- 1 Happy New Year!
- 2 Happy New Year BOZ!
- 3 Happy New Year!
- 4 Thanks
- 5 Infobox photo discussion
- 6 Notifying you due to your prior participation in a merger discussion
- 7 Disambiguation link notification for January 16
- 8 Damion Scott Infobox photo discussion
- 9 Possible return of banned editor
- 10 Disambiguation link notification for March 3
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year BOZ!
Happy New Year!
Just saw this. Thanks... still wishing I had more time to actually do stuff around here, but, life happens, and in my spare time I've got some other projects going on. Not to mention one (soon, hopefully two) campaigns on the weekend. :) Hoping that all is well with you IRL and here in wiki-land. –Drilnoth (T/C) 05:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Infobox photo discussion
Hi again. Happy New Year. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is better for the Infobox here? If you're not able to participate, just disregard this message; you don't have to message me. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for participating in the photo discussion. I really appreciate it. One thing: A new photo has been uploaded and added to the discussion. I hope I'm not bothering you by asking if you would mind indicating whether this changes your viewpoint, or whether it remains unchanged? Thank you very much. Nightscream (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Notifying you due to your prior participation in a merger discussion
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name
Notifying you due to your prior participation in a merger discussion.
You previously participated in a merger discussion at Talk:She_Has_a_Name#Merger_proposal.
There are now two (2) ongoing deletion discussions related to that, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John H. Crowe III, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Call of Cthulhu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Damion Scott Infobox photo discussion
Hi. Damion Scott has taken issue with the photo in his article. He previously demanded that I replace it with one that I thought inferior to the one already in the Infobox, and has now replaced with a third one of his own. In the interest of WP:CONSENSUS, can you offer your opinion on this? Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Possible return of banned editor
- Similarly antagonistic language with characteristic wording tics at both the article's Talk page and my own
- Similar focus on aspects of the subject the article discusses (the 1966 University of Texas sniper shootings)), in particular the incident's connection with the subsequent formation of SWAT teams in police forces around the US, and whether the shooter's behavior can be described as living up to to a "sniper's code".
- A private email from another editor who previously dealt with him who believes that it is the same person, and advised me to request admin assistance
- Talk:Charles Whitman/Archive 4#Consensus to remove David Gumby in the aftermath section as a homocide.
- Talk:Charles Whitman/Archive 4#SWAT teams and several following sections
(Really, that whole page and, apparently, previous ones too; I first got involved in 2013)
- User_Talk:Ylee (Search for "Whitman")
- User_Talk:Pinkadelica/Archive 7#WP:OUTING and the next section (harrassment of another editor. Note that he identifies himself; he did so to me as well by linking to his IndieGogo project in my Talk page, although it no longer exists.)
- Now, read Talk:Charles Whitman#"one shot, one kill" and the next section
Despite being advised to do so by the aforementioned editor I am unsure as to whether to file at WP:SPI, and would appreciate uninvolved eyes to look over the evidence. Ylee (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- SPI won't do a checkuser for IP editors, although they often block anyway for WP:DUCK cases and any other obvious abuse. Reviewing the case, it looks like they gave you and Pinkadelica some real trouble a couple of years ago. Bad pennies do tend to keep turning up. In the 2010 AN/I thread, Jimbo Wales himself states that "I recommend that people not waste too much time on this. Revert, block, ignore. This nonsense has been going on for years, and I think it will continue for years. Known problem user." If this is connected to the past case like you believe it is, and it seems you are likely right, you can take your above evidence to SPI and that way there is further documentation of continued abuse. If you're concerned that SPI may not be of help, AN/I should accomplish the same purpose and get more eyes on it, although that may allow the IP user to platform a bit in the meantime (which might not be a bad thing, per WP:ROPE). BOZ (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bill Fawcett (writer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily Herald (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.