of the AfD page does not match the title of the discussed page, because the original page List of LGBT elected British politicians was moved amid the discussion. Therefore the page List of LGBT elected and appointed British politicians must be deleted, per this AfD. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, can you please deal with this? I noted on the AfD discussion that the creator of the article had moved it while the discussion was in progress. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 06:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

 Already done Looks like one of my colleagues took care of it DP 10:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Images

UserGogo212121 Hello DangerousPanda Why can not I upload pictures that says it was there http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/celebritymicro/images/id/5396/category/parties/type/view/imageid/2441656/ Gogo212121 (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

As I already told you elsewhere, it's the LAW - it's called WP:COPYRIGHT. You cannot simply steal pictures that you find on the internet. DP 10:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

UserGogo212121 Hello DangerousPanda Can I upload photos from 2013 --Gogo212121 (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

NO. Did you even READ the helpful information that I left on your talkpage, or did you even READ my answer above? If you upload copyrighted images, you may be blocked DP 10:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

UserGogo212121 Hello DangerousPanda how can I figure out what year was the picture on this picture http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/celebritymicro/images/id/171/category/parties/type/view/imageid/1273415/ no date below --Gogo212121 (talk) 10:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Does it appear to be more than 50 years old? No? Then it's copyrighted and against the law to upload to Wikipedia DP 10:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

UserGogo212121 Hello DangerousPanda I have the right to upload photos Gogo212121 (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

No you don't - not if the photos you're uploading are copyrighted. At that point you're breaking the LAW and Wikipedia policy, and will be blocked. You have no rights on Wikipedia. DP 10:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

UserGogo212121 Hello DangerousPanda This photo is copyrighted Are http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/celebritymicro/images/id/91793/category/parties/type/view/imageid/2444454/--Gogo212121 (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's copyrighted. Look at the very bottom of the website itself where it says "Copyright © 2014 Hungama Digital Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. All Rights Reserved." DP 10:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

UserGogo212121 Hello DangerousPanda how many edits do I need to become an administrator on Wikipedia --Gogo212121 (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

No set number, because it's based on your knowledge and understanding of key policies and processes (you know, like copyright and "rights"). I think I first applied at about 5,000 edits, but was not successful until my second which was around 9,000 valid, policy-based edits. See WP:RFAADVICE for more information DP 10:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry to interject DP - not sure how your talkpage ended up on my watchlist. Images from BollywoodHungama are a little unusual in that in some cases they have a cc-by license. See commons:Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama; files uploaded to commons using that license have to be checked by a commons admin however and the criteria are little complex. I suspect this is the cause of Gogo212121's queries. Gogo212121, what would be simplest if for you to list the files you want to be uploaded at Wikipedia:Files for upload where an admin will review it and, if it is suitable, upload it to Commons or to Wikipedia and apply the necessary licensing information for you. CIreland (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input User:CIreland - what I was trying to do was to make the editor actually look for themself. If I answered about 1 image, I was clearly going to be asked again and again, and again. I did note that the website has a mix, but they also have a lot of images, and I wasn't going to go through all of them. DP 10:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

UserGogo212121 Hello DangerousPanda Abkhazia country you--Gogo212121 (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Let's bring the Mike Cronin Wikipedia article back. My name is John, I represent Fullscreen Inc, a large YouTube network. We would like to have Mike Cronin's page back on Wikipedia. Thank you! Fullscreenenterprises (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I enjoy beer, but I don't enjoy WP:SPAM. I don't care if who you represent, you're NEVER permitted to promote an entity - especially some weak youtube "celebrity" (one of the most laughable terms in existence) DP 15:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	It's always preferable if we can get people to edit constructively but if not we have to do what we have to do. Good job. MONGO 17:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello again DangerousPanda

I know i am on a 3day block , and thus i do not edit anything . But that does not mean that i cannot communicate with you , for something that now should be obvious to you as well .

