User talk:DangerousPanda

This user has opted out of talkbacks

Note: please do not use talkback {{tb}} templates here unless you are referring to discussion areas that I have not yet been a part of; I do monitor my conversations

Precaution note

Friendly note: don't you dare burning out. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

- especially over editors who travel the world. I know, I know, I've been slapped on the wrist by the wriggly one over this too ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Those who travel the world; those whose skies are filled with gourds, and the occasional IPv4 address ... at the end of the day, they're doing me less damage than rocket shells landing outside of a compound. Although some days, the latter is actually more comfortable (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Account that just got blocked but has multiple accounts that are not accounted for

Hey there, got a quick question: This madman got blocked yesterday for disruptive editing and harassing me on my talkpage, in fact I don't think he has edited an article in two months.. But he has used multiple accounts, Such as: User:Hulkster2, User:Tucker2006 shouldn't they be blocked aswell? Or should I file an SPi, or should I just ignore this. Thoughts? Prabash.Akmeemana 18:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• First, don't call him names ... I wouldn't want to have to block you for WP:NPA :-) Second, multiple accounts are permitted, as long as they're not used abusively and are linked properly. I note that the block is for a mere 31hrs ... we only need to block the other accounts if he tries to login to one of them in order to WP:EVADE his current block. If he does that, let me know. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Heh, true, I'm a bit tough on new editors, I'm more like a ruthless tyrannical warlord here. if you block me.. Yeah I would deserve it, Personal attacks are serious. The one above wasn't direct but its still a WP:NPA. By the way I just realized you are editing from Canada, well same here though I'm from Toronto, Ontario which is a much better place than Ottawa ;) . If he does evade, which I think he won't, I will ping you in. Best Prabash.Akmeemana 18:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm...I've lived in Toronto ... I'll have to disagree with your opinion of betterness of place LOL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• PBASH607, I'm not sure why you are here asking about it since GorrillaWarfare is the one who set the block in place. Anyways, this looks like a classic case of WP:ROPE to me, and based on my previous encounters with H1, I have a suspicion that leans much further to a "that's too bad" than it does to "that's great" but only time will tell... Technical 13 (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  Technical 13 I went to BMW, because he's reliable and the fact that GorillaWarfare told me she has work and is busy, I really don't want to disturb her, but I will ping her in anyways I guess. Prabash.Akmeemana 03:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  Just a curiosity. :) Technical 13 (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Technical 13, just like you have a habit of approaching admins you have a positive history with, Prabash is doing the same thing ... you should never be questionning things like that (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Bwikins, I wouldn't consider my history with many admins as positive. Most of them are neutral in my book, and none ar negative. I personally would go to the blocking admin (and actually I did ask GW why such a short block for someone who has been trolling and disruptive and pointy and not here to build an encyclopedia in my mind). Anyways, if you consider out history as positive, that is good to know. :) Happy editing and happy administrating. Anyways, back to tending to the baby and my GF that is recovering from surgery. :D Technical 13 (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Outstanding unblock request

Hey Bwilkins. I was trudging through the backlog of requests at WP:RFU and noticed there is a request waiting for a response from you at User talk:Petahhz. Looks like the user has agreed to your conditions....Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That must have been like ... a week ago? Maybe one of my tps'ers will take care of it :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I've unblocked the user. It's my first. I'll keep an eye on things best I can. Please let me know if there's something I should be doing or should know, and if I got the procedure itself right. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

responded

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.

