Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:36, 10 July 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

Help with Removing Clean Up Tags

The article page Playdom was tagged as 'needing cleanup' in February 2011. I have been cleaning up the page, removing biased statements, adding references, and generally fixing grammar and syntax as needed. At this point, I think the 'needing cleanup' designation should be removed, but I'm not sure if there's a process to follow in order to do so. I'd love some guidance on whether there's a process, what that process is, or if I can just go ahead and remove the tag. Thank you! Noreenst (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If it's a commonly-edited page, a brief discussion on the article talkpage would probably help. If you propose the de-tag, and get no replies for 5-7 days, it's probably good to go. However, if discussion does take place, remember that WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Misplaced Pages can be a confusing place for a newcomer. :) Noreenst (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Central European Journal of International and Security Studies

Hi, I almost invariably agree with your closes, but must admit that I am a bit unhappy about this one. I know that there were no "delete" !votes, but none of the "keep" !votes was even remotely based on policy. As far as I can see, DGG's argument boils down to WP:ILIKEIT. In addition, DGG (whom I respect a lot, but that doesn't mean we always agree) !voted "weak keep", so then a subsequent "Keep, per DGG" sounds not like a very considered !vote to me either. Apart from the journal's homepage, there are zero sources, so there's a serious WP:V problem, too. I would appreciate if you could give this a second look. Of course, I'll understand if you would come to the same conclusion, but I just want to make sure that you considered all arguments. Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Just like we have to stretch to include musicians from obscure countries even though they have a) poor sourcing, b) no websites, c) numerically poor sales (although perhaps excellent by ratio), I felt the same thing with this journal. I did find a couple of small hits inside a journalism database (but cannot include the links). Besides, DGG has never made an WP:ILIKEIT argument in his life :-) ! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Guillaume and I have very rarely disagreed on academic journals. A few times, I've been a little more inclusive. What Guillaume saw as ILIKEIT , I intended as an argument based on CULTURALBIAS--both in the sense of the relative bias of our sources with respect to non-Western Europe journals, and their relative bias in the humanities and soft social sciences. BWilkins, I'm glad you saw it that way also, as did SQuinn. Agreed I think all around that this particular journal is borderline, and I consequently said weak keep, not keep. As I use the terms, "weak keep" or "weak delete" mean that "this is my opinion, but I would not think anyone wrong who concluded the opposite, nor will I try very hard to persuade them." I would not have appealed a contrary decision.

More generally, there is an unresolved question in libraries and I think the academic community generally concerning the criteria for open access journals of this type. There's complete and in fact sometimes rather bitter disagreement about the extent to which academic publication ought to encompass, or even switch, to such journals. Myself, I am undecided. I observe that some of the people I trust least in my subject take extreme positions on the opposite sides, and some but not all of the people I trust most are willing to experiment with them, which leads me to think the journals might on balance be a useful supplement.

In a situation of this sort, where there really is no accepted outside criterion, it would be difficult for us at Misplaced Pages to adopt one. I have normally !voted delete for these in the sciences, and tended to !vote in other fields on the basis of whether a substantial amount of material has been published. The question of whether to go by cataloged holdings is a difficult one: for a library, it is a small but non-zero cost to add such a journal to the catalog (It takes about 10 or 15 minutes of staff time, plus the ongoing cost of making sure it is still active with a live site). My former university decided we would add them if and only if any of the professionals or faculty asked us to do so for a particular one, a policy I supported. I added a very few--basically the ones in my subject where I would say keep at Misplaced Pages. An earlier argument for adding them all to the catalog is now obsolete: few academics rely only on formal library resources for finding material.