Regarding Fan Noli , after my block i noticed some more edits by Dr.K which i shall copy paste to you ( in order to just show you what is obvious with the hope that you wont block me again ) and that you of course restore the article >

Explanation of what has just happened here

So now Noli not only he is not albanian ( thanks to experienced Dr.K but he is either vlach , greek , or bulgarian ... peek anything you want just not albanian ) Revision .

In addition the user with the ip 108.5.41.18 , which i believe to be Dr.K , removed any sources or established material which were containing the word Albanian .

What is more important i checked all the sources claiming Bulgarian or greek or vlack origin , and NO SOURCE WAS SHOWING that .... in fact they had not even a single relation to Fan Noli or what it was claimed .

If this is not obvious to you , i dont know what more to say .... ! I hope that you will see what i am seeing , and i really hope that wiki is all about facts , and not a place for heavy propaganda and WP NINJA tactics . Regards , John 94.234.170.186 (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

In addition just checking all links hypothetically proving the greek origin of his name . ALL OF THEM are books that cannot be verified .... and all of them were added after the 3RR by him ! he has put a link on a book , and then added a text of his liking that he has created on his mind ... I do not know , but let us forget this for a moment and concentrate on this fact > Is he a living encyclopedia that he found 10 books 1 day after he intervened on a matter between me and (Alexikoua that he claimed no relation ) all of them speaking about Noli ?

What will it take , should i go and buy 2 or 3 of those books and scan them here , to prove that he is lying ( alhtough i should not even bother because SOURCES SHOULD BE VERIFIABLE ONLINE BY ALL PARTIES , SO THEY SHOULD NOT EVEN BE THER )  ? Will you then initiate any action against him ???? All in all i dont care about him , but can you please restore the article , given the Wikipedia:Verify rule and in particularWikipedia:REDFLAG . 94.234.170.186 (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

and 1 more that i just noticed ..... !!!!! This text was removed by that ip user ( aka DR.K ) ... > Noli moved back to the United States in 1932 and formed a republican opposition to Zogu, who had since proclaimed himself "King Zog I". Over the next years, he continued his education, studying and later teaching Byzantine music, and continued developing and promoting the autocephalous Albanian Orthodox Church he had helped to found. While in exile, he briefly allied with King Zog, who fled Albania before the invading Italians in 1939, but was unable to set a firm anti-Axis, anti-Communist front. <

Why ? So that to give the impression that Fan Noli was a greek person that created a GREEK church ( and not the authocephalus church of albania ) in albania ... This also by adding blank sources of non existing books , and some other sources of other books that exist but have no relation to what is being claimed !

Sorry for this spam . I am done , i dont know what more to say . I hope that you will restore the version , or at least unblock me , so that i go and buy those books , and i scan them to you , to show you the definition of tragicomedy . 94.234.170.186 (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Some Gummi Bears For You!

		Gummi Bears
		I Made You Some, But I Eated Them... :) TitusFox'Tribs 12:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh God, Now I Feel Sick...

Thanks For My Sig! TitusFox^'Tribs 12:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Motion proposed in Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough

A motion has been proposed in Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough. For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't agree with the motion, but thanks for letting me know :-) DP 19:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Rob Maness, Redirect instead of Deletion?

The "Rob Maness" article was recently deleted completely due to a lack of notability prior to his campaign for the Louisiana Senate Seat. I was going to create a redirect to United States Senate election in Louisiana, 2014 but wasn't sure of the proper way to go about this for an article that has already been deleted. Any guidance would be great.

In a different direction, I found about 20 additional articles related to his military history and all prior to his campaign (but from the same newspaper, the Albuquerque Journal. Would those articles in any way change the decision on deletion and is there a way to go about further discussing the deletion?