---

Hi Bwilkins. I've responded to your "not done" comments on the request page. I don't think I was doing anything wrong, I'm not removing references, just hiding them temporarily so that the errors don't show. By the way, your signature is a bit confusing, it took me a while to work out how to get to your talk page. Flying Buttress (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Please don't use that board for discussion. I have replied there, but I should not have. If you do not understand the errors you're making, it does show that you're not quite ready for autoconfirmed status. As I have noted, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but fix rather than hide. Note also: how is my signature confusing? My name links to my User page, the envelope leads to my talkpage, and the pencil leads to my contributions ... all of those can link to my talkpage as well ... nothing remotely confusing, unless you're new :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I've got to say, you're really giving out mixed messages. There's nothing to say "don't discuss at that page" on the page, along with the fact that you discussed the matter on the page. But ok, I won't respond there further. Also, I didn't think there was any "status" associated with autoconfirmed, I thought it was just a "stop spam" thing. I won't argue further because, to be blunt, given your actions and discussion style I don't trust your opinion on this matter. Finally, I apologise for my comments about your signature, I've been reading further and there's nothing wrong with it, it just confused me. Flying Buttress (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to help you right here on my talkpage ... I'm not sure what the issue is. AutoConfirmed status is given after 4 days/10 edits as we believe that by then, the editor will have a) read up on policies, b) tried a few thigns, c) learned a few things - it has little to do with anti-spam. There's no mixed message - you seem to be completely unwilling to listen to the simple piece of advice: fix, don't remove - and hiding is considered removing. One of the awesome things you seem to be doing is closing ref tags. Please stop hiding the others, FIX them instead (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason I'm struggling to "listen" is because you're not actually telling me anything. You just keep repeating "fix" "fix" "fix". Yet, I'm following the exact same fix that other wikipedian's have done, that is to accept that the there is a reason the reference has been removed within the text, and tidying up the reference list by hiding now unused reference. By "fix" you appear suggesting that I re-add removed content or find somewhere else to use the same reference, just because it's nice to have references. That's not right, as the content shouldn't necesarily be replaced. I'm more than willing to take advice, but saying a single word ("fix") and assuming that I'll be able to work it all out from there is just unhelpful. Flying Buttress (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You know what, just forget it. I was enjoying plodding along and fixing things but all I've done for the last few hours is read essays and documentation to try and prove one of us wrong. This isn't what I want to do with my spare time. I'm going to log off and see if I can get a bit more motivation to do useful stuff tomorrow. Flying Buttress (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oi. I'm sorry you followed the actions of others, as all it's done is confuse and frustrate you...and you're taking it out on me (but hey, what else are admins for :-) ). Let me try to be more clear, and hopefully more helpful. First, REM'ing out references is wrong (by REM, I mean using the HTML coding of <!-- --> around it. The minor error you were seeing was cause by something simple: the first time you use a specific source in an article and you intend to use it again, you need to "define" it as a named reference. From that point forward, doing ref's is much simpler. What happens when you see that error is because nobody has yet named the ref. As per the link I gave you, it's very simple to fix. It's not your fault the error went funny ... that usually because someone removed the first instance of that ref somewhere in the article. So, instead of REMing it out, you simply needed to add name=whatever to the original <ref ...> statement. Again, my intent is not to frustrate you ... my goal is to be helpful, and I have more than once thanked you for the stuff you're trying to do ... I'm simply saying "don't follow others leads" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou, that was much more clear and much more helpful. It does look like we've been talking about different things here, which might have caused the whole confusion. Allow me to demonstrate with a wikitable and some nowiki tabs (thanks for showing me that!)

Why
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Situation 1 Situation 2 Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.<ref name='REF-A'>{{cite foo bar}}</ref> Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.<ref name='REF-A'/> Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum ==References== {{reflist}} Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.<ref name='REF-B'/> Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum ==References== {{reflist|refs= <ref name='REF-B'>{{cite foo bar}}</ref> }}

You've spent your time helpfully describing Situation 1. If the first instance of REF-A gets removed, we get an error on the second REF-A. The fix there is to find what REF-A was, and place it into the second (now only) instance of REF-A. In that case, "REM"ing the reference would definitely be the wrong thing to do. However, I was dealing with Situation 2. In that situation, when you remove REF-B, there are no instances remaining within the article text. That should be fixed by REMing the reference in the reflist, surely. Flying Buttress (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I looked at a bunch of the edits and found instances of 1 ... I did not look for instances of 2 because the 1's were significant enough, IMHO (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you look again? Every edit I made with the comment "hidden unused reference" was situation 2. I only did it 5 times.

I think (if I remember rightly) the only time I looked came close to situation 1 was my comments at Talk:Angry_Birds#Edit_request_on_11_July_2013, but I didn't actually make the change. I'm sorry if it's a little extra work for you, but I'd really appreciate the vindication. Flying Buttress (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, if your sole goal is "vindication", you're on your own. Good luck. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not trying to play games, I just felt that you told me off for something I didn't do. You appear to have agreed with me above, but then mentioned that you "found instances of 1"... but I didn't do that. I'm not looking for apologies or looking to rub your face in anything, I just want to know, for my own benefit that I didn't do anything wrong... or if I did do something wrong what it was that I did wrong so that I won't do it again. I understand if you won't help, I got frustrated with you yesterday and if you just want to get rid of me, that's fine - but if that is the case, can you give me the details of someone else to ask? Flying Buttress (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I never told you off; period. I saw something that seemed at the time to be a minor issue, and other than that saw no additional reasons or requirements to grant confirmed status early. I praised you for your work overall. Maybe I was wrong in what I thought I saw, but it was based on a cursory glance. If I was right, I was right. If I was wrong, then oops, sorry. However, the minute you use the word "vindication", I have zero time for you. Move on - if you honestly believe it's not an issue, then it's not an issue: I never posted a formal warning on your talkpage, made threats, or harassed you ... so no harm, no foul. As I said - and the reason this thread is CLOSED because the word "vindication" has connotations that I have zero desire to be a part of. I won't be following your edits, and anticipate never crossing paths again in the future. Again, GOOD LUCK, and thanks for your early work so far on this project. Based on the above, any further posts by you related to this will be immediately reverted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'll keep trying and have found somewhere else to ask. I didn't realise "vindication" had such strong connotations here and won't use it again. Flying Buttress (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

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.

