User talk:Youreallycan

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Welcome to Youreallycan's talkpage. If you are unable to post here follow this link to post at my unprotected talkpage.

This editor is a
**Veteran Editor IV**
and is entitled to display
this
**Gold Editor Star**.

Youreallycan is using a one revert editing standard - I will revert only once in a 24 hour period and then discuss - Youreallycan 05:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

If you start a discussion here on my talkpage I will likely respond on this page as I like to keep discussion complete in one location. If you post an imo attacking comment here I will just delete it and you will no longer be welcome on my talkpage untill I remove the restriction.If I feel the discussion is confrontational or attacking I also reserve the right to request you to host it on your own talkpage. If I move the discussion to your talkpage please do not replace it here, I will delete it.

This user helped promote Ed Miliband to good article status.

Sub judice UK

Thank you for adding the {{Sub judice UK}} template here. It goes a long way toward addressing my concerns. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nao problema. E foi meu prazer. - Youreallycan 23:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

{{talkback|User talk:PPdd |Signpost_stuff_re_block.3B_Pearlasia_Gamboa_merge_with_Allied_Artists_International_contract_signed_4-27-2000_and_mainpulati|ts=19:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)}} Toddst1 (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!! - Youreallycan 19:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, something weird is going on. PPdd appears to be a rather prolific socker with some sophisticated cybercrime knowledge. Toddst1 (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I am picking up all the same tingly feelings - Good block Todd - Youreallycan 19:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claritas

Hello, Youreallycan. You have new messages at WP:AN.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nyttend (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cousens pic

Hey YRC. I actually placed the pic below the lead text; it was just the way the page formatted that put it above the fold. Are you okay if I put it back but at the bottom of the page? Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 11:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw you did that. The move to the lede was done by User:Tom Reedy on the 4th April in this diff - Although I would like to see the picture really content specific, as you know my primary objection is the lede, so , yes I am ok with that. - thanks for coming to discuss - regards Youreallycan 14:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a talk page

Buh wai? Mr little irish 15:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude - you are posting on it, thanks for the LOL - Youreallycan 15:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I meant userpage. I honestly did. facepalm Mr little irish 15:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries dude - yes, I have no userpage - I don't really need one - its a less is more to vandalize situation - best regards - Youreallycan 15:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always say, if they get your userpage, you're doing something right. Mr little irish 15:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeedy. - thank you for bringing a little brightness into my afternoon - Youreallycan 15:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Richard F. Cebull

Please see WP:NPA. You don't get to use the talk page to slander other editors. If you have complaints about other editors, please word them in a civil manner and/or bring them to the appropriate noticeboard. If you persist in reinserting personal attacks on that talk page, you will be blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the notice on the top of this page. You have done a great deal of hard work on this project but you also have a long history of overreacting and lashing out in an uncivil manner. I know you are a reasonable person when you are doing the former, and that's the person I'd prefer to deal with. If you are willing to be reasonable, I suggest we both take the rest of the day off from the article and revisit this when tempers have cooled. Gamaliel (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it looks like you are determined to be unreasonable. I've blocked you for an hour so you can reconsider your decision to keep this uncivil. In that time I won't edit the article either. I don't understand why you think namecalling and accusations are appropriate behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I will open an arbitration emergency case / motion requesting removal of your advanced permissions - Youreallycan 21:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INVOLVED ADMIN BLOCK

I have been blocked by an admin I was in discussion and dispute with in clear violation of wp:involved - Youreallycan 21:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The block is only for an hour. But if you can show me a diff or two, should I raise the issue at ANI or some other appropriate page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

..unblock is coming...hold on.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~I will request removal of the users advanced permissions for violation of WP:INVOLVED at Wikipedia:RFAR/G#Exceptions - when I am unblocked - thanks -~~ Youreallycan 21:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have convinced me to unblock you. I do ask that you don't see this as an endorsement of your behavior and I hope you can remain civil during your further interactions with other editors on that page. Gamaliel (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User has not unblocked correcttly - still blocked

Still blocked - Youreallycan 22:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, must be an autoblock.--v/r - T P 22:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try now.--v/r - T P 22:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved - thank you - Youreallycan 22:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I was expecting to see a whole mess all over the place regarding your recent block/unblock. That you can recognise it was an error of judgement and walk away to do more important things shows a great maturity. I'm very impressed. Worm^TT · (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

↑ What he said. 28bytes (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very very much guys - when I get supportive comments from respected users like yourselves I know I am going on the right direction - Regards - Youreallycan 22:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mais oui!

- Rude edit summary - desist now

If I was you I'd be very, very, very careful indeed about using misleading and provocative edit summaries. You have an utterly appalling record of rudeness. You can also read WP:HOUND, and remove my Talk page from your Watchlist.--Mais oui! (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm - are you alright ? - FYI I have TP's talkpage on my watchlist not yours - My edit summary was totally correct, (Undid revision by Mais oui! - user appears to be replacing vandalism) - you replaced vandalism. As for your worthless threats - and totally unsupportable by diffs claim of hounding - LOL! Youreallycan 19:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Comment

Hi YRC, Thanks for your participation on the Martin Hosking issue at BLPN and the MH talk page. I've left you a question at MH talk. Can you take a look when you have time? Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Banda

There's an editor at that article, who's really beginning to 'piss' me off. He refuses to accept the apparent consensus for inclusion of 4th in the infobox -- GRRRRRR. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - hang in there GoodDay. I get like you feel all the time here lately - often I can't be bothered to even explain my policy position as it just falls on deaf partisan POV ears. Sometimes I make my edit and then immediately remove it from my watchlist for a week or two so as to avoid the bother. You can lead a horse to water but you can;t make it drink, - Youreallycan 10:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's an arrogant little bleep, isn't he? giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha - yes indeed - beep beep , beep beep ... beeping beeper...beep beep - Lol

you've got mail

{{you've got mail}} — goethean ॐ 18:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey - I can't imagine what you could want to talk to me in private about .. . Youreallycan 18:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WQA

I really have trouble reading your comment below mine the way you say you intended it, but I am willing to accept it as true because, based on your follow-up comments, it wouldn't be like you to "attack" anyone and then insist it wasn't an attack. More likely is you'd stand behind your original comments or apologize, whichever you thought was right. I really hate the discussion we're having on WQA and would like now to remove our back-and-forth starting with my request to strike, but I can't do that without your permission.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really prefer it to stay as a reminder of the end of your good faith in regards to me. - Youreallycan 19:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Truscott

FYI, This one is back. Looking back at the article, this edit war has been going on since at least April 2011.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Von Restorff (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another note

