Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:25, 11 April 2012

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

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

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

Thanks and a question

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

Thank you!

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/ronjohn

The instructions do not state I have to listen to "counsel" in addtion to that the guidelines make no mention into the amount of edits one must have before applying. Please refrain from adding your biased opinions regarding my application or telling me that it will be torpedoed unless you plan on purposely doing so. --Ron John (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"Biased opinions"? Yeah, I've been through RFA twice, and know what it takes to succeed on this project as a whole. Any wannabe admin who does not listen to "counsel" will never make admin; period. However, please feel free to transclude your RFA ... you'll get lots of additional counsel. Off you go (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Ron John appears to believe he has completed his self-nomination. Perhaps, rather than deletion, the best option would be to transclude his RFA for him and to step away? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh ... what, and be the cause of whatever unwelcome "counsel" he receives? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a shame it got closed as quickly as it did. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I see it's open again. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I am going to enjoy every moment of this RfA. I'm anxious to see how he responds to all the opposes particularly to my "Oh god no" comment.—cyberpower _{Limited Access} 11:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't take too much joy in the discomfort of others :-) Unfortunately, my bet is that he retires angrily afterward, rather than take any of the comments constructively (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

And your recent post on their talkpage is 110% inappropriate: they have already stated they will NOT withdraw and want it to proceed. They have also clearly stated they will not accept any discussion about it on their talkpage - that is why it was removed, and re-adding it is therefore disruptive. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That explains what you posted on my talkpage so I'll remove it.—cyberpower _{Limited Access} 13:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Second that. I can't tell you how many times I was tempted to close and I'm still tempted to close but, I agreed not to do so.—cyberpower _{Limited Access} 14:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Tom Morris closed it. Cyberpower, I'm glad you didn't - remember you participated in it so it would be completely inappropriate for you to close. Worm · (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

WTT: the editor has (in at least 5 places) said he declined a snow/not now close. I'm with you - this is not editor review, but hearing from a dozen more commenters was important. Even now he's complaining it was closed (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

wrong

as a new user how am i suppose to trust someone that is violating wiki policies themselves by heeding their warnings? as i mentioned in my unblock request i stopped after a user posted on my wall that it was a violation...i understand that i have to read through the links which u posted but by you not unblocking me it seems you feel blocks are a punishment which is wrong and telling me it should take another day to read through the links therefore u will decline the request is a violation of wiki policies. blocks are to prevent further violations not punishments. Baboon43 (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocks are not punishment. It was clear that your disruption would continue because you did not understand even the most basic of Misplaced Pages policies - THAT was protecting the project, and THAT was why I declined your unblock request (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

still not a good idea because while i was reading the links i could not ask questions to other editors because i was BLOCKED...the block feature not only prevents editing of articles but simply communicating with the wikipedia community and that i feel is injustice and the project was already locked for 3 days from editing i should of mentioned that. Baboon43 (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you're not prevented from asking questions or communicating. {{helpme}} is still available to you when blocked. Protecting the project for 3 short days is not an injustice when someone is being disruptive. There's no time limit to improving this project - giving you an extra day to be properly prepared to edit within the guidelines is a fortunate thing for you, rather than having been indefinitely blocked from the project the first time. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

you misunderstood me i meant not being able to communicate is an injustice but i meant there was no reason of keeping the block SINCE the project was already locked for 3 days so its not necessary for my block to be on...i wasnt aware of the help me feature thanks for that Baboon43 (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no way technically to prevent disruption on Misplaced Pages, yet still allow you to communicate outside of your talkpage - and trust me, there are many many times when we even remove access to that. You were afforded the luxury of continued communication, as per WP:AGF, but the project was protected as required (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I suspect he means that as the article he was editwarring on was protected then his block was more punitive than preventive. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Undeletion request SensoMotoric Instruments GmbH

