User talk:DangerousPanda

Something you said

"Rule #1 on sock accusations: Put up or shut up. (i.e. file your WP:SSP or STFU) Rule #1 on edit warring: except for clear vandalism, no excuses. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)"

I like it, and I'd like to put it in my free advice section on my user page.--Tznkai (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh ... I'm glad you like it. We'll call it "BMW's First and other First Laws" LOL (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I had forgotten to do it and every time I remembered I got a deluge of e-mail.--Tznkai (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you brought it up...

Albeit on a different page, but still. I was wondering if you would accept a nomination for adminship. I know some people like to stay "normal" for reasons of their own so I thought I'd ask. Padillah (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you look a few threads above ... a similar question was asked. The short form is yes, if enough of my Wikipedia colleagues feel that I am suitable, I would put myself through the stress that is WP:AFD WP:RFA. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope you mean WP:RFA. You don't want to be deleted, do you? Padillah (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

They're both just as stressful in their own way LOL (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at Bugs' RfA to get an idea of the amount of coals you are going to get raked over. I'm doing them one at a time so as soon as this is over with, I'll nominate you (if you've still got the guts). Please understand, I am not doing this as some sort of misguided assembly line of admins. I mentioned before and I will say it to anyone that asks I've always looked to you as an admin and see no reason why you shouldn't be one. Bugs' nomination aside. Padillah (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

One last chance. Do you really want to give everyone that hates you a reason to pick on you? Just laying it on the line. (I feel kinda bad for putting Bugs through that) But I do feel you would make a good admin. You've been very even-handed and you have appeared to be knowledgeable enough that most people think you're an admin in the first place. You not only deserve the mop, as a patroller of WQA your admonitions would carry more weight. But it's your frail ego at stake here, you tell me. Padillah (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So, are you giving it up? I haven't heard a yes or no from you. Padillah (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I will be back from assignment just after Easter - might as well start the process if you wish (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Shoot, now I forgot how. Oh, that's right...

I think it's ready to go - have a look, and let me know what you think. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude, in all honesty I would never presume to tell you you had done something wrong here on WP. In point of fact I need some help getting the project talkpage to display correctly (the instructions are less than idiot-proof. But then again, I'm a much better idiot than most people plan for). Padillah (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Alastairward and the noticeboard melodrama

To be honest with you, I've been emotionally drained by this user and think it's a disgrace you're expecting me to go through these lengths and find all relevant diffs. I just want to be able to positively contribute to WP's community without being constantly put on trial. Want an example? Check out the edit history for Red hair and ask yourself: was Alastairward ever involved with anything even close to the article's subject matter prior to me editing it? Another one: "If it's obvious, then tell me why" - learn to know him a bit and I'll be damned if you don't clearly see that he is playing straight out dumb. If I'll recall anything else, I'll let you know. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to make accusations, you have to provide supporting diffs, else you're the one actually being disruptive ... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to try and understand my point at all, do you? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

So far, I can't see any proof you're being hounded. The important part is that although someone else's actions may explain incivility, it will never excuse your incivility. Just like sports, the retaliation generally gets penalized harder. Show admins the proof you're being actually hounded, and the other party may actually get a wrist slapped too ... if you don't, it will be you and you alone. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

I appreciate your welcoming message and advice in response to my Wikiquette query. I'm afraid I took Sceptre's remark to someone else, along the lines of "Well you try to summarise it concisely!", too literally. :) But I'm still curious about whether he actually has the ability to block me, or whether that was an empty threat in the guise of an official communication from Wikipedia.