I therefore think it is premature for us to have a formal discussion on this, but better to go case by case, accepting that we will make errors in both directions. DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the insightful comments DGG. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are insightful and I can find myself in them to a great extent. I should indeed have said "CULTURALBIAS" instead of "ILIKEIT". Nevertheless, I still disagree, I'm afraid. Cultural bias should be combated by putting in an extra effort to find sources and such and increase coverage. But I think it is wrong to try to correct this bias by abandoning all guidelines and lowering our criteria. I note that Czech sources have not been found, either (and would have been perfectly willing to accept those as evidence of notability). Library holdings have rarely (I cannot actually remember a single case) been an argument in AfD discussions of "classical" journals (i.e., print subscription journals), probably because listing in reputable and selective databases is strongly correlated with whether or not libraries will subscribe to a journal. For OA journals, I think this info is rather meaningless. It was unfortunate that DGGs "weak keep" was interpreted as "keep" by subsequent participants. As for OA journals in general, my position is, I think, basically identical to DGGs: I think the verdict is still out, but am willing to give them a chance. I'm actively involved in several such journals myself: I'm academic editor for PLoS ONE, and associate editor/member of the editorial board of several BioMed Central titles. But I fulfill similar roles for "classical" subscription journals (and was editor-in-chief of one until last January). Anyway, it's not that I cannot live with this article being around, it was just that I didn't think this AfD went as it should have. But that happens and WP is not really worse for it and life goes on :-). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal life of Jennifer Lopez

Hey! I noticed that Personal life of Jennifer Lopez was deleted. I just wanted to ask if you can userfy the page inside my userspace? I think that some useful information may be lost on the article and would like to bring it back to the main article. Would you do that? Regards!. —Hahc21 20:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, are you sure you want to touch that piece of junk ... it's a BLP nightmare, and worthy of a gossip column ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Please, i'll revise it. It'll be great if you do that for me. I just want to see if anything is worthy —Hahc21 23:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

So, would you do that favor for me? :( —Hahc21 03:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Spindrift

Dear BWilkins, This has been quite an experience. At age 74, I'm running out of time, and the remarkable tonnage of W info is exhausting (I would rather spend my time thinking about something a little more material)

My article, The Spindrift," is in a strange state of suspense! Is it unblocked? What has been "fixed". Who is the mysterious "other" to whom I should reply? We spent our honeymoon in Victoria,BC and returned many times (50+): why do Canadians spell Theater and reverse the last two letters? Eh?

best, matts djos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgdjos (talk • contribs) 21:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have just nominated the article for deletion as a non-notable book. You should not be writing article about subjects that you have a conflict of interest: indeed, you agreed to it when you signed up for an account. We spell "theatre" with an "re" and "odour" with a "ur" because we were more purist with the mother English tongue. Americans intentionally chose to distance themselves from the UK spellings after a little party in Boston harbour (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget the other party. Many United Statesians are oblivious to that one but the Canucks seem to remember somehow. :) Toddst1 (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone told me that we Canucks packed up some beer and backbacon, marched to Washington, burnt down the White House, ran out of beer and came home. Apparently most of that is actually true...(the backbacon part is not true) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

And the Yanks still sing about it at every ball game. Silly Yanks. I just want to know who that guy Jose is that they talk about at the beginning of the song. Toddst1 (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, and for a country that soooo wanted to distance themselves from their Colonial Master, to choose the tune from a British drinking song for their National Anthem was a unique choice ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Ruderow

Courtesy note: I've just left a comment at User_talk:Ruderow#Caste_sanctions, follow your decline of an unblock request. I think that there is some confusion going on. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps someone claims to have not understand very clear sanctions ;-) Got the note, cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Bwilkins/RestrictionsProject

Came across your mention of that potential project on Sarek's talk page. I have a suggestion. Would it be possible to have the block log display relevant editing restrictions as well as blocks? Obviously this would require a change or extension to mediawiki but such might be more workable and more easily identifiable than fully protected user subpages. Just a thought. I completely agree that the current editing restrictions process is haphazard at best. Alternatively, one could use a one second block and utilize the comment field to log the restriction and a permalink to the discussion, though this would not work for lengthy restrictions. N419BH 19:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons)

