User talk:DangerousPanda

Note: please do not use talkback {{tb}} templates here unless you are referring to discussion areas that I have not yet been a part of; I do monitor my conversations

Thanks and a question

Hi Bwilkins, thanks for the welcome message! I requested permission to edit a semi-protected page, Tim Tebow's, and it appears to be granted but I still don't seem to have the option to edit it. I have read the Biographies on Living Persons policy and have citations for all of my claims (links to Bestseller lists, listings of the books on publishers' websites). If you could give me help with how to proceed that would be great.

Thank you!

User:Serbia100

It must have slipped passed you but this user has restored their inappropriate user talk page. SÆdon^talk 19:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh noes, a legal threat!

You said this a week or so ago on a heavily edited page, so I won't find the diff, but you should know that "this is what happens when a tornado meets a volcano" made me laugh so hard that I choked on a carrot when I read it just now. If I had died, I have no doubt my family could have sued you for wrongful death. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

LOL ... I'll take near-choking as a true sign of approval! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Help us develop better software!

Thanks to all of you for commenting on the NOINDEX RfC :). It's always great to be able to field questions like these to the community; it's genuinely the highlight of my work! The NOINDEX idea sprung from our New Page Triage discussion; we're developing a new patrolling interface for new articles, and we want your input like never before :). So if you haven't already seen it, please go there, take a look at the screenshots and mockups and ideas, and add any comments or suggestions you might have to the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

deleted my page...

3/30/12 I created a band paged named M3rcy and it apparently didnt meet the standards. I was wondering what I need to do to have the page up. I had references toward the band that the new band had emerged from which did have tangible references and was learning the html required to create a history to follow but the page was deleted before I could fix it. Now the new band doesn't have an album and live shows are pending but everything will be coming this year. So what do I need to make the page tangible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MercyLino (talk • contribs) 23:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia is for articles about subjects that are already notable. Articles about the potentially notable and the up-and-coming are going to be deleted as a matter of course. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Please, look into Baboon43's behavior and edits. Thank you.

Since you are the last administrator who left a message, which he removed twice (here and here, on Baboon43's talk page (previously, he has used 70.54.66.158), therefore, I am approaching you for help. He constantly ignores and discredit all the peer-viewed sources provied by the other editors. He doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind:

• Ahbash follows shafi madhab
• Ahbash follows Ashari doctrine

Currently, he is engaged into edit-warring in the name of "expansion" without even getting consensus from the other editors who have been on that page for years. Please, looking into that. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Your signature

Hi. Just to let you know that this user has copied your signature. — Abhishek  ^Talk 15:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Although imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, normally we at least acknowledge our sources! Thanks for letting me know. Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank You

After over a week of waiting, I am finally welcomed here in wikipedia! Thank you Mr. BWilkins! Talk to you soon! Flywitheli (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You were welcome the moment you arrived - not everyone gets a formal welcome notice - you seemed to need some background (following your request for permissions), so I thought I'd help you out. Welcome aboard (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