Kateorman (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Any editor on Wikipedia has the authority to remind other editors of the rules and policies of Wikipedia by using standardized Templates. They are to be used only when the specific policy has been, or may about to be broken. The standard template reminds the "offending" editor that their actions could be subject to administrative action, which includes blocks from Wikipedia. Of course, only administrators can block, but anybody can warn that you can be blocked. So, the short for is: that individual may or may not have the ability to block, but they have the right to warn that your actions could lead to blocks. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! tbh, I think the template is confusing: it looks like an official warning from an admin with a finger on the block button, when at least in this case it's a message from another editor. An explanation of the rules, even an angry one, would have been helpful; instead I received a threat. I have to confess it's put me off trying to make further edits: if the guy is so determined to defend "his" page, he's welcome to it! Anyway, thanks again for your help - much appreciated. And thanks for letting me grumble. :) Kateorman (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Admins also use the same templates ... of course, usually there are escalating levels of templating ... you probably got the wrong one - an editor was a little fast on the trigger finger. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest that official warning templates ("You WILL be blocked!") be reserved for admins? Surely as it stands, they're open to abuse by non-admins who want to intimidate others. Plus, if anyone can use them, that undercuts the authority of the admins. It's a bit as though I got a parking ticket from the police and left it on my neighbour's car. I can't really fine my neighbour, so it would only confuse and intimidate them; and when the police issued a genuine parking ticket, they might not take it seriously. Kateorman (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec x3)

Please explain "(ec x3)". Thanks. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It means I tried to post the message, but I had an Edit Conflict (ec) three separate times (x3). (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

WQA

Hi BM, actually I have informed PBS about the WQA thread, I just did it at the article's talk page rather than his own user page. He has responded there already so he obviously knows about it. Gatoclass (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(unrelated other WQA) OK, thanks. Rd232 ^talk 15:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Help?

Una has filed another ANI on me. You know the history. Need help. See here. Montanabw^(talk) 23:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

BMW, given that I am sort of under scrutiny right now, I don't feel comfortable taking much of what's going on to a formal procedure, but please take note of this, which involves another user altogether and I am not involved. Montanabw^(talk) 21:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

WQA revisited

I'm not sure how to discuss this without putting you on the defensive. I'm hoping this was all just a mistake.

You made me doubt the usefulness of WQA in your reply [1] to my request at WQA. I didn't look at your edit summary, which said, "can't see any diffs." Instead, I interpreted your comment, "I'm not seeing any incivility. Could you please provide diffs of the exact post where WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL was broken? " To mean you didn't see any incivility in the diff provided. I waited over 24 hours for replies. When yours was the only one, I gave up and haven't used WQA since, despite the need to do so on multiple occasions.

So, was this just a misunderstanding? --Ronz (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The only diff you provided leads to this post: "Multiple people argued to keep this list in 4 AfD's. A few spam fighters can't seem to let it go. Why exactly are you here? If you don't like this list or its inclusion criteria, and are not interested in this topic, then please let those who are interested continue working. You haven't contributed anything to this article. So why are you here? It seems to be just a desire for more deletion. No, seriously, why are you here? You seem to follow Ronz around. When I bump into either of you, the other soon follows. See WP:Wikihounding and WP:TE. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)". Can you show me where any of that paragraph is either a violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA? All I was asking for is a diff where something actually violated those, because none of us who patrol WQA could see it using that one. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

That's what I was afraid of. Everything in that comment other than the first sentence is uncivil. I've seen blocks for less when the behavior is consistent. This is the problem with our behavioral guidelines. The interpretations of them are often incompatible. I'm happy to explain further, but I think the situation is utterly, completely hopeless. We're unable to enforce behavioral guidelines because we can't agree on their interpretation. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

