Please restore it to my userspace. One more thing, can you remove the comment/discussion on this article as it may negatively affect our company's image/reputation?
John synergix (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please respond here. The uncollaborativeness, personal attacks, sockpuppetry, BLP violations, battlefield behavior....it needs to stop. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look here. Not only have they reverted your edit, but called you a meatpuppet and added more insults, with the talk page looking worse than before. I'm still working on a report, as noted at AN/EW. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand exactly topic ban related to "Serbian history that took place more than 20 years ago". Is that mean that I can still edit articles about Serbian towns or those parts of Serbia article that are outside of the "History" section? PANONIAN 14:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears PANONIAN, immediately after his ban was enacted, has attempted to indirectly influence the Serbia-related article that got him in trouble by raising the exact same complaint he made there, but in a more general sense. It does not look like his ban is broad enough and he's trying to evade it. --◅PRODUCER(TALK) 15:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is Quisling regime article Serbia-related? PANONIAN 16:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend that PANONIAN not edit or comment on templates that might conceivably be related to Serbia's status as a country during WWII. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Then I will not edit any WW2-related article as well. Now, can I edit parts of Serbia article that are outside of the "History" section? PANONIAN 16:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My advice would be this; stick to the geography, demographics, and politics sections within the Serbia article. You seem to be just fine editing about the goings-on of current Serbian politics, so those sections of the article are fair game. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, The Blade of the Northern Lights. You have new messages at Arcandam's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
In my opinion there are consensus among uninvolved admins on some kind of short term sanction either block for a week or one one month topic ban.Could you please close it.Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering going for my third RFA now that I'm finally finished with school. I was wondering what you thought and if perhaps I could have the honor of you having nominating me if you feel that I'm ready. I've been a CSDer/ Vandal fighter for a while now and I have a few DYK's under my belt. The only issue I feel that I may have is idle time one from a wikibreak where I got burnt out, and the other suddenly due to school and other issues. Thanks in advance for your review!--SKATERIs Back 20:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure; I'll be able to do a review on Friday and Saturday. If all goes well (I've seen you around, and there's nothing immediately obvious to say it wouldn't, we'll get it going. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, by the way if I had a list of people who I'd want to rock out with irl you'd be on the list. Good taste in music from what I've seen.--SKATERIs Back 20:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, The Blade of the Northern Lights. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I'd like to alert you of this thread started by PANONIAN only hours after his tb. In my opinion (since I know PANONIAN), its a rather obvious attempt to indirectly influence the article he was banned from. However that's just my impression, its all very borderline (which was no doubt the idea). Maybe I'm just not capable of assuming good faith with PANONIAN anymore, I don't know. -- Director(talk) 01:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Blade. It is typical for a topic ban to be announced on the user's talk page, not just put in the log. In case of any difference in wording, I usually assume that the version on the user talk is the final and complete one. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I ordinarily do, but Buckshot06 pretty much said exactly what I would have, and I didn't really want it to feel like I was twisting the knife. Sorry for any confusion, noted for the future. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I do not understand this now - am I allowed to focus my work on Serbian geography and demographics or I should not edit "any Serbia-related article" as Buckshot06 said on my talk page? PANONIAN 04:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a certain err-y -- um, I mean eerie -- familiarity to the style of ostentation -- um, I mean argumentation -- don't you agree? [1]EEng (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you active. I have always respected your input, and noted your unblock decline of Agent00f and thought it might be an occasion to clear a little air between us. Feel free to take your time in answering.
First, I recognize that the decline was policy-compliant. I see that FPAS gave one "personal attack" link that, on first review, includes frank but civil perceptions backed by evidence. Q. Generically, does the block process perhaps not provide sufficient paths for mentoring blockees who provide apparent good-faith claims not to understand why they are blocked, and how should this potential concern be addressed? If a new editor runs afoul of others, gets written up for policies he is apparently ignorant of, and falls into a wiki maelstrom of trying to answer every criticism without realizing that e.g. not assuming good faith is often escalatory, it seems that the process (the AN and unblock-request admins) should allow a little more enfolding, maybe up to at least a paragraph and a few clear and substantive examples. When there is no flat incivility, if an admin does not clearly explain the offense in some detail, it would seem to be an omission and a WP:BITE, and there is nothing to prevent a confused appeal and (in this case) an exact repetition of the cycle with a second and third admin. (The third admin did write a graf summarizing many events but did not link any events as evidence, and neither explained nor linked the policy terminology describing the offenses. Facts, and law.)
Second, my interest in this case relates to the fact that exactly this scenario happened to me as a newbie five years ago, with a 1-day block, and then a 2-day block after four edits just trying to figure out why I got the 1-day block and (oops!) to explain apparent errors made by other editors in a way compliant with the policies I then knew. While I (again) recognize the block policy compliance and the need to not overload admins, it has always been my belief that this was a mistake by both admins and the unblock decliners: nobody attempted to not bite the fresh meat. Any detail-oriented editor's first attempt to substantively answer a pile-on of others' concerns and obtain substantive answers to his own concerns is potentially at risk of this derail. The main question is actually the same as the previous graf, and while I (in the past) wanted to ask someone separately about personal mentor-style review of my own newbie case, that is not technically necessary if the question above is usefully answered as the present occasion warrants.