You seem very busy, so sorry for all the questions, and no need for a quick response (I tried to find these answers through searches but was unsuccessful). Thank you. Khronos21 (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

As per our guidelines, we typically don't even create redirects, yet. I still don't see his military history as making him notable enough prior to the campaign. ES&L 16:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I guess I was basing it off of WP:POLITICIAN, where it says "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion", which made me think a redirect would be appropriate. Khronos21 (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you believe it's appropriate, go ahead and create a redirect to the election article. I wouldn't want the article history left behind, at this point - just in case someone got the idea to revert back to a previous version DP 19:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your guidance. Khronos21 (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Cronkurleigh

Hi. Would you be willing to blockUser:Cronkurleigh from more of this and this on their own talk page, and also block this IP sock? I'm getting fed up with it all popping up in my watchlist.... — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, take his takpage off your watchlist :-) Don't comment or provoke him there further. The IP hasn't edited in 3 days, so nothing to block ... yet. Keep an eye on his pet articles, and let me know if there's a return DP 20:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

A Dog for you!!!!

File:Attack dog.png	Happy Attack Dog`s Wiki attack dog award
	For all your anti vandalism work, I give you this award as you have never been awarded enough for your work in this field. Now get out there and nudge some vandals in the right direction! (note: if you feel as if you do not want to be called a attack dog, think of the award with the caption of "Beware of dog, he wants cuttles.") Happy_Attack_Dog (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Re-visit an article?

Hey, I've been talking with Kevin Rutherford about the Suey Park article. I've found where her 2013 hashtag received quite a bit of coverage back in 2013, so it's not entirely a one event sort of deal. The coverage was global for #NotYourAsianSidekick, so I've started working on a copy in my userspace. I'm content to incubate it in my userspace for the time being, but I think that the arguments at AfD mostly focused on the Colbert issue and sort of only gave lipservice to the coverage she received in 2013 because there weren't many RS in the article. The events were somewhat close together, but they are separate events all the same. I just thought I'd ask your opinion on this since you were the closing admin. Like I said, I'm fine with incubating for now and gathering coverage over time since I do think that there's a good chance she'll end up getting more coverage to have a more solid keep but I figured hey- why not ask? Worst you could do is say that you still think a redirect is the better choice, but the best is that we could run this through DR and get it un-redirected. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Gee, it'd be helpful if I linked to it, wouldn't it? You can find my little userspace copy here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I know I typed a bunch of notes the other day, but they didn't save. Now I don't remember what I said ... however, the lead is horribly clunky: "who has been the origin of trending hashtags on Twitter in 2013 and 2014" ... millions of people have originated hashtags, so that's not all that notable. It almost makes it sound like she invented them overall. I'm still having trouble seeing her as overly notable - if it wasn't for the Colbert thing, she still be some helpful, yet obscure Tweeter DP 08:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'll keep working on it, then. I'll try to re-write the lead sentence to make it less clunky and ambiguous. I'm wondering if I should change it to just "known for the creation of the twitter hashtags #NotYourAsianSidekick and #CancelColbert" or "known for her use of social media in her activism campaigns". I figure I'll wait for a little while before more avidly seeking DR so I can gain more sourcing. Her 2013 tweet campaign did get quite a bit of coverage, not as much as the Colbert thing, but enough to where I could be very selective about which ones I chose to add to the article. I figure that it's likely she'll gain more coverage over a third event, so I'll wait for now so I can be a little more certain how DR would fare. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Since I had never heard of those 2 hashtags until reading them in the article, it's a stretch to use use those as the yardstick :-) ...picture some random article creator tying to create an article saying "they're famous for creation the hashtag #GoatsAreAwesome" because they saw the article on Park and felt that was our new bar for notability! *yikes* I think there are some positive elements, but the overall is barely eluding us  the panda  ₯’ 09:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• I understand. I'm just a little frustrated because both hashtag events did get quite a bit of coverage, and we have to weigh whether that coverage is less because it happened on social media (as opposed to an event in a physical location) or if it should be considered as equal to something that happened "IRL" (ie, physical location). I'm kind of mixed on it myself, but a lot of people tend to dismiss things that happen online because it's online. I don't think we'd have to worry about giving someone notability for one trending hashtag, as that can be dismissed under 1E. My biggest concern is that this person had two separate instances where they gained a sizable amount of coverage, which doesn't really qualify her as 1E in a lot of ways. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said, the acceptability of this is barely eluding us ... it's like being next-in-line to get into the really cool club: you can hear the music, you can even see through the glass door, but you're still on the outside looking in ... but hopefully not for much longer!  the panda  ₯’ 09:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