ABUSE BY YOU

Normally I delete abuse, but this is currently used as evidence of behaviour
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, As the section title mandates, you are abusing or incorrectly using administration powers. You have recently deleted an article, "Victim of Xen," that cites sources indicating it's significance. Your reason: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)) The article stated that Victim of Xen is a video game (with citations of the fact) and also stated what it has been noted for (gender-swap comments by credible third parties in further citation). I suspect that you are unaware that is perfectly acceptable to have a vested interest and to contribute to Wikipedia (personal opinion, but I can't imagine that you would openly lie, given the administration powers). Please restore this article and assist in Wikipedia's growth. Sincerely, Sam Smolders (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC) P.S. You can remove that personal comment about you lying after you read it for both our sakes, if you wish it (as long as you've read it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smolders (talk • contribs) 15:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC) As you will have seen at least 3 times i nthe page edit notice, although I'm quite happy to politely discuss my deletions, any request that suggests I lied, abused powers, or similar will result in this request getting all of the attention it deserves (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Hi Bwilkins This is your first communication with me despite my request for assistance in account activation (circumvention). Your severe action, circumvention of support, lack of communication, and inproper citation for reason as to why you deleted the article (the reason you supplied is incorrect, as the article contains real world material (digital software available online) and multiple citations from reliable sources) invites at least this reaction, does it not? There's little much other way to continue without calling you out on the fact. Can you please restore the article, given this. Unless you feel there are grounds for open discussion and can expand upon the reason as to why it should be deleted. Sincerely Sam --Smolders (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Hi, Bwilkins. Just wanted to point out that Victim of Xen is a computer game, so it doesn't fall under the narrow WP:CSD#A7 you quoted when deleting it. I'll restore it if Smolders wants me to. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Are games that are distributed online not web content? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Not if you have to download and install them. Flash games, like Desktop Tower Defense, would probably be web content, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Could you suggest what needs to be done for Ankitbhatt and Ashermadan following the report? It seems that they need to stop those comments, which they do not seem to do, hence I feel a block is necessary. Should I open an RfC or something like that? Secret of success 12:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think Ankit has been looked into. Could you suggest whether a block is needed for Ashermadan, because he just vandalized my talk page today? I don't think he shows any sign of changing, as of the moment, given his attitude. Secret of success 12:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello DangerousPanda. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Please confirm my account Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed#User:Khan810 Khan810 (talk · contribs) 16:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

No. You clearly don't get Wikipedia yet. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Disscussion for Deletion of Bbuddah... Hoga Terra Baap 2

Hello if there is not any problem in the page then why do you want to delete this page Khan810 (talk · contribs) 16:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There's major problems with the page. The film is not notable yet. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit notice for User talk:Cyberpower678/Flipper/Hash

Can you make an edit notice for that page up there and have it be transcluded from User talk:Cyberpower678/Flipper/Hash/Editnotice?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 12:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed what you did for me. Are you sure it's working? I don't see it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't even understand what you were trying to do - it made little sense; but I did what you asked, nevertheless (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Because I only have the power to create an edit notice for my userpage and my talk page, I need admin admin assistance for my subpages. Since only admins can create and edit editnotices for subpages, in userspace, I asked you if you could create an editnotice in mainspace for that page and have it transclude from a page in my userspace. Nevertheless, Worm did it for me.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 11:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

I am so sorry i didn't give attention while removing the deletion template Khan810 (talk · contribs)

User:Smolders

Hi Bwilkins! This is Tristessa over from WP:UTRS. I've received and declined an unblock appeal from Smolders (talk · contribs), a user you blocked recently. However, I've noticed that the block reason and template you used for the indef appears to be wrong — you used {{UsernameHardBlock}}, but the block seems to have been to do with COI/spam editing (and there's a sockpuppet template on his userpage) since his username appears to be perfectly alright. For the sake of clarity to the user, I've explained this in my decline e-mail and I've reblocked as WP:SPAM. Cheers, --Tristessa (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, his username isn't quite right. You'll notice in the only article he's worked on, he inserts his name into the infobox ... and redlinks it for future use. In that way, he does meet the original. Otherwise, it works either way. Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Amber Rose

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Amber Rose". Thank you.--Ron John (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no involvement in that article, outside of an administrative capacity (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi - An invitation

I'm not exactly sure which editors who have been involved in the original discussions I should notify of this - Bad Faith and Mr Bratland - but rather than mistakenly leave out, I'll instead include. Regards, Rivercard (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I still don't think ANI is the right place, as per the previous thread. WP:RFC/U is likely best. Thanks for letting me know (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it ruined your day or anything...

...but still, I've clarified at Jimbo's talk page that my issue wasn't with anything you did, but rather the response he got on the talk page. I should have been clearer earlier, sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate that more than you can imagine right now :-) Sometimes it takes random messages like that - and from the user - to remind me that most of what I do is considered positive around here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

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.