Third, I have a further interest because of your comment about me at ANI. With thanks to Uncle G who skillfully defused the thread, I noted that you linked to FPAS (same party again) to support the assertion "this isn't the first time something like this has happened". I have never replied to that link in detail because, in the first case, I honestly thought that it was so misguided and inappropriate as to not need a response. In the second place, a precis like this will not necessarily do justice (i.e. justice for me). In brief the "evidence" link related to two non-longevity disputes that I had that were being handled through ordinary DR channels, with contention but without drama. I believe it was brought forward during Arbitrator voting, and demonstrably swayed that voting, shifting it from potential consideration of the voluntary ban of myself that I advocated, to the yearlong hard ban (which I served my time for silently). Q. Again, with respect for your judgment, why did you feel it necessary to select that particular link from the case for highlighting and comparison to the Ashton discussion?
Fourth, of course. Q. To what degree do you affirm FPAS's "late evidence" and analysis, and the ban itself, what criticism could you share with me about either longevity or Ashton (or the other cases), and what path would be best for my concern, stated to ArbCom, that substantive irregularities occurred during that case? This will help me understand how I should respond to my extant concerns about the case substantively (if ever).
Fifth, there is one other interesting synchronicity (beside the fact that I was reported at AN for Ashton and for prequel at the same instant). That is that the case involving Agent00f, about mixed martial arts, is very similar to the walled garden that the longevity case was. A big difference is that there are fewer editors and much less incivility here, and that the sourcing issues are more clear-cut, so this could be a microcosm of that and perhaps an easy solve for the community. Q. From your unique perspective, can you glance at my comments at the RFC/U and provide me any guidance for being involved in a counseling capacity for this debate ("drop it cold" is fine if rationale is provided)?
I appreciate your hearing these concerns out. I am hopeful your thoughts will resonate. JJB 15:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Again, I value your input, and recognize the thorniness of the multiple questions. However, I much prefer a polite dismissal to a silent one, in case those are my only two options. Thank you! JJB 20:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
There is a sock-meat pupet of a site banned user's whose name was User:Bizovne, originally.
[2] This user has made a revert at the article Miklós Horthy[3]. Would you be so kind as to consider giving an edit protection to the article Miklós Horthy?--Nmate (talk) 11:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Nmate (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, The Blade of the Northern Lights. You have new messages at Skater's talk page. Message added 18:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Made my decision on my talk page. Can you think of other reasons I would be opposed aside from inactivity?--SKATERIs Back 20:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance of you having a word with the person responsible for this edit? Their contributions have been problematic across numerous articles, right from the outset, and I am reasonably sure that they are also editing the same articles on a dynamic IP in the 49.* range. - Sitush (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry I missed this initially, a couple other things popped up on my talkpage at the same time. Whoever this is is extremely lucky I'm not the person who handled the AN3 report, because I probably just would have indeffed. Yeah, I can say something, and I'll keep an eye on the articles as well (where there's one, there always seem to be more). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to let you know that this was, in my opinion, inappropriate. If someone asks for a right out-of-process, the first thing you need to do is check and see why it's out of process. Had you done that, you would have seen that he had been rejected three times in quick succession at the in-process board. If you knew all that and still gave him the right then the problem is even more serious. Either way, he shouldn't have the right but he does because of a mistake on your part. Sven ManguardWha? 15:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't know why are you always up to complaining me to a senior editor. I have; been using the file mover; sensibly. File moves are never inappropriate. It won't even harm a entire project for going wrong (for which chances are very low); the ability it gives is just to moves files as well as pages (which are by default). I also have 50+ edits in the File: namespace. Forget about that; and please stop complaining. How to use the right is more important rather than complaining Why You gave the right. Dipankan(Have a chat?) 16:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to have a very relaxed view about permissions in general; it's easy to give them and easy to take them away. If an actual issue arises, come talk to me, but file moving especially I have a hard time seeing as a big deal, given that people only need to be autoconfirmed to move pages and templates and not even that to go through the process of moving categories. I suspect that I'm generally in a minority on my laxity in this regard, but I think getting overly worked up about userrights like this has a way of translating to exhaustively documented issues in other fora. If you feel strongly about it, you know where to take it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If he were to edit through protection, I'd block him for an extended period of time, and he knows it; I don't think there's anything to worry about. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the administrator who topic banned him, I was wondering if you could you take a look at his recent contributions to WP:ANI and WP:AN3. He was topic banned from Serbian history (broadly construed) but he's still pursuing conflicts with the same users. AniMate 18:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The user has indicated an intent to sock[4] No surprise there given the account's prior bad acts. Would be wise to keep an eye out for it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, now that I think about it, it wouldn't surprise me if it was a reincarnate of an existing banned user.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on his sock threat and other comments he made on his Talk page post-block/ban, I think you should extend the block to his Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd missed the tripe that recurred on Chudasama around a month ago. Thanks for spotting it. - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually a UAA report that brought my attention to it; chuda is one of several ways to transliterate fuck or motherfucker from Hindi, so a bot picks it up. I've learned that when I see people with castes in their usernames, it's a good idea to check the caste article because there's probably something bad going on there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realise the first point, but it does explain a few things/ My knowledge of transliterated Indic profanities is growing apace through my involvement here. Regarding the general caste username issue: yes! The words "history" or "truth" in usernames are also often a warning sign, if they are involved in the Indic sphere. - Sitush (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my mind and decided I'm going to hold off for a bit longer, make sure that I have a much better chance of passing. I guess in the mean time I'll resign my self to being a (talk page stalker) for you :p--SKATERIs Back 14:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, just let me know when you're ready. If it's anything to you I waited 2 months from the time I was initially asked to run, so you're in good company. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please observe the situation with me User:99.251.114.120 and User Talk:Seb az86556. I know I appear to have transgressed but this just appears to be more harrassment. The current issue is over the presence of IPSockpuppet links (from User:BullRangifer's study) and his constant removal of links without any explanation. I fear all the text and history will, again, vanish as it has in previous allegations. I don't how to handle this any other way or properly.
