User talk:DangerousPanda/Archive 1

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

1783 in Spain

Hello, I'm not entirely happy with the above article, are you going to do a project for every year in Spain? If not, this article will be lonely and soon be deleted, I'm afraid. Shoombooly (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

True, but i wondered if you'd also create the other years in Spain...will you? otherwise it's so lonely! (i don't like orphaned pages :) Shoombooly (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Stubs are great, gives others opportunity to help. You could start your own project. Shoombooly (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Move of Gasparillo Island

Juswt wanted to let you know that I haved moved the article to Gasparillo Island. Thanks, --Meldshal42 (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your new Trinidad articles

Hello! I was just doing New Page Patrol and I was stamping your new Trinidad articles for approval. I just wanted to drop a line and say "Thanks!" for bringing this Trinidad information to Wikipedia -- you are doing a fine job in expanding the Caribbean coverage. I have also added WikiProject templates to the articles, and you may wish to consider doing this on your future contributions. Be well, and keep up the good work. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In appreciation of your work regarding Trinidad's coverage on Wikipedia, please accept this as a token of my appreciation:

		The Original Barnstar
		In tribute to your invaluable work in expanding the depth and scope of Caribbean coverage on Wikipedia.Ecoleetage (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep it up, busy is good. Do you have some connecting to TT? Guettarda (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The Irish Descendants

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Irish Descendants, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.irishdescendants.com/band.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, your bot is confused. Badly. Bwilkins (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't give up

Hello! I removed the Speedy Delete tags, and suggested the editor take the articles to AfD if he wants erasure. The problem with New Page Patrols is that some editors are too eager to delete. I know, I used to be one of them. That's why I now add WikiProject templates where applicable to patrolled pages. If you need any further help, just whistle. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is a neat trick to avoid a reprise: never put up a new article unless you have all of your independently confirmable sources in place. The problem is that these appear to be works in progress -- that will open you to tagging. I never put up a new article unless I have my references and links in place. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I am leaving a message for that editor (and you, too) on his page. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Everything seems to have turned out well. Enjoy the day!

Ecoleetage (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear SineBot: I know you're just a bot, but BUGGER OFF, it's been a long week (and people have been p-ing me off extremely today with their unjust deletions!)  :-P self-signed by Bwilkins (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Heather

Fragments of Jade has taken that quote you got about Heather being named after the actress to mean that she was given her last name as well. I completely agree with you that that's not the case though. Thanks for looking into the situation. I can create a mini article on the actress if you'd like, she apparently did some voice work for SH4 as well - that might help beef it up a bit. Thanks again. --Thaddius (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the header, I don't know if you noticed. I think\hope I removed all of the info that mentions me personally. I'm hoping that this will give more credence to the 'no last name' side of things, but it might end up as evidence of 'Mason'. --Thaddius (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't go overboard. I just don't think FoJ is going to listen to reason or stop believing that that e-mail is actual proof. Cake guy asked me to avoid that argument anyhow. Our argument has been made and the article says what you, waka, 88 and I are pushing for so there really isn't much reason to keep being goaded on by FoJ. --Thaddius (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of The Irish Descendants

A tag has been placed on The Irish Descendants requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

False Warning

Your message to my talk page[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Collectonian&diff=224441839&oldid=224441578 was a false accusation of vandalism, and completely inappropriate. The band member listing are nearly word from word from the official site. Adding the word "on" does not make it any less so. You want to disagree with the removal, fine, but do not level out right false accusations of vandalism against me just because you disagree. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm allowed to remove messages from my talk page, particularly unwarranted ones, and its rude to put them back. I'm under no obligation to respond at all. You could have simply said what you said in you second message (POLITELY) and reverted. The accusations of vandalism and personal attacks were beyond unwarranted. Don't take your bad day out on me. Why not re-read WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY while you have a cup of WP:TEA. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, the above is what happens when you post a CIVIL message stating that it appears someone did vandalism to a page. They get snotty. Remember this when you edit Wikipedia. BMW(drive) 21:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You may have felt your original message was civil, but it was not. Civil does not have the header of "Your edits to The Irish Descendants - Vandalism" and basically rewording the level 1 vandalism template to avoid templating a regular. It was rude and completely unnecessary. You started the snottiness with such a blatantly false accusation. I have never vandalized an article in my two years of editing under my username, nor before when editing under an IP. Sue me if I resent the accusation and the tone with which it was leveled. You didn't come ask a question about why it was remove or politely correct the presumption of copying. You accused, falsely, and made it clear you felt I had vandalized "your" article. I performed what I felt were the correct actions in responding to a, get this, Suspected copyright violation report. The copyvio was borderline, but I could see the issue. As I felt the article was also on a non-notable topic, I CSDed it. It was declined, which was cool, so I followed the prescribed method of dealing with partial copyvio, and removed what appeared to be a copy/paste from the official website. Rather than simply leave a nice note explaining you had revert the removal because of X, you accused me of vandalizing "your" article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Conversation is ended by me. Additional replies are not welcome. Wikiusers...look soon for a permanent version of this that all editors can learn from! BMW(drive) 22:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

I'm pretty sure the edit summary "removing advert" was descriptive enough, thanks very much. Some kids shouldn't have toys. BMW(drive) 16:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the reason I reverted is because I thought you were trying to lie in your edit summary. You re-added an advertisement that I had removed. Here is the diff of my reversion. What I think happened is, you clicked "undo" a split second after I reverted with Huggle. I have removed the warning I gave you, as you were obviously not intentionally vandalizing, but in the future, you need to make sure of the diff before you save the page. Once, I accidentally reported an administrator to AIV accusing him of being a sockpuppet because I did not check which diff I was looking at. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Going oveboard on your deletions today

Please stop. Your job is to ASSIST with Wikpedia, not vandalize it by deleting everything in sight. If you have some issue with articles that are under construction related to scientists whose PROJECT is listed on the discussion, please let me know. I only create articles with proper CITING and REFERENCEs.

I expect all pages that were create by me today to be UNDELETED and put back ASAP please. BMW(drive) 16:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the PRIMARY article in question that you delete had more references (added by me) that would lead any reader to better understand this person's importance and role in the post-global warming geology. BMW(drive) 16:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting ... if you're going to DELETE an article within 20 minutes of creation, you should be available for at least an additional 20 minutes after to reply to issues. Thanks BMW(drive) 17:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of vandalism. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Then, um ... don't do it? I applaud most of your efforts, I look forward to your immediate undoing of your errors, and we'll all go on our merry way :) BMW(drive) 18:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You might like to have a look at WP:VAND for what vandalism is: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". This wasn't vandalism. I don't think my deletion was in error, but the deletion review will finally decide that. Stifle (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

question

I share your concern at the above deletions. But could you pleas comment on the relationship between William Curry (Geophysicist) and William Curry (Oceanographer). Are these actually two people in very similar fields having exactly the same name? Could you please add some sources and links to the article on the Geophysicist to verify the information provided there. I am quite prepared to help you carry this a little further if necessary beyond the DRV if I think it appropriate. , but this must be clarified first. If there is something you';d rather explain my email, feel free to email me from my user page link. DGG (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your comment. To be honest, I don't have any real knowledge of either Dr. Curry. I saw a deletion of a poorly named article that deserved to belong, so I did some research and got the oceanographer one up and running. The other one I moved to a geophysicist page, in order to assist in disabiguation. They do have similar backgrounds, although their degrees appear to be from different locations. Their focus is different to: ocean-saving as opposed to resource-utilization. I'll see what I can do to research the geophysicist (all searches I do regarding Dr. Curry and Exxon bring up a woman who is quite an environmentalist, and her name was all over the Exxon Valdez incident" BMW(drive) 12:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

PROD's and AfD's

I wanted to drop you a line about something you mentioned on my user page. I will address your other points later today, but I had a quick question. Where did you see that an editor who PROD's an article cannot nominate the same for AfD (assuming someone has contested the PROD)? I haven't run across that policy/guideline/practice etc yet. I checked WP:PROD and WP:AfD and did not see anything there. If you could point me in the right direction, it would be appreciated. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 19:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have replied to your message on my talk page. TN‑X-Man 19:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

IRC

Hey. Would you mind coming on irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-medcab sometime? If you're not familiar with IRC, I can show you how it works. Basically I want to discuss a few things with you and a few others. It's not going to be a "debate" or anything like that. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 00:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Heather Morris

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Heather Morris, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. • Gene93k (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• PROD removed. Reasoning place on discussion page. Details provided to editor. BMW(drive) 13:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Two Ronnies 1987 Christmas Special

You say that this page does not deserve to exist on its own. I say that it does as it was a culturally significant episode.--Bravo Plantation (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nashville Predators

No problem at all. Glad someone notices! DeluxNate (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Brem City

I've pretty much given up on the user - their Upage is on my watchlist and I'm checking their contributions relatively regularly. Much further and I'd have ARVd them for both vandalism and potentially attacking. I'm not keen on moving the article (I don't know if you've seen my comments suggesting that the content/references would be more suited to an article on the band rather than the album), so I may AfD it in the near future. Booglamay (talk) - 20:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I'd tried to tell that to the author... no chance! Booglamay (talk) - 13:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Accounts with multiple IP addresses

Thanks for the warning -- I did not realize the gravity of the accusation -- However, it seems obvious to me that this is all the same user -- Note that one user User talk:96.247.103.165 specifically threatened 'I'll just change my ip address and make all you admins at wikipedia go apeshit.' after being banned for a month -- Perhaps they are different people, but they seem to have the same agenda and have followed me due to a dispute over Dave Zirin. Should I just deal with this one IP at a time and not mention that all of these different IPs seem to be doing the same thing? ThanksEditor437 (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, since I don't have the time to learn the ins and outs of socketpuppery, I'll just forget about editing on Wikipedia, as all my edits get reverted, and when I complain that someone does precisely what they say they are going to do, I get angry responses from administrators. Have fun with this guy:)Editor437 (talk) 03:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that new editor recreated the article after it was speedy deleted

Jeff leblanc. — Realist² (Speak) 21:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The Article Rescue Squadron needs you

Hello, I noticed that you recently signed up to be part of the Article Rescue Squadron at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Members.

If you have not yet added this template to your user page, please do: {{Template:User Article Rescue Squadron}}

There is a whole list of articles which needed rescuing now:

...can you please take the time and rescue one?

And please watch Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron for ongoing new developments.

Thank you, Article Rescue Squadron member, Inclusionist (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi! Do you probably know how I can add pictures to articles? Magnus Armstrong (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Magnus Armstrong. I'm glad you asked...First, you will need to upload the image to Wikipedia itself ... when you do that, you will need to verify that you have the rights to use that image. All the details on licensing and uploading are located here WP:IMAGE. Let me know if you have any issues with the process! Happy editing! BMW(drive) 00:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Marcel Bwanga

Hi. I'm sorry, I made a mistake on the delete reasons. It was actually meant to be deleted as a copyright violation (WP:CSD#G12) because it was a cut-and-paste of this website. As it is a copyright violation, I cannot restore it for you, as it's against policy to do so. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

personal attacks

Edits like this border on personal attacks. Please comment on content, not on other editors. If you carry on making personal attacks you'll be blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's funny. Because of an ameri-euro-centricity, most editors tend to focus on what defines "success" by western standards. I know, I was one of them for a long time. Deleting then PROTECTING an article based on Western Standards when it could not be looked at from that POV, then failing to allow a neutral editor who was 100% willing to CORRECT the article was truly the act of either a bad editor or at least an editor that was having bad moment. My statement above was very clearly not a personal attack - it was based on the old adage that things look different after a good night's sleep, and that by giving you the benefit of the doubt that you ARE a good editor, it was a recommendation to back away for a bit and look at things with a fresh set of eyes. Plus, check the emoticon. Don't get all persnickety on Wikipedia, you'll start taking it personally BMW(drive) 10:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Your sadness

You wrote:

As sad as it is (and so contrary to logic) I would have to say that en.beijing2008.cn is canonical for the naming/translation standard into English. Of course, if they suddenly hire a bunch of local translaters, it will change quickly ;)

Why are you sad? And what is the logic that is contradicted here? Sorry if I'm missing something. And why would anything change if the translators were local? The Chinese generally prefer American English (though not as strongly as Japanese and Koreans). Actually, how do you even know the translators aren't local? Just curious. Sorry if I said something that made you said. Samuel Webster (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(reply from his talk page)

I saw your messages both AN/I and on my talk page. Let me begin with saying that I am NOT anti-American. I am, however, Canadian, and use the Queen's English like almost all of the English-speaking world except for the US.

As those who study language admit, the dropping of Queen's English in the US was primarily a political statement, so the "u" got dropped from odour, and "centre" became "center". Linguistics professors around the world (and the US) call this the "Bastardization of the English Language". That makes me sad. The use of Americanized English by some Canadian newspapers makes me sad.

Please note, I have specified in the AN/I that since en.beijing2008.cn uses Americanized English, then the use of "Center" instead of the IOC standard of "Centre" is correct.

However - a "metre" is a standard unit of measure. A "meter" is something you measure with.

Please only change the words in the article that actually should be changed.

I do not wish to argue languages with you, but would be happy to assist in other issues as required BMW(drive) 18:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My tutored editor

Bwilkins, thaks; I was offilne for 3 days during which you posted to me - sorry about that. I don't see any problem here with this now; it seems to have blown off in the immetiate term, at least as regards Ottava. Disenge is the mantra with him these days, and i see that here - he stuck up for himself; after that left it go and went for his rest. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI

You said that you were concerned that an admin, Nandesuka, used admin powers on an article he was involved with. If you look at the article, you will see that his involvement was limited to deleting the image which he said violated copyright. Therefore, there is no conflict.

Also, we have wikitionary to define terms. An encyclopedic entry would need to discuss origins, uses, etc, besides just merely defining. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the off-topic chat from the ANI page. If you would like to continue discussion of the merits of the Pearl necklace (sexuality) article, please do so by email or on talk pages. Thank you. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to comment on my behavior, please do not post it here. That list is reserved for a handful of admin and other users that stay involved in my discussion participations. If you have a comment, please restrict it to this. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

(reply from his talk page)

I put a comment exactly where it belonged. It was something you needed to WATCH, so I put it there. If you cannot learn from your massive errors, how will you learn from minor ones. I fear your tutelage is not going as well as it should. I admire passion, but I admire admitting when you are out of your league/wrong even moreso. Your tutors need to know exactly how badly you're doing so that they can either help, or bail. Based on your commentary in AN/I (as polite as I could have been) you're not doing so well. You had many chances to save face, but you've succeeded in doing something extremely difficult: entering my "bad editor" books. Your snotty comment served to confirm it. Good luck BMW(drive) 23:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

AFD

I go by what is in the film guidelines, A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Schuym1 (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the article will be fine if it gets at least one more review. Also, sites like Amazon aren't reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Dinosaur Island (2002 film)

• Popular in Italy [1]
• Popular in Hungary [2]
• You might study THIS and see if other country releases help your notability.

Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• here's THIS and THIS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• From taking part in the AfD discussion, I noticed that someone thought you were right on the edge of proving notability. Every little bit helps. Better to be oversourced than not enough. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Samuel Webster and User:Bwilkins

Hey, I've got a great idea! Since neither of you wants to hear from the other, and since your interactions consist entirely of each putting template warnings on the others's talk pages and deleting them from your own, why not just leave each other alone for a while? Wouldn't that be fun? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as that's what I asked for about 2 weeks ago, it would be nice. The bit about warnings is a bit off, though. Of course, not being called "racist" and "prejudiced" would help too. BMW(drive) 18:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings and a query.

Hello there, you may remember me from that unpleasantness involving Fragments of Jade. Got a question about my watchlist that I hope you can help me with. It often shows an edit made to an article, but not subsequent edits after that, even if they are made by a different IP/user. F'r instance, I see a large deletion by an anon IP, check it out and find that yes, it was vandalism but has been reverted. But the reversion or other subsequent edits do not show up on my watchlist. It's not one of those server lag things either, as this happens all the time, regardless of whether there's a lag warning up or not. Advice appreciated, as this is niggling me.Mr T (Based) (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Did as you advised, same as before, the page shows up with the initial edit, but not following ones. I'm not hiding any edits at all in my options, either. Yours confusedly, Mr T (Based) (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's all of them, I think. Probably the most clear example is Resident Evil 3: Nemesis. When looking at the article's history, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resident_Evil_3:_Nemesis&action=history, the edit by 96.234.169.132 shows up on my watchlist, but the previous edit by 204.210.142.253 does not. Thanks for taking the time to help.Mr T (Based) (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Only one I have ticked is "Add pages I create to my watchlist". So I'm seeing all edits including minor ones, bot ones, anonymous, logged-in and even my own edits.Mr T (Based) (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't have the first box ticked, that's why! Thanks and apologies for being as thick as mince.Mr T (Based) (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the archive, it's all new to me.Mr T (Based) (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposals on Template talk:Sexual orientation

Hi, you've contributed to past discussions on the Template talk:Sexual orientation page and we are now in the process of noting which of several proposals might help resolve some current content disputes. Your opinion to offer Support, Oppose, and Comment could help us see if there is consensus to approve any of these proposals. It's been suggested to only offer a Support on the one proposal you most favor but it's obviously to each editor's discretion to decide what works for them. Banjeboi 23:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy Crap

What the hell did you and 88 do while I was away? I guess we don't have to worry about FoJ anymore.