Wingard

Wingard has come back from their block and are once again making the edits they were banned for a year for! It's clear this user has not learned their lesson. 71.233.227.127 (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately,  Done For someone who says they speak good English, they certainly don't read it well (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

A quiet "Thank you"

There is a moment around me in which no one is screaming banshee-like in my eyes and ears. You are responsible for this quietude. For this, know that I am grateful. My own patience was worn so thin.... AfD is hard enough without the needless accusations and fingerpointing. A moment of silence like a snowfall. I am grateful for this. I am one of many. KDS4444^Talk 23:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to the belief of some, I do not enjoy blocking. In this case, there was no choice - they should have got the hint in the early part of the ANI that they were doing the wrong thing. Hopefully the rest of the AfD goes ok ... I expect there to be some instant SPA's pop up as likely WP:SOCKs ... keep an eye out for them (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Will do. The socks shall not overcome. I shall eat all the socks! (woah, brain still swimming!). And I understand your feelings on blocking users. I don't enjoy nominating articles for deletion, but I do it sometimes when it seems right— sometimes they are kept, sometimes deleted. I understand that the point is to proceed with caution, and to act when we have clarity, and to learn from the acting. Which all sounds very zen, but in fact is just the result of a few cups of good tea. Cheers! KDS4444^Talk 04:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

A necessary block, but obviously I would say that. On a more lighthearted note, are you not my friend then?! :) GiantSnowman 10:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

In the sense that we've never sat down and had a pint...or helped each other move (or hide a body), no :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's say "yet" to all of those scenarios, just in case... GiantSnowman 10:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Start Snuggle

IRC office hours for wiki-mentors and Snuggle users

Hi. We're organizing an office hours session with the Teahouse to bring in mentors from across the wiki to try out Snuggle and discuss it's potential to support mentorship broadly. The Snuggle team would appreciate it if you would come and participate in the discussion. We'll be having it in #wikimedia-office ^connect on Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC. See the agenda for more info. --EpochFail^{(talk • work)}, Technical 13 (talk), TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This message was delivered by: Prabash.Akmeemana 02:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Review a user?

I noticed that you'd warned User:Fandemode, previously User:Strandofsilk. The problem is this: the user had been warned about creating spam content. They claimed that they'd learned their lesson and that they wouldn't do anything of that nature. HOWEVER, yesterday User:Strandofsilk created a spam userpage. I've blocked both Strandofsilk and Fandemode, as they are the same person and they'd been warned about spamming on Wikipedia. I figured I should ask another opinion on this, just in case. The problem is that this user had the password and login info for that account, so it's pretty suspicious that all of a sudden someone else is uploading spam under the same username. ([1], [2]) If you want to show mercy and unblock them, that's fine. The other account (Fandemode) was stale, but I didn't want to run the risk of them spamming again. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks correct to me ... WP:ROPE is only so long, and a promise is a promise (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! I was worried that maybe I was being a bit too strict- I tend to have little empathy for blatant spammers that show no sign of changing their ways, but even less for situations like this. I'm glad it's not just me being overly harsh. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Lots of questions I need to have answered ASAP!

Dear Bawilkins,

Sorry, I didn't know how to get this across, but I thought that this was the best way to do so. I do apologize. Anyway, here are my questions. Hopefully you can answer them. :D

1. How can I get to know the community on Wikipedia better?

2. What does it take to get blocked from editing on Wikipedia? (I hope that never happens to me).

3. How do you make an edit such as replacing principle image of an article-

   -that you put on the article that you edited removable ONLY by the person asking you permission- 
    -to replace the image that you put on the article?

4. What do people on the Wikipedia Community usually talk about? I would like to know.

5. What is auto-edit and how does it work?

6. Can I use auto-edit as well?

7. How can I become a well known user on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeby101 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Keeby101, first thing first, WP is no social network, though you can get to know the community better, by creating articles and participating in discussions in a civil manner. Secondly, don't even get started with the block talk, getting blocked from wikipedia usually means you have done something bad (see WP:BLOCK), which I doubt you will do, If you want to know what the wikipedia community talks about, see: The Village Pump. Prabash.Akmeemana 21:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have answered these questions as fully as possible at User talk:Keeby101 where they were originally posted, and which is the best venue for the answers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Complete a full block on a user?

I noticed that you declined a username request for User:Speirosmusic. He's been declined several times and at this point he's just using his talk page to spout vitrol and abuse about the editors. I'd block him from editing his talk page since there's not a snowball's chance of him getting unblocked anytime soon, but I'm involved in this and it'd look bad. Can you change his block level to where he can't edit his talk page? He has nothing to contribute, doesn't appear to have understood his reasons for blocking, and is just being abusive and attacking people at this point in time. (User talk:Speirosmusic) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I mean, if it was just me then I'd just shrug it off, but he's insulting other editors as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Has he also removed his block notice and any declined unblocks? I didn't see any ... was going to go back and find where they went (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! I don't see where he's removed anything from what I can see. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Pudeo's block