Thanx.99.251.114.120 (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem be too late on this issue. The group appears to have rallied and my complaint at WP:Ani, met with removal of my complaint and now I have another threat of block for complaining about one of the "gang". I didn't figure the playing field was level for IP editors attempting to do honest edits and building any reputation.
When I rally input from editors, somebody doesn't like it and I get a block threat. When named editors do it it is polite to notify those with an input.
When I go to WP:ANI I get a block warning. When anamed editor goes to WP:ANI he gets support and a block on the offending party or help rectifying the situation.
When I ask an editor on his own page to discuss something or stop removing items from my IP page I am vandalising *his* page. When a named editor does the same and I remove it, I get blocked.
When I complain about being insulted with names like "moron" on a named editors page and retort underneath in the usual editing method I get a warning and another editor shows up threatening that I vandalised *his* page. Then the offending editor demands proof of the allegations on my IP page and threatens me again. To my surprise the text and the edit history of the whole insult and episode disappears. Subsequently my IP page text disappears without any explanation. That is what we are doing at this point.
I have nothing to lose here anymore, so I will give it my best crack. Seems only two ways to go with this. One follows WP rules and one violates them. Both will get my IP banned, either way. **SIGH**. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind; resolved. However, please note that !vote #2 under Option 2 was made by an indefinitely blocked sock. I'm notifying you per the RfC instructions. Rivertorch (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, glad there wasn't anything serious going on. As to vote 2, I'll go handle that now, thanks for bringing my attention to it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anything related to Yadav is abysmal by those standards, although I can see a time in the not too distant future where every caste list relating to allegedly notable people will end up on long-term semi. It is regrettable but needs must, especially where WP:BLP is concerned. - Sitush (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware uninvolved people were encouraged to comment on arbcom cases. Is that really so? The headers could use a tweak if it is, as right now they seem rather foreboding. Equazcion(talk) 20:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, from an administrative standpoint it can be very helpful. Obviously, sometimes it's just white noise, but well thought-out comments from uninvolved editors are sometimes very helpful in getting a broader perspective. I'd agree that the headers could use a little updating to reflect that, we'll have to raise that somewhere. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At User talk:Starkiller88 I suggested I'd support an unblock if he voluntarily adopts a complete ban on editing anything related to Fobos-Grunt, and he has accepted that. That topic appears to be the source of his problems, so I think it would be OK to unblock on those conditions - and it's easy enough to keep an eye on him and reblock if necessary. What do you think? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Say I don't mean to be a prude but does your talk page have to be so vulgar for instance the s-word, f-word, and using the Lord's name in vain though I know your are just trying to be funny I just do not think it is appropriate also it is slightly offensive. I would be very much obliged if you cut out the swears Cotton Rogers (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, The Blade of the Northern Lights. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
See [5]. I am walking away for a bit but, honestly, the "ffs" needed to be said. Robin klein guy has been tendentiously pushing his "St Thomas Christians have a Jewish connection" point on that talk page, the article (warring), my talk page, the talk pages of other contributors, WP:DRN etc and never gets consensus. Just how much rope does someone get? My "ffs" is borne out of frustration, after weeks of trying to explain/deal with it politely. But feel free to block me for using the phrase. I am walking away for a bit in any event. - Sitush (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the exchange on the talkpage, I'm surprised it took you that long to say it. I'll have a look there and see if I can perhaps remove some of the noise. Everyone has their moments of frustration, and I'm not going to get on you for that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As 2 editors have asked, and no administrator has yet deigned to get involved. I would like to draw your attention to Wikipedia:AN#Another request for closure and ask that you step in and fulfill the request for closure. Thank you for your time. Hasteur (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Blade. Earlier today I outlined reasons at that RFC/U's talk why closure is not indicated. However I do hope that you will comment. JJB 20:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Found another double !vote: Dirk Beetstra (#78 and #243 on Option 2). Since it's up to the closers to remove one of them, I won't bother to notify him; I'm sure the mistake was inadvertent.