Also, never noticed you were from Ottawa. Didn't know I had run across a fellow... Ottawean? Ottawite?

Anyway, good editing! --Thaddius (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Careful, someone will now think we're friends in person/sockpuppets of each other and file a complaint! BMW(drive) 18:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit that one user (and I won't say who) probably needled her just a little too much, and those of us who were trying to help her got "lumped in". We all know she'll be back, and it will be obvious when it happens. While I usually admire passion, she needs some guidance to become a good editor. BMW(drive) 11:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again. Do you know if I am the 'Mr. T' that Weisheit keeps referring to in comments like this one? Or was there someone actually named Mr. T that she dealt with? --Thaddius (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Short version of my reply on his talk page: No, it's someone else :P BMW(drive) 22:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Confused

You've just given a hearty welcome to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ChubmasterFat

A user whose only contributions were vandalism and who has been blocked by another admin. Is there something the rest of us are missing perchance?The Thunderer (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Short version of my reply: even donkeychasms deserve a welcome every now and then :) BMW(drive) 22:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Keeping your coin

Hey, thanks for the Canadian coin in the Everyking RfA.  :-)

How is life (mis)treating you? Ecoleetage (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it is good to know that the Wiki culture of insults and false accusations is alive and well. I was just accused of sockpuppetry in an AfD debate because some new editor that I greeted as part of the Welcoming Committee voted in my favour. Incredible, eh? Keep in touch! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello, Thank you very much for welcoming me... :) Sicenrely, --RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC) .

You're quite welcome! BMW(drive) 23:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

and thank you for the answer ;) :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk • contribs) 23:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Help!!!!!

Hi, yesterday I wrote an article about "The Poetto" (The beach of Cagliari Sardinia) which is a perfect translation of the article "Poetto" in the italian wikipedia. The problem is that I didn't put any references or source cause I haven't found anything in English, an other user told me to link source/references in Italian would be ok due to the lacking of article in English and so I did but the template that say the article hasn't got any source or references is still there, I'm not English I'm Italian, and I spent an entire day to translate that article so I really don't want it to be removed, the italian version is ok, there are no template or any kind of advice so I suppose my English version is okay too..... please Help!!!!!!! Lawrencerock (talk) 07:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryerson University Page

I think you editors need to back off and not attempt to bully new wiki users. I have provided valid reasoning for my edits, provided edit summaries, only to have them undone without explanation repeatedly and then accused of starting an edit war when the other guy is undoing and not providing explanations. I take offense to being called a vandal and think that is not civil at all. Just because you are both editors does not give you the right to gang up on less established writers. How do I get someone blocked from editing? because undoing my edits and just crying VANDALISM without justification is NOT RIGHT.

Oh and my edits? I took out the section talking about Ryerson Publishing House, which has no affliating with the university besides its name, and the long history about egerton ryerson, because the history does not talk about how he started ryerson. He has his own article for everything non-university related. I really think you guys are just adding fluff to the article for no reason. It's ridiculous.

Musicmogul09 (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. First, see my reply on the Ryerson talk page. My role when I try mediate a dispute that has been filed in the Wikiquette forum is to help, not bully. If you're a new editor, it gives us a chance to start you off in the right direction. First, ALWAYS discuss major changes/deletions and gain consensus before single-handedly deleting large chunks of information from an article - or else it is, indeed, vandalism. Second, please be CIVIL ... edit summaries are PERMANENT, and referring to someone as a "dumbass" on a permanent record can usually get you banned. You will also be more likely to get your suggestions through if you're cooperative, rather than being combative. "Consensus", "Civility" and "Assume Good Faith" are the main keys. PS: I had no relationship with that article until this morning, even though I know a lot about the subject. BMW(drive) 16:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I can see that consensus, civility and assume good faith are important. BUT I think it's important NOT to automatically accuse somebody of vandalism and assume they are not acting in good faith. And to try to intimidate them because you (in your expect opinion, contrary to the whole wiki thing from what i hear) think they are vandals and you try to get them banned. Look at the summaries and note that I DID put comments in the history section. These were IGNORED. Also, no comments were put in reponse to any undo changes. Just because I don't know how to fill out a wiki: etiquette comment, and i don't know that editors assume vandalism over edits they don't agree with because they are biased, doesn't mean i should be intimidated. What you are doing is limited wiki to a SMALL NUMBER of people who likely are ALL HOMOGENOUS in thought.

Maybe I should edit more, and then GOAD new editors into getting themselves banned because I know the ins and outs of the system.

• If you don't want new editors to be combative, maybe you should communicate more rather than undoing without comment, and accuse them of vandalising and threaten to get them banned*. I'm not saying that was you, but it is what happened. Now it has escalated into a pointless edit war because an experienced editor CHOSE to NOT show consensus, civility and good faith. Musicmogul09 (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks for the reply, and I understand that you're both pissed off and possibly (slightly) confused. First, whether or not you properly create an edit summary or not, any time you delete massive blocks of text, it will raise suspicions of vandalism ... in fact, there are some automated bots that will AUTOMATICALLY revert, and warn you for vandalism for exactly that infraction. Secondly, I personally believe that EVERYONE has something to add to Wikipedia (and have often been badly burned by defending this right). I personally may be chock full of useless information, but I am not an expert on every subject - as such, everyone has more to add than I do. The only complaint is how to do those edits. An article that has contained certain information for months/years/weeks has attained some degree of consensus, so massive edits run contrary to consensus - as such, I recommended to you that you discuss massive changes in advance. Whether you like the fact that your undiscussed edit was reverted never gives anyone the right to act uncivilly .. in fact, I think they were pretty tame with you, all things considered. Look, I think you have a lot of good things to do and say on Wikipedia, just please, for the sake of the entire project (and your own blood pressure) just do things the right way ... and yes, your suggestions may not be accepted, but at least they've been heard (like on any courtroom drama...and trust me, this place is full of drama) BMW(drive) 22:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Dinosaur Island (2002 film)

Got lucky. Its a keep... barely. I'll keep my eyes open for more sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry??

Hi regarding to that...

I had username Aradic-en before this unified login was enabled. On commons i was registered as "Aradic-es". (that was because I did not know that can use same name on different wikis. That is the reason not any sort of sockpuppetry. I ca no longer (since middle of July) contribute as "Aradic-en" but exclusively as "Aradic-es"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aradic-en

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aradic-es

--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thrindel-Zell disagreements

I'm not reporting him for anything, nor am I going to go around spreading any suspicions to anyone who will listen because it's just that, a suspicion. His actions make me question his motives, is all. I don't want to slander or defame any Wikipedians here. I just wish he would stop being so defensive on the CAD talk pages. It's getting hard to find a second opinion over there, because he seems to have scared off the newbies. Zell65 (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Are We There Yet?

Hi Bwilkins. I just joined Wikipedia on Saturday so I don't know how to do very much yet. Please tell me if I did this wrong! You asked on my talk page Does anyone have an episode list for Are We There Yet? I know where there is one, at http://tv.msn.com/tv/series-episodes/are-we-there-yet-world-adventure/?ipp=40. I'm sorry, I don't know how to write it so you can just click on it and go there. Teenly (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess it was easier than I thought! Teenly (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! I'll work with that! BMW(drive) 13:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen the ones after 49 so they must be new. I have not seen TJ and Tristan or Julia and Joanna either. They are not in the Wikipedia article yet. Their last names are at Internet Movie Database http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1170040/. Thank you for the welcome! I like to learn things myself but if I get really stuck I will ask you. Teenly (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

???

21 external links, prove it to yourself and read them. They are all right there. He's in all the magazines, he's on all the mixtapes, he was incremental in launching the careers of Bishop Lamont, The Game, Strong Arm Steady. He literally CREATED the mixtape game on the westcoast and has since been expanding, anyone in hip hop knows this information my friend, and the 21 links has all that information at your fingertips. Prove that he is actually someone? This man works with Dr. Dre, works with countless producers that I am sure YOU have never heard of, yet produce multi-platinum material that you most likely listen too. Why don't you do some research and edit yourself? I have put all the information as a fan would onto the entry as he more than deserves to be on wikipedia as the artists that he broke in the westcoast have there own full length page. Dont you think that it would make sense to have a legend on wikipedia so his fans can look him up on this site? I have barely used wikipedia, I personally don't have a week to sit there and edit and edit and edit a page until it is up to your standards. It is 100% accurate to the information provided, and you yourself should cite the links, cite the interviews, cite rolling stone, Urb, XXL, Vibe and the countless other magazines he has appeared in, and write the article. Thank you. --Journaldiction (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

AFD

I noticed your comments on WP:WQA and thought you might want to weigh in on this AFD. Dreadstar † 03:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

DJ Warrior

Hey, I have now included all the references on the entry, it is 100% official from the many many credible sources floating about on the internet. If you could please indicate that it stays on Wikipedia as the information is all referenced and 100% official from credible sites and sources, that would be great. Thanks so much, and have a good weekend! --Journaldiction (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

New Messages

Hello, DangerousPanda. You have new messages at ESanchez013's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 10:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RhoLyokoWarrior

Could I get your help with this user? I simply cannot reason with him. See his latest edit summary. Since it's fair use I could revert all day and night, but he's just going to become more and more belligerent each time. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 04:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, another user dealt with him. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 04:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: User_talk:Collectonian#page_blanking_.28almost.29.3F

is it gratifying for you to be nasty and belittle people who are still learning? if it was your intention to make me feel inferior, you failed.Coffee joe (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

How about re-read the post with a different tone. I was politely advising you of what happened so that you, a new user, can understand. I also left you a welcome on your Talk page, so "Welcome". BMW(drive) 11:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

i did re-read it, and as i see you're a professional wordsmith, i shouldn't need to explain to you why the tone of it was condescending. while it was on an other user's talk page, i don't understand your implication on my talk page that i should not have responded to it, because it was said to me. i didn't respond on that user's talk page because i didn't want to clutter up her page with a dialogue between you and me. as for my response to what you said, i may be guilty of responding in kind. but the bottom line is, i was having a civil dialogue with a user and got smaked by a third party. while i might have responded in a better way, i do feel that a responce was warrented. i'm willing to admit my mistakes and proverbially shake hands. are you? Coffee joe (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not responsible for how you wrongly "interpreted" something. I think that what you SEEM to neglect is the big WELCOME at the top of your TALK page, and who put it there. If I was trying to blade you somewhere, would I have been friendly at the same time? I also, on that same person's talk page, defended your actions overall..where does that fit into your equation that I was being less than cordial? I am one of the FIRST people to welcome and help new users...and although we have a policy about "not biting the newbies", how about "not biting those that help the newbies from the start"? BMW(drive) 11:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi -- I wanted to thank you for helping me with my etiquette problem. I think I've spent too much in academia and have a lower tolerance for bad manners than many other editors do. I really appreciate your providing third-party perspective. Dealing with the alerts is a great service for the community. best, Aryder779 (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I have already asked Arbitrator User:FayssalF to review that WQA thread.[3] Perhaps we can both wait for him to mediate this dispute, before taking further steps. I respect his opinion and will follow whatever guidance he provides. It is usually a good idea to avoid starting a drama when matters can be solved via direct discussions.

Additionally, to answer your question, Professor Dolores Umbridge was a character in Harry Potter OotP and DH. Jehochman ^Talk 19:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUT or WP:OUTING

Hi, I tried to understand the context of 'outed' in you comments, and finally think I got it! Did you mean WP:OUTING instead of WP:OUT? 216.80.119.92 (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have set up a fresh discussion thread on my talk page regarding this matter. Feel free to comment or lurk. Jehochman ^Talk 04:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it to WP:OUTING ... my bad, sometimes I just should not type before coffee :) BMW(drive) 12:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on my Talk page

Hi, I edit quite a few articles. What edit summary and article are you talking about? Longchenpa (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, looked into it. This is user ZuluPapa. Yet again.

ZuluPapa doesn't like my edits to the Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo page over the last year or so. There's a biography by Random House about JAL that ZuluPapa didn't want used in the article because it has some pretty negative information. JAL is a Buddhist Lama who was arrested 1996 for beating a monk and nun, has a swimming pool, three houses, and a salary of $100k a year. These facts are inconvenient.

ZuluPapa put in an RfC insisting that JAL is not a public figure, and thus this biography should not be included. Eventually Mike Godwin weighed in on the subject: The book is in. Then, ZP said Mike Godwin has a WP:COI on this issue.

ZuluPapa went to the Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons page to work to get this book removed there, as well as to the Biographies Noticeboard, pressing a for policy changes that could get this information removed. ZuluPapa asked Protonk to weigh in. Protonk did, and also found that JAL was a public figure.

ZuluPapa did sweeping edits on the article, removing anything negative that was from that book -- but kept everything that was positive from it.

Then, ZuluPapa preemptively cited me for a 3RR before I'd made a single change. My changes were normal edits.

ZuluPapa was informed by Blanchardb that "None of these edits can be even remotely regarded as reverts." But ZuluPapa accused me elsewhere of multiple reverts, even though this was not true.

When outside editor Ricky81682 stepped in, [4], ZuluPapa accused him of being uncivil.

ZuluPapa has complained about me in every possible forum. It's like a tour of sorts. I get to see every possible venue of complaint on WP. But it has nothing to do with me and everything to do with ZuluPapa wanting to control the editing of the Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo article. My guess is, based on ZuluPapa's edits -- which Zenwhat calls a "whitewash," and I heartily agree -- ZuluPapa is a student of JAL's, with a vested interest in removing anything negative.

Is there a point where this becomes harassment? Because this has been going since, jeeze, the first veiled threat from ZuluPapa to me "I haven't investigated, however there are wiki procedure to exclude folks from contributing to articles" was December 16 of last year. Longchenpa (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I probably should have created the Talk page on the Jetsun article, but it didn't seem necessary since ZuluPapa was already aware that Alyce Zeoli's title was given by her students and not the lineage. As soon the Talk page was created, yes, we confirmed what we both already knew. *shrugs* Longchenpa (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A notice

Hi Bwilkins,

Please have a look at my opinion here. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me again. Thanks. fayssal - Wiki me up^® 02:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say that you and I are on the exact same page on this fayssal, and that it helps when we all read the whole background. As an uninvolved, non-admin editor who only got involved through my patrolling of WP:WQA, I tend to do a lot of background reading, especially comparing what proof was provided, vice what was left out. My only (minor) disagreement with your conclusion: the user had been outed once. Editors then kept re-outing him by linking his IP address...therefore I do not blame the editor for continuing to desire anonymity by changing IP addresses. Heck, if I was being chased, I would keep trying to hide too. In addition, although cursing is never to be condoned, I sure don't blame him/her for getting a little bit p'd off and finally saying "leave me the $$$$ alone!" and filing in WQA as again, after being chased, I would do the same thing. Again, I'm glad we have a similar analysis (although mine was much less verbose :-P ) BMW(drive) 09:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Re outing. That's true and I hope I was clear enough... any further outing will be faced with an immediate block. Thanks for your help. -- fayssal - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

ORISSA VIOLENCE

The Page is under Mediation. However, several POV edits have been made during the past 72 hours.