Hi Bwiklins,

I wanted to ask you about this close. I have no problem with your closing rationale - redirect was just about the only reasonable way to close that one. However, I noted that the prospect of a merge was also discussed, and although you deleted the edit history, your closing rationale indicated no prejudice against a merge and even mentioned that it would be "appropriate as part of list of creatures". Unless you have a significant objection to my doing so, I would like to merge information from the article into the list, and wanted to bring this up to you before I do so. BOZ (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, as long as it doesn't make the "List of" article overly long, then it's probably ok. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That's not too cumbersome, is it? BOZ (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems ok, IMHO. I'd bet my whole day's admin pay that it's fine ;-) = ✉→BWilkins←✎ 21:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI-notice.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The_Un-authorized_use_of_a_Bot_in_the_Latvian_Wikipedia_by_User_in_the_Chinese_Wikipedia.2C_being_also_an_authoized_Bot-owner_in_the_English_Wikipedia.2C_or.2C_an_.28a_possibly.29_un-authorized_Global-Bot.. Thank you. — KC9TV 02:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please learn to NOT copy/paste text from one discussion board to another. Please also learn when you have obtained the right answer, and simply then let it drop (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Bad Girls Club (season 9)

I would like to know if I'm acting out in WP:OWN on the article. I removed several empty sections on the article per WP:TOOSOON as they give no purpose at the moment. However, User:Junebea1 reverted it today in a edit summary of "How can it be irrelevant if the season is less than 2 weeks away?" I had asked him to go on the talk page so all the other editors can discuss if the information should be used at this time, though he ignored. Best, Jonayo! 17:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I don't understand is if you wanted to talk about it then why would you delete it? Couldn't you have waited until we talked about it? Junebea1 (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It's against WP:BOLD, I should have went to the talk page first knowing how you and I don't really see eye-to-eye. But we had this discussion last season and I thought you would understand since we had reached a consensus. My two cents, its just empty sections that gives 0.99% of encyclopedic information so why keep it? It will be needed once the season officially starts. Best, Jonayo! 18:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Empty section? Delete on sight for something that hasn't even started yet. Especially if this was already discussed last year. Seriously you two, smarten up both of you. Have some common sense. Now take this discussion back to the article talkpage ✉→ BWilkins ←✎ 18:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

User

Hi, I like your new signature! Do you think this user is FishingKing? The signature is the same as well with all of the 'Fighting vandals' combined into it. It wouldn't go past me if it was......--Chip123456 (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I actually said on his talkpage that he is FishingKing ("monarch of anglers"...with a wikilink to his previous account). I won't tell you how easy it was to find the WP:DUCK. I verified with a CU that "very likely same; agent string matches, geographic match" = ✉→BWilkins←✎ 20:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Unblock on hold

There is an unblock request at User talk:Xplane-maniac. You blocked, and suggested the account is a sockpuppet of FishingKing. Having previously encountered FishingKing sockpuppets, I was immediately struck by the fact that Xplane-maniac's writing of English seems to be different from that of FishingKing's. I also can't see any obvious evidence of sockpuppetry in the editing history, and the only page they have both edited is Misplaced Pages:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Enroll. Also, Xplane-maniac has not edited any page in common with the sockpuppet SovietMonster. Can you let me know what the evidence is, so that I can meaningfully assess the unblock request? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

See above. Also, look at one of the earliest versions of Xplane's user page, and compare it to Fish's = ✉→BWilkins←✎ 20:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I filed an SPI on FK last week. We had the old Brother story. ;)--Chip123456 (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I hate to *label*, but this Brother makes *copies* too = ✉→BWilkins←✎ 21:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

What I based my decline on was the timing (the account was created shortly after FishingKing "retired"), the apparent familiarity with using Misplaced Pages, and the extremely similar signature (how many new users know how to modify their signature in the first place?). Now that I'm on my main account, I'll take a peek with checkuser to confirm. Hersfold 00:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Very  Likely as far as CU goes - also, he's exclusively using proxies and mobile connections, probably in an attempt to avoid detection (note that he asked for checkuser on his talk page). What he fails to realize is that both are still placing him firmly in the same geographic area. Hersfold 00:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Both the above comments and my own further investigations have persuaded me that this is indeed a sockpuppet account. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Undelete Metaxas

Actually, I'm sorry if I deleted anything. Are you sure I even did? Just responded to notification. Never touched anything on restored page. So, to answer your question: no I am not a dick, not trying, or even wanting, to be one. I do want Metaxas article deleted unless it is not just advertising, recognises that M is not a reliable source on Bonhoeffer, and that WP is written from a neutral point of view. I am bringing this forward. Also bringing forward complaint about harassment (your last message) and the administrator who simply checked "done" without recognising the fact that the major complaint against the M article was advertising/non-neutral point of view, as substantiated by M Talk. All the best. Will see you in AFD. Mfhiller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move of Côte d'Ivoire