---

WP:BRD is not policy or guideline and you're not discussing, WP:CONSENSUS is. Even if it were a policy, you're not following it yourself. You were bold in your revert but now you're not discussing. Bad form.

Talkback templates are the correct way to communicate when attempting to draw the attention of another editor. I will continue to use them here and other locations despite your edit notice, particularly when you don't bother to read my edit notice indicating that I will move discussions to the articles.

Sorry if I removed your talk before moving it to the correct location. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You clearly horrifically misunderstand. If someone adds something, and it gets removed, someone cannot tag-team to re-add it - the discussion portion must occur for it is re-added. I'm happy to discuss my removal - but you never have cart-blanche to re-add until the discussion takes place - re-adding it twice is edit-warring (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised here, but I think you've made a slight error in judgment; since it wasn't vandalism you were fixing by removing that characterization in the first place, you were involved in a content dispute -- I think maybe you shouldn't have blocked there, but AN:3RR'd it instead. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually don't see how I was really involved in a content dispute there whatsoever. Unsourced (yet minor) addition, I removed it. Someone mindlessly reverted. I tried to speak to him directly, and he mindlessly reverted again. I'm happy to unblock him IFF they simply agree to self-revert until new consensus exists. if someone else wants to take over the block, feel free. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, I agree with jpgordon here, I do not think you blocking was appropriate here. You were involved in the content dispute, so you should not be blocking the editor and demanding that they agree to self-revert to get unblocked (that appears to me to be a use of using the block tool to get your way in the content dispute). Regardless, if Walter continues to edit war over the article, then anyone my re-instate the block. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, you have also misread the situation, based on the disgusting tone of your unblock. I give 2 shits about the article, and it is inappropriate for you to suggest that I was using anything "as a tool" in a content dispute. Absolutely beyond inappropriate. Un-fucking-believably inappropriate if you had even bothered to read and look at any of the background. Fuck, really - not a bad unblock, but an absolutley fucktarded comment above and unblock message. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I know there are some editors around here who are perfectly happy to fling swear words around and to receive them from others, but I am not one of them, so please tone down your language. I did look into the background of this case and read your comments. As you said above, you removed the addition, and Walter reverted you, you then reverted Walter (something you neglect to mention above), and he reverted you. At that point you blocked him, and then said you would unblock him if he self-reverted the article to restore it to the version that you edit warred to try and keep. Now it may not have been your intention, but that to me is undoubtedly a use of the block tool to forward your side of the content dispute. Using the block tool like this (even if you didn't realise it) will have a chilling effect on editors who are in content disputes with administrators. Clearly what I said has upset you, and I apologise for that. If there is anything in particular that offends you (which is not addressed by this message) please feel free to bring it up with me and I will try to clarify or redact. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly I have attributed a level of respect towards you that was clearly undeserved. I also do not slide into invective at the drop of a hat, but in this case it's the one thing that is clearly well-deserved. Once again, in English: I have no preferred version. WG edit-warred; period. My statement was clear: "self-reverting shows proof that you're communicating towards consensus instead of blind reverting". Your unblock statement, and your statement(s) above BOTH attribute a motive that most clearly does not exist. Your lack of desire to actually recognize that the messages you send that: a) edit-warring is just fine, and b) I personally have some kind of agenda speak volumes about your character. You never should have made those statements either on the unblock, nor here on my talkpage when you're obviously fucking clueless. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, WG edit warred, and I've never said he didn't. But so did you. Your edit warring seemed to indicate that you did have a preferred version (why else would you revert to it?). Your edit warring also meant you were involved in the dispute, and therefore had a conflict of interest. You say I'm wrong to say that you had a motive to want a particular version of that article live, but you edit warred to try and keep a particular version live. So clearly you did have a motive - again, why else would you edit war over it?