Sctechlaw (#198 on Option 2) changed his or her vote to Option 3, so the entry under Option 2 shouldn't be part of the numbered count.
How I got here. I've been poking about RfAs and related topics because some misguided souls have suggested I run for admin. In my poking, I noticed you were on a list of admins "willing to be asked to nominate a user". No, I am not here to ask you to nominate me. Heh. I am here because of your comment ("New Page Patrol candidates are the best fit for me"). I've been wanting to involve myself in new page patrolling for a while now but have been reluctant to dive in.
So, I have two questions. First, any tips generally on how to approach patrolling? Second, any tool you recommend from this list (or some other tool) to make it easier? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. WP:NPP has some great tips on patrolling, and I always recommend reading that. Another great essay (and great title) is WP:WIHSD. A few additional tips are as follows;
If an article is the same, or very similar to, the username, it's probably safe to tag it for deletion under one or more criteria, and if it's a company name report it to WP:UAA
A great way to lighten things up a bit is to add amusing titles to this page
Make sure you keep track of things that you PROD, and
If one of your tags is declined, don't worry too much about it; different admins will have different opinions, and one declined tag isn't a big deal
As to tools, I just use Twinkle. However, a lot of people have said good things about Kissle, so I recommend trying it out and seeing if it's your thing. If you have any other questions, please ask; I'm always happy to work with NPPers. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks, I may be back once I get going on it, which, if I can, will be sometime during this long (in the U.S.) weekend.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back. I read the material and dove in today. I nominated one article for deletion, but my question concerns several village articles I looked at. On a few, I tagged the article as not having references and marked them as patrolled. On a few others, someone had already tagged the article but hadn't marked them as patrolled. So, I marked those as patrolled. I was doing so many (all created by the same editor) I decided to stop and get a reality check from you. Were my actions appropriate? Should I have done something else or different? I toyed with the idea of prodding them, but my experience is it's hard to delete place articles, so I rarely (never?) prod or nominate existing place articles. Before I go back to removing new articles from the list, please let me know your thoughts. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're busy, but just a nudge in case my latest post got lost in the shuffle.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem; the AE thread a few posts down has turned into a complete nightmare, and that's sucked up a bunch of my time. All right, articles on geographic places are a very thorny issue, so first and foremost don't get too worried that your actions were contested. With village articles, it's perfectly fine to tag them with unreferenced or refimprove tags if they meet the criteria, there's no problems there. If you've done a search and can't verify the place even exists, it's fine to nominate it for deletion, but you have to present a lot of evidence that you did an exhaustive search. If the same editor is creating massive amounts of improperly sourced or unsourced articles, you should probably leave them a note on their talkpage pointing to WP:RS, and if it gets really out of hand you can raise it at AN. On a cursory glance, I don't see anything that you've done which is off the mark, so you seem to be fine. I'm one of a very few admins willing to delete microstubs that say "Tuma River is a river in Nicaragua" (a not-so-hypothetical example) with nothing else, but most will want you to add a reference or at least tag it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the tips.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm continuing to patrol, although it's a lot of work. Hopefully, it will get easier the more I do. I want to step back a moment and ask a stupid question. I recently created a new article, William G. Tapply. As far as I know, it did not go through any "process" of being patrolled or even reviewed. WP:NPP states: "Special:Newpages logs new pages as they are created. It is advisable to patrol new pages from the bottom of the log: pages only stay in the queue for 30 days (720 hours), and there can be a considerable backlog. After 30 days, unpatrolled pages are removed from Special:Newpages and added to Category:Unreviewed new articles by a bot." I don't see my article in the category. I don't think it was ever on the Special:Newpages list, although I don't know any way to check its history. How does this work?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that; my talkpage gets used a lot, and there are frequently brushfires I have the pleasure of putting out. Anyways, it was marked as patrolled; see Special:Log/patrol and search for it (or to make it easier, here. If you go to the history of the article and click "View logs", it'll display public logs, but for some reason you have to click the button "Show patrol log" because it's not displayed by default. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Outstanding - thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear The Blade of the Northern Lights, I apologize for being harsh. But please I am asking because I do not know whom to ask. Could you please tell me what is the solution when there is lots of WP:RS but no consensus. What needs to be done in such cases on the wikipedia? But in anyway I apologize for being harsh. Could you please help me and suggest a solution. Best regards and thanks Robin klein (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Robin, there is consensus. The problem is that you are not prepared to accept it and are spraying your dis-satisfaction with the consensus all over the shop. You need to stop. Now.
