User talk:DangerousPanda

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

Help

I need some help. I need a neutral 3rd part to resolve an editing issue here with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz here --> Jessicka

"Art Slant,[1] Juxtapoz,[2][ Supacute,[3] Coagula Art Journal, [4] & Hi- Fructose [5] are all reputable 3rd party Art sources. Saying these articles are written by friends is purely speculation on your part. Jessicka's wiki page clearly states that she's an artist. Listing past art shows with 3rd party references is just like listing the albums she's released as a musician in her discography. Both are wiki relevant & significant"

Do you think you could point me in the right direction? I just need a 3rd party to have a look.

Thanks! (Lifespan9 (talk))

Draft of New Article to Replace Deleted Article: Three.js

Hello Bwilkins

On 28 April 2012 the article for Three.js was deleted. See Articles_for_deletion/Three.js

A draft of a new article is being prepared and is viewable at one of my user pages: User:TheoA/Threejs

My strong personal interest in the proceedings is declared here: User_talk:TheoA/Threejs

Would kindly have a look at the draft article and indicate as to whether you feel the article provides sufficient and valid evidence attesting to the notability of Three.js? Also, any comments as to whether a neutral point of view is maintained will be appreciated.

Thank you,

TheoA (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how it's at all notable ... or what you're even asking for (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I was requesting your opinion as to the notability of the topic - which you have now kindly provided. Thank you. TheoA (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello again Bwilkins

Do you know about Warnock's_dilemma? I am a bit lost as to what do do. Should I wait some more to see if you reply? Should I offer the the page to WP:Articles for creation? Should I ask the opinion of he person who recommended deletion? Is the article not sufficiently NPV? Please do point me in the right direction...

TheoA (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, not notable IMHO (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

re: Speedy deletion of User talk:Plgpllc

The main intention of the tag was to alert an admin that this user was continuing to spam their user talk page after being blocked for spamming. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

First, please don't copy/paste the notice over here. If you need to alert an admin to do something, that's what ANI is for - mistagging things for CSD is unwise (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

For you

	Cake!
	Thanks for your work at DRV. Here's the cake you were promised at AN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yum! Excellent, and thank you! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW

I might have phrased this differently. I understand frustration can make us all a bit rude sometimes, I'm mentoring YRC on it after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Teach him not to rush process then. Step #1. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

He has actually made a great deal of progress and has been very hard working on this. More so that I thought he would have. He isn't done, but he is taking it very seriously. I had just bragged about this on his mentoring page, literally one minute before he went to ANI. I disagree with him on bringing it there, but I also disagreed with you on some points as well, so it all comes out in the wash I suppose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I wasn't even responding them ...funny enough. Wikipedia will be here tomorrow, and next week. It will be here long past this RFC on pending changes - and it will be here past the next RFC on pending changes, and the next one after that. There's no time limit. AFD's sometimes take 8 days ...or 10...or 14. Nobody should lose sleep over an RFC. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree on that point. We manage to mess up the process when we don't rush it often enough that rushing it isn't the answer. But as a favor, give him a chance when you can. A look at his diffs might surprise you, as he is obviously sincere in his efforts. For the most part, it is night and day compared to just a month ago. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned then that he can show bizarre tendencies so quickly, and so easily. Maybe a topic ban from any admin noticeboard would help his progress? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any action is needed or warranted. I don't have a real issue with him bringing it there, even if I disagree with him on the necessity of it. But today isn't his day. Most of his work is quite good when he is focused, he just hasn't got it as a habit yet. Most of the time lately at BLPN and on talk pages, he has been more civil than you. Should I consider an AN ban for you as well? ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Show me some actual (not impossibly perceived) incivility of mine, and I'll ban myself :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Midcent

Hi just wanted to let you know that I dont think you locking the talkpage of User:Midcent was necessary. It's a little too much in my opinion. I really dont care if he signs or not. But that's just my opinion. Caden ^cool 14:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, here I always thought you were in favour of following policy :-)