If another (presumably) male referred to me as "darling" or whatever, I would take that as tacit approval to invoke any "homophobic" term of choice back at him. (I'm guessing you've got more class than I do, in that regard.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Bugs. It was clearly a baiting comment that happily I have more class than to reply to - regards - Youreallycan 22:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should refrain from bringing this up at the admin board? (As a vague comparison, I recall when the user "Pigs on the Wing" was being called "Pigs" and admins were threatening a block over it - and that's his user ID. This is a much easier case... If you'r running short on things to argue about. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm - I am actually attempting to stay out of trouble - so please don't bring it to the admin board - I am in the process of developing a case against the User:Nomoskedasticity - he is according to his userpage and comments - a highly educated working university professor - calling me darling ? - I have attempted many times to get a discussion related solution or voluntary topic ban, sadly without success - Youreallycan 22:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the general issue (not this specific item) has already been covered at ANI, so I'll stay away from it and not jeopardize your case-build. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

I've closed this – I suspect if I hadn't someone would have ended up blocking you for the constant and needless escalation of minor issues. You really need to try to de-esclate these situations you find yourself in; ending up at AN/I – either as the initiator or the subject – means that something has gone very wrong, and you end up at AN/I waaaay too often. Did you read SandyGeorgia's comment in that thread? It was really quite apt; I hope you will take her advice. 28bytes (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I will have a read and take on board any such advice - Youreallycan 15:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that. 28bytes (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice from you, mucho appreciation for closing that thread - I was on a mini keyboard last night and a new interface for me - I missed a few edits that would have reduced the issue if I had seen them. I am sick and tired of the level of discussion here - I am at a point of almost being unable to contribute - anyway - I haven't read the thread yet but I will today - best regards - Youreallycan 15:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Driver

You are right, we are linking to a copyvio. I have the URL to the actual obit at the Times: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/obituaries/article3271495.ece , but it is behind a paywall. The cite is fine without the link IMO (it was useful in the debate as to whether there was sufficient information to list the cause of death. Do you think we need another obit that mentions that and can be linked to like http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Chronic-pain-led-scientist-Jon-Driver-jump-death/story-15746309-detail/story.html ?Naraht (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Naraht - thats (hisishullandeastriding.co.uk) a beneficial link imo - so yes - please add it - or I will add it later - I think the paywall link is worth adding as well - regards - Youreallycan 16:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes

- I apologize if I mischaracterized your position

I apologize if I mischaracterized your position regarding "defamatory" but true content. Allens (talk | contribs) 19:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - no, no problem at all, thanks for that - all in good faith - best regards - Youreallycan 20:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:N419BH

N419BH (talk · contribs)

- I am no sock

Sir, please be very careful throwing around socking accusations. I have over 8,000 contribs, two good articles, and am working on a third. I used to contribute at ANI somewhat regularly before being drawn away from Wikipedia by real life. I actually think I have your old talk page on my watchlist. My involvement in the thread was to try and help resolve it, but it is clear feelings have been hurt and certain individuals are more interested in complaining than in achieving any actual resolution. N419 BH 18:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't call me sir, my username is plenty. Others have said it about you and you definitely get my spidy senses tingling as well. Youreallycan 18:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well if anyone wants to checkuser me they are welcome to do so. I have nothing to hide. N419 BH 23:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Dear Youreallycan, thank you for the kindness that you've shown towards me today. I do not believe that we've ever interacted on Wikipedia before but nevertheless, you stood up for me today. I really appreciate this act of charity and hope that God will bless you and your family in abundance. The image in this barnstar has a smile in it, which you brought to my face today. I hope that this barnstar will do the same to you. Your new friend, Anupam^Talk 04:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - It was the least I could do for a valuable contributor such as yourself - thank you so much Anupam. - Youreallycan 18:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Q

Hi YRC, we've never worked together as far as I know but I know your reputation of understanding BLP policy well. I admittedly am not as well versed as I should be and I would appreciate your input here if you have a chance. Thanks! SÆdon^talk 05:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Saedon - that article is a reflection of all that is disgusting about this en wikipedia project. Policy and guidelines are not enforceable in the face of determined and numerous partisans. Good faith users attempting to apply policy in such situations are simply wasting their time and worse than that, they realize the worthlessness of trying and give up/leave.Youreallycan 19:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No longer having Santorum to kick around, I guess they've turned their attention to Romney. This kind of garbage serves only to further harm wikipedia's already-shaky reputation. I never go to conservapedia, but I suspect even they don't sink so low as to level obnoxious personal attacks at Obama. I recall the constant edit-wars of 2008 and 2009 all too well. They ought to put all active politicians' articles on long-term probation during and after election years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bugs - yes it a WP:Shame - as a neutral uk editor only focused on policy - I know exactly who all the partisan npov violating users are and I would solve the issue by simply topic banning them all as and when they exposed themselves - I could list them all here now - they are on both sides of the political spectrum and topic banning around the dozen of the worst violators would resolve much of the issues. Youreallycan 15:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Exposing themselves." Well-stated. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS volunteer?

You have the template at the top of your talk page but I'm just wondering, are you actually an OTRS volunteer? Rjd0060 (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - Can I help you with something concerning OTRS issues? - Youreallycan 15:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only asked because I didn't recognize your username. But it would appear your OTRS account was closed. Please consider removing the tag, to avoid confusing others. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why has my account been closed, do you know? Can you link me to the details ? - Youreallycan 20:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure - might have been something as simple as inactivity. Just ask one of the OTRS admins. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right - thanks - Youreallycan 20:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you available?

Please help. See User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions#Either administrators or rules?. --George Ho (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George = Yes I am around if you have a dispute I suggest you take advice and back off from any dispute ... the wheels will not drop off .... Youreallycan 21:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles infobox

There is a Straw Poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1K

Hey, I know this isn't actually a new milestone for you, but I just thought you might be interested to know you just passed 1,000 mainspace edits with the new account. Cheers, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, thanks for the note - 1000 attempts to improve the project space is a start - thanks - Youreallycan 17:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funniest thing I've ever read on AN

Priceless. I had to read it 3 times to be sure I was reading it right! It sounds like a scene from Rabbit Seasoning. Toddst1 (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one had me rolling around, Duck! Rabbit, Duck! - I see what you mean - Youreallycan 21:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP question

Following on from War criminals in Canada, I took a look at Vladimir Katriuk. Is the page a BLP violation? It does have sources, so I can see the argue in favour of keeping it, but it also seems a bit tenuous. I've left a comment on talk, so any input would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SV thanks for commenting at War criminals in Canada - the content that created that article was in Katriuk's biography until I removed it - diff - The Vladimir Katriuk article was a lot worse when I first saw it - its still awful with limited sourcing - the claims are all investigative from a single unverified source - I doubt if much will be able ot be done with the weakness of policy and guidelines - I will look at the talkpage. - Youreallycan 15:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Winer