RKLawton

Regarding this comment [2]. There will be no needling on the part of me to try to "bait" RKLawton into any sort of incident. I never did that in the first place. Had RKLawton bothered to look up the meaning of "butthurt" he would have seen that it is in no way sexual or a personal attack. My AN/I was simply to point out, and have dealt with, an administrator blatantly violating policy and making personal attacks. Indeed not the behavior expected from an admin. He tried to label me as "disruptive" for making TWO edits. Again, not 10 or 20, but TWO. You can be assured that there was no, and will be no, picking a fight. SpartanSWAT10 (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If the other person took it as an attack, and someone else agrees that it could have been one, then it's likely one. If I were you, I would be embarassed that the thread in ANI and on rklawton's talkpage have gone on for as long as they did - you stirred up more of a hornet's nest than was really deserved, IMHO. I'm not discounting that what rklawton said was improper, but you must be able to see that your comment could be taken improperly. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I offered him the chance to take the high road and remove his blatant personal attack. He chose instead to follow-up with a second personal attack. HE stirred up the hornets nest. I was simply reporting a violation of policy. Saying someone got huffy and butthurt is, in my opinion, no grounds for being upset. Saying that someone has limited mental capacity is. Interestingly, you'll see a similar pattern of behavior in rklawton's edits before and since. He also personally attacked another user involved in the discussion by calling her a drama queen. If you ask me, he shouldn't be an admin if he's so easily flustered and so quick to resort to namecalling. Regardless, as I said, there will be no, and was no, provocation or needling by me. SpartanSWAT10 (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "Drama queen" comes anywhere near being a personal attack. (Just as I don't think huffy and butthurt is one either). It's a bit rude but people need to be able to talk; I was somewhat rude to him too. One mistake does not a bad admin make, and despite his somewhat defensive stance I strongly suspect that he will take mine and others comments into consideration is will be unlikely to make similar comments in the future. The matter is over with. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Teenly

Wikipedia can be an impersonal enterprise at times, but there is a living being behing every pseudonymous Wikipedian. I do not know whether the passing of a human being whose path once crossed yours in a small way is a matter of concern to you; but in case it is, I am bringing THIS to your attention because you once made her happy, and for that I thank you. Fenneck (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am always shocked to hear of a death of someone who I have even had a small degree of contact. I appreciated that User:Teenly took interest in an article that I was helping to work on from scratch, and really let them do some good article expansion after I created the basic format. I am glad that she found her contact with me to be happy, and wish the best to her family, and wish the best blessings of whatever beliefs they hold. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You were the first person Teenly met on Wikipedia, in response to her very first edit, and she was especially delighted when you thanked her on a talk page for her contribution. It was very exciting for a six-year-old. Fenneck (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested account ACC account creation interface

Requested an account on the ACC account creation interface as of today (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on irc and the mailing list. Keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. FunPika 18:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA

about time ;) ... good luck — Ched :  ?  16:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've got a question

There is an article, List of longest novels, that I am convinced is complete OR. The stats are fine but to compile them into a list that, by it's very name, claims to represent the longest examples of it's kind, is OR (at least WP:SYNTH). I tried a number of months ago and was summarily ignored. What steps would you suggest? 3O? RfC? Or straight to AfD? Thanks for the help. Padillah (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:

I see the response as being inappropriate. It is trying to back editors into a corner saying "you can only oppose if you think the following", which is making me consider moving over to oppose. I understand the stress of RfA just fine, but "if you're ok with editors ganging up on our admins, then please continue with the OPPOSE !votes" is utter nonsense. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 16:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I value your opinion quite heavily ... hopefully you concur with the fix/addition? (talk→ BWilkins ←track)

I feel that the very basis of the final comment is inappropriate — I see it as the candidate telling other what is and is not a legitimate oppose !vote. I do hope I'm not coming over too strongly, if so it is not intentional, but the comment just seems wrong to me. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 17:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated. The intent was really to remind people to not rely on context - every single diff provide in the "oppose" and even the neutral ones by GMW are all taken 100% out of context, and reassembled in a unique manner. I'm sure I have typed the words "go", "fuck", and "yourself" all in separate instances - put together out of context, it can be argued that I actually said "go fuck yourself". Overall, I support the concept that "everyone has something to add to Wikipedia" and that we don't go around ganging up on each other. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Quick note on RfA

Per your further comments and further consideration I have moved to neutral.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Re Warning Migraine associated vertigo