It was locked to avoid further pile-on, and because the ONLY purpose of a talkpage while blocked is to request unblock - which he was not doing. Therefore, it needed to be locked from both editors and the user. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I wasnt aware until today that signatures was policy, I thought it was just a guideline. I also didnt think about avoiding further pile on to the page so I must admit based on that you did the right thing. Just forgive I'm blond :) Caden ^cool 15:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, I noticed the blondness on your userpage LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate FPP. Please undo or link to policy justifying arbitrary action. See also [6].Nobody Ent 22:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

List of modern dictators

Hello. I saw you blocked List of modern dictators form being edited and i thank you. I was trying to stop edit warring from several users warning them on their talk pages. I see this list is quite problematic and i think we should make some kind of RfC to see if we really need the list, how it may be compiled and the overall thought of the Wikipedians about the accuracy and importance of this list. I've requested all users involved to provide if they support or not the RfC idea. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 03:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I have no interest in the article content at all - my involvement is purely administrative (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Justicejayant's ban

You blocked his account but he is still manipulating the pages as an ip, User:122.169.12.69 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_modern_dictators&action=history

This proves this was one of his ip's, and he publicly admitted to it top, in case you had forgotten. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_modern_dictators&diff=496415802&oldid=496415378

Please block his ip. I7laseral (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You had the IP wrong :-) Temporarily blocked the right one (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, this is amazing mate. You blocked me from not only editing wikipedia articles but also blocked me from editing my user talk page. This is Arsenalkid700 (talk · contribs). In fact I only heard of the 3 revert rule a few days ago only because I have never gotten blocked before and now I have. Now I have also looked at the ruling and it says that the block should be for 24 hours and not the 48 given to me. If you dont unblock me, fine but at least lower the amount of hours. I have been a member on wikipedia for a long time and if you have the time to look at my past work (on the account you blocked; just look through the user page for my work) and you will see that I have made a huge impact on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football for well over a year. I understand my wrong doing and next time I shall inform someone else to handle the situation. And yes I admit my opener of "I know I am right" is not the best way to start but what would you do if you only had little time to edit and then all of a sudden you see that your blocked and that by the time the block is finished you have no time to edit because of what is happening in the real world. Now if possible (and this would help me as well) is there anyway I can be unblocked now for a small period of time and then starting at midnight (UTC) I am blocked once again for the duration of time left. It would allow me to finish my projects (or most of them) and maybe keep me off wikipedia while I work on things in the real world. Please take these into consideration. Thank you. --FootballinIndiaWiki (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

And now your block-evading account is indefinitely blocked WP:EVADE. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

And, "mate", if you noticed, your block was put at 48 hours to exactly match that of the other person involved in the edit-war, which is both fair and recommended. We sure wouldn't want you to be able to return to the article before they are. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Just to let you know that this editor is continuing his edit war here: Manuel Gomes (football coach). The war seems to be going on between this editor and the subject of the article. Aside from the clear COI issues here, the comments in the edit summaries show that they are doing this only to irritate each other. Despite his earlier denials, Arsenalkid700 (talk · contribs) is clearly aware of the 3RR rule and doesn't care. The other editor seems to persist solely to promote himself in the article, continually adding back a large amount of unreferenced, weasle-word ridden and in several places contradictory information. I have edited this page myself twice to strip it back to only referenced BLP information and then to revert a revert. I don't really want to get any more involved in this, but Arsenalkid700 (talk · contribs) seems now to be turning into more of a troll than a worthwhile editor and Mgomes neca (talk · contribs) seems to use Wikipedia solely to promote himself. Do you think more action is necessary? Fenix down (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Jack Sebastian

Thanks for your even-handed look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Schrodinger's cat is alive reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: stale). The conversation on the talk page continue in an even worse vein, with Jack Sebastian (talk · contribs) insulting not just me (See here), but another editor too (See here). I am concerned about his approach with other editors who disagree with him—and it that I am not the only one to think this too. After starting the 3RR process against me, he admits to "getting an overview of your editing style and trying to figure you out" This is verging on WP:HOUND, especially as he has now involved himself in and RFN issue, reverting my edits on the FL List of James Bond novels and stories. A search of the ANI noticeboards shows me I'm right to be concerned to some extent: his name appears with some frequency, and it is seldom in a good light.