Knock it off. You are the one violating the three edit rule. I have shown that the page was not correct.--Irelan12 (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Do you even understand what you are saying? I have shown that I took out untrue information. You edited it to reflect the untruths, but you have not shown anything new that makes it true.--Irelan12 (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a citation to replace a dead link to support content you continued to remove - diff - User:Irelan12 was blocked for 48 hours for edit warring - Youreallycan 20:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've dragged this mess to WP:ANI. Feel free to come join the party. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Dear User:Youreallycan, I am being evaluated here and since you recently commented on a case regarding me, I would really appreciate your input. Your friend, Anupam^Talk 19:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Youreallycan. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 23:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jayjg ^(talk) 23:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Jasper

My citation was from "The Guardian" which is not a tabloid. The Lee Jasper piece reads like a P.R hand out from Lee Jasper and makes no mention of the serious issues that surrounded his sacking. Either "Wikipedia" is a source of knowledge or it is a chalkboard for the partizan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CiaronGoggins (talk • contribs) 14:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Section headers

Your addition of the question mark was effectively refactoring the comment of another editor to fit your own point of view. If you have a comment to make about it, do it in the proper place at the bottom of the thread. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC) ~~Your comments on my talk page were also grossly uncivil and inappropriate.~~ (struck this as its just false - Youreallycan 19:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC) ) Please consider yourself univited there in the future. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV headers are required by guidelines - headers do not belong to anyone - as for your other allegations - present some diffs or retract them - or I will myself Youreallycan 19:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dominus Vobisdu, please understand that User:Youreallycan was simply trying to neutrally word the heading. If one creates a heading and labels it is fact, despite it being opinion, it has the potential to bias the observer. I would appreciate if you could please revert to the version of User:Youreallycan, who acted in good faith when making the change. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 19:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Archive talkpage

Dear User:Youreallycan, I personally prefer keeping all of my threads on one page. Let me know if this is problematic, however and I'd be glad to accommodate! :)

When I posted there earlier your talk page was really slow to load - and loading such a large page is a problem to users on a pay as you go download tariff . . its your choice - it is "encouraged" but you don't "have to" - let me know if you want help to do it - Many many thanks for the shiny star - please don't let me down (no pressure there then) the close was "tight" and in response to your clean block log and positive contributions - the same reasons I gave you some support - if you return to such a report it will likely not go so well - edit in another area for a couple of months at least - take it easy - Om Shanti - Youreallycan 04:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		Dear Youreallycan, thank you for writing about the positive aspects of my contributions before the community; it means so much to me that words cannot describe. I am amazed that in recently meeting you, you have devoted so much of your time to helping me. This barnstar is titled the The All-Around Amazing Barnstar and you deserve it because you are an amazing person. Your friend, Anupam^Talk 16:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honorable mention

You have an honorable mention here. JN466 21:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - cool one - thanks Jayen - If I deserve an honorable mention you deserve a fistful of shiny things - and a tee shirt - I know you are busy but you would make a good administrator - Youreallycan 04:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolic

Hmmm. I'm not going to revert it, but I'm not comfortable with your edit. Yes, I agree that the section gives "undue coverage", but given that: 1) The guy wants to stand for political office; 2) It has a supporting reference from a reliable source; and 3) His response demonstrates a complete lack of political skill; I don't think complete deletion is a good response. Your thoughts? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Double "Hmmm." I've just discovered that there's a thread on the Nikolic article's talk page. I'll copy the above there. Perhaps you may wish to reply there? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am not familiar with the "Register"

Would you mind explaining why you don't think the Register is a RS? — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 04:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Youreallycan reported by User:Pdfpdf (Result: ) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are currently blocked for 72 hours for edit-warring, and the talkpage sniping (as opposed to actual discussion) didn't really help your cause either. There's no reason to be reverting some ridiculous number of times, and you should know better. Please take the time off to reflect on this. Moreschi (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I have protected a living person from biased content publication through en wikipedia then I am prepared to suffer such administrative action - as a NPOV contributor it is my duty to work towards neutral content and I am proud of my contributions in this regard and when I am unblocked I will continue to edit responsibly in the same way.- Youreallycan 19:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes. "Work towards" I approve of, "edit war towards" I do not. And I do not think that any BLP violations that may have been committed here were so egregious that you could not simply have talked it over, posted on BLP/N, solicited wider opinions, and worked towards general consensus - rather than mindlessly edit-war, which you did. Please understand: this is absolutely not acceptable conduct, and if you do this again, BLP article or no, I will block you again, probably for a lengthy period of time. We have to maintain some degree of collegial editing here, otherwise the project simply does not function at all. Moreschi (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are already two reports at the BLPN - wider opinion is a dream - I reported myself at ANI in a desperate attempt to attract NPOV comments and I got you - I will defend living people from attack and partisans no matter how long you threaten to block me - If you block me I will create another account and defend living people with that account, that is what I do.Youreallycan

Whatever you do, don't do socking. We need your BLP work here. 72 hours is a relatively short time. If you get caught socking, there's a good probability they'll work on banning you. Don't get into that situation, please. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However they attempt to restrict me I will still defend living people against this project - When this account is banned I will create other accounts and use them to defend living people under attack from partisan COI contributors using en wikipedia to publish attack content. Youreallycan 19:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just echo BB and say that your work is too valuable for you to get dragged into edit wars and socking. The project would be much better off if you just took the short break and returned with just a touch less combativeness. aprock (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YRC please just take a break -- we need you here for the long term. There are crappy BLP violating articles all over Wikipedia -- the cost of losing you over POV junk in an Australian politician's article just isn't worth it. Nobody Ent 20:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"there are crappy BLP violating articles all over Wikipedia" - Yes there are , I get blocked for attempting to deal with that reality - Its not me being blocked that is important but the fact that there are crappy BLP violating articles all over Wikipedia - Youreallycan 21:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't fix all the BLP nonesense in Wikipedia any more than I can fix all the incivility. You just do what you can and try to make it a little better. If WP becomes crap because it's just too hard to deal with the POV pushers it's Jimbo and Sue Gardner's problem not ours. Nobody Ent 21:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you realize how thoroughly discouraging such a comment is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to say anything here, but how about looking at the BLP issue in a different way. For the sake of argument let's assume there are lots of BLP-violating articles. If one is trying to fix one of those articles and runs up against extraordinary difficulties, instead of getting carried away, how about simply letting go and moving on to the next one? After all, the idea is there's lots out there, so wouldn't it be better to fix those that one can rather than taking a stand on one and being tossed out on one's ear?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is never the way to deal with these situations. Use the proper channels. Seek page protection for content disputes, seek AIV for POV pushing and BLP issues, ANW for edit warring, ect ect. Get a third opinion, dispute resolution, Arbcom sanctions if possible. But edit warring isn't the way. You've succeeded in bringing a whole lot of attention to an detail about a living person that may not be true and shouldn't have this kind of attention. Handling it the right way would've been quieter and done the living person a better favor.--v/r - T P 00:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rob, you get a couple of days enforced rest. I hope the weather is nice where you're at; I'm toasting you and your heart with a nice Chimay tripel. All the best, Drmies (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the article in question, I like your intent if not perhaps your Divine Wind implementation. The best way to deal with people who are gratified by getting "dirt" into other people's biographies and who keep trying to twist the wording to maximise the grubbiness is to treat them as what they are...addicts. They are generally people with a sense of failure about their own lives who want to disparage others who have dared to achieve a lot, and they get addicted to the feeling of superiority that comes with the disparagement. (There is apparently also a bunch of chemicals in the adrenal group that play a role, but that is too much information.) Important thing is, recovering addicts try everyone's patience but there is no other way. Please keep pushing, follow the rules and try to keep a cool head. I intend to do the same thing, myself. Rumiton (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 72 hours