I fail to see how any of my actions have encouraged edit warring. If either one of us are indicating that edit warring is "just fine", it is you by partaking in edit warring. My actions, on the other hand, don't appear to have caused any edit warring. Walter has not continued edit warring after my unblock. Instead he actually went and looked for sources (which seems to be what you wanted judging by your edit summaries at the article). He discussed on the talk page (again, what you seemed to want). And also apologised to you, which you have opted to repay with scorn.

Your talkpage notice says Intelligent discussion is better than a diatribe or attack, this is something I wholeheartedly agree with. Please, do not leave another personal attack against me. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, and wrong...and the fact that your brutal unblock statement remains proves you have no desire to correct your errors, even after being advised otherwise. Although, one could say I am "vindicated" on the article in that the original addition no longer stands (I was found to be correct), your disgusting diatribe against me that has no basis in reality remains both on WG's unblock, and above. As such, I'm quite welcome to continue it on this talkpage. That you have failed to change it shows your a lot about you. I was quite prepared to apologize myself this morning, but clearly you have zero desire to amend what are obviously incorrect and damaging statements. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You should know better than to use the "I was right" defence for your edit warring. Besides, on the talk page someone else managed to reach a compromise, where the addition still stands but was re-worded. What part of the unblock statement is incorrect/damaging? You weren't involved in a content dispute? Blocking Walter didn't give you the upper-hand? You didn't try to force Walter into self reverting? As I said earlier, if you can give me specific problems I can work on mending them. Now to be fair, you have given some specifics (e.g. I actually don't see how I was really involved in a content dispute there whatsoever). But you haven't explained what makes you think you were not involved. You were edit warring on the article, you were involved in the content dispute.

Finally, take a look at the section below. Walter comes along and apologises, but you just can't let it drop, bringing up other problems you have with his comment on the talk page. His response is to offer to strike those comments (Shall I strike that statement and add something better and more neutral?), and you respond by yelling at him about how unclassy he would be to leave the comment there, that it would make him a hypocrite, that his comment is bullshit, that he's pretending they don't exist. He just offered to strike them, all you had to say was "yes please". Take a step back. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh for fuck sake, I was not trying to keep any "preferred" version, therefore I was not edit-warring, therefore I sure as fuck CANNOT be using any defence for edit-warring. Which fucking part of this to you not understand? You continue to add motive to my actions which I have clearly SHOWN did not exist. I have clearly shown you the other side of the coin, and yet you persist. Nobody NEEDS to offer to strike comments: they do it themselves based on a) their character, and b) the new information provided to them. This whole thing can go away if you re-fucking-read, and redact your own ridiculous conclusions towards something that actually fits what you now know and that does the least harm to ANYONE involved. Your motive-laden comments in the unblock request have been proven wrong, yet you persist in failing to redact, as promised. So, not only did you read incorrectly, you fail to keep your own promises. Fantastic leadership there Kingpin. This thread would have been a lot shorter if you had simply kept your promises (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

So you were just editing at random. and happened to revert to the same version multiple times? That wasn't actually your preferred version? Take a look at the history of that page; you were edit warring. It doesn't matter if you had some higher motive that you are unable to share with us. You were still edit warring, and you need to accept that. But all your actions so far appear to indicate that you are unable to accept that you were edit warring (for example, earlier you said Unsourced (yet minor) addition, I removed it. Someone mindlessly reverted. I tried to speak to him directly, and he mindlessly reverted again, here you mention all of Walter's reverts, but neglect to mention your revert inbetween, instead only saying that you tried to discuss with him (which while true, is not a license to then continue edit warring - Walter tried to discuss too, but that didn't make his edit warring okay)).