I appreciate that my own edits in the James Bond (character) matter are hardly a glowing endorsement of my editing, but he does have a way of aggressively twisting the truth round on certain matters and fired off responses much too quickly. Having said all that, is there any way to ensure that he does not cross a HOUND-line? Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but despite being asked not to insult editors, he's firing insults out again: could you please advise a course of action? If you don't want to involve yourself then I entirely understand, but any indication of where I could to just to ensure that he is just civil in his approach, would be appreciated Thanks so much. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in. I'm hoping that is the last word on this particular matter and that the other one does not get out of hand either. Your efforts are much appreciated. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Drive (4x Game)

StarDrive should also have been deleted. --Izno (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Declined unblock request at User talk:Blobmonster21

You may just possibly be interested in seeing this edit, since it refers to a comment you made. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

One more thought: I have never done a survey to find out, but I think of the times when I say "I am willing to consider unblocking if you do XYZ", in the vast majority of cases the user does not do XYZ, and is never unblocked. I see no harm in giving a user a chance to show that they are genuinely willing to change, even though I know they probably won't take up the chance. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I do agree - for me, it's often based on the previous level of issues, and the sincerity/honesty surrounding their unblock request (and the talkpage history). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

user:TreasuryTag

Hi. Why did you revert my community message on this banned user's talk page? 94.4.117.83 (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Because he is not banned from making future unban request; that was pure vandalism (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, so arbcom have come back with a final decision on whether he should stay or not, and you reckon if he tries to cause more drama by slagging people off, and going on about how unfair the situation is and playing the victim as usual, then we should just allow it, and go through the whole time-wasting motions of discussing it with him? I'm sorry but I was not vandalising that talk page - to be honest an admin really ought to revoke talk page access. If he wants to complain he can email someone in private rather than letting the world know and getting random observers sucked in so the whole messy situation can explode again. Then againb maybe I'm wrong, maybe it was just vandalism *sigh* 94.4.117.83 (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You're very wrong. He has his ability to appeal. The timeline for such has been set by ArbComm. To claim otherwise is vandalism. Grave-dancing doesn't become you, or anyone. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You really think allowing an appeal will benefit wikipedia somehow?!? 00:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.117.83 (talk)

Whether I do or not, that's not my call nor is it yours to make (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

How do you explain comments like this ? 94.4.117.83 (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The defensive part of me says "I don't have to explain it to you."

The pragmatic part of me says "It's probably the most self-explanatory comment ever to appear on that page"

The WP:AGF part of says "what exactly do you need to have explained to you?"

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The talk page lurker part of me says asking for an explanation for that edit is nothing short of trolling by an obvious ipsock. Toddst1 (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be wrong of me to delete the above comment by Toddst1, but I will ask you to ignore it as it is complete and utter garbage. Anyway, back to the original point. In that edit I've quoted, you appear to be actively campaigning for TT to be allowed to appeal as much as he likes, yet you state "it is not my call to make". That is what I was asking you to explain. This is all just resulting in unnecessary drama. 94.4.117.83 (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes, it would be wrong. --Chip123456 (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

My statment clearly says that TT should be allowed to submit any future unban requests exactly as permitted by relevant policy/body, no more and no less. For example, if BASC says 6 months, then so be it. As such, it is not your or my call to make to say "no more appeals ever" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

heymister14

Thanks for the note, but my replies have been at heymister's talk page, so I've copied your response over there without the TPS template. Feel free to add it back (or any other modifications, of course) if you prefer that it be left unmodified. Nyttend (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Call My Name (Cheryl Cole song)

Hello! Is there anyways to unprotected Call My Name (Cheryl Cole song) so the article can be created? I've created the article here but someone redirected it to that protected article. The song has already charted and has enough amount of content to be created, everything is sourced. Thanks. :) - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 17:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Saulo, I redirected it because it shouldn't be labelled "Cheryl song" at all. She's labelled as "Cheryl" on artwork, but still going by "Cheryl Cole". And sorry BWilkins, I didn't realize someone had posted this on your wall. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 21:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Knowz

FYI, I accepted this unblock request; the user was neither warned about edit warring nor notified about the edit warring complaint. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I saw that ... not sure I accept the "I wasn't warned about a rule I already know about" defence, especially when this was a 3-way block to all of the involved edit-warriors. Ethically, you'd have to unblock the other 2 now, which would be bad (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, one of the other two made the complaint, and the other was informed, so neither has a procedural or ethical leg to stand on in that regard. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Azure move