I didn't link your username in a comment on Pudeo's talk page (and therefore you didn't get a notification), so, in case you care to know, I unblocked Pudeo (talk · contribs), an editor whose unblock request you rejected a few days ago. As I said in my review notice, it was obvious the offending edit was a mistake -- as Pudeo stated during his first unblock request. -- tariqabjotu 02:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I cannot believe you can see that as a mistake - it's very clearly not, and I've re-read that entire exchange a dozen times or so. However, in your unblock you've now trashed the blocking admin and myself - poorly done. It's one thing to accept that it might not happen again, or to give a huge amount of benefit of the doubt, but to trash my (and the blocking admin) ability to read the English language is absolutely uncalled for. You can let the editor off, but don't trash the admins who actually did their job while doing so. Disgusting. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous edits with no apparent ability to read, or review the situation as a whole - instead, I'm being accused of things that clearly DID NOT happen
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tariq explains clearly why it was an obvious erroneous block in his unblock rationale. Read it carefully. If you think he's mistaken, take it to your peers at WP:AN for their input. Calling him or his behaviour disgusting just makes you look foolish and petulant, and compounds the impression that your judgment and treatment of people disqualifies you from sanctioning or "controlling" anyone but very obvious vandals and confirmed socks. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Oh, I did read it carefully, and casting aspersions on one's colleagues is never kosher. Why in <insert deity>'s name would I go to AN when it's far less drama to politely bring it to tariq's attention so that in the future they may remember that their colleagues are also human, and don't appreciate being trashed for no reason. I cannot fathom why you'd suggest immediately jumping into drama - pretty sure tariq and I can work this out like adults. I expect better from you Anthony - really, I'm a bit surprised by the content and tone of the above, and the sudden desire to come here and taunt me. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Politely? My comment was prompted by your "disgusting" comment that you dramatically chose to trumpet in your edit summary. I know you mean well but I have a lot of problems with the way you interact with others, and am of the view that you shouldn't sanctioning others here. I'll be very interested to see if, on reflection or with the help of others, you ever come round to acknowledging that you upheld a very bad block. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC) I see your good faith isn't working today - that's a shame. I'll be interested to see if, on reflection or with the help of others, you ever get it back. I don't believe you and I have ever had negative interactions - I cannot fathom why you'd get a stick in your butt regarding me suddenly today. Whether you believe it was a bad block or not, you too have to WP:AGF, or else there's no need for anyone to take any advice from you. You randomly showed up here in attack mode when none was required - and inserted yourself into an attempt for me to politely discuss this with Tariq, while showing I was offended by his phrasing of things - brilliantly done! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Sorry if you feel offended by me turning up here and telling you what I think of your people skills. And you seem to have been offended by Tariq turning up at that editor's page and overriding your decision not to unblock. I can understand you being upset by that. I'd be, at least temporarily, miffed by that. Can you imagine how the blocked editor felt being blocked for an obvious error, having his explanation dismissed and having the block upheld by an admin who randomly showed up at his talk page? This isn't (only) about your feelings. It's also about your seeming to be more concerned by a perceived insult (or two) to you than for the effect of your ill-considered behaviour on a good-faith and productive editor. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Actually, I'm not at all "miffed" that another admin unblocked. If you actually read above I said that I beliive Tariq was wrong in their assessment, but I'm not "miffed" at an unblock. I'm "miffed" and his phrasing of the unblock which flat-out stated that the blocking admin and I are clueless and didn't read. Maybe in your hurry to attack me you failed to read it - and once again I'll emphasize got yourself involved in someone else's conversation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC) It doesn't matter what you're offended by. Can you consider for a moment the feelings of the blocked editor, please? Though Tariq would have been perfectly justified in flat-out stating that the blocking admin and you are clueless and didn't read (in this instance), he said nothing of the kind. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Perhaps you should admit that you did not investigate the relevant diff[3] at all before declining the unblock request. There is no way it could have been an attack of any kind. Making a mistake now and then is acceptable, but making a mistake and failing to understand something as simple as that, and berating others for making you look wrong when you did wrong, certainly creates concerns.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC) If I was to state that I had not investigated the relevant diff, then I would be lying ... I reviewed the entire situation around the block, and the unblock request ... WTF are you commenting here for when you clearly have not read anything in the above. I mean Anthony hasn't read to begin with, but Oranges, you're just being clueless right now. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Rather than be baited into any more puerile pissing contests by people who refused to actually read and instead want to make ridiculous accusations, I'll wait for Tariq - after all, it's myself and Tariq SOLELY who should be involved in this conversation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised you still think the block was warranted, even after reading Pudeo's second explanation of what happened. Again, here's an obvious possibility of what happened. Pudeo initially started typing Statement 1:

It's positive that you have a very tight scrutiny here, but I think it would be best for all of us if you assumed some good faith...

Maybe he continued by writing Statement 2:

It's patronizing, a bit offensive and discouraging.