whuh?

I don't get this at all; I see here that I must have meant to copy-select that to paste/comment on it; but you have effectively censored my post....not that I want to be there, or don't think that the whole witchhunt and pseudo-friendly Pollyanna game ("I'm trying to help you") has been a farce since it began.Skookum1 (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not censor your post. Your edit REMOVED someone else's filing about EllenCT, so I was forced to revert it. You're welcome to re-edit your own post, but ensure that you do not accidentally remove someone else's at the same time  the panda  ₯’ 10:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Can you action the second edit revdel i requested on ANI. Would rather was gone asap.Blethering Scot 13:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You have mail.Blethering Scot 13:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

thanks, another question

thanks, another question. some users like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Davey2010, when they signature, their sign become veru colorful. Then i discovered they write something like that Fisingi and then sign. But it is defficult and waste of time to copy this "<span style="color:blue" every time, so do u know if there is another method so singnature very easily?thanks Fisingi (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Click on "Preferences" at the top of the page and scroll down to the "Signature" section. You can set it there.--Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough case clarified

The arbitration clarification request, either involving you, or in which you participated (Rich Farmbrough) has resulted in a clarification motion by the Arbitration Committee

The Clarification can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Clarifications_by_motion and the complete discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Clarification_request:_Rich_Farmbrough_.28April_2014.29 For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Naveen Jaihind Page Deletion

Hi, We are not doing any publicity here. Election(Haryana)has been done and we didn't promote anything on Wikipedia. We just want to keep this page being a social activity who has taken part in election. Please help us to get restored this page again. Thanks Neveen Jaihind ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaveenJaihind (talk • contribs) 12:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

User:NaveenJaihind, if they didn't win, they most definitely don't meet the notability requirements. This is an encyclopedia, not a candidate listing. Please stop trying until they actually MEET the requirements that you've already been shown more than once the panda ₯’ 22:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Reverting error on my part

Did not realize one could revert all discussions leading to a block. Never heard of grave dancing either and it was not my intent. I stand corrected. Thanks 172.56.10.95 (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I would suggest that it was your edit to their talkpage that was the final straw for them. The goal was to actually try to bring them back from the brink - your post was unnecessary and poisonous, and should never have occurred. As per the talkpage guidelines, an editor may remove anything except the block notice and declined unblocks while they're in effect. the panda ₯’ 00:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It may have been the final straw but the original intent was to caution the editor about their snarky comments towards other editors and a concern about claiming ownership. That did not work. Attitude actually got worse and when cautioned and warned IronGron lashed out at at multiple editors. IronGron also performed much pasting and editing from private sources and that concern was later raised when it became apparent. IronGron's attitude lead to his troubles. No ill will towards IronGron but also do not condone most of that behavior. Hope IronGron comes back if he learns to refrain from unproductive behaviors. Spent many years counseling and leading younger persons and most learn and grow and a few throw it away. That latter pattern of behavior is regrettable but is one's own decision. 172.56.10.95 (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

12:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Naveen Jaihind

Really sorry if you feel that i am canvassing...I was just asking next steps to restore that page. Thanks Naveen Jaihind NaveenJaihind (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

As you've been advised, however, the page has no valid reason to be restored, so please stop the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