There is currently a discussion on moving the article Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast. You are being notified since you participated in a previous discussion on this topic. Please join the discussion here if you are interested. TDL (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion at SPI

Hello Bwilkins, you may want to review this case since you blocked the master. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Too obvious! Comment left; thanks for the heads up (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Second Account

Due to the large number delsorting I've been doing over the last few months, I'm considering creating an alternative account on Maintenance grounds per WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Just wanted to get the opinion from a few administrators before proceeding, the last thing I want to happen is to be blocked. If you post a reply on your thoughts regarding the issue here I would really appreciate it. Thanks ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice & the name suggestions quite like the DuckIsJelly but sticking with the PeanutButter one. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

proliferation of the conflict

after hijacking the dhimmitude article user estlandia is now adding the discrimination bar to another article, . another user from the dhimmitude conflict, shrigley, is also involved . this pov-pushing and hounding is beginning to out of hand.-- altetendekrabbe  00:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem during the Crusader period/draft

Hi, you closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jerusalem during the Crusader period/draft

Jerusalem during the Crusader period/draft

Please restore into my user space. Sorry for confusion. The discussion in the AFD page was helpful, but I was away. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done right here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Question for ya

At link -- Avanu (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Toddst1 (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Calvin999

Avanu asked me to look at this and I had a question. As to the fact that he shouldn't be trying to edit by proxy, I completely agree with that, a blocked editor shouldn't be editing, even by proxy. I also understand why that isn't obvious to the average editor but it looks like he stopped after he was warned, which is good. I see where you say that the talk page is only to be used for requesting unblocks, but I would strongly disagree, via WP:BLOCKING "A blocked user can continue to access Misplaced Pages, but is unable to edit any page, except (in most cases) their own user talk page." without any stated limitations, which has been my experience here for many years. I'm assuming you agree with that and were just understating the use for some reason. I saw his last comment just before the block but didn't see anything I would normally associate with being talk page blockworthy there. Maybe there is something I'm missing? I don't have any background with the editor, so just have to go on what I see on the surface, compared to what I understand is the policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget this guideline (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Calvin999/Aaron sucks at appealing blocks. You ever think this non-bureaucracy is a bit bureaucratic? Happy 1st. -- Avanu (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The intent of a block is to protect the project and prevent repeat offenders. Are you convinced that Calvin won't re-offend? I'm not even sure he knows why he was blocked yet. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning the original block, just the talk page, as I hear a buffet of different opinions on when it is and isn't appropriate to block the talk page. I have my own opinions and they are probably somewhat different than yours, but I think that the lack of clarity in the policy is the issue. I've seen this issue come up often enough that I'm wondering if an RfC might be in the future. I can follow any policy that the community agrees to, even if I disagree with it, but it would be nice if it that one element was spelled out more clearly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, we've always used WP:AAB as a measuring stick regarding talkpage locks. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That seems to reinforce my belief that the talk page can be used for more than just unblock requests. "Abuse" (via WP:BLOCK) is in the eye of the beholder and I can allow for differences there, but I have to admit that when someone says "the talk page is for unblock requests only", that is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me, as I don't see anywhere it is limited to such. I'm funny that way. I want people blocked that need it, but I want to go the extra mile to be fair as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

When his answers are all that he did nothing wrong, and his "friends" start piling on to say the same thing, it becomes admin abuse. Indeed, it would have actually been best to full-protect the entire page considering. If you had been privy to the e-mail exchange I had with Calvin/Aaron, you would have seen more of the same - and additional proof that the talkpage lock was quite justified (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, email. It doesn't require a lot of imagination to get to that point then. I trust your word on this, and hopefully you take no offense for my asking as it looked a little thin on the surface. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Irvi Hyka