He signs and previews the comment and at some point decides he wants to add something else between Statement 1 and Statement 2. That being said, he was going back and forth between different tabs, perhaps multi-tasking with something on or off the Internet. He may or may not have taken a break from the comment, because something else demanded his attention. Perhaps a friend from South Africa wants to Skype with him. Maybe he saw some news story on TV that briefly captivated his attention. In any event, he eventually returned to the comment he was making and continued by inserting, before the end of his comment, Statement 3a:

...didn't prejudice a group of editors as a bunch of hooligans...

Again, he's probably still multi-tasking with something on or off the Internet. Maybe he needs to attend to something on the stove, maybe his wife is calling him, or maybe someone on Facebook is having a conversation with him and tells him to go check out a hilarious cat video. Regardless, he returned to the page he was editing. He might have thought he already written something between Statement 1 and Statement 2, and obviously couldn't find it as there clearly was nothing between them. He just assumes he's mistaken -- that he never wrote anything else, or that in his hurried state, accidentally deleted it. He doesn't realize that he did write Statement 3a, but in the wrong place. So he proceeds to instead write an equivalent statement (Statement 3b):

...did not hint the editors interested in this project are a bunch of hooligans...

And, continuing with Statement 4:

...that are prone to doing every sort of abuse.

He doesn't preview and, viola, there's the offending edit.

Now, if you return to Pudeo's second explanation, you'll see my conjecture is not precisely how it went. But it's a reasonable conjecture that could have been inferred after viewing the initial edit, and certainly after Pudeo's insistence that what happened was a mistake:

Apparently my edit has text inserted in the wrong place, after Cailil's message too. The "prejudiced as..." after Cailil's message is part of my original wording which I changed for the final comment. I must have written that in the wrong place after being disoriented by switching browser tabs while writing it. I apologize for not previewing changes and not noticing it before I posted it.

Indeed, the only thing he's guilty of is not paying close enough attention. Editing mistakes are common. Someone accidentally removes another person's comment. Someone accidentally posts a comment in the wrong place. This kind of thing happens all the time, and when people make such mistakes, the proper response is to either just fix the mistake or ask them what occurred. Particularly when the editor in question is a long-time editor with no history of such behavior, such bizarre edits enjoin third-parties to assume some good faith. For some reason, that was not afforded to Pudeo, certainly by KillerChihuahua and apparently by you as well.

Instead both you and KillerChihuahua assumed that he intentionally, and maliciously, manufactured an attack by Cailil and then responded to it. This just doesn't make sense.

First, people have watchlists and can look at the edit history of a page. It is exceedingly easy for someone to just click the diff link in the watchlist and notice that someone else's comment from more than a week earlier was modified. You'll see that KillerChihuahua noticed very quickly, less than an hour later. Unless you think Pudeo is stupid, no one would do such a thing.

Second, there was no attack. You and KillerChihuahua allege that Pudeo "inserted a personal attack" into Cahill's comment. After the insertion of the mistaken text, one gets the following:

Given the history of offsite targeting of individual wikipedians who make edits that might be unpalatable to the Men's rights movement - what steps will this project take to uphold wikipedia's values and its standards for conduct towards others ... didn't prejudice a group of editors as a bunch of hooligans.

I don't know how you ascertain an attack from that. Heck, I don't understand how you ascertain anything from that, as the comment makes no sense. The portion "didn't prejudice a group of editors as a bunch of hooligans" just looks to be inserted haphazardly at the end of a complete thought. Rather than think that, I don't know, it was inserted haphazardly at the end of a complete thought, you two thought that it was meant to generate an attack. Again, what attack? I don't know. Mind-boggling.

Third, Pudeo's actual comment is not a response to the haphazard text. Putting aside, once more, the fact that the mistaken text makes the last sentence nonsensical, it is obvious from reading his comment that he felt Cailil hinted the editors interested in the project are a bunch of hooligans. How do I know that? Because those are his precise words. Yes, he said hinted. Why would he say hinted if he was (intentionally) surreptitiously putting the word "hooligans" in Cailil's comment? Pudeo's comment, whether you agree with his sentiment or not, makes perfect sense in response to Cailil's remarks. Pudeo obviously felt that Cailil was suggesting ("hinting") that those interested in a men's rights project were "prone to every sort of abuse" ("hooligans") and so we needed assurances they wouldn't act in such a manner. Pudeo felt that this sentiment (which is how he interpreted Cailil's remarks) was "patronizing, a bit offensive and discouraging".

Had either of you recognized at least one of these three points, even if you couldn't personally relate to an incident where an editing mistake was made, you might have realized the absurdity of the allegations levied against Pudeo.

What you see as "trashing" you and the blocking admin was a necessity to make it very clear that the block was unwarranted. Pudeo now has this black mark in his permanent block log -- nothing, unfortunately, can change that. I know many people (myself included, and I imagine yourself too) would be unhappy if their clean block log of many years was tarnished by a lengthy unwarranted action against them. So, should Pudeo run for adminship or some other position of responsibility, I want it to be very clear that KillerChihuahua's block should be completely disregarded; in fact, I regret not being clearer about that in my unblock statement in Pudeo's block log. I see my remark in the unblocking statement on Pudeo's talk page as quite respectful, especially considering I honestly found the actions of you and KillerChihuahua to be hasty, illogical, and inconsiderate. I never said anything about your ability to read the English language; on the contrary, I said I was at a loss as to how this was missed. I understand that, just like with Pudeo's questionable edit, mistakes are made when people don't pay attention.