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

He that fights and runs away, May turn and fight another day; But he that is in battle slain, Will never rise to fight again.
— Tacitus

Nobody Ent 21:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youreallycan, you don't know me, though I vaguely recall the user ID Off2RioRob from somewhere, maybe years ago, not negatively, but I am commenting to support you and to tell you this block is no black mark on your editor account or you. "Somewhat lame edit warring" as the basis for a no-warn block? Who is this admin kidding? I never figured I'd learn about, or need to learn about, or want to learn about, Andrew Nikolić in my life, but I did so enough to realize that that was a responsible stand for you to take. Colton Cosmic (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YRC, is the BLP problem in that article under control now? Should I take a look? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reason is gaining the upper hand there. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see this happen. User:Youreallycan is a noble editor and seeks to do the right thing here on Wikipedia. I wish I would have logged in earlier to see this while it was happening so I could have offered my comments. With the recent events in my situation, I've been trying not to log in as much anymore. User:Youreallycan, perhaps you could try an unblock request. I am sure that if you are sincere in your words, they'll give it to you. Your friend, Anupam^Talk 04:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Youreallycan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Over a day of restriction and calming down and I have accepted Dennis as a mentor and volunteered to a 1RR editing restriction and stated I will not edit the article that caused the dispute which would appear to remove any ongoing threat to the project so I request unblocking please.Youreallycan 05:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

If you're aware of what you did and plan to avoid it in the future then there's no need for this block to stand. Good luck. — foxj 05:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you very much Foxj - Best regards - Youreallycan 05:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The BLP Barnstar
		For your big heart. And for what it's worth, last I looked the little bit of kindness you added to that BLP article was back in it. JN466 03:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To go with your tea

	Some biscotti to go with your tea
	Hang in there YRC – Lionel ^(talk) 08:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the supportive comment Lionelt - Youreallycan 06:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks an comment

Thanks to all for the encouragement and advice, Just to claryfy I am not socking and have no intention of doing so in future , I was upset and venting when I said that, I would like to be unblocked and am happy to avoid the article. perhaps I should just avoid editing all article as it just gets me blocked and its pretty thankless task attempting to create npov content Youreallycan 12:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A promise not to sock is good enough for me, administrators. GoodDay (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would hate to lose your expertise and excellent work in those areas. Rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, I would rather see you refine the way you deal with disputes, something I am confident you are capable of and will increase your efficiency and effectiveness to boot. While I know a fraction of what you do when it comes to BLP, I have learned a few things about dealing with disputes and would offer my time to help you, if you so choose. As I have already been watching your actions at BLPN and learning from them, perhaps this could be a win/win situation for us both. To draw a comparison, I was told at my RfC that I needed mentoring for CSD work. I'm doing it [1] even though I could have ignored the requests. (I am a man of my word, so ignoring it wasn't an option.) I would extend an offer to assist you in the same way using similar methods if you would like, with the goal of helping you be more effective here and building on an already impressive set of skills. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a nice offer Dennis, one I would be happy to accept if you csn help me to avoid the actions that are causing me to keep getting blocked/stop getting blocked , I will send you a free t shirt or something of equal value of your choice. I am also considering giving in and vanishing, but I will think on that, Youreallycan 13:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YRC, I strongly suggest that you take up Dennis Brown's offer. You may recall that I suggested something similar in discussions last December and I was disappointed then that nobody seemed to have taken up the offer. I also suggest that you observe and publicly state that you're observing a voluntary 1RR (i.e. no more than one revert per article per day), and that if you see the need for more than one revert to take place you will ask someone else to do it. If you like, you can leave a message on my talk page, and I'd be happy to look at an issue for you. I think it would be unfortunate to lose you, as you do good work, but you really do need to stop getting blocked for dumb reasons. You're currently averaging a block a month. That's likely to result in an arbitration case unless you get this sorted. Prioryman (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you do consider it. I've seen you enough to know that you are an asset here. At one time, many others would have considered me to be less than civil in some circumstances. By watching people like DGG and others, I have learned to be more effective and generally happier here. If I can do it, you can do it. The only major error I've seen you make was opposing me at my RfA a couple of weeks ago ;) I sincerely do not want to lose your participation here, and I know a great many people feel the exact same way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, since your rfa I have been really impressed with you as an Admin and happily you have proved me wrong. - Youreallycan 13:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per Prioryman I will also agree to voluntarly add and follow a one revert restriction for say, three months .. and see how that goes I was on one once for six weeks and it helped me a lot - I can always ask somone, Dennis to look at a dispute for me if required. Youreallycan 13:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I am always willing to look at a dispute, and preferably before it gets near 3RR territory. Many other admins are as well. This is the same exact method I use even now, after a second revert, I put another pair of eyes on the situation. Often, that alone is enough to get someone to review their actions, particularly when that second pair of eyes takes the time to put a hand written note on their talk page. This is exactly part of the "methods" I would want to work with you on, a guideline created by you to help you stay focused and make your efforts more consistent. I have suggested a closing of the ANI, btw, but others are still free to disagree and offer other solutions, so we will see. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, - I do outright accept your offer to work with me/be my mentor to improve the reasons with my contributions that causing me to keep getting blocked - Youreallycan 15:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good, we can discuss details a little later, after more dust settles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your agreement to the mentoring and the voluntary 1RR. It's very encouraging that you're taking a positive approach. I would remind you, though, that this is very much the last chance saloon and further problems are highly likely to see you ending up in arbitration. I think we'd all prefer to avoid that, so let's see what we can do to get this resolved. Please do let me know if you run into difficulties again with an article - I'd be happy to advise or lend a hand as needed. Prioryman (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I will do , I will come to you for assessment of situations and advice if Dennis is not around. - Youreallycan 05:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you are ready, I have some ideas based upon my own CSD mentoring. If you would like, I suggest creating a subpage off of this talk page, then I can provide a simple structure that I think will be helpful. I will then watch it, and we can simply bounce back and forth as time allows. I can explain more when and if you agree to this idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Dennis a subpage for that is acceptable to me - Youreallycan 05:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:Youreallycan/YRC2.0. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dennis - looks interesting - your assistance with this is really appreciated - I am really busy in real life this week and will only be logging in occasionally - I will give you feedback as and when I am able - best regards - Youreallycan 15:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hopeful we can work this into a comprehensive program to deal with the real issues and prevent a future RfC/U or block. From my own experience I can tell you that learning to step back emotionally made a tremendous difference in both the quality of my contributions, and my overall happiness here. But it takes rethinking things from the ground up. Don't let the size of my "plan" overwhelm you, it isn't about making you follow my rules, it is about getting you to develop your own code to work by, and sticking to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