Jobxavier (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Vague Time Template

I have created this essay and found this style guidline. I also created the inline template {{Template:Specific time}}. --Ipatrol (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Template: Vague time

I once saw a guideline about this when browsing through the Manual of Style. I am currently reaserching where I saw that. If I cannot find it, I will remove the template. In the mean time it seems Wikipidia is behind me because the template has been semi-protected. So far I have found this and this. In addition, these words make a statement less clear, which is always bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipatrol (talk • contribs)

s and d

Yep, I noticed that just as I was hitting [Save]. Not the first time I wished I could edit an edit summary. As typos go, it was pretty funny. Guettarda (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say a "Wall of Shame" is out of line. You did the correct thing in telling him to take it down. You wouldn't have been out of line to take it down yourself, but a gentler touch tends to be far more successful. Strange folks. But hey, if you're masochistic enough to hang around WQA... ;) Guettarda (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

I have a request for you, an admin deleted my entry on DJ Warrior, but restored it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Journaldiction/DJ_Warrior so a proper decision can be reached, considering it is properly referenced and notable. Is it possible that you could leave a quick comment on the discussion saying that you approve of it being kept on wikipedia? Would greatly appreciate it, would be a big help. Thanks, --Journaldiction (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dj warrior

Please refrain from making sarcastic comments like "are weeks ever short in your part of the world". Requests for "hold (1 week)" are not entertained at AFD — all AFD discussions are open to debate at all times and for at least five days from listing. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You're commenting on something from 11 days ago that has already been discussed? Wow. "Sarcasm" was not "incivility" in this case, but thanks I do understand AfD. Have a good one. BMW(drive) 11:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette

Sorry about giving you a hard time. You were just an innocent bystander. In my view it was never more than an editing dispute that needs time to get worked out. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have always acknowledged it was content-related, not civility-related (and I have a thick skin) BMW(drive) 13:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Civility template

Hey, you tried (albeit a little belatedly). As a Quaker, I always walk a peaceful path; but the Topgun fella doesn't seem to feel he's obliged to any such weenie rules; I guess "Mercy is for the weak!" --Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Allknowingallseeing

I was just trying to keep the record thorough; I wasn't aware that follow-up of that sort was discouraged. What should I do when he continues to harass me? Just put up with it? - JasonAQuest (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Userbox needed

I don't use userboxes much but you really need one mentioning what model BMW you drive. After all, it's in your unofficial username/username signoff. At least, you should mention it briefly on your user page. Chergles (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you did mention it on your user page! The part that fooled me was the "BMW drive" (drive) part. Thanks for the catchy reply (wife)! Chergles (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You discovered a loophole! Journalist writes something. Wikipedia uses it, calling it a reliable source! Chergles (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Question about recent comments

Just out of curiosity, why did you cross out "I have yet to find any real evidence that Frig is or has been one" on my talk page? Is there something I'm not aware of? --Friginator 20:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I had no idea that it had happened so many times. --Friginator 20:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Editor Review

Regarding this comment, serialcomma was mad that a 3RR and ANI report that he opened, where I was involved, did not turn out the way he wanted to. I had the thought of just removing his comments because they were personal rather than objective, but I didn't. Grsz^talk 13:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand, and could easily read the "personal POV" in the post, I merely wanted to clarify that an uncivil edit on any page (be it a Talk page, an AN/I, etc) is still an edit, and is still uncivil. That's all I was saying :) BMW(drive) 13:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, thanks. Grsz^talk 13:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok....

I had no idea that a blog wasn't a reliablr resource for somebody. Ok, thats fine, but I'm kinda new trying to learn all these policies, so thanks for the info and happy editing.

HairyPerry 15:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Miroj

Saying thanks for the very pleasant article on my page. FINALLY a person who is articulate and friendly. I was looking for that person in Wikipedia and starting to scratch my head quite a lot. I have a very "intellectual" styled humour. Things like "Turing Test", "SETI" and old school buzz words appear in my comments. Only the broad minded laugh their heads off.

There are some interesting people in this realm. Some of them failed to carry on a conversation with many questions. It seems that you take it or leave it, or as I like to say in the Leary manner "sit down, shut up and assimilate". I have been around and more than anything else I like a good old fashioned brain storm. Sometimes all I get is storm.

Your invitation to discuss things is most welcome.

I like the idea that people still like to stop and talk things over. Miroj (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Sometimes, the "community" does call for "sit down and shut up" to all of us - there are days we're a "hippie commune" and some days we're the "Borg Collective". Funny how community has the two extremes. Even Wikipedia, in the midst of its rules, has the WP:IAR rule. We're told to be "bold in our edits". It's weird at times, but I would rather point out ways to improve, rather than put a "you're bad" template some days. I was surprised someone used the Turing Test analogy, and was humoured by it. Unfortunately, I do agree that the article in question probably did not belong on Wikipedia ... in fact, it's the kind of information I would build a website for, put ads that generated me some $$$, and maybe even a $5/year membership to access the information. BMW(drive) 11:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a long long way to go but I have some very strong views on the cost of information. Richard Almeida in the UK literally created a global standard by giving away complete sets of information on a very specific task. There was an enormous flow-on effect. Some of it commercial and some of it social. I am very much aware of OLPC and MIT's free-uni. WP really needs to go more technical if it wants to retain the upper levels of usage. As a test case, the articles I created are on the thin edge of relevance. I wanted to know where the limit was. Is it in global volume or in social meaning. There is much to revisit. Some of the very first articles which were trashed for being sloppy, are now backed by many media (TV, newspaper) articles. But now I dont feel like it. Forgive me for thinking that people comment without knowing a topic or what it means. I take the broad view that if you can touch every corner of the globe with your excellence then you are special if not WP notable. Certainly I do not have a high bar on what is relevant - I have found over the years that nothing is junk and I live by that. Miroj (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Goodbye Earl

I'm not claiming ownership of the article at all. I simply removed the information because there is no source to back up the claim that it was similar to Thriller, and it's perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia to remove unsourced info. If you can find a reliable source that says that it looks like Thriller, then you can re-add the info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Took 2 seconds, I added one ref. Remember, if it doesn't detract from quality/validity the article, there's no reason to remove. Have a great weekend BMW(drive) 19:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect pages

Hi! I redirected it correctly. But User:PrinceOfCanada-HG reverted all my edits and said you're vandalisng the articles. But i only wanted to put it in alphabetical order. United States-Azerbaijan relations is not alphabetically ordered. Azerbaijan-United States relations is correct.. Please put that article's name in alphabetical order for me. Thanks! --Turkish Flame ^☎ 12:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you cannot rename that article without consensus, as the MOS doesn't specify alphabetization of this. BMW(drive) 13:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Rosetta Barnstar

		The Rosetta Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for indeed making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Amazing job at the AfD. You pushed back the snow and brought out the sun. Your thrashing through the article to find something worth saving is nothing if not remarkable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Non Admin closure....

With the nom withdrawing his nomination, how does on close an AfD? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederic Colier. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I welcome constructive criticism, not rudeness. In the future, please either be polite on my talk page or don't post there at all. Thanks. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 20:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply as copied from his Talk page; a cursory glace at which will speak volumes of his misuse of Huggle and misunderstanding of policy: "Nothing unpleasant/impolite in my above statement. An awful lot of us were really concerned about the huge amount of poorly-used warning templates, Biting the newbies, and a bunch of other things going on - and we were exasperated. There are at least a hundred bad warnings, etc. I certainly don't like your comment on my own talk page. Re-read the above. Look at the the comments that you ended up creating from other editors on the articles, and even here on your talk page. You went on a tool-based spree of (yes, I will say it) "vandalism", all as a very well-meaning attempt and being the anti-vandal. As you now know (I hope) there's a fine line between good and evil, and your first day was waaaaay on the wrong side of that line. Slow down a bit, and become a good vandal-fighter" BMW(drive) 14:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you please take a look at this?

Just gave the OK to the disambig page. Hey, take a look at this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost Hills Books -- my go-round for article saving. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! I was away, but happy to see it worked! BMW(drive) 14:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

HJensen, me and etc.

Hi

Sorry for late response but, however....

I really see no reasons that makes HJensen offended if he is beeing described as Norse. That is (or at least by my criteria :) synonim for Nordic, Scandinavian , North Germanic worldwide. Danish people belong to that group (that is the opinion of most foreigners-imcluding myself . I don't know how do they see themselves in that "package" )

--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Saw your reply on my Talk ... no issues about "lateness", I'm always trying to help everyone get along :) I would say that as a rule, calling a Nordic person "Nordic" is not offensive. However when placed in the context of the original text that caused the complaint, it appears more offensive...in fact, it sounds sarcastic. I know that tone does not always come across well in written word which is why we must always be careful.BMW(drive) 14:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

My intention was (to be honest!) to bring some sarcasm. But,it would not be appropriate only if Danish people don't like to be compared with other Scandinavians and to remember parts of the common history (whatever would be the reason :) ) AFAIK that is not the situation .Unlike the Dutch people don't like people do not like to talk about Nederduitsland and Nederduitsch language (see laso these things 1,2 )

bye! --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope the bad blood between you is now gone. Happy editing! BMW(drive) 17:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

Hi Bwilkins: In your capacity as a WikiElf could you help me with a new article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" that I am hoping to bring up to snuff so that it can be a DYK in a few days.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A Few Issues

GabrielVelasquez, rather than use "templates" that can occasionally be construed as negative, I wanted to leave you a short note regarding a few issues I have noticed. First, please be civil to other editors. WP:CIVIL requires that we discuss EDITS and not EDITORS. Simply because another person disagrees with your view does not give anyone the ability/right to call others names, disparage their work, or be otherwise uncivil. Second sockpuppetry is one of the cardinal sins on Wikipedia. Tossing accusations around is not something to be done casually. If you honestly have a belief that someone is a sockpuppet, follow the process here or stop making accusations. We have people in Wikipedia who do a good job tracking socks, so blatant accusations of sockpuppetry can be construed as very uncivil as it is truly an insult. Please also note that just because 2 or 3 (or more) people disagree with you, does not mean they are all the same person - many people disagree with me all the time in real life :-) and I can guarantee they're not schizophrenic. Everyone has a right to edit Wikipedia and add valid, cited, referenced information whether "experts" or not. All articles have a right to a WP:NPOV. By working via consensus, article can obtain and keep Good Article status ... edit warring does not help. If you want to further discuss, please feel free to do so on my Talk page. BMW(drive) 12:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

you're right, I don't disagree on any particular point, but did you send this same message to the person on the other side of the incident (point one specifically: "you don't know any physics," "you're a POV pusher" [edits not editors, right?]) where I was attacked not my edits, or should I be asking how much he put in your paypal account to ignore his behavior but message me instead? GabrielVelasquez (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

also, do you happen to know someone with experience what would not mind checking where the edits of J. Langton (talk) end and the edits of Icalanise (talk) begin, and how much over lap there is (oh, of course) if any. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I resent the suggestion that I'm being paid off in any way. I responded to a WP:WQA request to investigate into civility issues. Don't attack the people who are trying to help. To be advised that you were "pushing your POV" is not uncivil in my books, especially when it appeared that there was, indeed, a POV issue occurring. If you have a concern about someone being a sockpuppet, there is only one way to find out: file an ACTUAL sockpuppet case. See WP:SOCK for info. BMW(drive) 14:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I was making an insinuation "I should ask" is what I actually wrote, which is not inequivocally an accusation. I would be amusing if it were not in practicality sad that so many people can brush things off and on their other hand what they don't wish to brush off they chose to call an attack. I hesitated a lot before a wrote that, and even thought of appologizing right after saving it, but my frustration got the better of my and left it as an exclamation point phrase. You are right to note that templates can be viewed as negative, it is easy enough to see someone as coming at you instead of them coming to you. But also the links you chose to cut and paste may seem to you to be competely relevant, and may be so, but I have always viewed them as someone throwing a book from across the room aimed at my head. I wish you so-called mediators could, if you are going to use those things ("WP:CIVIL"), would start from the beginning with the diffs of the behavior you think are not appropriate being that a users bad behavior may or may not be exactly describe there as though someones photo is there in the dictionary under the definition for stupid. No insintuation, just a pointed analogy. It is sheer laziness to use those links and not use very specific quotes of policy and the behavior. I have so limited an amount of time to use the internet that it is like getting away with distracting me from the studying and edits I want to do to have to do the investigation of sockpuppets and since you have pointed out that it is a grave offence to toss out the suspicion, good god an "attack" even, then I will make it a habit to collect evidence as I go along with my edits. I was not so angry that I could kill someone, but I was definately fuming, and my perception that you were being duplicitous only fueled that. Issues as otherwise, you could have acknowledged my indirect point that there is some provocation for my instances of laps in civility with out actually saying you condone the lapses. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Gabriel, I always look at more than the provided diff's because I like context. If you look at User:Bwilkins I discuss the A-B-C method I use in looking at WQA issues. Trust me, I read dozens of more diff's/pages than were provided. BMW(drive) 22:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood part of what I wrote (is that a temperment test you do with people, test their frustration limits). I said throwing policy links ("WP:CIVIL") at people can be pointless as well, if you don't provide a quote of thier specific behavior to them personally when you message them, about the problem, on their talkpage when you have been dealt them to deal with as a problem user, to the user himself, bring the issue to them, the offender themselves. and their offence, lol. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, my comments were a general attempt to say "ohhh, by the way ...", as opposed to discussing specific incidents. I really did not WANT to go into specifics. Mine was really a request to keep an eye on your "tone" overall. Do you want specifics? Personally, I would simply welcome the constructive criticism/advice and move forward, rather than focus on the past. Please note, that even with the uncivil statements you put in my direction, I am NOT commenting on the RfC against you. I try to SOLVE issues, not cause frustration. BMW(drive) 23:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

RFC on User:GabrielVelasquez

Hi. A request for comment regarding User:GabrielVelasquez has been filed here. You may be interested to join the discussion, since you have been one of the users affected by his behaviour. Thanks. --Cyclopia (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have read a comment you leaved on User:GabrielVelasquez talk page and I couldn't but ask: Why helping us in the issue in the RFC should not be "solving" the issue? I think instead it will help a lot, no matter what is your opinion on the issue. A request for comment needs people to comment! Of course I respect your choice, but I wonder what is the rationale behind it. Thanks. --Cyclopia (talk) 08:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

To reply to your question: I think the RfC is a very heavy-handed process, and is premature in the process. To me, it looks like you didn't get what you wanted in WQA, so took the next step, rather than see if the behaviour changed. Bad idea, and I cannot support that kind of heavy-handedness. BMW(drive) 10:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It seemed obvious to me that, given the answer he did to you in response to the WQA alert, the WQA failed and the RfC was the only step forward. However thanks for your opinion, I will think about it. I have little experience in this kind of things, so I have only to learn. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you look at the conversation that Gabriel and I have been having on each other's Talk page? I think you'd really get a better idea of their POV on this situation, and that they ALSO want it solved, if you did. BMW(drive) 11:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC) (copied from my talk page: --Cyclopia (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

Yes, I read it. Yes, he of course wants the situation solved: but frankly I was tempted to cite it as a further example of the episodes that led to the RFC, since he implicity continues to assume that he is surrounded by sockpuppets and sockpuppeteers, and tries to dismiss amusingly the fact he accused you of bribery. Not mentioning the fact that he decided to (try to) apologize only after RFC was filed: so RFC was not a bad idea, nor useless. I personally would expect from him a full apology and proof of assuming good faith. But maybe that's my bias. I am personally sure that the user has good interest in WP and is not trolling or what, but his behaviour has to change. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose

Hi. Doesn't Wallamoose's extreme rudeness merit some kind of action being taken? Thanks.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you ask Wallamoose to remove the inflammatory headings about me from his talk page? They are not conducive to positive discourse. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem Wallamoose is very happy. He called your treatment of his behavior "very one-sided" and said you are "grotesquely unfair." RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose has not removed the inflammatory section headings on his talk page, and he flouted your instructions by using talk pages on three different articles to attempt to cause conflict. He filed a Wikiquette alert against me in retaliation, but has no new information, so I think the dispute should be closed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Stalking_behavior_by_RafaelRGarcia . Thanks.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

My concerns are legitimate and remain unresolved. So it's not fair to close my Wikialert. In fact RafaelRGarcia continues to stalk me as his edit history and posting make clear. I believe the headers on my page have been changed, but if there's something objectionable the best approach would be to let me know. I am awaiting your resopnse to my comments below. Thanks. (Wallamoose (talk) 03:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Of course I am going to check your contribution history when you've filed an alert against me. I have pointed out the many actions which betray your bad faith, your disrespect for Wikipedia administrators and mediators, and your continued refusal to let things go. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose continues to nettle and stalk me, in contravention of his Level 4 Warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RafaelRGarcia&diff=244508955&oldid=244508416 AND http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RafaelRGarcia&diff=244506106&oldid=244504717 . Please tell him to stop. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Garcia keeps stalking me. But maybe some day he will find a hobby. (Wallamoose (talk) 04:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Wallamoose has ignored your instructions about being civil and not being sarcastic, and continues to attempt to cause conflict: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keith_Olbermann&diff=244509491&oldid=244509140 RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been uncivil. Despite the continued stalking. Garcia is still following me onto boards where he's never posted except to harass me. I'm as civil as can be!!! (Wallamoose (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Wallamoose's rudeness and sarcasm continues, and his verbal abusiveness has not stopped: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallamoose&diff=244510320&oldid=244507456

Wallamoose continues his sarcasm: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keith_Olbermann&diff=244510865&oldid=244510058

Noticeboard

I asked admin Jj137 for help with Wallamoose's continued acting out, but he refused to lift a finger, and suggested I go to the Noticeboard, so I did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wallamoose . Your comments there would be appreciated, given Wallamoose's complete disregard for what you said to him. Thank you. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

WOW!!! NOW HE'S CHANGING THE INCIDENT REPORT ON THE NOTICE BOARD PAGE!!! Revision as of 04:35, 11 October 2008 (edit) You'll see this change makes the title about me. And he changes the order around and says of my initial comments "Wallamooses response". Crazy. (Wallamoose (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Stop stalking me. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's the Diff I think... I just figured out how to do it. Maybe they would have helped you see what's going on...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=244511722&oldid=244511540 (Wallamoose (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Wikiquette alerts

Hi, and thanks for your input on the alert page. I didn't mean to fan he flames, if that's what you mean be your final comment (you're not doing yourself any favours right now), and I don't think I've behaved improperly - I was seriously asking what the next step is. As there is no dispute, DR seems unlikely. Anyway, my thought this morning was to approach Firefly again today, explain that I didn't intend to upset him and suggest we both agree to move on and treat each other with respect. I'm not sure if this might be seen as antagonistic though, and I don't want to look as though I'm bating (after that was added to my charge sheet!) I must admit that yesterday I was quite upset by what I saw as the unprovoked attacks. Any and all advice appreciated, here, on my talk, or in the forum above. Best, Verbal chat 08:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beating up (2nd nomination)

I would like to draw your attention to this AfD discussion I have just started. I am leaving this message here as you were involved in the previous discussion about this page which ended just over a week ago. I realise that this renomination is not within the normal acceptable time frame and I have outlined my reasoning for the exception on the discussion page. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

BMW to drive?