I don't need to give deference to the idea that a mistake will not happen again or that, unlike two other admins, I'm not jumping to absurd conclusions. I am not letting anyone off; I am doing my best to erase the injustice generated by two admins who shot first and asked questions later didn't ask questions. If anything is "disgusting" here, it is your strident insistence that your interpretation is right -- that Pudeo's edit was "very clearly not" a mistake -- despite allegedly reading Pudeo's explanation a dozen times and despite multiple people now pointing out your mistake. Or perhaps "ironic" might be the better word, as you have criticized Anthonyhcole for not assuming good faith, when you were/are unwilling to do the same for Pudeo. Perhaps "ironic" might be better, as you explicitly called OrangesRyellow "clueless", but are offended because you think I suggested (as I most certainly did not say) that adjective applied to you. Perhaps "ironic" is appropriate here, as you said two editors have "no apparent ability to read" and then feel affronted by me allegedly implying that you can't read English.

I was just pointing out my block overturn as a courtesy, and just expected you to mentally acknowledge your mistake and move on without responding. But given the way you have treated me, Anthonyhcole, and OrangesRyellow for politely, and rightfully, challenging your judgement, absent an acknowledgement right now that the block was unwarranted and that you'll drop the matter, I am eager to bring this matter to ANI for confirmation of the impropriety of the block and admonishment of your tone here. -- tariqabjotu 18:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Tariq, first, I appreciate your arrival. Even reviewing your statements above, I still see a far different possibility as to what happened, and it's one that actually makes more sense overall without any conjecture. That is, of course, my point of view having reviewed the entire sequence of events a half dozen times - including 4 more times today. So, it seems that we differ on the interpretation of what happens - and you know what, that's ok.

Above all else, I am not at all averse to your unblocking - if it was indeed as you see it, then we'll never have a similar situation again from this user, and that's awesome. If I was right, we've either corrected the behaviour (which is the goal of a block), or you've given them enough WP:ROPE. I will have faith in you that it's the former (i.e. you're right, and I'm wrong).

The problem seems to be now between us - which surprises me. You see, I dislike admins trashing other admins. Your unblock was based on your belief (which I still disagree with), but you trashed me and the blocking admin in your unblock - that's 100% inappropriate. It's your belief that the block was unwarranted - I still disagree. Was it possible to phrase your unblock in such a away that you didn't trash people? Of course - an ounce of WP:AGF with something such as "although I can possibly understand the POV of X and Y, it's my belief that...". Maybe the word "disgusting" was a bit beyond, but with some of the sickening things going on across this project, I'm literally becoming disgusted.

So, I have never treated you poorly - whatsoever. Did I want you to know that I was appalled by your choice of words? Damned right. Do we disagree? Clearly, yes - but that's human nature. Have I attacked you? Nope. Have I treated you poorly? Nope. I expressed my personal feeling about what your wording did - hoping that you'd choose more neutral wording next time.

In terms of the other 2 editors you mention, they came right here to attack - there was no politeness whatsoever, and they showed zero good faith whatsoever. They had no business approaching me in the manner they did. Indeed, when I'm simply waiting for you to advise me why you used such an inflammatory unblock request, I was lambasted - not cool, not kosher.

I have no idea what you mean by "my tone here" - I felt attacked by you, and then was literally attacked by 2 editors while I was trying to understand why you did what you did to me; I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to have a bit of a "tone" after that, if you consider my original shock/disbelief as a "tone".

So yes, it's possible that a whole whack of people fucked up. However, there are two victims: the now-unblocked editor and me...and you're sitting there saying that I'm supposed to have accepted unwarranted attacks and still be a victim. Fantastic. Go ahead, take it to ANI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me, judging from your comments in previous incidents, that you have hardly any ability to assume good faith about non-admins and your comments about admins essentially needing to cover each other's asses even when they disagree is indicative of you having a very snobbish attitude about what it means to be an admin. I can chalk KC's initial block up to being swept up in the moment as often happens with our "civility" enforcement, but for you it seems to be a persistent problem of assuming the worst of non-admins. Tariq was indeed right to unblock and his expression of surprise at the block and your decline is well within reason.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That's offensive, clearly false, clearly unproven (or unprovable), and goes 180 degrees against my philosophy and actions on this project. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding me unblocking Pudeo. The thread is Bwilkins' response to my unblock of Pudeo. Thank you. -- tariqabjotu 22:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm ... so, a discussion between you and I now needs drama? Looks like you have wholly minsunderstood the contents of my concern, and rather than clarify it with me, you'd rather take the low road to drama. Brilliant, really. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Help mediating?