Hi,

my company has added the page SensoMotoric Instruments GmbH (it´s the name of the company) and we were asked to add URLs. Now I have the all needed links:

http://blog.humlab.lu.se/2009/12/09/eye-tracking-180-people-in-three-days/

www.emotional-engagement.com

http://autonomos.inf.fu-berlin.de/technology/eyedriver

http://events.r20.constantcontact.com/register/event?llr=opkebjcab&oeidk=a07e57geyr3d1743bc3

www.eyetracking-glasses.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u5mI6PoNkk&list=PL5429CC21E46401B2&index=1&feature=plpp_video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjbMmc1S18g&list=PL5429CC21E46401B2&index=2&feature=plpp_video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGzUe_UbDtc&list=PL5429CC21E46401B2&index=10&feature=plpp_video

and I do not understand why the page should be deleted. There are also other pages, which look like ours and they are not deleted yet(e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/Tobii_technology ) Hopefully, now could be the page new created.

Sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senso m (talk • contribs) 12:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

1. You cannot write an article about a subject with which you have WP:COI;
2. None of those "sources" appear to be reliable;
3. Youtube or blog links are clearly not permitted
4. The existence of any other article cannot justify your own (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for Permission re: Use of Photo

Kmbgm469 (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)kmbgm469

Normally please respond on that page, as many admins can action things, and we always keep conversations together. However, you'll note that we cannot take your word: the owners of the copyright will need to provide formal proof of valid release of copyright to WP:OTRS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I am totally confused as to how to respond to your questions. I'm also overwhelmed. How does the photographer give you proof that he has given us permission to use a picture he took of Ron Williams? Kmbgm469 (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)kmbgm469

The owner of the copyright clicks on WP:OTRS, after first clicking on Misplaced Pages's WP:COPYRIGHT rules and image use policy. On the OTRS page they have instructions to prove they are willing to release the images according to Misplaced Pages's requirements. Please also see the huge menu of links I provided on your talkpage (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Why?

Why leave this in, when it's clearly a personal attack on good-faithed editors? -- MST☆R 11:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Because action is quite likely to come from his rant, one way or another. It's better to have the leopard show his spots so very publicly. We don't typically remove vio's of WP:NPA unless they're extremely offensive (racist, etc) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

edit warring

Hi BW, trying to gauge the punishment for edit warring? I have seen other users blocked for set periods of 24 and 48 hrs for sustained edit warring, so why is it that User:Gravyring has received an indefinite block for 4 edits over 4 weeks? Only 2 of the edits were the same and I believe 2 edits were attempts at gauging consensus. Also in your block denial you quoted a wiki policy that not many users are familiar with let alone new users. Do you expect new users to know all the wiki policies? I suggest you take time to review the block and perhaps be less aggressive in your request denials. This is wiki not a Battle ground as you put it.Hackneyhound (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as punishment. Blocks escalate, and are often based on mitigating circumstances. The user you note not only continually made provocative edits on an article, that article is subject to very strict guidelines due to its political nature. The additional mitigating factor was their behaviour towards others: this is a collaborative, community project: actions against that concept are not well-received - that's CORE policy that everyone agreed to when they created an account. So, a simple edit-war could start at 24 hours, escalate to 48 and so on, but add mitigating behaviours, it jumps up exponentially. You ALSO should know that indefinite is not the same as infinite - indefinite means "until the community is certain it will not recur" - as the unblock request did not convince me (and I'm one of the lenient ones), then there's no choice but to decline the unblock. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Serbia100

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

Oh noes, a legal threat!

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

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

Help us develop better software!

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

deleted my page...

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

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

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

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

• Ahbash follows shafi madhab
• Ahbash follows Ashari doctrine

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

Your signature

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

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

Thank You

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

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

ABUSE BY YOU

WP:ANI

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

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

Dispute resolution survey

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

Hello

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

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

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

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

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

Edit notice for User talk:Cyberpower678/Flipper/Hash

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry

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

User:Smolders

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

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

Amber Rose

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

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

Hi - An invitation

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

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

I doubt it ruined your day or anything...

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

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

April 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A cookie of concord

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

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

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

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

User:Screwball23

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

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

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

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

2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings

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

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

Block of John Foxe

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

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

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

Edit-warring

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

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