You weren't specific, so in this day and age of high gas prices (and with Peak Oil looming), I'd suggest an innovative BMW, the BMW_C1... seriously. --Skyemoor (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Journalism is a crucial part of open societies like ours, you're a champion of our right to know; just be glad you're not in Russia. Some of my best friends are journalists (yes, it sounds corny, but it's true). I may be in the same area as you, LC? --Skyemoor (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you look at my document, and advise?

Could you look at THIS and advise if I am preparing it correctly, as I have never done such before. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And I am wise enough to invite assistance, rather than bull through. There is enough funny stuff going on at the AfD that bends if not breaks policy and guideline... that someone else may well take it to DRV themselves. You are correct about a COI, so I will most definitely go through rewrites to give it a concerned neutrality. But unlike Jimmy Wales, I have not edited that article, and only grow concerned at attempts to minimalize my life and career. What got brought to this 2nd AfD is a mere whisp and shadow of what survive the 1st AfD and was kept as notable. Someone wishes to rewrite that history and has been determined to see it go. Have you looked at the article's history? Yikes. Anyways, your input about the DRV workpage is most welcome. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Editor review

I see you are on editor review. You are doing just fine. It would be very beneficial experience for you to work on getting an article up to WP:GA or WP:FA standards. Administrators need to be able to empathize with the editors who create our best content. By participating in those processes you will gain insights, and learn the importance of our content policies. Good behavior is important, but it is only half of the picture. Jehochman ^Talk 20:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If you tell me what topics you like most, I can suggest articles that would be good places to start. Jehochman ^Talk 20:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wall of Shame

Thanks for the heads up. I'd still like to hear from an administrator, but I don't want the wall of shame to personally offend anyone. I figured that, since there's already a list of IP adresses that have been used for vandalism, that this wasn't really a big deal. I tried to be civil about it though, and stated exactly what I meant by it. I certainly wouldn't liken it to "hanging deer heads in my library" or "outing sex offenders upon release from prison." I try to make it clear that if someone is generally making constructive edits, and the vandalism that I will take their names off. Their name on the wall is not permanent, as outlined on my user page under "Policies."

You've even been advised that your WoS is the antecedent to the behaviour by at least one other editor, so I'm not sure why you raise a WQA with a tone of surprise.

I've actually never gotten any feedback about the WoS, (other than threats from Faethon Ghost) so I assumed it wasn't bothering anybody. Also, I don't really see how I mishandled the situation with User: Faethon Ghost. It would help to know what I did wrong, so I can avoid it in the future. I didn't add him to the wall of shame for personal reasons, and not to provoke him. Only because of the repeated vandalism of Paul Byrd, List of pigs and my user page. Faethon Ghost 1) did not seem to be too sorry about his vandalism 2)the vandalism was less than a month ago and 3)Faethon Ghost really hasn't done too much since then, so I don't have much to go by.

I would think that you should post an apology on the talk page of EVERY editor on your Wall once you have removed it. Feel free to say "although I will continue to monitor for continued possible vandalism, I do actually look forward to your positive edits in Wikipedia"

1) Most of the users are just sockpuppets that are banned indefinitely 2) I don't feel an apology is needed. I didn't say anything bad about them, didn't condemn them, didn't personally attack them, and didn't pass off any false information.

I don't see the Wall of Shame as anything important, but I promise as soon as I get a complaint from an admin I will tear down the wall. :) --Friginator 21:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: The comments you left on my talk page are disturbing. If you truly feel offended, then I think an admin is needed. If this is going to upset people, then I need someone with authority to step in and make a final descision. I don't want other users losing their respect for me over a little wall. I'm sorry. I'm not asking for an AN/I, just an outside opinion. The last thing I want is to log on and find that I've been blocked or banned. I'm unsure of which noticeboard this would fall under, but you seem to be more knowledgable in that area. Thanks. --Friginator 22:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I DON'T want to argue about it. At this point I just wanted to know if it was going to get me in trouble. I don't really think it's a big deal, but I'm not an admin. I don't like confrontation, I like knowing if I'm doing something wrong. I wasn't trying to confront you, I was just asking for help regarding an official descision. I'm taking the wall down if it's going to cause this much trouble. Sorry if I offended you. --Friginator 00:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a wall it's a memorial. And what kind of miscreant would seek to tear down a memorial. The horror! (Wallamoose (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

RafaelRGarcia

I received your message. It would be helpful to me if you could cite the specific instance to which you are referring. Also, it was my understanding that both of our actions would be considered. I have tried to be exceptionally patient throughout this process and I think it's clear that I am putting up with a lot. Do I need to file a WikiAlert on RafaelRGarcia? His stalking has continued and its been disruptive to other editors. Thank you for your time. I look forward to your response. (Wallamoose (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

If you have read my last entry on the Wikiquette complaint, you will note that the complainant has been warned about AGF. Your comments in the Wikiquette entry alone could have resulted in further action, so please, let's not push it. Be civil towards other editors which involves acceptance, and not insults. BMW(drive) 23:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your request that I change some headers.

"My concern with your recommended rephrasing of my headings is that Rafael has pursued me around Wikipedia and sought to incite conflict. So I felt it was important for anyone who came to MY talk page to understand what I'm dealing with. I am willing to consider changing the way they are worded, but first his stalking needs to stop. You haven't addressed it, and as my comments on the WikiAlert page indicate, you've been grotesquely unfair.

You have also seemed to suggest that I have used inappropriate lanuage with other editors. And if this is the case I would ask that you cite examples. In fact, I've made an extraordinary effort to work collaboratively on some contentious articles and haven't had any major incidents of which I'm aware."

Yet I received no response. Then when I was busy working on another project you defaced my talk page and removed a record of my attempts to request suggestions and help in dealing with harassment. Please explain.(Wallamoose (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Why are you holding me under such special scrutiny? The other user posted on my talk page and nobody said anything. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can point to the diff where the headlines on my talk page addressing a certain miscreant were changed that might help, I couldn't find any diffs although the headlines were changed. As you'll recall this was done while my concerns and explanations had yet to be answered by you or anyone else. Then while I was working on something else, as I recall, my talk page was defaced by you or a closely related elf. (Wallamoose (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

Well, Bwilkins my BMW driving friend, it appears I may in fact have been mistaken. It's a good thing that facts and the truth "don't matter" on Wikipedia, otherwise they could paint an unflattering portrait of my accusations.  :)

Is that enough of an "apology" or do you want more? (Wallamoose (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

(copied from their Talk page) Wallamoose ... I'm not big on style or format of apologies. Sincerity is good, and I appreciate your comment. Trust me, I also appreciate a sense of humour. I wish you good luck on your "career" on Wikipedia. Be open-minded, and never be afraid to ask for help from those who actually give a crap about how this whole project works. BMW(drive) 22:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be, "copied from his" talk page. Sorry to be such a stickler for rules, but if we let the rules slide everything falls apart. Did you notice my appeal to stop the book burning over at the Venture Bros. site? Have you ever seen the movie (or read the book) Fahrenheit 451? I may start to refer to Admins as firefighters... Do you want to be Guy Montag?(Wallamoose (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

I am beginning to wish I had never edited that page.

Honestly, I don't know what to do. You get edits like this and then various anon IP edits adding unsourced info and vandalism repeatedly to various articles (here, here, here, here and so on). I revert because it's untrue but more importantly it's uncited and it's fanboy war vandalism over some voice actors and it all happens over again, issues of article ownership are brought up, etc etc. I don't particularly want to do it but I don't see many other editors reverting, and I don't want to let the IPs have their way with the article, because they're just inserting the voice actors they want, but nor do I like being accused of ownership or whatever else. Your advice would be appreciated.

Additionally, here is my first edit of that article, trimming a pic caption, September 13 2008.Mr T (Based) (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you got ganged-up on. There's always WP:AIV for vandalism, and WP:ANI for admin-required incidents. I gave 3 IP's an anon-vandal welcome. Remember, you can always fix it when the kiddies have gone to bed. BMW(drive) 10:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. :-DMr T (Based) (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You've Inspired Me!

I'm thinking about weighing in on future Wikialerts. Just think about how helpful my input and guidance could be... (Wallamoose (talk) 04:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

Stop pandering to him!

I know Mr T(Based) complained about me. He obviously enlisted you to enforce is twisted interpretation of Wiki Policy. I admit it is unscrupulous to add things that are unsourced, but as previously stated I had a source, he just said it was unworthy. I must also remind you that you are acting as Mr. T(Based)'s proxy admin. This is a serious violation of not only the rules in general but of the guidelines of adminship. Cease and Desist or I will notify another admin of this sockpuppetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.133.47 (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to note that I am not an admin. I noticed 3 different IP-based accounts in an edit war against an established editor. Based on what I saw, you were possibly violating a key policy of Wikipedia, and as such, I asked you to stop. Go ahead, complain ... it would be better if you a) got an account and b) edited according to policy. BMW(drive) 23:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, what a tangled web we weave Bwilkins. Stay cool.(Wallamoose (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

Recent comment

You recently commented on an editors review. [5] the link, and the ensuing "dialogue" might give your further insights to the editor in question's editing.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette

You need to check both of the IP's talk pages and their edit history then you will see why I am concerned. In parallel with this we have what looks like another sock attack on the UK page (someone else is looking at that - the raising suspicion stage). The IP edits here are very similar to previous sock puppet attacks hence my asking the question. If you check back on this history I have done my best to avoid sock puppets, trying to get IPs to admit up front if they have edited, even trying to get one long term sock puppet rehabilitated. I understand your reaction and your wish to establish your self as a mediator (I do a lot of that at government level myself - including Canadian provinces) but we are dealing with a complex set of pages here which are permanently subject to attack by IPs, edit warring, sock puppetry etc. etc. You would probably need to have the scars of an active and concerned editor on these pages to understand just why most of us will check (as I did) the minute a new editor emerges. When they use different IP addresses within a day of each other, refuse to ask questions and use features of Wikipedia it took me a year to discover then a degree of suspicion is reasonable. --Snowded TALK 11:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised by the IP's reaction to Snowy. Usually, newbies follow the advice of veteran editors & aren't combative. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There's an IP (or more?) on the British Isles & Republic of Ireland articles, who steadfastly refuse to register-in. These things can be very frustrating at times. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm cool. I've already removed articles from my watchlist, that I can no longer engage in (due to the above complaint). GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Software development

I have a compromis on the Software development article. Could you take a look. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Last message

In this whole story you are just causing a loss of time - you are not assisting anybody, just trying to make any necessary protective mesures against a vandal slower. If you feel like judging problems that you do not know and visibly do not understand (even though I do not know what authority or legitimity you may have in this case), go and find some other victims. I do not remember asking you for any help, though I clearly remember that I told you to avoid sending me messages like the previous ones. From now on - avoid me. According to what I read from you, I just do sincerely hope that you will never become a checkuser here - I would be very concerned about your quite elastic conception regarding the use of the tool. Suggesting even unopenly that I could possibly be a sockpuppet of user:Antique Rose is insulting for both of us, as it can be very easily ruled out in a few minutes without any IP check. Preaching to others respect and good attitude is one thing, applying it to oneself is another. You can't send yourself a bunch of substed prewritten models. Clem23 (talk) 11:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It was not me who accused you of being a sock, it was the party with whom you have a complaint. I was trying to clear your name by having an unofficial CU done. Hey, that's your call whether you wish to insult me instead. -t BMW c- 11:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to insult you, your comments are very unclear. I'm so fed up with this story that it's difficult to accept that somebody is trying to protect even passively the vandal. Well, I doubt we may agree, but it does not matter. I do not need to have my name cleared, MS is spending his time to accuse the others from being sockpops - if you listen to what he says you should request quickly a CU on most of the admins of fr:wp (and nl:wp). Clem23 (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page redesign

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 10:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U request

A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Are We There Yet

Hi Bwilkins. I added a bit to Are We There Yet (TV show). It's the exact same words as the website I got it from. I didn't want to change it and make it so it isn't true, like maybe if it said they were partners it wouldn't be true. Is it OK to leave such a little bit the same as on the website? Teenly (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U statement

Got any diffs for this? — neuro^(talk) 21:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did you redirect CRT rear projection television to Rear-projection television

Why did you redirect CRT rear projection television to Rear-projection television, former one of many Rear-projection television technologies. Vjdchauhan (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

Based on the article content, there was no need for a separate article on its own. Expansion of the rear-projection television article is more appropriate due to the relationship, and size of the attempted article. -t BMW c- 18:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

What dispute resolution you are talking about? It is regarding a comment in wikipedia space, dispute resolution applies when the dispute is regarding article mainspace. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to see Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You filed a WQA complaint here (more specific than the link provided in the original friendly notification. As for "templating", it's a personal template that advises a user they failed to follow a specific policy related the WP:WQA, and is far easier than typing the whole thing out every time. You might also want to read WP:Do template the regulars in your spare time. -t BMW c- 12:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, DangerousPanda. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#Firefly322_again. Toddst1 (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery

The state of the article had improved so much that the notability was clear enough. At the time of my closure, the article size had jumped 35-fold from its start; now it has jumped 75-fold from the start. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 18:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Do you want me to reopen the AfD or WP:DRV it? Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 03:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

WQA

Dear Bwilkins,

Thankyou for the advice you have given me on my talk page but I would rather that discussion about the 'silly rabbit and LowKey' affair be ceased (on my talk page). Also, I would rather that other editors stop commenting and explaining to me why my comments were 'bad'. All I wanted to do was to stop silly rabbit from being blocked and now all my edits are commented upon (and the discussion is going nowhere).

Topology Expert (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Calendar days

Hi. I am having a problem with these calendar days pages. In particular, there is the September 11 page. It has four topics on the intro page. I guess someone put up the WTC bombing, and others have said, "wait a minute, the date is important for other reasons too". I put up some key intro material in other days such as June 22 (invasion of the Soviet Union). These have been quickly reverted. My point is that the same rules should apply to all dates. Either allow intros for all dates, or remove the stuff where it is there, like in September 11. Wallie (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As per your talk, I was unaware that this was being discussed elsewhere when you opened a WP:WQA case (which was not an appropriate location). Please do not forum shop. Having seen some of your attempted changes, the weasel words being used, and non-Neutral Point of View are pretty substantial. Please continue your discussions and consensus at WT:DAYS -t BMW c- 18:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Steady on! I was not trying to "forum shop". I approached the forum before someone approached my talk page. I went on to the forum as I simply needed some advice as I am "trying to be nice" and avoid disputes. I was not aware I had raised a "case". As for "weasel words" (whatever they are) are non-Neutral Point of View, this is another issue (about my style I presume). What I really hate is when someone wants a piece of advice and gets trampled on like this. Wallie (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoa to you. Based on timelines, many of the edit summaries that reverted your edits asked you to visit WT:DAYS. You still then opened a WQA file, which as noted is an incivility forum. My offer to help seems to have come well after the first attempts by other editors to engage you in the correct forum. I did not stomp nor WP:BITE, I merely suggested that you accept the help when it was provided to you earlier, and back out of secondary discussions about it. Simply saying "ahh, I found the right place to talk about it...thanks" goes a long way.