Similarly, you need to stop raising the Nasrani issue, using all the various subterfuges that you can muster to do so, as in this edit. Cuchullain has replied to that and it is evident to me that they, too, are becoming fed up of these antics. Whilst Cuchullain cannot take administrative action against you because they are involved in the content-creation side of the article, your ANI report has basically caused more admins to be taking note of your contributions. You are on very thin ice now. - Sitush (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, The Blade. I am not able to view part of your signature with my settings. I have been asked to inform you to change your signature. Please see here. Axl¤[Talk] 09:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The request is inappropriate and has no grounding in policy. Feel free to ignore it. Sven ManguardWha? 20:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also may add that this user is using a black background. The standard view uses a white background. Signatures are required to be readable on a white background.—cyberpowerChatOnline 21:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just asking for protection on the page. plus I read the warning and I didn't do a revert war the third time please I'm innocent.DisneyGirlovestacos95 (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC) --DisneyGirlovestacos95 (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and I promise I won't revert any part on the page again. Besides i was jsut editing a differnt area on the page.--DisneyGirlovestacos95 (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Currently the AWB Requests page is backlogged with requests for permission to use AWB. Would you mind patrolling the page? Thank You! --Tow Truckertalk 17:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Blade, you deleted a page named "TaskHub" which is a product description page of our company. Can you tell me why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John synergix (talk • contribs) 07:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. There is an AE case here that I filed that is rather big and growing wildly out of control.
At this point it is long and confusing and seems impossible to understand or deal with (length, back-and-forth). I wonder if it would be a good idea to scrap the whole thing and refile it, with interested parties bringing only their diffs and minimalist explanation? That might simplify the process. Who makes that call? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with you about the size of it; another administrator is also looking at it, so you should ask there whether you think it's a good idea to refile it. I'm fine with it, if Timotheus Canens is as well we can go that route. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I am checking with him. I might refactor mine to something much shorter and put it in a sandbox to show what I mean. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Canens indicated that refactoring is a possibility, but didn't yet know whether that would be necessary. I'm happy to do it. It's entirely my fault, but the current format and length has pretty much deterred uninvolved editors from offering comments. Separate, simpler cases will be more transparent and clear, and also probably allow admins and other editors to get a consensus on how to deal with this a bit easier. I just do not have much experience with AE (fortunately), but I can have something tomorrow along these lines. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thesound, i had a similar thought. It seems more reasonable to treat people as individuals (and to keep it short). In the interim, Blade, is it possible to please tell Ohconfucius to stop making personal attacks at AE (and elsewhere)? Homunculus (duihua) 00:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I saw you on the Request a Nomination page, and, as I am primarily a new page patroller, I thought to come to you. I failed a RfA nomination a long time ago (2 years, maybe?) but I promised myself that I would keep trying. I think I might be ready for an RfA, but I was wondering if you could do a quick review? I'm currently in editor review, but I figured that it wouldn't hurt to have a fellow newpage patroller review me simultaneously!yutsiTalk/Contributions 18:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to do it in the next couple of days, but I'll definitely get to it by the end of the week. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the other two duplicates, but there's still a problem on the RfC page. As I mentioned in the second bulleted point above, Sctechlaw switched from Option 2 to Option 3 but is still part of the numbered count under Option 2; this constitutes a double !vote. I think it's probably a good idea to tie up any known loose ends like that one before you all come back with your close. (Sorry for picking on you. I could ask one of the other closers, but you did the other ones, and it's just the matter of removing a little pound sign . . . ) Rivertorch (talk) 05:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:GS/Caste. To log actions related to the sanctions. Feel free to modify, I created a barebones starting page. I'm inform Salvio, Q, Boing and Blade as I know they've been doing some actions, feel free to inform others. I've also noted this on the main sanctions page as a log of actions. —SpacemanSpiff 08:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Blade. I expect you'd do so without being asked, but when you're next online, could you please review the AN/I thread that continued after your block of IP 209..6.69.227? (link/snapshot) I'd appreciate that. Thanks, --OhioStandard (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)no reply needed, but if you want to leave one, I'll look for it here[reply]
Thanks for looking in there and, more broadly, for taking the time to wade through the details to figure out what was going on in the first place. As I said at AN/I, I know the board "hates details": Not every admin is willing to investigate matters brought there much beyond blatant violations of policies. The ones who are, like yourself, are rightly held in high esteem by the community. Again, thank you. --OhioStandard (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Me, too! Thought you might also like to know, as I've just discovered and added to the thread, that editors are required to use normal indentation. I know you didn't block 209.x just for refusing to, but you would have been perfectly within the scope of your authority to have done. Thanks again, --OhioStandard (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Give it seven days + a few hours and you will have your chance ;) - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, the problems rumble on at Nai (caste). This has not long come of semi-protection but I really need to get some sort of discussion going (aside from the merge proposal that I started). - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're definitely a great editor with much enthusiasm that very few have. I've not yet looked upon your contribs, but I think you're a good candidate for RFA. Dipankan(Have a chat?) 15:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is troubling JJG, is your continued approach of going to Admins talk pages to try to influence the decision of an ongoing AE case. Why could you not have raised this issue at the AE discussion. As it happens the pbs source that you have cited is a ludicrous source for verification of facts and has been removed from the article as has the inaccurate 95% claim. The comment about 94.5% is from a transcript of a talking head in a PBS debate and obviously is not subject to PBS editorial