I am trying to understand why you edited to restore a paticular version of an article multiple times, why you then blocked the other editor who was trying to keep a different version of the article in place, and why you then said to them you would unblock if they restored the version which you had been trying to keep live. And I don't think it's unreasonable for me to conclude that you did have a slight preference as to which version of the article was live. All you've done is screamed and sworn at me about how you didn't have any motive at all to want that particular version, but you haven't explained what your actual reason was for your actions.

I said If there is anything in particular that offends you [...] please feel free to bring it up with me and I will try to clarify or redact. I don't see how I've broken any promises. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me try this again, and once again in English. This is what I saw:

• An IP added a phrase that was uncited, and was non-encyclopedic WP:OR, I don't even recall what it was without looking back.
• I removed it with "Remove unref'd opinion"
• WG reverted with "You select this one unreferenced statement to remove" which led me to believe that WG had thought I had simply chosen some random statement in the article to remove, and NOT the fact that I had simply reverted the previous addition.
• I approached WG directly in order to verify with WG that he had seen that I was merely reverting an addition, not simply randomly removing things as per his edit-summary. It was not to discuss the possible addition of the phrase to the article, it was to verify if he had seen the actual sequence of events.
• WG refused to discuss, removed my question, and reverted on the article.
• At that point, it was apparent to me (at the time) that WG didn't wish to discuss, and was blindly reverting.
• It was therefore necessary to protect the project from what appeared to be mindless edit warring, blocked, and returned the article to the original state.

I have said this all before, and I don't see why I need to repeat it. It shows clearly what I saw, and what I acted upon. It shows clearly the chain of events that were apparent that caused the necessity to issue a very short block. It shows clearly that I had zero involvement in the text, or the article. How many more times shall I say it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(←) I don't really see that point in continuing this while you still seem to be in denial about that fact that you were edit warring. In a section below, you say "It does take 2 - or more - to edit-war" - but apparently that doesn't hold true when one of those two is yourself? If it takes two to edit war, how was Walter edit warring and yet you were not? In point four above, you yet again fail to mention the fact that you re-reverted Walter. In point five you say that Walter refused to discuss, and yet he did leave a comment on the talk page. You say I had zero involvement in the text, and yet you edited the text of the article, and even edit warred over it. You. Edit. Warred. I don't see why you find that so difficult to accept, or what makes you so sure you didn't. You said I was not trying to keep any "preferred" version, therefore I was not edit-warring, again, how exactly does that hold true? Edit warring is repeatedly reverting on an article, in other words, exactly what you did: first revert, repeated revert. If you didn't have a preferred version why did you restore a particular version multiple times? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? I just explained why I restored the particular version twice. Either you can't read, or choose not to read - I would expect it's the latter, but it's leaning towards the former right now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Above, you have only commented on one of your reverts, and that was to say I removed it with "Remove unref'd opinion" - that explains the reason for the first revert (i.e. that it was unreferenced). Now you say that you just explained your reasoning for both reverts. However, the second revert you have not even mentioned in your previous message, and subsequently you have not explained your reasoning for that second revert. At point five (where the second revert should be) you say that WG refused to discuss, removed my question, and reverted on the article, did you intend for that to read "WG refused to discuss, removed my question, and so I reverted him"? Because that might then be an explanation for both reverts. Incorrect reasoning, perhaps, because Walter did discuss, but apparently you didn't realise that at the time.

However, that is all rather academic, because it makes no difference to the fact that you did edit war over the article. Do you think that having a reason (which appears to be (a) it was unreferenced and then (b) the other editor wasn't discussing) excuses you to edit war? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I was unaware that you could not read. My apologies. As you were then. (PS: the secret is to bang the rocks together) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I'm not quite sure what's going on here but for the sake of both sides, I think it be best that both sides drop this right here and now before it potentially spurs into WP:BATTLEFIELD.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Cyberpower. As you know, I'm one of the more sane, polite, and helpful people around here. Bullshit (and liars) piss me off. Reality is, I'm closing this - in the absence of proof that someone can read, and a plethora of proof that they cannot, it actually allows me to better ignore the disgusting statements they have made about me. Others may read them and believe them, and a tremendous disservice has been done to this project, but hey, that's their doing and not mine. If I had known they were unarmed, I would not have started the battle of wits. Someday when they learn to read, they'll actually realize what was said, and amend their ways. Until then, they may fuck themselves. It was easy for them to fix - they chose not to. They high road would have been easier for everyone (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