Yesterday Irvi Hyka restored content that I had previously removed . He was then reverted by another user , and today an IP reverted back to Irvi Hyka's version . The IP is in fact Irvi Hyka editing unlogged, as can be seen from its contribs . International recognition of Kosovo is arguably Irvi Hyka's favorite article and the 80.78 IP reverts another IP editor that had previously reverted one of Irvi Hyka's edits . In both cases there are two reverts within 24 hours, thus he is editing unlogged so as to get around the 1RR restriction. Athenean (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Evidence is overly-compelling. Thanks, and sorry to have to deal with it that way (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Inline-twin engine for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Inline-twin engine until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Be careful with WP:CANVASS (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

3RR

I've reported User:Evlekis on ANI regarding a recent case of 5 reverts in less than 24 hours. As I've mentioned a comment you made regarding him on a somewhat similar report I have to notify you too.--— ZjarriRrethues —  19:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Melungeon

Ok, wrong version, but -- is this the appropriate reward for refusing to discuss and editwarring? Since the IP won't discuss it and thinks we are saying horrible things about his family, and made those 'formal cease and desist' edits, it seems wrong in all sorts of ways to leave a version with OR, use of raw data, etc. as our official version for a month. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Ooops, I'm an idiot, thought it was full protection. I should have known you wouldn't do that. Dougweller (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice self-WP:NPA there :-) I think I also reverted to a pre-IP version (or at least the most recent one) ... which again was likely the WP:WRONGVERSION. But, as you noted ... you can fix it :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing policy statements

Looking at the edits to our blocking policy, I'm wondering if anywhere there is guidance as to how changes in policy statements should be made. It all seems random at the moment. Dougweller (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You might take a look at WP:PGCHANGE for guidance on that question. In some ways it is similar to any other edit in Misplaced Pages, in some ways it is a little different. -- Avanu (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The crucial bit there seems to be 'strictly'. As for 'substantive changes', I don't understand why 'Bold' is an alternative without BRD. You shouldn't need consensus to revert an undiscussed substantive change in policy. And in practice I doubt that Bold on its own happens, I'd expect BRD to be more common. Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

User: TruPepitoM

Dear B, I would have gone to Kudpung but he's away most of the week. This is about this thread here: which you commented on. Anyway, five days later, Tru commented on my talkpage; I copied it back onto his, in the relevant section. I had written out my reply and, before posting it, was checking random contributions of his (to get a fuller pic of his Eng Lang abilities) when I came across this essay he'd done, right after commenting to me: . I think it can be seen Kudpung and I were only trying to help the bloke.... Anyway, I replied with what I'd written before seeing this, and then just added a little PS letting him know I've seen the little epistle. Am seriously cross and rather hurt, really. May I leave it with you to decide if anything ought to be done? ta, Plutonium27 (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, we can only help people as much as we can. In the long run, competence is required. Although I agree with TPM that we need some patience, there's a limit. What's best in a cooperative project is that if they edit something with some actually useful info yet really f-up the grammer - don't revert, fix. That way the editor's key point is included, we just tidy it up a little. I am a little taken aback by his belief that this is a US-English-centric project: most of my writing is in Canadian English :-) However, it's his impression and he's allowed to feel that - our role is to gently prove him wrong and bring him along on the journey (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have made a mistake. I would have thought that WP:ESSAY and "Writings that violate one or more Misplaced Pages policies, such as spam, personal attacks, copyright violations, or what Misplaced Pages is not" would apply. Even a cursory glance of this user's contributions shows more than a grammar problem : ] (deliberately inserting false info in a sports score) for example. I should not have bothered, because it must be your involvement in that thread that is inhibiting your willingness to do anything but offer absurd platitudes. Tis funny how you were onto this guy last week but now he's a special snowflake allowed to spread his impressions where and how he pleases. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You come here and I provide an honest answer, now you're saying I'm giving platitudes? My pholosophy of this project is out there for everyone to see. If you want to SHOW me valid, proven violations of personal attacks in his essay, then show it to me now and I'll deal with it. I see no copyvios, nothing that violates even WP:POLEMIC. Again, show me violations ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing issue