I could really use some help mediating with what's very obviously a hostile editor. Long story short, I decided to AfD an article rather than outright delete it because there was some assertion of notability. It turned into a fairly long and overly dramatic thing where I've tried to explain things to an editor, only for them to pretty much systematically abuse and insult me on the talk page. It's really getting stupid now and it's enough to where I'd personally think a short 1-2 day block would probably effectively get the point across that personal attacks are not kosher. I think it's the same person as User:Anfasimov2013 (who I also think is the subject of the article, although he denies it). I've asked outright since I don't want to automatically assume that it's the same person. The editing style is the same. I really should've just ignored the small assertion of notability and outright deleted it. No good deed goes unpunished, eh? In any case, can you step in here? He's pretty obviously not going to be reasonable to anything I say. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

ITs not the same user as me, Tokyogirl so please stop saying that. Style of writing is nothing like mine, and no I am not Anthony Fucilla, merely an avid fan..thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anfasimov2013 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• All I know is that you started editing about the same time and you're saying about the same thing. I might get someone to run a check just to make sure. This way if it isn't you, you won't get blocked in the process if the other user ends up getting blocked for harassment. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Wingard is back

User:Wingard is back in the form of User:Fredrik75, continuing to do daily updates and editing the same pages. Anyway to block them from re-joining the website?? They obviously do not learn their lesson! 71.233.227.127 (talk) 04:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing offensive about the message, unless you're a block-evading sockpuppet, and don't want anyone to know you're back to break the rules some more. What a better way to keep in the shadows than to edit-war and try to hide your identity. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

They're back for a third time, this time under User:Spiritual75. It's unbelievable that they're continuing to be this desperate in their attempts. 71.233.227.127 (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Like clockwork, he's back! User:Barba75. 71.233.227.127 (talk) 05:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Article on myself as a published Author deleted

Hi, I recently posted an article on myself and it was deleted for "non verifiable sources". I can not think of how to verify some of the information without pointing towards links to works I have published and which are for sale (such as an Amazon link?) or to my personal website (http://www.pradigen.com). In either case, any information I give about myself is necessarily "unverifiable" such as age, location of birth, etc. I believe both links above are frowned upon because they are "promoting myself" and so did not post them. It seems like unless an author or entity is extremely well known then they are not noteworthy enough yet to be listed in Wikipedia? I'm not sure what to do here. I am an author in America with a published work. How would you suggest I go about rectifying any issues with the previous page. It was for Robert Street (American Author and Activist). Thanks for your input, I really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRADIGen (talk • contribs) 17:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I did already explain - see both your talkpage, and your request for permissions entry. Let me know if WP:COI, WP:AUTOBIO, WP:PROMO and WP:GNG are unclear. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much!

		Cookies!
		Theonesean has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for confirming my accounts. theonesean 17:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"munch munch...thankpshspht" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Disparagement

Now I know you and me aren't the best of friends, but I don't really think you need to be so "rough", if thats the right word, when talking about me. If you have a problem with me, could you please raise it with me instead of other people. Your ""Baron" - whoo-ti-doo" comment was a bit unnecessary in this regard, so, can we all just get along? ★★RetroLord★★ 14:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Retro, you told me once that English was indeed your first language. Please clearly read the exchange on their page: that person is TRASHING YOU because you call yourself "Baron". My comment to them, if you read it in English is "so what if they call themself Baron...they deserve the same respect." There is no possible way to read that as an attack on you, or at all disparaging against you. I will encourage you to re-read my original comment in ANI, and my comment on that other editor's page: you're allowing your hatred of me to colour what you read, even when I'm 100% on your side. You need to stop doing that, PDQ. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Badanagram

Hi, I don't want to increase the drama at ANI, but could you make a couple of corrections? You put your bolded comment before my statement about unblocking. Your commment was saved 15 minutes after mine. Could you move it to after mine? In the same vein, your subsequent comment "I commented before this one was wrongly lifted" is also incorrect. Could you strike the part about commenting before (unless you're referring to some other comment)? Thanks, and regards no matter what you think of my actions here.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, my comments were written and I clicked "submit" before yours. I turn to a different window, only to come back and find that I had edit conflicted - when I re-submitted, my edit summary clearly stated "ec". As such, I did comment before, but it was not saved until after ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

All of what you say occurred to me, but it still leaves the impression that I read your commment before I unblocked (particularly the second comment). I noticed you added {{ec}} to your first comment, and that makes sense, but normally the conflicted edit would come after the one that was saved first. Even if you don't want to move that comment, you could change the second comment from "I commented before" to "I tried to comment before", which, in my view, would be more accurate. Anyway, at this point I'll leave it up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I have retracted my assertion, sorry if I've edited the wrong section Badanagram (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The AN discussion about Baboon43