I just saw this in my watchlist:

(Move log); 21:16 . . Bwilkins (talk | contribs) moved page Azure Services Platform to Windows Azure ‎(this would be the proper title, see my talk page)

Which talk page discussion are you referring to? Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

check the talkpage for whoever tagged it for the move...this involved a deletion/move. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That's me. The whole thing collectively is called Windows Azure - it's not just the OS itself; in fact I believe the servers actually run Windows Server 2008 (R2)/2012 in reality.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all - Pointillist (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Death of a Wikipedian (at your hands, sadly)

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.

---

So, you blocked me for edit-warring a few months back. I haven't really felt like editing since then. You'll likely not remember the incident (though it's still on my talk page if you care), but that's not so important. What is important is that you seemingly-valued punishment of a Wikipedia editor over providing guidance. The ONE time I've ever had to interact with an admin after years of edits, yay, I was blocked. (Even self-reporting in an attempt to determine if I really violated WP:BLP or not; instead, you gave a snide reply with your ban.)

So, here's to you, for killing off a "good" editor (in my opinion; feel free to look at my other edits.) I'm not angry at Wikipedia; I'm just annoyed that *you* seem to value punishment over guidance and constructive assistance, especially when asked for!

I don't portend to change your mind on these types of decisions, but simply hope to inform you that punishment with no real explanation or discussion is not helpful, especially when said user seeks out guidance as to whether a 4th edit violates the rules or not (I broke 3RR for possible WP:BLP issues, and assumed you might give me guidance on that...) Instead, you'd rather ban me for 24 hours. Right when I was engaging in a talk page discussion to try to sort out the issue you banned me for. (Even better there, ban a user who's obviously taken an issue to a talk page to try to sort it out.)

Unfortunately, your 24-hour ban turned into me not editing for months. I hope you'll consider your actions as far as punishment vs reasonable dialogue go in the future (and you can do BOTH at the same time, imagine that!)

We're obviously losing Wikipedia editors. You personally caused one (me) to be lost. Please keep that in mind. I may go back to editing more in the future, but I don't expect that I'll start editing as much as I have in the past...unless I know that Wikipedia promotes a culture of helpfulness over a culture of punishment. You've only shown me the latter, unfortunately.

In short, "good job" on banning me on a technicality, when I personally sought out guidance on the issue but was instead summarily handed down a 24-hour ban, which turned into a personal permanent ban since I don't care for such bans from an admin who would not properly discuss the reasoning behind such ban.

We need good editors on Wikipedia. Your actions have driven off at least one good editor: me! So, please consider the repercussions of your fine-grained "3RR violated, must ban" actions and the like, if you hope to not continue to lose editors.

Again, I have nothing against you personally. I just don't feel like editing if the culture is "punish people if they break the rules a little bit!" rather than "hmm, enforce rules but try to help editors who break them, even if a temporary ban is warranted, to not break said rules in the future." I hope you understand the difference; if you do not, you quite honestly should not be a Wikipedia admin.

– 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Awww... it isn't that bad. After all IPv6 is enabled now, and you're probably the most famous pseudonym account resembling an IPv6 range. Nevertheless, though, when I was blocked (indefinitely!) I did not call it quits on Wikipedia. My block appeal led to an unblock within under one or two hours of the block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jasper, especially for amusing me by recognizing my IPv6 doc prefix pseudonym. :) I don't WANT to call it quits on Wikipedia; I just wish that admins would err towards the side of helpfulness rather than towards punishment of users! I intend to contribute more; sadly, I've been put off by this admin's personal decision. I'm just trying to inform him/her of the consequences of such abrupt bans, rather than being helpful towards the user(s) in question... :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I almost wanted to do the same things myself when I got blocked myself. I do see you have been bitten, and so was I. The current system of blocking for edit warring is not perfect at all and Bwilkins just had to carry out this current, albeit nevertheless flawed, system. I feel sorry if it seems Bwilkins has been mean to you - I thought the admin who blocked me was mean to me at the very first instant but remembered that he was just one of us.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I just went back through the whole thing. Where's the "punishment" - I don't do punishment. You and another editor both edit-warred, and both got an extremely short WP:BLOCK (not a WP:BAN, by the way - you're right, if you were banned after one incident like that, you should be pissed off). The block itself was upheld by yet another admin. A 1-day protection for the project is common: it's a "warning shot across the bow", and most intelligent people learn from it and move on to become good editors. Indeed, many people have argued that their first block was what made them stronger, better editors because they realized that even the most simple of rules was going to be enforced, which meant that even their edits to the project were going to be protected by someone, somewhere. Was it bitey? Um, no.