Fyi, I have not received related warnings in the past few days. What are you talking? My edits have been constructive. However I have allowed myself to repeatedly insist that the article receives broader sourcing, not to a commercial website, but preferably to peer reviewed neutral articles to be found by pubmed. The Concepts of WP:MEDMOS guidelines to reliable sourcing seem to be really hard to convey. So I allowed myself to remark that the guidelines are junior college reading level, and that the editor may have difficulties with that also from the attention span. That was not nice. But please take the time to read the whole preceding unnerving dialogue, then you may have some understanding. You really have to see it in perspective, then you understand. My edits are constructive, see further up on the talk page the thanks for my help and support for a new editor. 70.137.153.83 (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC) 70.137.153.83 (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Although issues with an editor may explain the incivility, nothing ever excuses incivility towards them. I did, indeed,read the entire proceedings, and commented accordingly. Regarding the other - you do, indeed, have 4 warnings on your page from a wide range of your activities over the last few days. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My previous concerns have been run through dispute resolution and have been confirmed. My edits were consequently not "page blanking" and "vandalism" and I want these warnings removed from my page. Also your warning for etiquette is then not a 3rd level warning, pls handle accordingly. I have done valid edits, which have been wrongly described as vandalism and page blanking. THIS is vandalism. 70.137.153.83 (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That type of insult to another editor is most certainly a 3rd level warning, and I suggest to take it as such. Your insistence that incivility is ok, would likely mean that there would be no "fourth" level. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I want the previous 3 warnings removed. I already admitted that a reference to attention span and level was not nice. But the previous edits were all reasonable and not vandalism or page blanking. Look at it. 70.137.153.83 (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Then remove them. It's not a "report card". PS: since you're not using a userid, you're not fully trackable to you anyway. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I know its not trackable, a push of a button and I have a new ID. But old senile fart I am, I get anal about content disputes immediately turning removal of challenged materials into "page blanking" and then "vandalism" and cluttering my page with warnings, such that the first look of an admin has it appear as if I am mainly involved in page blanking, vandalism and harassment. So it is just for the principle, but not for a reasonable purpose... Somebody has also to stand up for more difficult content disputes finally coming to the point and being resolved on a scientific level without warnings and illogical allegations and admin intervention. 70.137.153.83 (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody else is supposed to remove things from a personal talkpage other than the user themself. As an IP editor, the rules are slightly different, but it is up to you to remove the things the disturb you. Although your page history will always be there, warnings fade over time ... a warning today will rarely be used against you 3 months from now (as long as nothing else happens that link them). I would, for your benefit, recomment against removing the nice Welcome stuff and related links. I would also recommend highly that you do sign up for a userid - your edits should be attributed to someone, and it is far more anonymous that using an IP address that allows anyone to track where you live. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

RE on Etiquette

I have read your talk on my talkpage about WP:WQA. I assume you have read my closing statement in this on WP:AN, especially on the omission of expecting good faith from the start, so I have no question. The unrelated low quality edit summary is to be seen as a carelessnes after a longer editsession, and your point is received. -DePiep (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA, and my thanks

Hi BMW, I just wanted to say that I am truly sorry that you didn't get the couple extra buttons that could have helped you with your work here. I know you may not be the "chatty" type, especially right now, but I did want you to understand how strongly I supported your bid. I greatly appreciate all that you do here - even if it may go unappreciated by others.

On an off-wiki note, I also wanted to express my appreciation for your dedication to the protection of freedom and our country. If no one else will say it, I will. Thank You!. — Ched :  ?  17:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to add my pat on the back on the RfA. You should be one. You WILL be one. Note User:VanTucky, who I think is an admin now but I think he also got turned down his first time around. Keep doing what you do, you'll get there! Montanabw^(talk) 23:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Just read that, and ouch that looks pretty messy. Sorry I missed it or I would've piped up with moral support at least. Look, you had a bad incident, but you and the community should get over it. I had to wait for a second go around to. Keep doing the good work.--Tznkai (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

How do I do this without CANVASING?

First off, sorry to hear about the RfA. It really surprised me. Anyway, I have a list that has been bothering me, I feel it needs to be deleted but how do I attract attention from a wider audience without CANVASing? I've tried RfC but all I get are responses from people that already support the list, not the wider community. Padillah (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your nomination, and the defence. Maybe someday again, one never knows. Is the list the one about "longest books" that is above? There are often wise people often at AfD ... and if the community says it belongs, we maybe have no choice (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the list. It's a simple compilation of really long novels. No citation or sourcing (other than for page/word count). So you say go straight for AfD? Thanks. Padillah (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Bubble tea!