OK. I wasn't aware of the significance of WT:DAYS at that time. I honestly feel that some people (not you) are starting to treat this as a political discussion, which I certainly do not want. I guess that I got on to the wrong forum. I did not wish to raise a complaint, and never would. Anyway, thanks for trying to help. Wallie (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, Bwilkins. I hope you don't mind, but I removed the contribution you commmented on on ANI (and, perforce, removed your comment too, sorry about that). You were very right, of course, but.. well take a look here. Let's just ignore it and hope he goes take a nap or something, don't you think? Bishonen | talk 00:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC).

It was just a joke that read wrong. Didn't mean anything. HalfShadow 01:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yer no fun.

I hope you...I'm gonna...I'm... ... ... ... God, is anyone else hungry right now? And who are you? HalfShadow 01:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Meant it for bish...bach...The guy with the Japanese-type name. HalfShadow 01:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Bachonen. :-) I've replied to you on my page. Bishonen | talk 01:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC).

WP:CIVIL

Hi. I noticed you accused me here of mounting a "jihad". On the contrary I am trying to enforce a very important rule here called WP:BLP which prevents users from presenting unsourced negative information against living people. You may wish to read this before participating further in the discussion. WP:CIVIL may also interest you; it describes how it is best to focus exclusively on the merits of a discussion rather than commenting on the hypothetical motives of other editors. Best wishes to you, --John (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

John, User:Bwilkins is one of the main contributors at WP:WQA. Lecturing them about civility as if they were a newbie is not a civil thing to do. Jehochman ^Talk 16:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, that surprises me. In that case they should certainly know better than to call my good-faith efforts to remove this abusive link a "jihad". Wow. --John (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

John, thanks for your comment/concern and I appreciate your support Jehochman. John, you will notice that my comments were clearly directed at your actions in that thread, as opposed to you as a person. When anyone whether in real life or on Wikipedia pursues something in what appears to be an extremely (and increasingly) strong fashion, it often raises suspicion about other possible motives. In politics we get the "pitbull with lipstick" type of comment. Having read your increasingly vitriolic posts and strong argumentative approach with DC, I was concerned both about your motives and the relationship with DC. As you were not getting consensus, you appeared to be "turning up the volume" instead in multiple posts, which means you quite possibly abandoned "good faith" attempts long ago. I understand WP:BLP quite well, and yes although it generally applies to articles, and can also apply to any page on WP. Now, to my POV on the issue: when Mr B was an editor on Wikipedia, he made some public comments both on Wikipedia and elsewhere - an attempt at WP:OUTING of DC (which is, as you know, a blockable/bannable offence). Those comments are available for anyone to find, and indeed appear as an archive on DC's webpage (and indeed on Mr B's own pages). As such, there is no direct violation of WP:BLP ... the comments by both parties are easily referenced/citable. In fact, I commend the fact that although DC would be well within their rights to post the inflammatory/WP:OUTING comments on their Userpage for permanancy, they actually hide the comments via a cryptic link from userbox. It is not by any means an attack page, it is a defence page based on easily findable information. I hope that helps explain my line of thinking on the entire sequence of issues. ►BMW◄ 17:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I am sorry to see that you are concerned about my motives. This would certainly explain, though not excuse, the "jihad" comment. I was rather hoping you could have apologized for that, but a forced apology is no apology at all. I guess you are standing by your right to characterize my actions as a "jihad" and maintaining that this falls within WP:CIVIL, and that you are defending DC's attack link as "defence" rather than attack. I could not disagree more strongly with your opinions as raised here; to me this is the "two wrongs make a right" or "he hit me first" argument that we normally let go of prior to puberty. If you are interested, I noticed DC attempting to introduce poorly sourced negative material to the Bellinghaus article, then saw the link on the user page and asked them politely to remove it. You might perhaps profitably ask about that user's motive; me, I am just trying to do my job here. It would have been great to have had your support and I am sad to see such a left-field view from someone who claims to work in this area and be an expert. --John (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Jihad is an emotionally charged word. It is fine for you to suggest that Bwilkins replaces it with something more objective. Jehochman ^Talk 18:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good step forwards if Bwilkins could do that. I am pretty sure that using this word to describe my actions contravenes WP:CIVIL, but in any case it seems unlikely to progress the substantive issue we are discussing. Thanks, as usual, for your constructive approach, Jehochman. --John (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There are 2 general meanings of the word "jihad" Encarta. I will assure you completely that I was using it in meaning #2, and definitely not meaning number 1. I have amended my original post, and apologize if it was taken to mean the more extreme version. I never play the "two wrongs make a right" game - if you have read my userpage, you will see that I use a specific (ABC) model for investigating civility, which I also use in other situations. I will admit, some time ago when I first came across DC's custom userbox, I was taken aback. I then did my research, and came around to a new way of thinking about the situation. It is a creative, mostly hidden way of defense. I would never say I'm "left field" - I'm more middle ground, and expect people/adults to get along. In that, I feel I'm also doing "my job" here on Wikipedia, and it's one that I am actually used to taking some abuse for (I think User talk:Samuel Webster still calls me a racist, even though he does not know my ethnic background - ironically enough, his complaint was around a mistaken definition of a word as well - although in his case there is only one meaning, and not the one he thinks!) ►BMW◄ 21:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the qualified apology and for clarifying that you meant "relentless campaign: a relentless campaign against somebody or something" rather than "a campaign waged by Muslims in defense of the Islamic faith against people, organizations, or countries regarded as hostile to Islam". I feel that this was not a good choice of language if you wished to move the situation forward productively. Thanks too for striking the comment at AN/I. To risk drifting off-topic, while I am sure you are not a racist, it is perfectly possible for someone of any ethnicity to be a racist; there is no connection at all between racism and ethnicity. Most people of most ethnic backgrounds will be offended by having their actions characterized as a "jihad" however. If you wish me to talk to Samuel Webster I will be happy to. Would you like me to do that? --John (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I was dropping by to say thanks for your unexpected but welcome support at ANI, but I see that John is making insinuations about me here which I don't care to leave unanswered. Anyone is welcome to look at the material I recently attempted to add to Mark Bellinghaus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and decide for themselves if there are problems with the material or sourcing. I believe there has been some overly heavy-handed and selective enforcement of policy and I fully intend to revisit the edits when I have time. See the discussions on the talk page. My motivation is very straightforward: the article is largely a self-written promotional piece which lacks balance. After the unpleasantness during and following the last AFD, I left the article alone, but a new two-part article features which features Bellinghaus prompted me to revisit the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Then let's find some middle ground

John, I don't believe that you have issues with DC defending themselves. Can we all work out something that gives both sides a positive, viable solution? If yes, let's work here and hold off the ANI (for now). I'm happy to mediate, but everyone has to be open and in agreement to some changes here, whether slight or major. If you agree to work on this, then say so...I can't force anyone. ►BMW◄ 15:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your good intentions, but I fear offering mediation when you have been arguing against the consensus in a fairly uncivil way at the AN/I thread is not likely to be a winner. The best thing you could do would be to help the majority of editors to enforce policy. At this stage DC has rejected a good-faith compromise and probably should just have the userpage attack link removed according to policy and the consensus at AN/I. Maybe you could do that; it might look better coming from you than from Ty or me. That would be a help. Failing that a short block for disruption may be in order. Wikipedia is not a battleground to solve off-wiki disputes, nor is it a soapbox for advocacy. The drama caused by this user's insistence on retaining the link is not helping anyone. --John (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on so many levels, I once again have concerns about your motivation here. Have you yet acknowledged the abuse/difficulties that DC has been put through? You're right though, nobody can force you, the complainant, do actually do the right thing when it comes to your fellow editors/humans. ►BMW◄ 20:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

And I have concerns about yours. I acknowledge all the difficulties faced by everyone here; I disagree with your contention that mediation from an involved party who disagrees with consensus is in any way a viable way forward or the "right thing" to do. --John (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am so glad BMW also can see the page being linked to is not in fact, an "attack" site. This word is being thrown about like a weapon on all possible occasions by John. It is the strongest negative word possible to describe a page and surely should be reserved for far more extreme writings. Thus I feel the page is unfairly characterised to support John's POV. John may object to the word jihad, but I strongly object to the use of this word "attack". Restawhile (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This has been resolved hopefully to everyone's satisfaction, by Mr Bellinghaus himself who has removed his blogs linking myself and DC, so no defence is necessary and I have taken down the page, in fact, the entire site Restawhile (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I do hope this is closed for good. As you can see I marked the ANI as both resolved, AND added the archive tags around it. I'm thinking of doing it to this discussion as well, as I'm truly saddened by what I've read above and in the ANI. We need to to remember that every editor is also a living, breathing person too. ►BMW◄ 01:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I can indeed see that. I also noticed your comment "Good luck with your future interactions with the human race". And you want to be an administrator, and consider yourself an expert on wikiquette and dispute resolution. I shall follow your future career with great interest. --John (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it this way John: anyone who questions my neutrality, and anyone who at the same time fails to at least attempt to take the high road when it comes to the emotions of another human being might get the occasional touch of polite snarkiness. You really took the low road on this issue, and that was unfortunate for everyone. ►BMW◄ 17:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and one I seriously differ with. I will give you a free clue; mediation only works with an uninvolved mediator. Happy editing, --John (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

WOW a clue, a clue! You seem to have a difficulty with the word "uninvolved", my comments in the ANI came from being neutral and wholly uninvolved...something you missed out on. Anyway, you were out of touch from the start, you remain on a pitbull like continuation towards me now, probably because you didn't get the satisfaction of what you really wanted out of the DC situation. That situation is done, and me, the neutral party although disappointed in the actions of a few, really doesn't give a crap one way or another on how it came out. Your continued attempts to bait me are noted. Thanks again. ►BMW◄ 17:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. So tell me, what did I really want? --John (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know John, and I no longer care. I'm off fixing typos in Wikipedia where I can be of some use. ►BMW◄ 17:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

John has acted entirely properly and conscientiously to enforce WP:BLP, which is one of our most important policies. Your lack of recognition of this is a serious error of judgement, as are your accusations against John. You were the only editor on the AN/I discussion that failed to see the inappropriateness of that link. Delicious carbuncle then had an even more blatant violation of BLP on their user page.[6] The next time you choose to close a discussion, I suggest you do not do so immediately after you have had the last word. That does not come across as a neutral action. If you wish to be in any position of mediation in future, it will give others more confidence in your abilities, if you do not start the process by expressing which side of the debate you support. That is advocacy, not mediation. Ty 18:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a point that I have to say "bugger off", as opposed to what I have already said? Try re-reading the ANI before making such remarks - I was not the sole opponent, so get your facts straight. Retract your very off-base statements, or you'll find them removed from my talkpage. Learn the difference between someone expressing a "neutral, non-interested" position on a subject and "advocacy". I find this "ganging up on the neutral guy" to be a very interesting game, and one I'm not enjoying being a part of. Off you go now...Wikipedia has more need of good editors than non-neutral bullies who honestly failed to read before attacking at this point in time. Have a day...not a good one, just a day. ►BMW◄ 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Try to stay civil. If you choose to engage in a discussion, you cannot dictate the responses. Maybe there's something to take on board. Ty 18:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm being fully civil...although the baiting is starting to work. You're right, I can't dictate responses, but I can expect intelligent/seasoned editors to read instead of posting complete fabrications such as "You were the only editor on the AN/I discussion that failed to see the inappropriateness of that link" as an attempt to discredit or bully me. I also expect seasoned/intelligent editors to read the entire sequence before accusations of a "a serious error of judgement" (sic) because your comments are not based on where the disagreement has come from, which is a serious error in judgment on your part. Please, re-read the entire ANI then come back and modify your post/rethink your commentary or I'll edit it on your behalf. I'm giving you some benefit of the doubt here, and I have been nothing but polite to John and suggestions otherwise are unwise/unfounded. I desire no reply to this, merely a modification of your fictional posts above. ►BMW◄ 19:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Tisha Campbell-Martin

I have re-added the African American category. Sometimes things are a little too obvious for sourcing purposes. Please do not initiate confrontation over obvious edits. ►BMW◄ 19:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I acknowedge your good faith, but the last time I checked, ethnicity and ethnic identification were not identified in WP:V as exceptions. Please do not edit war. Please discuss on talk and wait for consensus before reverting. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I continue to disagree that the BET award justifies ignoring WP:V. Because you are a regular and acting in good faith, I will not template you. But please stop edit warring. Ward3001 (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Consider it closed before you go any further: If you mean the ANI is closed, I suppose you are correct that no admin plans to take the false accusations against me any further. If you mean the WP:V issue is closed, no that's not correct. No admin has stated that WP:V does not apply, nor is there a consensus on the talk page to bypass WP:V. Thank you for your civility, but I think you are wrong. Ward3001 (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Mercenary2k

He's apparently had time to log in and delete the entire thread of commentary directed at him on his talk page, warnings and all. And yet, he's had no time to retract his ridiculous personal attack on User:Ragib's talk page, nor to visit and comment on others building consensus on the Inter-Services Intelligence talk page, nor to visit WP:ANI and present his side. And, why should he? He's already indicated he's just going to edit it as he sees fit when the protection is up. And, the article is protected now just as he likes it. There's been NO incentive for him to seek consensus, no repercussions for his behaviour AT ALL. The only administrator interventions gave him, frankly, just what he wanted. If either myself or anyone else makes changes when the protection is up (lotta good that's doing us now), he's just going to revert. It's his modus operandi. Just FYI. Exasperated don't begin to cover it ... CSHunt68 (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

WQA

Thanks for the heads-up in regards to advising me to tell the user about the WQA here: [7]. I must have overlooked that, as I have never done a WQA before. Also, thanks for supplying the user warnings to the editor. Atlantabravz (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I actually have a little polite template I usually used on those who forget, but I was too lazy this morning :-) Hope it helps ... I really think he was having a little fun with a real life buddy ►BMW◄ 20:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Suck me.

Since you're not an admin, SUCK ME. You won't shut my user page down. You people tried to do that last year (cough cough) and it didn't work. You can't take it down and excuse me.

(A CHOO)

bad day to you SIR. HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 21:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: I'm not sorry if this offends you.

I think the block you recieved from someone is a sufficient response to this. ►BMW◄ 13:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link

at ANI; I also provided a diff of the original complaint under frivolous charges. Cheers again :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolution attempt with Montana

I've started a thread over at User talk:Montanabw#Concerning ownership to discuss the concerns I had with Montana's protection of article over at the AN/I filed by Una Smith. Your help in resolving the issue would be much appreciated.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching the discussion and will comment when appropriate. Good luck, and thanks for the invite! ►BMW◄ 13:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Help, see here. [8] Never was a disambiguation page, before see[9] I wanted to add more information to the word Never, about funny sayings which express the notion never in different languages, like for example: When hell freezes over.

The page would looked complicated otherwise.[10]. I thougt I create a separate article for the word and keep the rest as a disambiguation page

About the article never, people agreed on that it was ok to expand it, see my talk page. I did not wanted to make a dictionary of it, I just wanted to add funny sayings. .

Warrington (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've also taken a look at the AfD ... I think I actually have to agree with the decision on the AfD: WP is not a dictionary, and "funny sayings" would be like adding "trivia sections" to other articles, which are all in the process of being removed. I appreciate the overall attempt, but I can't agree with the purpose of this specific article. ►BMW◄ 13:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason was this article [11], I agreed with the author that is very hard to find information on this matter. I thougt Wikipedia is a perfect place for an article like this.

Warrington (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

While there may be a way, right now WP:NOT would point otherwise. ►BMW◄ 13:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: While there may be a way. What did you mean? Adding it to the Wiktionary?

Warrington (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. You were right, but everything worked out nicely. We found some "flying pigs" at the Wiktionary, so my pig climbing the pear tree in yellow slippers will join them.