I'm just letting you know since you know about the discussion. It's getting flooded with comments which are started to become personal, like speculation about Lukeno's beliefs and insinuating that I'm dishonest, or disingenuous, or however it could be termed. I hope it doesn't need to be watched but I saw the comment against me this morning and went to the user's talk page to try to make peace, and then saw he was getting a bit personal with another editor as well. I'm worried the whole discussion could get derailed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The first discussion you linked to has been closed. The second link is someone insinuating that you make insinuations ... an insinuation that may or may not be unfounded :-) At least he says you're "too smart"! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Way too much mudslinging. Whatever happened to the idea of being civil and collegiate? Apteva (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Apteva ... I do wish you yourself would learn to be civil and collegial. Your snide, sarcastic and snippy comments - plus the badgering of anyone who dares speak against you - show that civil and collegial are either not in your personal dictionary, or that you have long forgotten their meaning (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Really? All of my comments are civil and collegiate. Apteva (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Right ... and all the edits that led to your topic ban were correct. It's the utter lack of self-awareness of the effects of your actions that simply dumbfounds me. Your comments are far from civil and collegiate, and your previous (and apparently still current) belief that your edits were somehow actually helpful to the project (including its collegial nature) is simply baffling (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The edits that lead to the topic ban were a content dispute that should have been resolved through dispute resolution. The other parties refused to mediate and instead proposed a topic ban on the subject. That is never the way we resolve content questions. We always welcome all sides to every issue, and work towards finding a consensus that all parties can agree on. Can you find one edit that I have ever made that was not helpful, or at least in good faith? There are 10,000 to look through. Can you find any edit that I ever called anyone a name or did not treat them with the utmost civility? Can you find anywhere that I did not conduct myself in a manner that would be appropriate for a college classroom? (that is what the word collegial means) Apteva (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Now you want to try and quote the dictionary to me? Absolutely unbelievable - and absolute proof of your uncivil attitude towards others. Well proven, so thanks. Now - go away, and stop badgering the people who are trying to protect the project against "I'm smarter than you" people like yourself (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Obscure remarks

Just curious what exactly are "snippy comments", and how they relate to hampering my ability to "see things, and fix them"? You do realize, I hope, that during the time that the sanctions have been in effect, there have been thousands of corrections and improvements that no one will ever see, at least not until someone else sees them and fixes them, or the sanctions are removed so that I can fix them, if I can even find them again? In what universe does that benefit our millions of readers? A good editor, who sees corrections, is willing to fix them, but can not fix them, due to some very obscure sanctions, how is that helping? Why would making "snippy comments", whatever they are, justify making yet more people not benefit from those errors and improvements? Who benefits from the sanctions that I am under? No one. Who benefits from them being removed? Everyone. If this is exactly what you mean by "snippy comments", I wish everyone would make more "snippy comments". Apteva (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

How ironic. See above (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Please visit my talk page. I need to discuss 2 topics with you on there!

I have sent a few messages out to people to visit my talk page for my latest questionnaire and I am inviting you to visit and comment on my talk page for you to give me your thoughts on the latest questionnaire. Questionnaire #3 is the best topic that I have come up with. Also, I would like for you and a few other people to discuss the topic that is right above the Questionnaire #3 topic. I do not mean to bother you or anyone else with this, but I just want to know peoples thoughts including your thoughts on these 2 topics. :D Keeby101 (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll reply right here: um, why are you asking me (or anyone) those questions? I have neither the background nor the interest in those topics, and would therefore not be the right person to ask. We do have specific Projects that are related to specific groupings of topics - find the right project, and ONLY ask those questions if your intent is to work on articles about them (right now it looks like you're asking people to do your homework for them). Don't randomly ask on your talkpage - or randomly ask disinterested people - about those kids of topics (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Technoquat & Technokumquat

Hi, what do you think about these two accounts, Technoquat is banned from en.wp and Technokumquat seems awfully similar to the other one,, I filed an SPi on this, did I do the right thing here? I reported the account to SPi, but I have doubts on this, what are your thought in this situation? Thanks in advance :) Prabash.Akmeemana 18:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Technoquat has been involved in Socking activities quite often. Prabash.Akmeemana 18:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

THUNK a cappella

I apologize, but your comments that you posted on the Request for Undeletion page seemed to have confused me. If I created the THUNK a cappella article in my sandbox, would you be able to approve it and allow it to be uploaded into articlespace? Please advise. Additionally, this article is a part of WikiProject Chicago and Wikiproject Illinois, so this is a notable contribution to furthering the development of the Chicago and Illinois Wikipedia articles. Mer253 (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

First, you're still logged into the wrong account - beware of WP:SOCK

Second, the whole reason I'm saying that you need to create it as a sandbox is so that you can FIX all the dozens of issues. Wikipedia doesn't care it it's part of a project - it still needs to meet all the policy-based requirements. Putting it in a sandbox will allow you (and others) to work on it for a couple of months until it remotely resembles something meeting WP:FIRSTARTICLE. As you kept creating it live, it cannot be created now, and will need some extra hoops to be jumped through (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)