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

A cookie of concord

I never meant to edit war and I recognize that my actions (removing a comment on my talk page before adding it to the new location) seemed suspicious, and so I offer this as a token of apology for my actions. I'm glad that the article in question is now better as a result of your persistence there. While I may have been frustrated by the situation, I hope I didn't display that or vent too much and hope that we can work together to make Wikipedia a better place. Thanks again for your perseverance and your tireless insistence in maintaining a high standard for Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Having seen this, clearly you're just talking out of your ass (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. I mean the gift sincerely. Just because I disagree with you and state that you're "full of yourself and that shows no class" when you misrepresent the facts to make yourself look better, doesn't mean I can't be contrite about it. Shall I strike that statement and add something better and more neutral? I'm not watching your page so talkback may be required. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't misrepresent shit all and you know it. Strike your bullshit, we'll all move on. If you leave it, and we'll all know how classy you really are. Otherwise it's called being hypocritical - you can't leave your insults in place, and fix them with a cookie like the don't exist. Again, you're an editor I used to hold in respect - not so much anymore. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well done then. Your classlessness has been verified. Classy people don't ask if they should fix their errors; they simply do it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Screwball23

Likely should get a friendly word about tendentiousness again as he seems to be at or past 3RR at Bob Turner (politician) already (4RR in 30 hours) -- he has only recently come off a 1 month block which you imposed for tendentiousness.

1. [1] 21:32 10 Apr
2. [2] 20:32 10 Apr
3. [3] 23:24 9 Apr
4. [4] 15:09 9 Apr

In each case being the first in a series of contiguous edits - he ha made on the order of 60 edits on the single article in just 2 days. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Making 4 reverts outside of the 24hrs is gaming the system. The nature of his other edits also include edit-warring. Escalated to 3 months block (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings

Is it possible to introduce consensual changes to a protected page? What kind of discussion should I undertake when material is deleted because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT with no explanation being provided? There has been a rather savage editing cycle on the page although I have focused on adding material as opposed to removing it.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 16:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Follow the directions. Once consensus for the change has been reached, someone may request the edit to a full-protected page as per the directions on the page. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Block of John Foxe

Hi, I wanted to ask you a question about this block. I looked at John Foxe's recent edit history, and the only violation of his 1RR restrictions I could find were at Oliver Cowdery where he reverted User:Kingliam at 13:18, and then reverted me at 13:16 the next day after I had re-added some of Kingliam's cited additions. While this is a technical breach of 1RR (by 2 minutes) I feel both reverts were made in good faith. I later re-added the material again with a better source (per his objection) after which John Foxe started a talk page discussion about the reliability of my source. I personally felt like the discussion was beginning to get somewhere when the block happened.

Anyway, I was wondering if you might reconsider your block, or at least shorten it. One month seems excessive for a minor violation of 2 minutes. I'm also slightly worried because there are currently four AfD's open on articles created by John Foxe, and it would be nice if he were able to participate in those discussions. (He seems to be having a really bad day today.) Lastly, I'm embarrassed that I was involved in the edit "war" that led to his block. Thank you for your consideration. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