Warrington (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter's stuff

BMW, discussion moved to User:Montanabw/Peter's Sandbox. FYI. Montanabw^(talk) 23:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Mare and the recent history at User:Montanabw/Peter's Sandbox. I believe at this point the issue is over as I have no interest in providing a forum for a single individual to harass me and make personal attacks. I think it's time to shut this "mediation" down now. If I am at fault here, I welcome constructive comments. But I am tired of the rest. Montanabw^(talk) 20:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and your attempt to resolve the situation. It was worth a shot. Montanabw^(talk) 06:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, he's not stopping. See sandbox and the article in question. Help?? Montanabw^(talk) 08:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Did my best ... I'm not a fan of his parting shot, and I let him know that on his Talk. ►BMW◄ 17:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's OK. Peter apologized and I'm glad to let it drop. I explained my positions enough, I hope, I didn't want to go on and on. My basic position, as outlined on my talk page, is that I am open to Trout-slapping if I either cross the line between quality control and ownership or if I get too snarky to the innocent bystander. (grin) Beyond that, differences of opinion need to be worked out in good faith. I tried to figure out what was mine to "own" up to when I get the bit in my teeth (pun intended), but I drew the line at being dogpiled (if I may mix equine and canine metaphors). ;-D For now, can you continue to watchlist Talk:Horses in warfare and possibly the other two articles that were at issue here? It might be possible that the underlying issues are not resolved, I hope they are, but who knows. Third party eyes are often helpful. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 01:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Uncivility, Hate speech

First and foremost I would like to sincerely ask you for your help. Your input and patience is appreciated. I want to bring to your attention this. HD86 has made numerous comments such as "The Assyrians are EXTINCT people of ancient Mesopotamia whose name was stolen by some modern politicians and used in reference to the modern Syriacs. To label the modern Syriacs by "Assyrians" and to claim that "The Assyrian people trace their origins to the population of the pre-Islamic Levant" is indeed stupidity in its purest form." These comments are inflammatory, racist, unhistprical and outrageous. This user continues to deny that a whole race even exists. He needs to be wiki disciplined. This is unacceptable inflammtory denialist behavior. The equivalent of his statments would be that jews or arabs do not exist. Do you not see the point. His languge is very hateful and dimeaning to those of us involved in the project. If you take a look at his history he has similar incompetent statemetns regarding other controverisal topics. I ask for assistance in order to remove this hateful user from this discussion. He has denied the existence of an entire race that through ample ancient and modern evidence has existed for thousands of years. I will be waiting for your response. I must stress this is only one of many disturbing comments this user has made. Thanks for your input my friend. I have left similar messages to other admins for more input.Ninevite (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know problem

Hello! Your submission of The Irish Descendants at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Art LaPella (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Extra-curricular

Um, what is wrong with extra-curricular? [12] DoubleBlue (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The preferred spelling in most dictionaries and languages as a minor example includes it as one whole word. The built-in dictionary in AWB/TypoScan flags it every time. ♪BMWΔ 17:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I ask it to be removed from AWB as per ENGVAR. My mileage varies from yours.[13] Cheers! DoubleBlue (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Matt Windman edits

I do not understand the issue with my edits to Matt Windman's page.

I understand the need to not get into an editing war, but how do you prevent others from simply editing back what you have done each time. Do you immediately move to dispute resolution?

Further, why is making a factual statement about someone (that is backed by a citation) in an article about that person deemed a "personal attack?"

I do appreciate your kind introduction - I look forward to getting a better understanding of things around here.

SlyFrog (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

First, your actions led you to be the topic of a civility report filing, which was then escalated to noticeboard for admin action. The "fact" that someone edits articles about themselves is not notable, nor encyclopedic. I have made dozens of edits to a number of articles - is that encyclopedic? Wikipedia is also not considered to be a valid reference inside Wikipedia, so your citation was invalid. If more than one person reverts your edits, that's when YOU the editor need to stop and rethink...Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS, so obviously, your edit was not a consensus edit. ♪BMWΔ 19:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue was not editing articles about themselves, the issue was resubmitting following a prior discussion and deletion. I posted the statement because it reflected on the character of the subject of the article.

Should I have simply reported the newly posted article? SlyFrog (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The article had already been tagged as "Criteria for Speedy Deletion". Smart-arsed comments about the person who continued to create it is considered to be a violation of WP:NPA. There is plenty of time to comment on the ARTICLE (and never the editor who created it) on the Talkpage of the article, or at articles for deletion. ♪BMWΔ 20:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you are assuming good faith or being reasonable to me in saying "smart assed" comments.

That said, I understand now that it should have been referred through the articles for deletion process and the talk page.

Thanks much for the clarification! SlyFrog (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

None of your attempts to belittle the person who continued to create the articles can be remotely considered as "good faith". They were both personal attacks AND vandalism to the Wikipedia project as a whole. ♪BMWΔ 20:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I obviously disagree. But I do again sincerely thank you for the introduction, and the clarification you have offered. SlyFrog (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion

According to your user page, you aren't an admin but hope to be one some day. If that is still accurate I would suggest, first, that you stop responding to a bunch of ANI threads as if you thought you were an admin already and, second, that you not post highly uncivil comments, especially under the guise of trying to suggest that someone else should be disciplined because he is uncivil. You're coming across as exactly the wrong kind of person to be a good admin. If you do manage to get nominated those actions will no doubt be brought up as evidence that you are not ready. DreamGuy (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. There was nothing uncivil in my comment on ANI. As "preparation" for possible RfA's, full participation in ANI is recommended, and I ensure I remain civil in my commentary there. I've made a clarification on ANI, but the few e-mails I got thanking me for how I dealt with that situation says a lot right now. Cheers ♪BMWΔ 10:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Signature

Just thought I'd leave a note - I prefer your old colour-contrast personally. Any reason for the change? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Heya, I prefer the black/white version too (for many reasons), but the green and red is more..."festive"?? LOL ♪BMWΔ 09:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ohhh...lol! I think the green background was clashing before, but it looks very festive now. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on ANI

Hello Bwikins. You made a comment on WP:ANI that I found interesting here it is: "Steelerfan-94 is mentoring *blink*." could you please tell me what you meant by that comment. As it could mean a number of things IMO. SteelersFan-94 06:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd recommend you have a read of your own Talkpage - some comments by editors I respect state quite clearly why you should re-think mentoring anyone at this moment. I've even been asked to mentor a few times, and I have respectfully declined. ♪BMWΔ 10:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Excuse me, but in ANI you made a really bad comment telling me to stop editing because of a consensus. May you please point me to what that consensus might be? I really try to assume good faith, I have no idea where that evil comment would come from. Tavix (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Holy drama. When every editor in ANI says "stop", you've found your consensus. ♪BMWΔ 00:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, I'm sorry but only two people told me to stop. That is hardly any consensus. Please be civil about things, seriously. Its just a little MOS dispute, there is no need for you to go overboard. Tavix (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Ecoleetage (talk) 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. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Football naming conventions

Hello again. A couple things: first of all I am sorry if I have insulted you or anything earlier, you caught me when I was pretty angry. I was mad because you had no right saying there was a consensus on the matter when there was only 3 people questioning the matter. I wasn't really polite on the matter and you probably don't think very highly of me because of it. My edits I have made to the project, however, was in good faith. If you want to take a look at the reasoning for the decisions I have made on the matter, please take a look at WP:FBNC. Happy holidays to you as well. 21:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavix (talk • contribs)

WP:NCSP

Your recent meaningful participation in an ANI on sports-figure article disambiguation suggests that you may be interested in participating one way or another in the development and/or discussion of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople), a draft proposal to clarify Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) as applied to sports. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing

Hi. The encyclopedia would be better served if the ongoing stream of insults on your behalf, directed at me, were dropped in favour of actually improving the encyclopedia by applying our policies. Keep in mind that Wikipedia:No personal attacks is policy, as is Wikipedia:Edit war. If the only thing you're going to do on Wikipedia is go to people's talk pages to complain about me (and your recent contribution history demonstrates that this is the direction you're going), I'm going to have to resort to filing a complaint using one of the venues outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I'm presently doing research on the history of Windows NT from 1997 to 2000 in an attempt to improve History of Microsoft Windows; I'd like to think I could focus on that instead of being dragged down by this pettiness. Thanks. Warren -talk- 13:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the BS name-calling has to stop, but S3884h, you need to read the same WQA report you filed - I clearly stated (as someone who is neutral and involved in the industry) the difference between the LEGAL name of the show, and the "legal name + host". Additional violations of WP:NPA on article or user talk pages will not be well-met. ♪BMWΔ 14:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, not once did I use offensive slang in my comments to the editor in question. I may not have a lot of nice things to say about him. But honesty within boundaries is not against the rules. While I will oblige by what is set by Wikipedia, one thing is not perfectly clear. Why is this editor focusing his time and energy on just one or two talk shows? There are other talk show articles on Wikipedia where the names are clearly on them, but he is not touching them one bit. Call me crazy, but I say this editor is bias against only a few talk shows, and they are the ones that he and I have been edit warring over for the last couple of weeks. If what you say is true, which I’m not saying that I’m doubting, then the focus of you, as the administrator, is to make sure all articles on talk shows, whether Sunday morning or not are uniformly followed clear across the board, and not just on a selected few. To say the very least, I’m not too thrilled about this particular rule. But if that is what the rule say, every article in question must follow it. And from what I see, that is clearly not the case. S3884h (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You know something, fool me once. Shame on me. Full me twice, SHAME ON YOU. I just took a look at your profile on here, and from what I read, you hail from the exact same Canadian town as the editor in question. What a coincidence. Give me a reason I shouldn't think that this is not one of your ridiculous sockpuppets, WARREN!!! Your editing mannerism is almost a carbon copy of each other. I take back my previous statement, because I was right about what I said to you a couple days ago. You are nothing but a phony. Tata!!! S3884h (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This is humourous. Although I don't think it takes too much investigation by even an novice editor to note a) my almost 5000 edits on Wikipedia, b) the topics I tend to edit, c) the difference in my use of language and grammar than another editor, d) the fact that I have never edited any of the topics in question, e) a myriad of other methods to differentiate me from any other editor on Wikipedia. As the old saying goes about accusations of sockpuppetry: put up, or shut up. Please, I encourage you to file a sockpuppetry case here or retract the statements. ♪BMWΔ 16:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me add that I just scanned Warren's userpage. As specified on my userpage, I live in a city called "Ottawa" - with a census metropolitan area population of more than 1.2 million people. It's located in the province of Ontario, which has the largest population of any province in Canada. I see no place where Warren states that he's from "Ottawa". He is apparently from "Ontario", but that includes Toronto with a CMA population of over 4 million and quite a few other CMA's with more than a half-million population. Still, I stick by it ... file your SSP case or STFU. ♪BMWΔ 16:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh... I haven't been to Ottawa for twenty years. Further, a Checkuser on my account would reveal that my time is split between Ann Arbor, Michigan and Hamilton, Ontario. But, hey, you know what, I've edited a couple of the BMW articles (I'm a fan of the M3, Z3 and Z4 specifically), so therefore we are precisely the same person... hello, me! :-D Warren -talk- 16:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Meet The Press request

Would you be willing to transcribe your WQA statement regarding the "Meet The Press" title to its Talk Page? The edit war has resumed as soon as the page was unlocked and I'd like to build consensus. Gerardw (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for bringing it up. ♪BMWΔ 20:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert for User:S3884h

Hello; it's become necessary for me to file a Wikiquette alert against this user. I'm informing you as a courtesy due to your involvement in related discussions. Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:S3884h. Thanks. Warren -talk- 18:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's like you have multiple personalites. May not be the case in reality, but on here, it shows. S3884h (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me put this clearly: You want to accuse me of being a sockpuppet, file it here right now, put your BS in writing, or else STFU ... that's the rules on Wikipedia. ♪BMWΔ 20:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Reporting for edit warring

I have reported you for edit warring with me despite countless attempts to get you and stop. Your report can be found at the bottom of this page. Thanks. Tavix (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on my own Talkpage? You are uncivil. Go away. Permanently. ♪BMWΔ 21:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• I am sorry I took it there, you really didn't have a violation of 3RR. Tavix (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That's why I told you to file a WQA report against me. I even gave you the link. ♪BMWΔ 21:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Don't worry about it, it's being taken care of. Tavix (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hello, DangerousPanda. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tavix (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

All right, the ANI was resolved because no admin action was needed. I think the moral of the story is that we both need to start showing more civility and start respecting each other. I blame myself for not assuming good faith, and you shouldn't have called me a vandal, etc, so it goes both ways. I would like to put this situation behind us and I would not like there to be any grudges or anything, because after all we are both here to contribute to Wikipedia and not to go off and start edit wars. So would you be willing to initiate a truce? If you accept, I'll leave you alone as long as you leave me alone and vise versa, and there will be no hard feelings against each other.

PS: If you want to answer at my talk page, I understand. Tavix (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the moral is that when I answer the first 5 times, and then point out policy 5 times, STOP. As I spend hours a day investigating incivility on Wikipedia, I don't need someone who doesn't get policy to try and lecture me. I'm all for being told when I'm wrong, but you really went overboard this time. Now, as asked a few dozen times, go away. ♪BMWΔ 23:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I'm not going away. You acted completely incivil towards me and you can at least apologize for it. Tavix (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The evidence that I never had a chance to show clearly proves that I was never uncivil to you, in fact, I was overly polite with you. The ANI pretty much said the same thing. Get over it, if you're an adult you'll already know that things don't go your way. Do not return to my page - ever. ♪BMWΔ 10:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI Congrats

Congrats on your first ANI! ;-) Hiberniantears (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks, I'm so proud. I think I'll name it "Frank" and get it circumcised ASAP. ♪BMWΔ 10:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

O-M-G

Guess what guys, it's yet another person who tries to be what they're not. Well hello to you too BOSS.
EdmOilers023 (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if actually giving a sh|t about how people interact while building an encyclopedia (as ALL editors are required to do) is considered "being what they're not", then I suppose I'm guilty... ♪BMWΔ 10:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

By "being what they're not" I meant trying to be an Admin which you obviously are NOT. (even the blind can see that) Obviously, you have some self conceited issues about that. Not the first to state that, others think you're "being what you're not" too. Learn how to read. EdmOilers023 (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You read right, I'm not an admin, and have never pretended to be. That said, all editors on Wikipedia are supposed to attempt to maintain/enforce the policies and protocols. ♪BMWΔ 11:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The editor EdmOilers023 has created a page called Y2J. It is nominated for deletion. --Lawe (talk) 10:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow really?! I created that page?! How come I didn't know I created such a thing? And nominated for deletion hey? HmMm why is it still there? That's quite strange..I must be seeing things. I better make an appointment with my optometrist...and it looks like not only BMW needs to learn how to read. AND HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU TOO BUDDY. EdmOilers023 (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why you're asking me on my own talkpage about a message left by someone else (note: User:Lawe advised of the AfD). From what I can see, although EdmOilers023 did not create the page, they were involved in a number of edits, plus did actually create 2 pages that spawn from the Y2J article. Let me also add a note about the deletion process: any article can be "nominated for deletion". They are then discussed by the community, and consensus to delete or keep generally occurs based on merits. This specific article had no consensus to keep or delete, therefore by default it was kept. I can obviously read quite well, thanks. ♪BMWΔ 11:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm the one that can't read then. But someone here can't distinguish sarcasm from realism. Whatever, end of discussion. Quit wasting my time arguing with ****** like you on wikipedia. TTYN EdmOilers023 (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:CadenS

Your attack on me at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:CadenS was inappropriate. The fact that CadenS removed the Wikiquette notice on his Talk page forced me to have to go elsewhere. I did not post to ANI and Wikiquette at the same time, I posted to ANI after CadenS made it clear the he was not interested in disucssing it on the Wikiquette board. I would please request that you reword your close. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I certainly did not "attack" anyone. I looked at the timestamp on the WQA filing, and it was identical to the timestamp on the ANI filing. If you merely copy/pasted the text from one to the other, then this was unfortunately a misunderstanding caused by your edit, and I apologize. Please be cautious that you sign each post separately. ♪BMWΔ 18:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, yes, I copied and pasted from the WQA to the ANI, including the date and time stamps, which would make it assume that I had done it at the same time. I don't mind the close of the WQA, since the ANI is moving forward, but could you change the wording on the close? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Already been done, now that you clarified your error. Thanks. ♪BMWΔ 18:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll remove my comment. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I regret any occasions when I may have given you a hard time. It is nothing personal, I just have a hard time giving up, or stopping, on anything I have started. I realize that characteristic can sometimes (frequently?) be annoying. I appreciate your leaving the message on Ceedjee's talk page, and as a result I think that difficulty may be resolved. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledged, and thanks for the apology. I'm a big pusher for "common sense" :-) ♪BMWΔ 12:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, below is my response to it, I respect your input and I humbly ask you to read this claim below, thank you