To keep you company during your block.

Iloveandrea (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aw - lol - ok thanks - Youreallycan 13:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still autoblocked

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Still autoblocked - Youreallycan 05:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that Foxj needs to be sent back to the admin reeducation camps

. Unautoblocked. T. Canens (talk) 06:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock seems to be an issue that catches out many - anyway no problem - thanks for clearing it - Youreallycan 06:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. — foxj 06:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you got sprung, Rob--good. Welcome back. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a good result all round I think - thank you for the welcome Drmies - regards - Youreallycan 04:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice

Hi YRC. Just letting you know you were mentioned during a blast-from-the-past discussion at DRN. No obligation to participate express or implied. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification Δρ.Κ - I agree totally with your position/interpretation of policy/the situation, but at this time am unable to comment in the dispute. - Youreallycan 04:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thank you dr k for notifying off2riorob - my mistake. and youreallycan - thanks for your input. Soosim (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you YRC. No problem. Best wishes. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and thank you, too, dr k. oh i already said that. and thank you too yrc. Soosim (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Andrew Nikolić

- Offended

It seems several other people are trumpeting your praises here, and from the sound of it I don't doubt that you do valuable work, on a personal level I am still deeply offended at your baseless accusations that I am both an SPA and a sockpuppet. It was poor behavior like that from overly-emotional topic activists that drove me away from WP over a year ago. I chose to return to WP because I felt I had knowledge and perspective as a local to specific events that would be valuable and I hoped that perhaps the culture had improved. However, rather than the civil, logical collaboration I had hoped for, once again I encounter uncalled-for belligerence and ad hominem accusations. While I will not be letting your behavior towards me deter me from continuing to contribute in a constructive manner, I am very dismayed by the experience of our interacts and strongly feel that I deserve an apology at least as public as your accusations. Autumnalmonk (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you purposefully trying to start a fight?--v/r - T P 15:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will speak to Dennis about this - Thanks - Youreallycan 17:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Autumnalmonk, points have already been made at the ANI, blocks and other sanctions have taken place, the issue is already settled. This looks like you are trying to rub salt into a wound and it is both unhelpful and improper. I'm sure you can find more useful ways to spend your time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dennis - I do think that this issue has been addressed through restrictions and moving on and letting go is the best solution. Youreallycan 04:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to be as clear as I could, so let me clear it up: I'm not arguing with Autumnalmonk's logic, I understand why he was upset, I just didn't how pushing the issue at this time was going to solve anything, and might make the situation worse. If I offended, it wasn't intentional. YRC has already agreed to several steps to correct past issues, and I feel you and everyone else should give him a little time to digest the whole situation, and make apologies on his own time, which is always more sincere than a force one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it another way...sometimes it's best to just let things go. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Welch request

Hi Youreallycan, thank you for your recent help with the Jack Welch article. The discussion over at WP:BLP/N about the sentence on the Jack Welch Management Institute has gone quiet in the last few days and I wanted to see if you could take another look? I also have an additional request there, about adding a photo I've uploaded. If you're able to help with that I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance, Hamilton83 (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Halifax - Thanks for uploading the picture - I added it to the article for you - Jack Welch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I am currently very busy in real life - if there are no objections at the noticeboard why not add it back yourself - I will have a look later to see what is going on - best regards - Ah, I see its currently resolved as User:Jayen466 has made the content addition to the biography. Youreallycan 17:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Youreallycan, I appreciate your help with adding the photo to the article. Because of my COI, I wouldn't feel comfortable making any edits myself, so I held back on re-adding the sentence. But it has now been added back by JN466, along with an additional source. I understand that you are very busy right now, but if you have more time in future and would be able to help with further improvements to the article, please let me know. Thanks,Hamilton83 (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will usually have the time to look at an edit request for you and if it it appears reliably cited WP:RS and written neutrally WP:NPOV and is an apparent improvement to the article I will make the edit - no problem - thanks for your open and honest WP:COI declarations and contributions Hamilton83 - Youreallycan 04:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Youreallycan. 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.

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding This thread is for input about Fae's ability to serve as administrator. As you are involved, it is recommended that you recuse but do not have to. You are free to participate in discussions. Please keep them civil and constructive. The thread is User:Fae. Thank you.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on my appeal