oversight. An individuals personal comments in a debate should, at best, be treated in a similar manner as a Op-ed piece, i.e. not suitable for verification for facts in he Wiki voice. But these points have already been raised in the AE discussion so it is unclear why you have chosen to go outside that discussion to seek to influence the decision at AE on an admins talk page. Dlv999 (talk) 09:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the source was unsuitable, it should have been removed or discussed at RSN rather than inserting information that doesn't jibe with it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source and the erroneous 95% claim have been removed from the article and now the figure quoted in the article has two excellent academic sources to support it. All this is due to DLDD initial revert [[7], which you say is "very troubling", but is actually a good faith edit which has led to a significant improvement in the quality of sourcing and content of the article by bringing peoples attention to the erroneous information and the content fork between the two articles. DLDD has explained that he checked the source in the parent article which led him to make the edit. This is how improvements are made to the encyclopedia so I don't see the need for you to be agitating on multiple admin talk pages to get sanctions against this editor. Dlv999 (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Blade! Any update on the results of the RfC regarding Pending Changes?—cyberpowerChatOnline 13:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the analysis I need to do, we're waiting pretty much on one of the other admins to finish a few things up. I apologize this is taking a bit longer than any of us would have liked, our lives (yes, we have them!) have kinda gotten in our ways here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying that you guys don't have lives. I certainly don't though. I can't even keep myself off of Wikipedia even if I wanted to. I'm graduating now so I have the summer free.—cyberpowerChatOnline 22:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to interfere, but we're at a standstill, and it would be better if people were talking. Estimated time of arrival on that closure? - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been closed which is why people aren't talking. It's the decision of the result of the closure that we are waiting for.—cyberpowerChatLimited Access 16:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Due to a hiccup in archiving, the thread (link/snapshot) in which you blocked 209.6.69.227(talk·contribs·info·WHOIS) was still present on the AN/I page when he came off the two-day block you'd given him. That block, as I'm sure you'll recall, was for talk page disruption, e.g. fooling around with headings on an article talk page, disruption at the self-same thread at ANI where you blocked him, copying text that amounted to one-third of the length of AN/I to the thread in which he was under discussion, & etc.
Immediately on coming off block, he made thesetwo posts to the same AN/I thread. The first is okay, although he's certainly beating a dead horse in arguing against the Rochester Citizen, since everyone at the ALEC talk page has accepted that it's probably not a RS, and no one has reinstated it into the corresponding article.
The second of the two edits seems to me to be more of the same behaviour that I and others characterised as talk page disruption previously, though. If you scroll down in that second edit, you'll see he's again screwed around with section/subsection headers. Specifically, he added a level 3 subsection header immediately above my previously-existing post of 11:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC), giving it the title, "Completely unrelated commentary". That's not something I'm going to get upset about, although I reverted that part of his edit.
His top-post, in that same edit, above everything else in the thread, isn't something I'm pleased to see him doing, though, especially since the point he's trying to make with it is moot. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I'm not sure there's anything legitimately "desperate" that justifies his over-the-top edit-summary of OVERSIGHTER needed, desperately. Please ignore the " irrelevant side-discussions." Would like this issue resolved, with guidance. Needs to go to WP:RS board. As I said, the issue about the reliability of the Rochester Citizen already is resolved; no one intends to restore the source, and I can't see how he could fail to know that. This is a very experienced editor, remember, one who set up archiving on a talk page without any problems, in a single edit.
While I'd not like to see the thread collapsed, I'd be fine with an {{Archive top}} at this point, especially if IP 209.x's top post were to be removed, since it just confuses things, as I see it. But I wanted you to be able to have the last word in the thread, and on how it's to be closed, if at all, since you were the blocking admin. Sorry to have to trouble you with this again, though. Best, --OhioStandard (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)page temporarily watchlisted for any reply[reply]
It is; thanks. Just FYI: I didn't want the thread to roll to archives with the top post where it was, since no one would have known what it was referring to, on reading it there. So just before it would have archived, I moved the IP's post to end-of-thread, making it very clear with inline <small> text what I'd done, and why. On a separate note, I just listened to The Fountain of Lamneth for the first time, and was amazed. While I'm evidently too old to be able to appreciate the lyrical style as much as I'd like, I can certainly recognise its virtuosity. And the music itself is extraordinary: The drum solo alone is worth the listen, but the complexity and maturity of the rest is ... well, amazing, as I said. I could see it being adapted for performance as a IMAX film, or a film in the multi-screen/multi-thread style of Eija-Liisa Ahtila. Intense. --OhioStandard (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First onto business, I'll close down the ANI thread in a moment. Now for the fun part; Ahtila is an excellent choice. There was also a pretty obvious touch of JRR Tolkien in some of the lyrics too, so it would be an interesting combination. Being a bassist, Geddy is my all-time favorite; I've come close to injuring myself trying to play both The Fountain of Lamneth and Force Ten, but I loved every second of it. The former was pre-2112, when Geddy could still hit the really high notes; oh how I wish I had been around for those days. But then again, I got Snakes & Arrows on my 17th birthday when it FINALLY got to the music store near me, so I still feel like I'm a part of it. If you really love drums, probably the best is Scars (from Presto); it will blow your mind, and the lyrics are great too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Re "Fountain", yes; wouldn't it be fun to be able to produce a film like that, with all sorts of mythic and developmental imagery coalescing to support the theme? And "I've come close to injuring myself trying to play ..." is very funny! Listented to Scars, too, and you're right: It has the emotional impact and urgency of a heart beating 160 times a minute. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support your decision to blank. I was working my way up from the bottom, looking for Copyright Violations, and was finding 100% of the entries I looked at were. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hasteur (talk) has given you a plate of hummus! Hummus is a specialty of the Middle East. With some pita bread, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.