		The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
		Just wanted to say thanks for looking after my talk page when I was away for a couple of days. I always appreciate another pair of eyes. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Unblock Appeal

Could you please comment on this appeal?--v/r - TP 18:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

User:TParis ... Heh, going to make be create a UTRS account? the panda ₯’ 19:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't know you didn't have one, and interestingly I don't see any new requests in the admin panel. Did you get any errors? It was concerning Bowser2500's block. He says he didn't realize how seriously we took accusations like that here, he didn't realize there were other reasons that may be causing Epeefleche to be removing that content, and that he won't do it again.--v/r - TP 20:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@User:TParis: I got errors - it kept telling me the CAPCHA was wrong. Does Bowser have an unblock on his talkpage? the panda ₯’ 20:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

ADD: You've seen his block log? 4 blocks in 3 months? All similar WP:BATTLE type activity (I'll consider the block evasion to be an extension of the battle). He needs far more than 2 weeks to actually learn/understand the project the panda ₯’ 20:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

That's strange, could you see a captcha at all? I've seen his block log and the earlier blocks don't have to do with personal attacks so I'd hoped you could consider the unblock request as isolated to the latest block.--v/r - TP 20:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope, no captcha. I would like to see his latest block in isolation, but you cannot - it's one continual sequence of similar and related behaviour - exactly what a block is supposed to prevent the panda ₯’ 08:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

So, further reviews this morning. Remmeber that his current block is also for general disruptive editing, not just his nasty name-calling (c.f. both Drmies and Epeefleche's talkpages). A quick review of his edits on List of contemporary Iranian scientists, scholars, and engineers, and his behaviours there and following must also be addressed in any unblock request. I cannot fathom why he chose UTRS instead of an unblock request - I would have been quite pleased to re-list these items there, and this type of discussion requires on-wiki discussion in order to create a WP:GAB-compliant request the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Davido

Greetings DangerousPanda, this matter is not closed. I have just responded. The Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents was of no help; you guys directed me to the Dispute resolution board. If the DR board can't come to terms with what I'm saying, best believe that this incident will be going elsewhere. Versace1608 (Talk) 21:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Having read ANI, DR, and the article talkpage, there's only one person who's unable to come to terms with what's' being said - especially WP:UNDUE. Considering that the subject of the article doesn't even appear to have been involved in one of the events, WP:CONSENSUS appears pretty clear the panda ₯’ 08:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The first incident is a bit trivial. I don't care if it get's omitted from the article. Davido was present at the incident. The incident involved him; If his bodyguard didn't protect him, he probably would have sustain injuries to the neck. I am all about the second incident. I told Diannaa that the second incident will be rewritten into a sentence or two. The UNDUE thing you keep talking about will not apply because the section will not make 60 percent of the article. I have disputed two of you guys arguments. The first one was that the incident was poorly source. (The amount of sources that I have provided disputes that). The second is "undue weight". When the incident is rewritten and shorten drastically, it will dispute this as well. Versace1608 (Talk) 13:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, write your propose change. Source it (note: number of sources is irrelevant, quality is). Post in as a proposed addition on the article talkpage. Gain consensus to add it - this isn't an issue. the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Washington Iyke Jacobs is British and was born in 1962.He earned a B.S, and M.S. and a Ph.D. Washington Iyke Jacobs have written many books in Engineering and computer science. Outsatanding projects in Business re-engineering, Business intelligence, as well as ten different books on Master of Strategic Studies, an academic elite. Iyke Jacobs was elected as a director 1992 with I.W.Jacobs Coordinated Services, United Europe Limited, commodity and exchange, intercorp, Asia High grade Machines Manufacturing, Space Components etc. Blessed with five children all Americans and married to a jews woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Refresh4578 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

And this is related to what exactly? the panda ₯’ 08:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

User Gogo212121 President of Ukraine this what's his problem with pro Russian separatists --Gogo212121 (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank You for the unblock. LoveMonkey 12:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)