I really don't understand your comments here. Who are the "twenty notable people attacking Scientology" and why am I one of them? Prioryman (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, when I said I didn't think there was personal animosity between us, evidently I was wrong - though it was not from my direction, since I bear you no ill-will. I shall certainly bear that in mind going forward. Prioryman (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are named on the Internet as such, thats where I got the detail from - Please be honest and own up to the Helatropus contributions. I supported your reintegration to non BLP articles/content additions at this time, which is a good starting place imo. Sorry you see this support as opposition. - Youreallycan 11:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where am I "named", and surely you don't subscribe to the belief that if it's on the Internet it must be true? As for your other claims, you're simply forwarding unsubstantiated attacks on me made by an individual on Wikipedia Review who has been banned from interacting with me. Given this I find it very hard not to interpret as hostility prompted by personal animus - Collect was half-right in that regard at least - and I'm reconsidering my involvement with your mentoring. Prioryman (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that. I assure you I have no animosity towards you at all. You are one of the top twenty anti scientologists according to what I have read on the web. You are aren't you? You host anti scientology content on the WWW don't you? As for the User:Helatobus account, it has nothing to do with the opinions/comments of DC. I trust the judgment and his knowledge of your writing and contribution style of Jayen - if he says it was you then I agree with that interpretation completely. - Why don't you just be honest and stand up for your contributions and say out loud, yes, it was me. although it violated your editing restrictions its a good article, isn't it and a year ago now. Youreallycan 15:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note - I have supported the lifting of your restrictions in regards non BLP content to Climate change and Scientology - I have supported a reduction in your editing restrictions. - After a period of time demonstrating non conflict in the areas you would have a good case to further relax them.Youreallycan 15:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What have you "read on the web" and where? This "top twenty" claim of yours is ludicrous - I certainly don't consider myself in the top 20 of anything (except maybe Wikipedia editors :-). I don't host any content on any topic area. I wrote content on the Scientology topic area, yes, but that was a long time ago. What's out there at the moment is what other people have picked up and put it their own websites (which they're entitled to do, since it's in the public domain, like Wikipedia). I haven't updated anything or contributed anything new in years - I'd already ceased doing so well before the ARBSCI case back in 2009. I'm not going to dignify malicious claims, but just so you understand where they come from, they seem to have originated on a WR thread and have subsequently been repeated by two WR users - Jayen466 and one other who's banned from interacting with me. Finally, you don't seem to be aware that following ARBSCI I've already contributed two Good Articles to the Scientology topic area - Sara Northrup Hollister and Military career of L. Ron Hubbard - and various other minor edits with no conflict or controversy. In other words, I've already done what you suggested I do. Prioryman (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So your not an anti Scientologist with related content hosted in your name on the web? Come on, Please fess up to the Heletrop contributions - I don't contribute to the off wiki stuff and only occasionally read there - Under controlled conditions you have made benefical contributions, I agree totally with you , it is just that imo I don't feel you are ready for a free hand, others may disagree, I can/will accept that. Are you claiming you are no longer anti Scientology? User:Jayen466 is one of the most intelligent honest people I have ever met, any attempts to smear him will be shrugged off. Youreallycan 22:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "hosted in my name" any more than copies of Wikipedia are hosted in Jimbo Wales' name. Seriously, you need to do better than this. I'm not active off-wiki in the topic area in any capacity, nor have I been for a very long time. That's categorical. I would point out to you that you can't reasonably claim that something I wrote five or ten or fifteen years ago that someone else has put on their website is evidence that I'm in any way active on the topic. I would like to invite you to withdraw your "top twenty" claim as you've not provided a scrap of evidence of it and it's nonsensical on the face of it. Prioryman (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't link to any internet detail to support my comment unless forced to, and have deliberately not done, for your privacy and so as not to promote your anti scientology work.. I wish you would be open and honest without that we have no point to even start discussion - own up to the Helatropbus account and openly admit you are an anti scientologist, add that to your userpage and we have a starting point. Youreallycan 04:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing or being something five years ago does not mean that you are doing or being the same thing now, so I certainly am not going to "openly admit" to something that wouldn't be true - and I'm not going to dignify smears from Wikipedia Review types. As for the "internet detail", you have my full permission to disclose it to me (do it in email if you want, my email is enabled). Frankly I'm beginning to doubt that it even exists. Prioryman (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You two are probably my favorite people on Wikipedia, so this dissension you are indulging in is most unseemly. Prioryman, whatever you are doing wrong...stop it. And YRC...you too. Rumiton (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the internet, nobody knows you're a ...

Penguin? --OhioStandard (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that is pretty funny. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - dear me - this English gets the better of me occasionally - at least via the keyboard - hilarious, a fortune cookie indeed - thank you Ohio for the lesson and the laugh - I was close to the edge with that comment and it came over a bit strong which I felt sorry for but it was meant in really good faith by way of a wake up you are going down a one way street warning. Youreallycan 15:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so gracious. This wasn't to express any opinion on the substance of your comment, though, but only another shamelessly opportunistic bit of humour at an innocent victim's expense: You know, like lolcats, or AN/I. Cheers, mate! --OhioStandard (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Can you please remove or strike through the part in your comment about BLP violations? I never violated BLP and the ArbCom decision did not say that I violated BLP. Instead, ArbCom said I made an "inappropriate" comment (not an actual violation). In fact, you yourself said it wasn't a violation.[2] In any case, it was an isolated comment that I never repeated. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will adapt it - that part of the comment was actually meant generally and was not specific to your contributions - Youreallycan 15:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem , sorry to have mis-portrayed your contributions - Youreallycan 16:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Out of a sheer penchant for drivel, I've penned an essay on BLP noteworthiness. I don't know what I expect from having done so. But I thought I'd share it with you because you're a regular BLP contributor, and I value your understanding of current policy and guidelines, as well as you opinion of if and how they might be improved. If you don't have time or interest, no hard feelings. In fact, if you think I'm being wrongheaded, please leave a comment to that effect. All the best. JFHJr (㊟) 10:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		You are a credit to this project on so many levels. Thank you for all your tireless efforts to ensure that we treat the people we write about with fairness and respect. Draco^E 03:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z147

Aw, Draco, you're a real sweetheart - thankful so much. x - Youreallycan 17:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dennis - lot to digest - Thank you for the time you have contributed to assist me - I am still super busy in real life and I will respond when able - very best regards to you and all my friends here and everyone that contributes - Youreallycan 16:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLPN#Mark_Zuckerberg_Jewish ?

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mark_Zuckerberg_Jewish ?

Talkback

Hello, Youreallycan. You have new messages at WP:Help desk.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 19:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Carolla