BMW, as I have mentioned before all I was doing from the beginning of this irrelevant dispute was simply challenging User: AramaeanSyriacs source as explained above until this other user hopped in the conversation causing everyone involved going completely off topic. The remarks I have made using the words bigot was simply a direct response to that user telling me to quote “take my damn head out of my ass.” [14]]. or this [15] He has had a long history of putting other users that disagree with his minority views he refers to them as stupid, biased, propagandists, ignorant, Nazis, mentally ill, childish, as shown in the second link and so on. Here are other examples “"Lol, logic equals zero" "Malik, I'm starting to believe you are stupid" "You can't blaim your obvious lack of reading comprehension" "Bla bla bla, cry me a river" "Sorry, you make no sense with your childish and naive claims" "Are you delibaretly being ignorant?" He has constantly put other users such as this user [16] who is an admin referring to this users vulgar mouth. He is simply trying to get me blocked because he sees me as logical threat to his edits as shown here in the past falsely accused me of being a sock puppet and got rebuked for it [17] This is just the tip of the iceberg, he has teamed up the user above me and has tried to spread propaganda throughout the encyclopedia, the first has been blocked multiple times for edit warring, vandalism, and the second constantly manipulates the meanings of words to eliminate his opposition. Each time one of them gets confronted with logical opposition they try to dig up dirt on the user to get him banned, each time User: aramaean syriac has been disciplined this user above me has defended regardless of the accusations. They back each other up in order to boost their POV material across. I have labeled these people those words because they have denied that my race existed in those times. They have denied the existence of the Assyrians saying this term is a 20th century term completely disrespecting an entire peoples history. That is the reason why I called him incompetent and bigoted it is because of comments such as this “was no such thing as Assyrian Christians at the times of the School of Nisibis.” If I were to say that Arabs or Jews have not existed until the 20th century and you are of Arab or of Jewish decent will you not be inflamed by such caustic rhetoric. I apologize for this long comment but I felt it necessary to say it, You have warned me and I Respect you as an admin, but clearly this user above me has gone too far and frankly gotten away with a lot unwarranted behavior that would otherwise get him banned. As I have stated above I will disengage myself from the discussion altogether, you have warned me because of the words “bigot” and yet you do not warn or take into account all the horrible claims User: The Triz has made against me and several users from the very few examples I have given above. Regarding his behavior, this is just a small amount of countless examples this user has done against many other peoples. I would appreciate your response to this, thanks and apologies for the long comment. Ninevite (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledged. I will comment more after some research. My goal last night was to stop the current insanity, and to put all on notice. (PS: at this point, I'm not an admin ... just someone trying to assist in keeping us all working together) ♪BMWΔ 12:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't waste the time on listening to this guy if I was you. Just a tip. But if you choose to ignore my tip and decide to look into this, you can still spare you some time by simply asking the involved admins in the whole Assyrian/Syriac issue that are aware of most things that have been written, which are Dbachmann (talk · contribs) & Moreschi (talk · contribs) (and to a lesser extent also Andrewa (talk · contribs)). The TriZ (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I accept the tip. In fairness, All complaints deserve to be weighed accordingly. If you have read how I deal with issues on my userpage, you'll note the ABC method. If you've read my comments in ANI, you'll know that although incivility does not excuse additional incivility, it may at least explain it. If my research show other warnings are needed, I will follow-through accordingly. talk→  BMW  ←track 14:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WQA

Do you think your comments on WQA are appropriate? Comments such as "Gee HighKing, come down off thy HighHorse"? I don't. I'd rather not continue the discussion on WQA - it's ironic that when we're commenting on one editor we end up snapping and snarling at each other. If my comments riled you, I apologize - it was not my attention. As to your points about the UUA - my comments were that OM appears to get involved in a lot of disruptive behaviour and I pointed to the UUA as an example where the closing admin removed it with a quote of " removing inappropriate nomination" and another admin found evidence that there was a vindictive element to the nomination in the first place. --HighKing (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. I was quite taken aback to see someone state that I had acted "aggressively" and in a "confrontational tone" when in fact I was doing the complete opposite. I'm sure that if you re-read my original statement, you would see that it matches quite clearly my clarification of this morning. To be honest, I was originally going to add "HighKing, if you're not going to hold onto the concepts of WP:AGF while responding in this forum, I would recommend you rethink your participation in attempting to mediate civility disputes", but I deleted after a preview ... I decided not to in order to not attack your work overall. I'm always willing to strike comments when proven wrong :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Peace. Thank you. Next time we'll see each other in a different light.  ;-) Perhaps we should remove our section from the WQA as it distracts from the main issue? If you feel the same, please feel free to do so. --HighKing (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have struck (because removing is bad) portions of my last post there (see the edit summary). (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Dick family

• Hi. My name is Tim. You can call my brother Mister Dick. I didn’t know that about ol’ Tim. Maybe that was part of his learning comedy at a young age. Greg L (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh ... when I read Tim's first book, I was already LMAO by page 3 (which I think is where the whole description of his "entire family of Dicks" was happening. I think you would have to either do drugs or comedy with that name :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WQA resolved

Singing Kumbaya

Gerardw (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Bwilkins, heartfelt thanks for sticking with that WQA. You too Gerardw. Regards, Chuckiesdad 04:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey there

Hey there, just wanted to stop by and say Hello...saw your comments on the RfA talk page and realised it's been a while since I've crossed editorial paths with you. Hope all is well -- when you get a chance, let me know what you're up to. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey there, mon ami! Things are well (and busy) in my part of the world/Wikipedia ... how's things with you? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

La vie est belle -- both here and in that annoying miasma called the real world! Be well and keep doing what you're doing! Ecoleetage (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Duman (band)

Yes, sometimes I do some mistakes, perhaps I work too much, but what about Siberia? Some of informations in infobox are not correct (outdated), and difficult to correct them, but I do not think deleting of infobox was a good idea. Better outdated information than deletion. I think so. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Leszek, sorry it took a few days to reply to your message on my talk. I recommend against using obviously wrong information in any infobox (picture some 8 year old kid getting an F on an essay!). Perhaps a custom infobox that says "Siberia (approximation)"?? All the best! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Your WQA comments deleted

See [18]. Would've reverted but HighKing added to another discussion before I got a chance. Gerardw (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem - I re-added them. Thanks for the notification! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please...

Your outbursts have just about zero relevance to my complaints. You clearly cared nothing about listening to my explanations about why I posted at WQA, or that it might have been a misunderstanding. You went straight for all the wild accusations that Lar started, which was nothing short of flaming. You did your absolute best to revive the old conflicts and then dumped all of it on me. If you've had genuine concerns over my behavior, you never appeared to have any genuine interest in explaining what you mean. All I can see is that when I complain of what I perceive as off-topic abrasiveness, you attack my complaints while ignoring accusations against me of everything from bullying (an odd thing to say in a dispute between only two people) and outright trolling. Peter ^Isotalo 17:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter, you really need to take some time to reflect. I will assure you that your post on WQA was read as such:

1. the complaint
2. any diff's
3. the actual complainant's name

In other words, I looked clearly at the complaint before I even knew who the complainant was. My first reactions were that there was no incivility - it was quite clearly a "let's go team" rah-rah, certainly did not have any attempt at exclusions. If you're going to over-react to comments because you have a history with an editor (mostly made up, from what I have observed) then perhaps you need to analyze where you choose to participate in Wikipedia and stay away from the source of your misunderstandings and anger. My answer was that you misread the statement. There was no incivility. There were no public attacks. I then looked at the "A" from the "ABC" model ... I know what the antecedent behaviour is, and I addressed it. Don't bother getting into fights with neutral editors such as myself simply because we don't share your misunderstandings. My responsibility is to help resolve an issue - the issue this time is your failure to WP:AGF (rather than having said, "read English"). Final recommendation: stay away from the source of your confusion. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

re: Icsunonove

Hi Bwilkins, I wouldn't have filed 3 reports, if someone had taken up the issue that I, user:Gryffindor, user:PhJ, User:HalfShadow and user:Gun Powder Ma were called, pigs, disgusting, genetically linked to Hitler, mental illness and so on... as no admin did put the brakes on Icsunonove I filed a report and then another. He will be back with more on Monday. But as he has stopped for today I'm finally back at doing what I like most: expanding Alpini articles :-) --noclador (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Input on essay requested

I've put together some thoughts on civility at User:Gerardw/Civility and would appreciate your input. Feel free to WP:BOLD and edit if you'd like. Gerardw (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Kindly watchlist?

Talk:Horses in warfare. I really want some more grownups watching over there. Una and Peter and I all on the same article worries me. Also Template talk:Equidae. See also context in recent history of Talk:Equidae. Montanabw^(talk) 21:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am watching pages as requested :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest

Thank you for your interest. I don't believe I've ever denigrated anyone's religion - perhaps you could elucidate? As for calling taiwanboi an idiot (edit summary to Exodus, it's a simple truth. However, he might well take exception to it, being a sensitive soul, and so I invite him to remove the word "idiot" from the phrase "that idiot taiwanboi" and replace it with any word he wishes. Can't say fairer than that. PiCo (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you might recall this comment?. You should have been blocked immediately. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you'll have to be more precise. What's objectionable here? PiCo (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

User deleting AfD template

I come to you humbled by the fact that, although I know how to start them, I do not know the proper procedure for closing an AfD. I do however know it's not done by deleting the AfD template from the article, like this. Could you please step-in and show us both the steps to take in closing an AfD? I know I'd appreciate it. Padillah (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you care whether the nomination was correct in the first place? Wikidea 23:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Then the AfD will not be successful, right? AfD is a discussion as to the admissibility of an article on Wikipedia. If the community believes it should stay, it stays. If the community says it should go, it goes. Once an AfD tag is added, a whole range of other pages are also created - simply removing the tag will not stop the process, it will only get the editor who removes it in trouble. If the article has merit, it will stay. If it doesn't, then it won't. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Bwilkins, in what sort of category would you place the behaviour of supporting a deletion nomination which no informed person agrees with and is clearly frivolous? And then you say everywhere is a place to teach lessons? I'm afraid I owe you no gratitude whatsoever. I'm the sort of person that contributes to this encyclopedia. Maybe you do too: do it more, and stop wasting time with this rubbish. Wikidea 20:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Monitoring my future actions???? Blimey! Can't you just contribute to the encyclopedia? This is what you'll find me doing. And as for "go away", I never would have been there unless two people had tried to keep this silly AfD going! Wikidea 21:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Look buddy, NOBODY wants the feckin' AfD to keep going, do you understand that? Try reading WP:AFD to understand that it's a process that generally lasts 5 days, and CAN NOT BE STOPPED until that point. Then benefit is that your article will have OFFICIALLY been blessed by not being deleted, or did you miss my explanation of that point? Perhaps you're right, I have been trying to teach someone who has no desire to read what I have been trying to say all along and instead attacks the messenger. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, alright: maybe there's just a miscommunication - teaching people lessons, the sarky erms, etc, I've just misconstrued; you will recall also threatening to block me: that's not terribly nice or civil either, you know. - but I don't understand how nothing can stop an AfD after it's started. I suppose my point then, if that's the case, is it shouldn't be. Whatever policy there is should be changed. Let's just leave it at that. I don't mean to annoy you, but try to understand, it's pretty bloody annoying for me to have had this in the first place. Wikidea 21:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"Teaching" meant "about the process", as noted from the beginning. Threats to block come directly from the template. If you're this frazzled about something as simple as an AfD, you're either taking Wikipedia too seriously, or suffering from a little WP:OWN. Relax, Wikipedia is not life. Don't worry about the process, and don't worry about the policy - this article is not going anywhere. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WQA RESOLVED

Recently, you were a commenting party in a discussion at WP:WQA#Abusive behavior from a Wikipedia user. This message is to inform you that the discussion has been closed, and marked

Resolved

Thank you for your valued input and involvment in the discussion, as each one of these is an opportunity for all Wikipedians to grow in the community and learn from the experience(s). Edit Centric (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Adam Bagni, Inside the Tide and the Tigers, and AUM Sports Show

I removed the tags off of tghe Adam Bagni article and have merged the content from Inside the Tide and the Tigers and AUM Sports Show. It actually looks pretty. I also moved that bit about him directing interns at the station down to his career section where it noe has a hppy place. I shall simply tag those two merged articles for CSD:G6 as the contents have been merged per the AfD. Thanks much, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Despues de Todo

I'm not going to kick up a fuss, because I basically agree with the closure, but that was pretty dicey as a non-admin close. Two people arguing keep, one that refused to withdraw a delete, and one that added a delete after the opener said he was going to withdraw it is not a clear consensus for keeping. I suspect any admin closing it would have gone with "no consensus" and kept the article on that basis.—Kww(talk) 19:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with the diceyness on the surface. I went looking around using some journalistic sources , and came up pleasantly surprised. Rather than comment with "keep" and let someone else close it, I determined that it was worthy keeping. You're correct, I could have said "no consensus" (which I just did with another). (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I just wouldn't rush in to do non-admin closes on the scary ones. Argentina–Singapore relations is one I wouldn't touch with a 3 meter pole.—Kww(talk) 20:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runaway climate change

You recently closed this as keep [19]. I don't think you should have, since it doesn't meet the near-unanimous keep criteria William M. Connolley (talk) 10:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note. I agree it wasn't unanimous, but it certainly appeared to be strong keep, especially based on the strength of the arguments presented, plus the additional journalism research sources I used. IMHO it was far more Keep consensus than a "no consensus", although both would have resulted in "Keep". (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artivist Film Festival & Awards

I've rolled back your closure of this, please see my closing comments. It's been asked that this be reviewed, discussion is currently at User_talk:Equazcion#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FArtivist_Film_Festival_.26_Awards. If the venue changes, I'll leep you informed. - brenneman 13:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That would make it "no consensus" then, which would again be a keep ... there are other articles in AfD (and not!) that are specifically referring to awards won here. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

O.o
I am completely undone by your first statement? Anyway, it's gone to DRV for now. Only time will tell. - brenneman 15:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated, I added my overall neutral 2 cents to the DRV. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Artivist Film Festival & Awards

Can we see about getting this userfied to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Artivist Film Festival & Awards if it is not returned? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As soon as the DRV is done (which should be now) it should return, based on the discussion. Otherwise, not much I can personally do as a non-admin. Brenneman should be able to assist if it happens. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandal

SteveWunder continues to vandalize the Ayn Rand page.......--Buster7 (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Taken care of in WP:ANI .. thanks. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing WQA incidents

Sorry about that - as I discovered the block had been put on before I filed the WQA, I didn't want to pile on. Since nobody had commented or (apparently) acted on it, I thought it would be ok to remove. I'll make sure I don't do that in the future.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Not an issue. The post will be archived, as it's always good to have a history of the complaints and the number of complaints. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

WQA 20090215

Bwilkins, the current WQA that we're involved in over there has another aspect to it, one that I'm sure you've picked up on by now if you've gone through user talk pages and logs. I'm not exactly sure how to or whether to broach that subject, but it IS directly related to this discussion... Edit Centric (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the reason I confer with you on this stuff is 1, to keep me honest, and 2, because I trust your judgement based on past WQAs that we've both been involved with. Edit Centric (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, joining my conversation. Comfort women is very sensitive article, so I appreciate your comment as a third national. Thank you. I try to contribute Wikipedia in other articles.--Bukubku (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

rollbacker

Given your experience and contributions, I have given you rollback rights. Please use rollback only to revert straightforward vandalism. If you don't want rollback, let me know and I'll shut it off. All the best! Gwen Gale (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Merci! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

re: board post

I did get a kick out of the hell/handbasket post by the way =O ... — Ched (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Makes two of us