There's no humanly-possible way to blame the admin: I did not hold your mouse in my hands and edit-war on your behalf. I did not force you to ignore the warnings. I did not cause you to break the policies and rules that you agreed to when you created your account. To blame any admin for a single block due to your own behaviour would be bizarre to say the least. You broke a community norm; you were told to stop; you didn't. What else did you expect would happen? Blaming me for you not editing would be like saying "I hate cars because my dad once yelled at me for scratching his vintage Mustang Convertible with a rock".

The number of blocks that I have handed out is paltry. I think last month it sadly hit the 400 mark (the highest admin has 14,000+). Most of those are spammers. The second most are edit-warriors. Blocking is not my usual goal. My personal philosophy is at the very top of my userpage, and I stick by it every day.

We humans are separated from most of the animal kingdom due to our ability to analyse and adapt, rather than simply react. I encourage you to look at the bigger picture, analyse your actions within it, and adapt - don't get stuck in what was your reaction at the time. Do you have the potential to add to the project? Do you now recognize that your edits will also be afforded a certain level of protection from other edit-warriors in the future?

Finally, although you think you're attempting to be funny or dramatic with your metaphor of "Death" at "my hands", it's neither appropriate nor correct; indeed, it's a pretty disgusting accusation of murder even as a metaphor. If that's your sense of humour or drama, then you might not be the type of editor Wikipedia is looking for anyway. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say that I appreciate that you did actually go back through the incident...but you say "I did not force you to ignore the warnings." What warnings? There were no warnings to ignore. I was told to stop? When? By whom? If I was warned, I certainly would have heeded that warning. (Unless by warning you mean "read the rules and interpret whether or not WP:BLP applies on your own.") If you actually went back through the incident, you'd certainly have seen that no warnings were involved. Please don't claim to have done something you haven't done.

And of course I'm blaming you personally; your actions caused me to be less-inclined to edit Wikipedia. Whether or not those actions were correct is something we disagree on, but the result is the same. You say that we have "[the] ability to analyse and adapt." I would say you had a faulty analysis as to how to solve this issue, both in the application of punishment and the lack of analysis of the potential benefits versus negative consequences of said punishment. (And the lack of accepting that analysis even now after we have actual data.)

You fail to address the "seek out guidance" part of my message. THAT is the reason I stopped editing; not because of the ban itself. If your ban message had said "no, this isn't covered under WP:BLP because <reason>" or even just "I appreciate that you've stopped edit-warring and reported the issue, but I need to apply punishment equitably to be fair" or something else along those lines, e.g. giving me GUIDANCE instead of just PUNISHMENT. That is the difference between a useful penalty and a penalty that just...penalizes, to negative effect. You cannot disagree that your penalty had a negative unintended effect, even if you disagree over its appropriateness.

And seriously? A "disgusting accusation of murder?" I suggest you don't watch any movies or read any books that have "Murder" in the title. Some of them use the word humorously, some ironically, some metaphorically (and some all three!) Some contain actual death, some do not. You probably shouldn't watch TV, play video games, or use the Internet either. You end your message saying that I "might not be not the type of editor Wikipedia is looking for anyway" because of *my personal sense of humor*!? (Which I'd certainly not apply to any article, unless it was an article requiring an example of that type of humor...) Think that over for a minute. Discriminate, much? Judge, much? Are there other classes or types of thought or other personal attributes that you think editors should not possess?