An IP and a registered editor are fighting over a criticism section that is sourced. I haven't looked at it, it came up at RFPP, which if the IP was right, would lock him out unfairly. Could you eyeball this and just give a quick opinion on BLP grounds? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin protected before I could mark it for hold, but still would like your opinion, to see if I need to seek unprotect. I will look at it also. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) - /* Adam Carolla */ Its been protected by Ponyo - I will have a look - Ponyo is usually sensitive to BLP - As per your comment I will look at the content details and let you know my thoughts - Youreallycan 20:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've already protected it for a week based on the request at WP:RFPP. The content is well sourced and what it boils down to is that the IP editor will not discuss their concerns, but continues to blank all mention of controversy. It can be unprotected at anytime before the 1 week protection expires should they actually attempt to communicate with other editors. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are sources, but they not mainstream - I have on first interpretations issues with the content - NPOV and undue - clearly issue/content needs discussion on the talkpage or the WP:BLPN - and I would support its removal until consensus arises - I think Ponyo was wrong as an administrator to replace and protect the content - Youreallycan 20:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if "wrong" is the right word. I only glanced at the info and I had concerns since it was negative BLP. It is a judgement call. YRC, since you work with BLPs more than I do, I wanted a second opinion. I don't question the protection, we try to not get involved in content when we protect. It isn't always an easy decision to make and there were multiple IPs. I almost protected it myself, so I damn sure don't begrudge him for doing so. But having more eyes on the content is probably warranted, since at the least, it is war-worthy. As to the protection, it looks like he is open to change if consensus decides that is the right call. I'm just a little paranoid with negative BLP info, which is probably a good thing™. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Rob, by all means pull the content if you would like to begin a discussion about it on a point by point basis. My overriding concern was that the IP(s) was not communicating and there was no way to interact with them as they were switching IPs when they edited. We cannot know what their concerns are if they don't discuss them. I've already noted that I'm completely fine with undoing the protection as long as there is some sort of dialogue unfolding. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and to clarify regarding your comment "Ponyo was wrong as an administrator to replace and protect the content", I didn't replace, add, or remove any content; the only edit I made to the article was to add the semi-protection icon....Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree with both your comments - Personally I would not have replaced the disputed content, as I would not want to take responsibility for disputed attacking content - but I also would not remove it now another user has replaced it - in the past I would have, as being undue and although sourced, weakly - I was just looking, and it needs rewriting for weight and option - I almost did it - but I will watchlist the talkpage and throw in if required - regards to all- Youreallycan 21:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As he said above, he didn't replace it. Very, very rarely in RFPP will we ever modify content, except to remove very obvious vandalism or serious and obvious BLP violations. You would be shocked how fine a line we actually have to walk as admins to not get involved, enough so that many slip along the way and get butchered for it. It is a pain in the ass, and believe it or not, there are many actions we wouldn't think twice about doing as a non-admin, that we can't do as admins, as everything can be questioned. The tools have more limitations than most non-admins realize. And the first time we are at AN ourselves, every person you have ever blocked wants to vote to have your head on a platter. Oh, and we have to make all the decisions on this stuff while considering this. It is no wonder so few admins want to get involved in contentious areas. Cut us admins a little slack. We have been known to cut you a little ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that Rob knows I'm a good egg (or try to be anyway)! And he also knows I'm a she :) Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, excuse me - I thought Ponyo had relaced the content and then protected the article but i see now it was User:Theoldsparkle that replaced the disputed content, diff - Yes, my memory is short but I do know Ponyo is not a male and is a good egg (imo) and we have previously (although less recently) a close wiki relationship...I am in no way anti admins... I appreciate all their good work. Anyway, I seem to have got involved here my mistake - back to work and best regards - - Youreallycan 21:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its like this content in the BLP - GLAAD responded by identifying Carolla's apology as "empty."

Identifying ? Its actually only an activist groups opinion - not an identification at all... Youreallycan 17:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Advertiser link was incorrectly used, and UNDUE seems to apply with a vengeance on this BLP. There might be some added material proper, but the excess was pretty bad, so I trimmed it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Collect - best regards to you - Youreallycan 17:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Egg Centric

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

- User:AniMate - involved status - User_talk:AniMate#To_note

Please do not continue to ~~bully~~(Struck comment undue from Spinningspark - Youreallycan 22:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)) user Egg Centric. A fairly inexperienced editor, who may have taken a wrong turning, but has already withdrawn the talk page suggestion you were objecting to. Arguing against a bad suggestion on a talk page should be enough. I really do not see the point of continuing to threaten the user with being "reported". If it gets reported to me I would certainly be taking your own actions into account as well. Spinning Spark 22:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The User:Egg Centric revert warred his WP:TPG violations back into the talkpage - Youreallycan 22:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could hardly have been clear to them that the reason for your removal was "talk page violation" when your edit summary merely said "archive". In fact it is not even clear to me that it was a talk page violation. While it may have been a very wrong-headed idea, it was aimed at improving the article - precisely what talk pages are supposed to be used for. We normally archive complete threads, not a single post, and we archive by moving the thread to an archive page, not by deleting - in what sense is that archiving?

On the other hand your striking of a part of my post above clearly is a talk page violation per WP:TPO which explicitly forbids this. That is not the only example I have seen of this from you and I am now taking this opportunity to formally warn you not to continue this practice. Continuing to harrass a user over an issue that is now resolved I do indeed consider to be bullying and again strongly urge you to desist. Spinning Spark 08:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TPO says, - Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection. - Perhaps you have not seen my comment on User talk:Egg_Centric that predates your comment here? diff - Our article talkpages are not places to reach out to request discussion with people accused of crimes like that. - Warn away, Next time you post an unduly attacking allegation here I will simply delete it and request you to stay away from my talkpage. I didn't bully anyone -There are times imo when it is in the best interests of all concerned that such a discussion is quietly removed from a talkpage WP:IAR - sadly, my attempt to do that failed - Youreallycan 09:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what was imo unduly attacking allegation that I struck and the user repeated I requested User:Spinningspark not to post on my userpage - Youreallycan 10:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notification

I mentioned you here Wnt (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol

[See bottom of article Egg Centri c 15:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Jolley

And thanks for your help with this too. Lugnuts (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kemberling

I shall blame my deletion of your addition to my fat fingers. I appreciate any help you may give this poor stub of a BLP. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - thank you for replacing it - regards - Youreallycan 16:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Thomson Summary

As chief of the Health Services Union Thomson had discretion over spending. He has claimed there was no oversight and that he instituted some oversight. After Thomson started his new political career, on leaving as HSU chief, the incoming chief refused to sign off on the previous years accounting. Politically, Thomson was given responsibility to chair the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics.

Allegations arose from the apparently poor accounting practice and the incoming HSU Chief, Kathy Jackson, had the issue referred to Fair Work Australia, the chief industrial relations body. Some of the irregularities included large cash withdrawals from Thomson's HSU credit card, expenditures charged to various brothels with amounts suggesting multiple persons involved and large expenditures on electoral material and personnel with the objective of getting Thomson elected. None of the expenditures are prima facie illegal in the states involved (NSW and Victoria) and when Fair Work Australia questioned Thomson on the matters he said he had done nothing wrong.

The federal parliament of Australia was balanced with only one member standing between opposition and government following the 2010 election. The issue surrounding HSU accounting took on national importance as the nature of the allegations meant that the government could topple if a substantial corruption charge against Thomson succeeded. But Thomson was not charged with anything as Fair Work Australia had failed to report on the matter, claiming they were continuing investigations. Media reporting into the issue had resulted in a defamation action against the Sydney Morning Herald. Thomson's legal bill had been funded by the Australian Labor Party apparently because if he had gone bankrupt he would have lost his seat in parliament.

When Fair Work Australia reported and referred the matter to the Australian Federal Police questions were raised as to the defence Thomson had made in relation to various issues. There was inconsistency with what Thomson claimed regarding the defamation action he had dropped. His explanation of how his driver's license and credit card were used at several brothels was called into question. Thomson spoke on the issues in parliament but continued to claim he had done nothing wrong while not explaining the inconsistencies. In the mean time, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has gone from saying "I have complete confidence in the member for Dobell", and "I look forward to him continuing to do that job for a very long, long, long time to come." Later asking Thomson to resign from the Australian Labor Party and saying Thomson had "crossed a line."