He has both violated 1RR both within 24hrs, and just outside - which is considered to be gaming the system. The length of the block was an escalation from his previous 2 week block. At some point, he'll take his responsibilities to the project a little more seriously. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Here you said that you should block me for edit warring. I have read Wikipedia:Edit warring. I'm not trying to be arrogant, but I don't see my actions to be a violation. I made one reversion and I explained my reversion on the talk page, and reminded the users about the discussion on their talk pages. When I received no response, yet the reversions continued, I reverted again, again asking the users to join the talk page, and again leaving an updated response on the talk page. I made no further reversions. But, I think you see the situation differently and find my behaviour to be edit-warring. So I guess I would like to ask you where I went wrong? What should I have done differently? Not cause I'm trying to be stubborn, but because I really don't know. Thanks,VR _talk 23:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

My biggest beef with you was telling them to withdraw their complaint. They were right to file it, when and where they did. Don't dare tell them to withdraw based on your own unique take on the purpose of the board. It does take 2 - or more - to edit-war. The main 2 parties should have both been blocked; period. Even if discussion is taking place, that does not permit continued edit-warring. You appear to have been doing your own slow-edit-war, which even looked like tag-teaming at times. Your arrival on AN/3RR to lend nothing but support to a party that was also edit-warring was disingenuous. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Is everything ok?

I have even monitoring your talk page for the past couple of days and I have reason to believe that you are under quite a bit of stress. Am I correct at assuming this?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No stress at all in real life. Had a good time away with family, the core of my faith is refreshed. What I will never settle for is false charges against me; period. I take my role seriously, and to see damaging lies/falsehoods about me by someone who I respected is extremely disturbing. I expect all people to do the right thing by nature. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That explains it. I hope it goes well.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 10:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Bill guide 4.png

Bwilkins - I was hoping that you might could and would use your magical powers to see if a file with the name File:Bill guide 4.png has ever been uploaded and or deleted. If it was deleted, could you and would you tell me why? Thank you -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It was deleted in June 2008 after a discussion at what used to be called images for deletion...precisely here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86

Hi, you helped to resolve an issue between Sonicyouth86 and Cybermud and myself back in November 2010. You investigated the whole issue and declared it to be settled in this edit [5] and warned of sanctions if things carried on. Anyway SonicYouth86 is still complaining about the very same case 17 months later[6] and doesn't seem to be able to move on or accept any of your comments. I've retracted my reply and realise I should probably have stayed silent and contacted you straight away so apologies for not doing so. Here are the links in your talk archives [7][8]

Adopt and help

I read your message and clicked on your talkpage because your message said I could, but then your talkpage said I couldn't. So I went back to my talkpage but couldn't figure out how to edit it because when I clicked on my "your talkpage" it took me to some help which I don't think was my talkpage at all. LOL. So I hope you don't mind telling me in simple words how to do this. Maybe I should get you to adopt me to but I might be older than you. Anyway I just wanted to help out on wikipedia but it seems it's very hard.--Kelly222 (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry I can't do an edit summary for this because I don't know how. My edit summary is : help and adopt. Thank you ever to much for typing the message on my page. I hope you haven't wasted too much time.

Image question

Bwilkins, I am new to Wiki editing but have just completed (as of 10:15am ET, 4/13/12) editing and posting of the "Subra Suresh" Wiki entry and have attempted to post a portrait photo (68KB) through the Commons site. How long does it normally take for a photo to appear in the public Wiki entry? Everything seemed to go fine with uploading the portrait/photo. --LeeHerring (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you had spelled the name wrong, and someone has fixed it for you on the article, as it looks like it's there fine now. Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj and an "other ventures" section revisited

May I get you to come back by Talk:Nicki Minaj and comment again on whether she should have a section in her article about other ventures? An anonymous user—and I think it's just one with changing IP rather than a series of them on that talk page—keep suggesting the page should have one. The latest discussion thread (:D Ok) includes six or seven links—: several are to Minaj's website or the other companies' sites for the ventures, but there's one to the Chicago Tribune and one to MTV. The discussion could really use with more than two voices, and since you'd participated before, that's why I picked you specifically. Thank you in advance for joining back in. —C.Fred (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

And no I'm not the only one who has asked for other ventures this is the only thing i asked for on her talk page specifically.