Bwilkins, I gather this remark is an attempt at humour. Well it is not amusing. That section was introduced by me, I was reporting an editor for unilaterally moving Bojana (river). There is no mention of Republic of Kosovo and the 1RR anywhere in that piece, only ARBMAC cropping up here and there. I did not click the link because its main space appearance coupled with the scenario whereby I was seeking disciplinary measures against an antagonist editor meant that this was something remote from my interests. When I visit those pages, I scan down the list at what has been said and I either post a new comment or I head off. My actions were not impugned in that thread and therefore there was no requirement for me to open every link, furthermore, you were addressing two other users when you introduced the part. For what it is worth, yes I did have a quick look at ARBMAC but this is not something that sticks in one's mind. And when you do remember it, what do you think of? Macedonia - because it forms a part of the title. I know the conditions of that policy now and that is what matters, but your insistence that I am being untruthful in that I knew all about ARBMAC and its far-reaching implications as well as the 1RR also mentioned on the talk page is wholly unfounded. All you have gleaned is the occasional thread in which I was involved which alluded to a policy I violated via its hidden backstreets and dark alleys. Now imagine a scenario with you in my position, it would be like searching for a needle in a haystack. Some users edit heavily on one or two topics. I edit largely on affairs close to the Balkans (subjects relating to former Yugoslavia and Bulgaria) but I have made contributions on 9,000 articles. I take interest in some sport, comedies, music, linguistics, international affairs away from the region; so I am not a Kosovo-only editor, it has dominated the past few days but if you look at the history of the articles and my own editing past, you'll see there are huge gaps whereby I haven't visited an ARBMAC-infested article for months at the time. Please demonstrate good faith as an admin and realise that an editor is not necessarily deceitful just because he has brushed past something. Perhaps I should have known better, it doesn't mean that in stealth I really did. The main concern is, I now know about the full scenario and I know how to handle things in future. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a joke. As you read in the most recent ANI report about you, awareness of the 1RR restriction is assumed when you were involved in similar situation. You were involved. You must have read the rest of the discussion regarding ARBMAC warnings. You're one of those who got one without needing to have it formally placed on your page (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know that now. But I don't get the fuss, I never used the unawareness as part of a defence; I admitted my actions, and yes, when something is implemented, it can be presumed that relevant people know it. Whatever happens, can this now be an end to it. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you did use it: on ANI you said "I maintain that I was unaware and I have produced irrefutable evidence to support this - that being that no message of 1RR appears when you click "edit", only a message that the page is protected". You certainly have no need for a banner on an article to tell you that it is within the confines of Kosovo-related articles, broadly construed. That is purely a deceptive statement. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I stated it because it was the truth, but I never said "let me off because I didn't know" - that's what I meant by not using it as a serious tool for defence. The thread was long and towards the later posts I accepted wrongdoing and that a block is possible, I was however warned and my name was added to the ARBMAC Hall of Fame and that was the outcome. Anyhow there is no point continuing this topic. I can't change people's thoughts and if you believe I was being dishonest then I am unable to change that. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Doktorbuk

Hello. Could you please take a look again at 3RR, Doktorbuk, bearing in mind the discussion he started at User talk:Boleyn, where he has stated that he plans to go to Preston (UK Parliament constituency) and remove redlinks to MPs - undoing hours of my work? Please help me. Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This makes it look like he's restoring them ... is there an issue, you you're just afraid there may be one? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