I have not yet put references in it .. I would have emailed it to you but don't know how. My public email (I was a politician and it is public) is ddbanddtt@hotmail.com DDB (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - The content/ summary of the issue looks good imo - I makes sence now to an uniformed user like me - can you add the references to support and I will format them - Youreallycan 18:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned you here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Craig Thomson affair". Thank you. --Pete (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...

...about that post you've hidden at Talk:Craig Thomson affair. I didn't mean it to be disruptive.

I was a bit frustrated at Pete/Skyring's somewhat hypocritical response. If any editor does give a fuck on that article, it's him.

Anyway, I meant what I said there. I'll be keeping out of the way on that article for quite some time. Good luck keeping the peace there. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spa

Looking at this edit, you were absolutely correct to add a SPA template to the contribution. However, I'm wondering why you didn't then go on to add the template to the other similar edits? Obviously to check the contribution history you must have spotted them, but chose to leave those likewise tainted !votes alone. You don't mind if I go off and finish the job? --Pete (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a post and tagged it as I saw fit - more than that I didn't see - You can clearly do the same - Youreallycan 21:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you tagged a post as by a single purpose account without checking the user contributions? Wow. Not to worry. I'll hustle along and fix the rest. Thanks. --23:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyring (talk • contribs)

Yes - Hustle along and fix all that - Youreallycan 23:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...sigh

I just saw what happened and I see the games have started with you now. When I calm down, I am taking it to ANI; it's pure bad faith editing and an attempt to start an edit war, and now he's trying to trip you up too. Thank you for doing the right thing, yet again. One21dot216dot (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No games, Onedot. You complain when your edits are moved to the correct place - what made you think altering my post would be anything but offensive? All you had to do was ask me nicely, and I would have removed it. I was about to suggest just that as an exercise in politeness when YRC stepped in. Not to worry. The link has gone. I removed it from the article in the first place, as per my original post and nobody bothered about it for two weeks. --Pete (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - the link had been removed - I missed that = you guys just communicate a bit better and forget aBOUT ani IS MY ADVICE - Youreallycan 13:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Health Services Union expenses affair

- Talk:Health Services Union expenses affair

Unless you have proof, I strongly suggest you retract the assertion that One21dot216dot is adding a copyright violation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will and have opened a discussion with him - Youreallycan 16:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- User_talk:One21dot216dot#large_talkpage_post

No problem - the addition is disputed - lets just talk about it a bit and see - where he got it from (to resolve the copyright and original research issues) and what he thinks such a large talk page post it will be of benefit to the article - Youreallycan 16:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring

Hello, could you mentor me in case I do decide to stay on wikipedia because one of the editors keeps criticizing my work and I'm worried I'm going to get banned? I welcome any criticism and I know you're probably going to say I'm to biased but I will say in my defense that I think my editing has been significantly less biased lately than before. But anyway can you help?--RJR3333 (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RJR - I currently have a mentor myself and am not able to/experianced in mentoring - after a quick look at your contribution history - you do seem to be editing a single quite contentious topic - you really need to be careful and use discussion as much as possible - I suggest if you want to avoid getting blocked - Use (like I am) a One revert editing style - only revert once in any 24 hour period (don't game this with one a day) - move to discussion if your reverted - Its a good feeling to get out of a possible edit war and to make your case on the talkpage and to get consensus for your position and then make the edit with the authority of the discussion - regards - Youreallycan 18:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, has my editing of the pedophilia/underage area improved in objectivity now or is there still an issue of bias in my edits? And also in other areas such as the Margaret Sanger article, do my edits seem npov enough in general or am I at risk of being banned for pov?--RJR3333 (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Margaret Sanger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The irony of this is that I mentor YRC, and Boing! said Zebedee mentors me on a different issue. Even if we don't actually mentor each other, asking a friend for advice before acting is always a good thing. 2nd opinions often save a person from getting in trouble, and it lets them cool down a little and think actions through. This is particularly important in highly contested areas. It is good that you feel that you can ask YRC for help, hopefully he will be able to offer an opinion from time to time, when he can. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

noted:

And respect for this:

Good to see user User:Rlevse has done the correct thing - respect for that. Youreallycan 17:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

kudos. Chedzilla (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aw thanks Ched - your comment here is valued and cheered me up - thank you - Youreallycan 16:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removal of crikey.com.au from the HSU article

Hi - just wondering why you removed crikey.com.au as a 'blog' - I believe it meets the criteria for an independent news outlet rather than being a mere blog. Best, One21dot216dot (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independent news outlet - hmm - I will return and have another look - who is the author ? Youreallycan 16:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/05/28/probewatch-16-hsu-investigations-and-counting/?wpmp_switcher=mobile - Andrew Crook (journalist) - what does this citation add/support? Youreallycan 16:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a reference to the large number of investigations undertaken by various authorities into the HSU. Some of the results of those investigations were cited in the article. Perhaps you also ought to note this which appeared in today's SMH. Best, One21dot216dot (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you object and I don't feel strongly about it , I won't object at all if you want to replace it as a point where it is revert to supporting content - you could replace it with an edit summary of - after talkpage discussion remover has no objections to replacement - as for the article - yes - clearly there was attacking WP:COI editors on that article - I did the best I could to keep it WP:NPOV En WIKIPEDIA policy compliant - I am just glad I didn't get a mention - regards Youreallycan 14:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny edit summary

- WP:Edit summaries

Sometimes your typos are entertaining. See this one. I kinda like "nessescary". --Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes - I should suggest somewhere- can we please have edit summary spell checker - It is funny though - regards to you Bbb23 - Youreallycan 14:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis brought up my edit summaries as something to improve - and I will spend a little time on reading the guidelines soon - Youreallycan 14:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but we all make inadvertent mistakes in edit summaries (I know I do, and I usually notice them right after I hit Save). I wasn't posting this to criticize. Typos are usually just that, typos. This one was unintentionally entertaining.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I has no feeling of criticism. After hitting save there is no turning back - lol - Youreallycan 16:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about that

Thanks for accepting that. I originally tried to balance things by entering both our edits at the top of the ANI entry, for some reason it didn't take. Or was reverted by someone - I'm having connectivity problems and can't always get page history to load. So I attempted to add at bottom and it was meant to be a three line === indented section, not a == new section. Fixed now I hope. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all - I sometimes edit from small devices and wiki process and internet can mess up - sometimes its just me - lol regards - Youreallycan 15:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I put the link in

I just went back and linked to an article about the Craig James Killed 5 Hookers googlebomb. Couldn't find a site with full election returns so I'll take care of that part later.