-download | sign! has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

KeltieMartinFan

Please read this and tell me they all provoked KeltieMartinFan into those reactions. Or... maybe they all provoked him into many edits that do nothing but reduce the quality of the grammar in the respective articles. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You have done yourself a major disservice by going to ANI first, then to WQA at the same time. Then in your WQA (which is a forum to discuss civility issues) you focus on grammar at first - this automatically weakens your overall arguement. You have put yourself now in the untenable position that few things will now end up being resolved. Process is important 'round here - you don't go to the Supreme Court first, then to District Court afterwards :-) I'm not quite sure yet how to fix this so that you can get some proper resolution ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If you do not disrupt the process by placing irrelevant tags, the case just might get looked at... Besides, this is the first time I file a complaint of this sort (I hate doing it, but considering the heavy offense, I have been left with no choice), so please keep assuming good faith. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I urge you to stop placing that tag at once. I have explained my agenda more than once, this is important. Please reply as I would like to "get things straight" around here. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

We are trying to assist you in one forum. Edit-warring on a dispute resolution page is serving to seriously undermine your concerns. Please include the links to the offensive posts (that contravene WP:NPA ... stay away from grammar, it's not a trial) in the WP:ANI entry. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If this is the case, then thank you first of all. However, you seem to be under complete misapprehension as for my inclusion of the grammar issues. A vast portion of Keltie's false accusations are that none of my edits appear as constructive and I am therefore a "menace" (vandal?). My point is simple: for someone who has a rich history of edits that contribute nothing but the reduction of overall article quality, their credibility is by far less than they make it appear. In other words: the pot calls the kettle black. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Bob sucks at grammar, so he has no right to call me an asshole" ... where's the logic? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Altering my comments/headings

...and there they go again! I'm sick of edit warring, but this is f@^king intolerable. This is yet another effort to make the complaint look less significant.
As for your contribution towards resolving this nonsense – I genuinely thank you for that, as I have done at the Swine Flu section. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no issue with the heading changes ... ANI's rules say be brief, and headings doubly so. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

So basically, you are telling me that altering other people's contributions is OK, as long as the editor interprets the other policies in a way that make it look quasi-legitimate? And I was blocked for merely striking an unjust comment aimed at me while clearly stating that it was me who struck the comment... Something is going awry in this affair, dontcha think? Seriously... 87.69.176.81 (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI is a action noticeboard, and not a talkpage. You are required to do a succinct filing and back away, answering questions as needed when asked. Admins are required/permitted to trim to fit. Talkpage discussions made by someone else are untouchable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The comment I was striking was on the ANI board. Any explanation as for why everyone freaked out and started blocking me? I didn't even change the wording, nor did I delete anything. As for "answering questions as needed when asked," pretty much every other comment was aimed to try and find the flaw in my edits to distract from the "defendant." Therefore, I had to protect myself from being wrongfully accused; you would have done the same. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Closing the thread

Why did you do that? To completely shut me up and let the offender get away? Please don't, at least until tomorrow. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been 22 hours. Threads in ANI only last 24 hours, so it was not going to last until tomorrow. Besides, if you made any additional comments in the same vein, you were likely to be blocked for 3 days or more. The other party did NOT "get away", but there was no consensus for further action (even though I did comment on their talkpage regarding the situation). At its very most, the offense is "warnable" not "blockable", and they're warned. What else is there to gain besides your own new block? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I really have to go now so I'll be brief: what for? There is nothing that can be deemed even close to justifiable as all I have been doing for the past two days is trying to prove I'm not anyone's sockpuppet/vandal/whatever. If not for all this type of "Chewbacca defense" my case might have been heard. Sadly, all I've learned so far is that Wikipedia runs on politics like any company. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)