I wish you the best, including seldom having to deal with editors like me who can't explain anything or Victor whose pat response to everything is "I didn't know." My favorite - after another editor reverted his partial deletion to reverse its meaning of one of my comments, he accused me of making the edit from his account. "How did your content get posted from my account?" arimareiji (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If that's not proof that the other editor "doesn't get it", then what is? He believes editing ARTICLES and editing TALK PAGES work the same way - he even admitted it. Hopefully, that's changed. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've worked with more than a few people who really were slow to "get it." I can't recall a single one that sarcastically kept repeating variants of "Oh, now I understand" the instant someone corrected them on it. People who really don't get it... don't get that they don't get it. I hope that your short-term impression is right and my long-term impression is wrong, but only time will tell. arimareiji (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Your next step may indeed be an RFC, but I would encourage you to write it carefully, and actually show your AGF throughout. Jumping all over the guy for putting a heading (which actually was a great idea) where it slightly didn't belong was reallllllly a killer for your overall reputation (and your argument). (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me add ... if he WAS just being a WP:DICK, then moving that heading, and saying "good idea" would have stopped him cold, because that would have been being nice! :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you mean an RFC about him, it's unlikely in the near future. Your beliefs aside, I have animus toward his actions and not to him personally. If you mean an RFC about the article, it's already filed - which is the reason he's now being sugar-sweet. If you looked beyond that surface, I believe you would see a VERY different aspect. And so it goes. arimareiji (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, after reading your close of EC's WQA (which I made a point to stay out of): Did you intend to assert that the resolution to Victor treating EC the same way he's treated me, Jwy before me, and others at the Charles Whitman page... is that Victor should open an RfC on me? That would be one of the most unique conclusions I've ever heard. arimareiji (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The question wasn't meant rhetorically - I truly don't know whether you intended to assert that. That's how it seems to read, but I don't know whether that was how you meant it. arimareiji (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, as you two appear to be well beyond any forms of WP:DR other than an RFC, I was pretty much saying "Fine Victor, if you think you have the evidence against Arima, then go ahead, put your money where your mouth is". So, yes, I was challenging him to put up or shut up ... much like I did with the possible Sockpuppet issue further down the page. I doubt he'll do it, because I don't think he has a way to "win", but it should put this issue to rest whether he does it or not...at the same time, I suggested highly that it will become a joint RFC including both of you, and that's one he cannot "win". (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I appreciate you answering an extremely difficult question; thank you. arimareiji (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I try to be honest, fair and open. Note how I recommended that you stay away from him as well :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to avoid engaging him on the Talk page or indirectly engaging him through edits. But to avoid him altogether would amount to self-enforcing a topic ban. arimareiji (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

arimareiji

BMW, after all that went on in the etiquette discussion of me, and arimareiji's inability to stop and go on and on...would you please look at what has resummed on the Charles Whitman talk page?--Victor9876 (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"My suggestion Wildhart, would be to report this guy for uncivil conduct re-re-re-re-peatedly. The etiqette page should show his propensity to deliberately antagonize a situation and Always have the last word, several times." (Victor)

Following this, Wildhartlivie manufactured a rationale that my asking her to stop insinuating I'm a sock is a "highly contentious and assaultive comment".

Feel free to ignore, if it's on my behalf. If it's on theirs, go ahead. arimareiji (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The above user continually answers questions for other editors on the talk page, makes arguous and uncivil misinterpretations and as he did in the informal process he brought against me, will not, and apparently can not stifle himself. If anyone else wanted to come into the discussion, they may think they were accidently re-directed to examples of the "Tower of Babel" talk page.--Victor9876 (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest....

have you considered WP:RFA? You seem to deal quite calmly with foolish people. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Let me know when you plan to go for it. Guettarda (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Patience

I feel this might have been a suggestion to me, but I don't understand what the recommendation would be. I've spent most of the time picking up my dropped jaw at what I've seen on the talk pages. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

... the comment was not about you ... it was related to the 2 editors who have been trying to out-urinate each other, and really have become an issue to the project overall (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Understood (I think). The phrase "overly patient editor" struck a chord with me. It has been quite a spectacle. Thanks for diving in (I can follow this thread here if it continues). (John User:Jwy talk) 16:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you mean where I recommend that he "also *stay away from* the editors who have tried to help in an overly patient manner"? Seeing as he began to harass Edit Centric, and cavassed me (and probably others) as well, I was trying to get him to stop the harassment. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity resolved. Instead of "stay away from," it could have been interpreted that I should start a RfC or something. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there

I've decided that this entire thing is pretty ridiculous and that I have better ways to spend my time (e.g., graduating, volunteering with people who happen to cope with mental illness--people who don't appreciate being stigmatized). I don't belong to a fan website and wasn't aware that any "buttons had been posted to my profie." As I mentioned, the issue isn't whether the page is deleted; I'm concerned that particularly disingenuous information is being dispersed about someone and something that doesn't deserve it. It's an issue I feel strongly about.

Anyway, I'm incredibly disappointed that this wonderful project can be so easily manipulated by nefarious people. I won't be donating anymore money to this cause and I'll advise my friends, acquaintances, and print audience to do the same. Please advise me on how to delete my profile and information. I won't return. Thanks for your message (the delivery was delightful even if the message wasn't)! ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikFantastik (talk • contribs) 16:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Mik, Wikipedia can be an odd place - it is, after all, a community. Just like your community, there are standards: calling people mental is not permitted. What you did to one person's Userpage is truly a bad thing. It was since fixed. I gave you both a welcome and a little warning - most editors have had more than 1 warning, and even some of the current admins have been blocked at some point in their Wikipedia career. Everyone has something to add - nothing is ever bad enough to turn around and insult, nor to lose any sleep over.

Take a day off. You have things to add to the Wikipedia project, and think about what they are. Glance at the policies I linked for you. You'll get a good feel of the flow around here, and someday you'll be doing the exact thing I'm doing, and you'll also have worked on and improved some great articles.

Let me know if I can help. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

List of M.I.High Characters

I must say I disagree with your closure of this AfD. Procedurally, you are not an admin and I think only admins should be able to close contentious AfDs. This was clearly not a SNOW keep as there was a deal of straight "delete" votes. The closure also seemed like it had more to do with your personal opinion than that of the other editors. At the very best, no consensus was reached nor has ever been reached that "Lists are the preferred way of managing fictional characters" for all such lists. Please consider reopening it so that an administrator can close it properly. Thank you, Themfromspace (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your note. I looked carefully at all the arguments. Remember, AfD is not a vote, it is the strength of the arguments that is vital. Certainly, the arguments posted by senior Wikipedia Administrators carry a strong degree of clout. There certainly was not a strong discussion to delete, especially when compared to the overall weight of the keep arguments. I have done many closures of AfD's ... and had minor complaints on a couple, all of which actually held up (one even at DRV). This could have stayed with "no consensus" which would, of course, have had the same effect as "keep". However, it does not take much (at least from an unbiased POV) to weigh the arguments. If you want to have it re-opened, contact an admin. Let me recommend one such as User:Gwen Gale. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I just passed this on to the admin you named with a request that he reopen the debate to have it be closed in the traditional manner (by an admin). Themfromspace (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue with that. Even long-term editors are not immune from a second set of eyes on a decision, and will have no issues with an fair-thinking admin such as Gwen's decision. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Per GG's comment at his talk page. I'm mostly doing this because I like to see AfD run its proper course. I don't believe AfDs should ever be closed by nonadmins, even in the case of WP:SNOW. All I'd like to see is that the AfD gets closed properly by an uninvolved admin (preferably without your commentary as you did on GG's talk page (diff not available; "database error"). You haven't gone through the scrutinizing RfA process which I believe enables editors to have the trust of the community necessary to close AfDs with delete votes. If it doesnt get closed by an admin, I'll take this to DRV to have its proper closure there. Themfromspace (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for barging in but there is a community consensus that non-admins can close AfDs so long as they're not on the edge. Although I understand your thinking, you can't drape your own policy wishes onto this close: Saying you're not happy with a "keep" is one thing, saying you don't like the close because it wasn't done under a policy you wish would happen is pointy. Please think about this, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, if this isn't properly closed by an admin, I'm taking it to DRV. A 10-6 vote isn't a snowball's chance in hell, and nonadmins shouldn't close non-SNOW keeps. This is Wikipedia consensus and if you browse over WP:AFD you'll see that this is the way it works in practise as well. I'll also note that you've had some trouble in the past about this with the Artivist Film Festival & Awards, which was eventually ruled at DRV to be no consensus, while you closed it as keep. Themfromspace (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, RfA is not a vote. Read the strength of arguments, not the totals. I'm not sure about, or the accusations that I caused a error. I don't know what you want to gain from an "admin" closure rather than "non-admin", and I recommend you read the Admin's comments above. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth it was a good close and had I commented in the discussion, I would have been yet another on the keep side.  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello, DangerousPanda. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue you were involved with. The discussion is about the topic Disruptive editing by User:Ohconfucius and User:Tony1. Thank you. --— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hauskalainen problems

Hello Bwilkins. Hauskalainen problems, or so it appears,[20] being that Hauskalainen re-inserted a modification edit to one of my comments on the Right to keep and bear arms talk page using the same alias, per his edit summary. FYI.[21] He is continuing the false accusations, and soliciting meat puppets on DemocracyNow.org. Yaf (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

More accusations in violation of WP:AGF, constituting personal attacks, with false accusations of puppetry, with no filing of sockpuppet case, is going on here. Yaf (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Bwilkins, but this guy needed the perspective check; Al Quesadilla?! Edit Centric (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

May I just state that the only part I had in this was to advise the user in question to submit his complaint through WP:EAR and not come to me under an alias. I dislike being given the moniker of "meatpuppet" as I have not acted in such a way at all. Howie ☎ 06:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Howie, thanks for the note. I will agree, the other user may have gone too far with his terms (however, the first user continually referred to them as a "sockpuppet", so I expect it was tit-for-tat). It doesn't excuse the behaviour, but explains it. The prime issue is that a user was told to either STOP calling people socks, or file the SSP. They then created a second account so that they could continue the name-calling, and then canvassed. I have no dog in the fight, except as can be found in the WP:WQA report on the editors regular account. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of John R. Palmer

I have nominated John R. Palmer, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John R. Palmer. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of M.I.High Characters

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of M.I.High Characters. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gavin Collins (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks (see discussion above) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Death by Wikipedia

Hello, I posted an RfA question for Valley2city regarding Death by Wikipedia because of their own involvement, but as it also indirectly refers via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death by wikipedia to you, I thought I better let you know.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As I'm already here, some suggestions, if you close AfDs:

1. Please check the edit histories to avoid e.g. that you just handle the redirect (happens also often to admins who use a closing script),
2. In case of outcome as merge be explicit in the closure about the proceeding (in simple cases I prefer a rough merge by e.g creating a section at the target inviting interested editors to refine it, which assures that some merge takes place; if you rather want to leave it up to other editors, say so and use the {{afd-mergeto}} tag,
3. Leave articles some time in your watch list to see whether tags are changed or removed, merges are done or deleted stuff is recreated, especially if the topic is controversial.

Happy editing--Tikiwont (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that. A few of the merge recommendations that I have done, I did the mergeto tags, but you're right, it's a nice "addition" to the close, making work easier for everyone else. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette

Out of curiosity, would you consider it an insult if someone told you that you were "specatularly unwelcome" and that you "coddle disruptive users"? The Jade Knight (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if he'd said "you're spectacularly unwelcome on Wikipedia/article X then it would be uncivil. And if there's any user who is not community-minded enough to realize that new users need extra loads of help, then they might not be suited for the Wikipedia community themselves :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. These apply to User:Hipocrite, who seems to forget that DoDaCanaDa, while very WP:bold though ignorant, has been more than willing to learn and try to improve his edits; he has shown extensive willingness to learn (though he has much to learn), and we all need to remember to not bite the newbies. The Jade Knight (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

New Developments at Talk:Charles_Whitman

Hey BMW, could you bring another set of eyes over to the talk page, and let me know what you think here? Victor9876 messaged me earlier, regarding a newly created user account whose only edits are changes to edits that Victor9876 has made at the Charles Whitman and Gary Lavergne articles. Here, and here. Call me a worry wart, but this looks..well, odd. (I know, you'll see that I'm using that word a lot in this instance, but that's the best way I can describe it. The Whitman and Lavergne articles are related, btw.

Also, and this is what makes it even hinkier, why would new user Snipercraft post a request for arbitration on the article talk page, and then x-post it to JWY's talk page? Methinks there's something amiss here... Edit Centric (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Does sound a bit WP:DUCKish, doesn't it. However, was there even a block involved earlier? Are they actually logging in under both accounts right now in order to sway a vote? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't see that happening, but it is a bit strange. As the Snipercraft account is so new, and given the weird postings within the first 24 horas, it looks a lot like that other issue we saw at WQA, especially the accusation of SOCKS here since my last correspondence. (It looks like I might have shaken a tree, though...) Edit Centric (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, although I think the advent of Snipercraft's comments is more than a little odd, I can see a couple of ways it could be on the level. I simply don't know other than to say that he/she's good at editing, whether or not he/she's a sock or a banned user. It doesn't feel like John/Jwy at all, and it's definitely not me.

I don't know whether this will reach you in time, but I posted an open question to you at AN/I about whether you still feel the same way about Victor. It seems as likely as not that your response will be to refute me, but either way I would appreciate your input. arimareiji (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

my incivility

hauskalainen has wiped his talk page, so i'm unable to strikethrough my uncivil comments. so simply in passing, of course you're right. being randomly accused of being in a cabal, or colluding with other editors, practically sets my hair on fire, it's so intensely aggravating, particularly since it's impossible to prove such 'black helicopter' claims wrong. remaining civil while being pilloried by a wannabe joseph mccarthy is no easy task. Anastrophe (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, I know it's tough. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Wow

Well, you deserve it, and I mean that. WQA is missing your input with you being on assignment, when ya comin' back? Edit Centric (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Scheduled to return the 7th :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

New happenings

I apologise, BMW. Please see my userpage (not talk) for the details. Thanks again for all the help at WQA, you rock! Edit Centric (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

EC ... don't go disappearing: your help in WQA is appreciated more than you know! Maybe a couple of days off, then come back anew ... we'll let the others maintain the civlity for a few days! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Will you accept an offer of mediation?

THe subject of mediation is to be your post at WQA, now interpreted as " he was admonished [22] for egging me on " by Greg_L [23] ? Reply on my page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Mediation cannot proceed if one party [24] refuses. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3, you will need to be a little clearer in your request. Please explain what my role is in some form of mediation. Am I the mediator? Am I the complainant? Am I one of the parties being complained against? You'll note that documentation on the WQA page that warns against taking action against the neutral volunteers who try and solve issues. Please provide additional information so that I may appropriately reply to the very unclear question. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You may be reassured that 1) you will be the only "complainee" and I the complainant. 2) Our discussion in a mediation will can be held confidential.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No sir, secret kangaroo courts are not valid on Wikipedia. You're making a complaint against a neutral WQA response, with someone who had no desire to get into any additional "fight". I made a valid comment based on links provided. Should you wish to pursue this, it will be in the most public forum possible so that if there are issues related to WP:POINT or disruption, they will be fully on the record, and administrative actions can be taken based on the above. I have no issues with my activities being viewed by a second set of eyes. I have no responsibility for the actions that you took, nor am I responsible for how my valid comments in a WQA are being used - you must take that up with whoever is using them. If you wish to pursue mediation, it will likely be the shortest mediation in history - mediation is used to assist in a dispute between two parties - as I am in no dispute with you, what is the actual purpose? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(snipped content that is in violation of WP:NPA)

Wrap Up

As the above user doesn't seem to get it, I want to provide a synthesis of the entire situation before I archive this section of the discussion. The user above has also made significant edits to the entire text, adding words, changing order - refactoring of this user talkpage that has changed where responses were and why.

• a complaint was filed at WP:WQA by user A
• in my research into the complaint, user A had egged on user B to a degree, and I noted such
• in the later discussion in the same WQA, I noted that even so, user B's actions were not to be excused, and I held user B to be generally responsible for the situation
• indeed, an even later discussion on ANI I repeated the same

This is complete, and will be manually archived shortly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on ANI

Please note my thoughts on your comments re Nadia Suleman as posted here. Risker (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

FromWP:BLP: Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. None of my statements are being passed off as biographical material about a living person. If you would like, I could go and find properly sourced versions of those statements (they've been printed in a number of the papers I've written for - and many others), but that would be completely contrary with what I was trying to achieve with the original statement, wouldn't it? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(NB: I say the above out of total respect, and not attempting to be flippant. I readily take criticism, but appreciate things being kept in proper context. I was, indeed, supporting the inclusion of an article about a controversial individual (and their doctor) who both have performed highly controversial actions - I placed personal statements that have indeed also been made by sourcable/notable professionals. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

Hello, DangerousPanda. You have new messages at Beantwo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Beantwo (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)