Spread the goodness of hummus by adding {{subst:Hummus}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a plate of hummus to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.
Thank you for the humourous response you gave to the User. You made my day. Hasteur (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! If I think a user just needs a little prodding in the right direction, I always take care to leave a calm, helpful unblock request, but I like to have a bit of fun from people without good intentions. Sometimes we need a laugh. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have been mentioned at ANI here. - Sitush (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you were mentioned after you had contributed to it. Salvio has imposed a topic ban, so the thing is now dead. As indeed my brain must have been at the point when I posted the original message above! - Sitush (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, The Blade of the Northern Lights. You have new messages at SwisterTwister's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi! I just recently changed my username. I just added a new request under my new username on the AWB permissions request page. Was I supposed to do this or is their some other process to get your AWB permissions back if you have changed your username? Thank you for your help. TOW talk 06:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What topic ban? I am struggling to find a mention of it, although I am not surprised to read that one exists. - Sitush (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a section to the Dalai Lama Ding Dong report titled Further disruptive editing. You expressed an undecided view though leaning towards chalking it up as a "simple mistake". I politely request that you view this addition and comment in the AE regarding these latest edits. Even Hanlon's razor can be blunted through constant use. Ankh.Morpork 18:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I haven't responded there in so long; I was out at a wedding for several days, and I'm trying to catch myself up with everything. I'll try to get around to it soon. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the nagging but... Ankh.Morpork 18:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand that I find it eminently preferable to have the AE upheld or indeed to be informed that it is a frivolous and groundless complaint, as opposed to this issue remaining unresolved and consigned to the archives. I request that you view the subsequent additions and provide a definitive response and allow this issue to be resolved once and for all. Thank you. Ankh.Morpork 00:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Blade, I saw that you closed the AfD on Ghazal Omid. Would it be possible for you to leave a note with the article's subject, User:Ghazal Omid, and explain why it was closed the way it was? I've been trying to explain Wikipedia to her for more than a year now, and she really doesn't seem to understand even the most basic ideas about how we work and make decisions; for example, she still seems to believe that there either is or should be a centralized team responsible for editorial oversight of all articles. I don't know if you'll have any more luck, but maybe someone new and uninvolved coming in might improve the atmosphere for her. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no problem. I'm not *expecting* to be met with a warm reception, but I was ready for that when I decided to close it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a look at the rest of her talkpage, and my eyes are bleeding. I'll see if I can work through some of the stream of consciousness requests; I have a good working knowledge of Shiite Islam and Islam in general, and I've worked on thorny issues in this topic area before. You deserve at least a six-pack of Sapporo for your efforts. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note, it looked great. As you'll see, she understands neither the premise of Wikipedia nor how to edit; though I explained it a number of times, she doesn't understand how to find and edit the article's talk page (she can't seem to distinguish it from her own talk page). I just gave up and handle her requests from her user talk page. The article is pretty low traffic, so it's not like I usually have to keep copying things back and forth for her. Just one note: in the most recent sequence (the stuff that lead to me opening the AfD), there was a not so veiled legal threat/legal comment. I explained how she can't do that, and I think she understands, but I also think that won't stop her from doing it again. Luckily she can't really have a "chilling effect" since it's not occurring at the article itself where others would see it.
Ultimately, though, this isn't so different from any other minor celebrity who doesn't understand that just because the page is about her doesn't mean that it can't be controlled by her. The bigger complication, as far as I can feel, is that she has been the victim of some pretty vicious criticism in places outside of Wikipedia (if I understand correctly, her publicly made claims and books are not very popular with the government of Iran), so I get why she's sensitive to problems here.