He deleted these entries well after he'd agree with you not to do so (see User talk: Boleyn), I'm glad he's thought better of it and restored them. I do feel there is still an ongoing problem - please see my user talk page and see if you agree. If not, then that's great, I'm taking it too personally becuase I've put in so many hours of work. But I do feel I need support to ensure he doesn't keep reverting me, jusging by his comments and attitude on my talk page. Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Both EdJohnston and I have engaged him on his talkpage ... there should be no more issues (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response, hopefully he will respond soon. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid the issues have continued, although the user has looked for consensus, he has reverted my edits again without finding consensus. He is now deleting all redlinks to pre-18th century MPs. Can you please look over User talk:Boleyn? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Since this was given a result, Doktorbuk has reverted my edits on Devizes (UK Parliament constituency), Preston (UK Parliament constituency), Radnorshire (UK Parliament constituency) and City of York (UK Parliament constituency). These have been reverted (for now) by User:Avanu, and discussion has continued at my Talk page. Can you help? I have no intention of restoring my edits if he continues to edit war, not to create more red links to MPs, but I'm very frustrated, and would appreciate some advice and help. Boleyn (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure which block to hand out first ... you, or the good doktor (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think they are both agreeing to be a bit more conservative in their edits for the time being. And it seems that we have two reasonably good discussions at Village Pump and Jimbo's page, so if they can both be patient, a clear consensus will form on this. -- Avanu (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus already exists - the no-longer-so-good-Doktor is going 180 degrees against it, and is indeed slow-edit-warring to get it done. The block I provided should have been longer, as I see no desire to act according to consensus, only on the WP:IDONTLIKEIT that Doktor has already expressed (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins, please let me know why you wonder if you should block me, so I can look at modifying my behaviour. I haven't been edit warring or reverting the Doktor's edits, so I thought I'd been doing the right things - sorry if I haven't been. I'm also sorry that in seeking to get this looked at, I added to the 3RR discussion, but also informed the 2 helpful admins who had looked into this previously. I wanted the previous discussion to be updated so the information was there, but as you and the other admin already had looked at this before, and I didn't know if you'd be following the 3RR discussion as it was kinda closed, I thought I should inform you also. If this caused you problems, I apologise, although I don't think the FFS, or any allusion to swear words, was really necessary, and this response upset me. Anyway, if you let me know why you feel that you don't know who to block first, then I can look at what I need to change, and I appreciate you taking the time to deal with these very frustrating episodes within Misplaced Pages. Boleyn (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What's frustrating is you re-opening closed reports, then copying the identical text to 2 other places. Very wrong (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it was wrong, but it was done in good faith - I haven't had much reason to be aware of how these things work. Boleyn (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Just to let you know I mentioned you or rather your talk page here Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment from User:SarekOfVulcan Nil Einne (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipoodling

I hadn't seen User:Bwilkins/Essays/Wikipoodling until you mentioned it on ANI. Great term and appropriately applied in relation to Splash, Status, and the fan club.

FYI, I commented on stuff you said on my talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

*grin* Feel free to help expand the Wikipoodling essay :-) I saw your comments on your talkpage ... sorry about the use of "cluelessness", but they certainly did not help diffuse that, and a WP:CLUE is required (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I certainly felt the word was applicable at the time of the conflict. The situation was pretty frustrating as there was a lot of misinformation being thrown around. It's unfortunate that the emotions within that clique are still so high.

I'll think about how to expand that. It's really a perfect term. Toddst1 (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh ..."Wiki-chihuahua-ing" was just too damned difficult to say/spell LOL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Draft

The entry proposed for WP:RESTRICT is in User:EdJohnston/Sandbox. See also a reply on my Talk. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Jaan and your wikilink to "TRUTH"

So, rather than Jaan professing his personal truth = I took that as your implication per your Wikilink, he was undoing (removing the Estonian SSR) the equivalent of my example of specifying "Vichy France" as the birth country for any Frenchman/Frenchwoman born in 1941 in Lyon.

There is no subjective truth involved here over which dispute resolution is required. I hope you find the analogy helpful. While a Guberniya of Russia is valid for the 19th century, an SSR of the Soviet Union is not valid for the 20th century. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Bridge Boy & personal attacks

Yet another admin has to warn him about personal attacks (diff). Time to act on this disruptive and time-wasting editor? --Biker Biker (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, he's not an admin (but perhaps he should be!). My point still stands about continued disruption though. We are consuming so many cycles chasing and cleaning up after BB. Time to call it a day IMHO. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't see why he was warned about personal attacks - and indeed, he was NOT. He was told it "borders" on one, which it really does not. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Assume good faith

Just wanted to express my dissatisfaction with your reply to me on Rangoon11's talk page recently. You probably deal with a lot of crap as an admin, but that's no reason to disregard WP:assume good faith. Please try in future to be a little less hasty and a bit more conservative when it comes to accusations. Fleetham (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I was completely assuming good faith: I assumed you actually care about the requirement for consensus, and that you care that all parties must be a part of any discussion to obtain consensus, and that you care about the fact that even though you might not have a good history with someone that you are indeed required to communicate with them if it's for the betterment of the encyclopedia. If none of those apply to you, then you're right, my good faith was wrongly given (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)