And I'll take you up on your six-pack if we're ever in the same part of the world :).Qwyrxian (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the above, was this comment really necessary? No matter what the editor may have done to violate our policies, responding in this way doesn't help, and is itself a violation of policy. Moreover, if that IP was dynamically allocated, then whoever is unlucky enough to get it next is likely to be frightened away or get a poor impression of how potentially disruptive editing is handled Wikipedia. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to say, I agree with Psychonaut here. I left another admin a similar message over another block review recently and I'll say the same here. Yes, he deserved to be blocked and indeffed, but as an admin that was really a terrible block review. Remember the whole "admins should hold themselves to a higher st:andard" thing. WormTT(talk) 11:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I could have sworn I heard Malleus chiming in on that ANI... --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; obviously not my best moment. I'll figure out what to do when I'm back from work in a couple hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I'm really sick of this person. I've left a note at ANI about it, which hopefully clarifies things; I should also say that the original IP was blocked for 3 months, though at this point I really don't care that much just as long as he goes away for some period of time. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Blade -
I'm a volunteer at WP:DRN, and there's an issue that I think could use your attention. It's an edit dispute, but that's not the problem. The problem is that we have a question of procedure with one of the involved editors (User:PCPP). He's currently under an interaction and/or topic ban, and we're not sure whether this issue puts him in violation of that. If you look at the issue, you'll probably see what the question is. The issue is still sort of being framed, but I think it would be helpful to have an administrator take a look at what's going on. I'm not asking for any sort of administrative action here (unless you think one is needed) - I just want to know if this user is, indeed, violating any bans he might be under. Thanks. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the Confucius Institution in and of itself is completely fine, it's only the parts of it relating to their discrimination against the Falun Gong and any responses to said discrimination that fall under PCPP's ban (he's indefinitely banned from the Falun Gong topic area, broadly construed). If that's happened, that'd be a clear violation of his topic ban; if not, I don't think there's an issue. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I've advised him to be mindful of that. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Blade. I commented on a block of yours in an ANI thread, here. Would you like me to try to talk with the user? I could do it tomorrow. (Late here now.) Or I could send Darwinbish if you like, she never sleeps. Bishonen | talk 21:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I left a short message at the user's talkpage; when I get back in front of my computer, I'll leave something a little more detailed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I missed that, sorry. Bishonen | talk 21:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Hello, Blade of the Northern Lights! You banned my former username, USCmediarelations, and having read the username policy, it makes perfect sense to me why you did that (apologies for not checking that first).
I understand Wikipedia's desire to be mindful of any edits of a promotional nature. However, my university would like to take an active hand in correcting out of date or faulty information about our scholars. We also want to be as transparent as possible, so you guys know exactly who we are and our vested interest in making our edits (the previous username was an attempt at that).
Would this work as a username? Do you have any suggestions about how we can best respect your own needs to preserve the integrity of your pages while trying to maintain and update pages related to our school as necessary?
(talk page stalker) Your current username is alright. However, only one person per account is used to edit Wikipedia. Also remember since you have a Conflict of interest, make sure that your edits must be neutral and not biased. Dipankan(Have a chat?) 10:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should have given this as a link to the word "imitative". Gimmetoo seems to be the only one who went to the trouble of searching. But never mind. Esoglou (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aware as I am of WP:TPG, I have just added an article talk page comment that concerns the contributor more than the article - see Talk:Ram Prasad Bismil#Reverting my edits again. I would appreciate a review of the thing: if you consider it to be inappropriate then please let me know and I will self-revert. - Sitush (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fone to me; you were laying out the reasons you reverted him, so that's pertinent information. And looking at your comment, I'm very, very close to giving him a CIR block; if that turns into another thread like a couple of the ones above on that page and I'll do just that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, that sort of thing is happening all over the place :( Anyway, giving my comment a once-over is much appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they have come off their block and are yet again inserting sources that do not support the statements at B. R. Ambedkar. The exact same stuff as previously. On a positive note, they are discussing the concerns regarding POV at Talk:B._R._Ambedkar#Removing_POV, so perhaps your comments concerning what would happen if they unilaterally removed the maintenance tags have been heeded. - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of Lala Hanumant Sahai moved it from AfC to mainspace today despite the AfC review having already declined the move due to the number of problems. The creator is incredibly disruptive both here, at Commons and apparently at Hindi Wikipedia. I also suspect some odd goings-on with User:Awadhesh.Pandey (the creator has his own article at Krant M. L. Verma, which is Pandey's hobbyhorse - they seem to edit around the same times). Please could you review the AfC move and perhaps take a look at User talk:Krantmlverma? I think that he has reached the end of our road. - Sitush (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Spiffy gave a final warning re: competence. Alas, I know that he is unable to spend much time on-wiki at present. - Sitush (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His hagiography has been declined again at AfC, and I've blocked Krantmlverma for gross incompetence on many levels. I'll also review Awadesh.Pandey and see what's going on, my Spidey sense is tingling. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for that. At some stage I will try properly to clean up the mess, which might involve some AfD noms. There isn't enough evidence for SPI and indeed I cannot be sure that Pandey is even a meatpuppet, but something is not right. Time will probably tell. - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I have no complaints about the block of User:Krantmlverma, given recent concerns at WP:ANI about other admins, you might want to be careful on the language you use when blocking; that block log entry and block notice seem a bit strong to me. I'd hate to see someone else drag you before the court of public when you're doing such good and important work overall. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't really sure how else to word it; I'll see if I can leave a more detailed rationale at his talkpage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thought you might also like to know, as I've just discovered and added to the thread, that editors are required to use normal indentation. I know you didn't block 209.x just for refusing to, but you would have been perfectly within the scope of your authority to have done. Thanks again, --OhioStandard (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