Anyways, despite all this, I'm still going to WP:AGF and not blame Wikipedia for your erroneous judgment. You are still learning, as are all of us, and you can still err, as you did here. Perhaps I erred as well, but I can't know that as you failed to provide guidance, as noted. I suppose it is unfair to Wikipedia to blame the entire entity for the actions of one person; though it's unfortunate that that person makes false statements about non-existent warnings and judges people based on their sense of humor, yet holds a position of power within the larger entity. I do hope you've learned from this incident. All I've learned is that I should be extremely careful about strict numerical guidelines, and should not attempt to make an edit based on other overriding rules that may or may not apply. (And I've learned that some admins don't want editors with certain personal views that are irrelevant to their editing of actual Wikipedia articles.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

2001:db8, I do have to agree that Bwilkins' block was justified. Both of you should just drop the WP:STICK on this, because this argument is not going to work out and you're not going to change the past.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't intend to change any minds, simply to point out my view; I primarily replied since I thought it repulsive that an admin would consider someone jokingly using a common metaphor on a user talk page to be someone who shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. If Bwilkins doesn't like the metaphor, that's perfectly fine, but suggesting that I *shouldn't edit Wikipedia at all* because Bwilkins doesn't like the metaphor is ridiculous. Anyways, I'm not going to spam Bwilkins' talk page any more, so I'll leave it at that. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:28, 16 June 2012 (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.

Message from IP

Hello again, Sorry to use this page but I don't seem to be able to get into your talk page. You sent me an email so you must have put something on my or your talk page. But I've had enough Wiki for a while. I'm doing some research on Tottenham Hotspur for the club's entry, through two of the club's fanzines. I'll log into Wiki again then. Cheers. You can always ring me - (Redacted) (I don't mind giving number out as I said to somebody called Tow).82.11.178.239 (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Herbolzheim (Lloyd actually)

Remember that you may not edit Wikipedia both logged in and logged out. You can always get to my talkpage by clicking "TALK" on my signature (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh

I'd edited the AN3 page and was about to block for a week ... to find you already had... Black Kite (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. However, according to discussions above, I live to block people ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Editor review comment

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 have just come across this comment on Thine Antique Pen's editor review, which I've removed as unfair and disruptive. First and foremost, Editor review is a place for constructive criticism, and there was nothing constructive about your comment whatsoever. Secondly, I believe a large portion of it was demonstrably false.

• Thine Antique Pen came to me for adoption on 20th April (which I didn't accept because I was busy), since then I've followed his progress. I've seen him come on leaps and bounds, under the guidance of a number of great editors, Dr. Blofeld, Anna Frodesiak, Demiurge1000 and ItsZippy jump to mind immediately. He's taken feedback on board and learnt from it.
• Creating stubs is an important role on this encyclopedia. Yes, it's not the most important. It's not the most glamourous, or admirable, but it has it's part to play. There are many roles on the encyclopedia, and article writing is only one of them - even if it is perhaps the most admirable, the most useful. Just because he does not write articles doesn't mean he doesn't have a place in the community. Would you like me to list different people who have excelled in areas that don't include article writing? I'm sure I can.
• Is he doing a good job of stub writing? Well, he's written something like a 1000 stubs, and I don't see his talk page littered with complaints or deletion notices. Either he's doing a good job, or the patrollers are doing a bad one. Not to mention the fact that he's written 3 or 4 good articles! I can't remember the last GA I wrote, but it was a while ago. When was yours?
• Requesting rights is not necessarily hunger for power. I read it as a misinterpretation of how the encyclopedia works - thinking that the tools lead to the work, rather than the work leading to the tools. Since he had this explained to him, he has not requested a tool (I believe, globally) - despite multiple uninvolved editors suggesting he get autopatrolled. It's a right that is appropriate for what he's doing, but he didn't request it, someone else did. That he agreed it was appropriate is not wrong.

Finally, your other comments were direct attacks on his character and unbecoming of you as an admin, indeed as a person. Had you forgotten that there's a person behind the keyboard you were referring to? I expected better from you. As I said, I've removed your comments. If you want to replace them with an actual constructive review of TAP, where you demonstrate his problems and you give him suggestions on how to improve, I'm sure he would appreciate that. Worm^TT(talk) 08:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• 3 GAs, 7 DYKs and about 2100 stubs. ⇒TAP 08:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd request that you return it. Based on his numerous appearances at AN, ANI, whinging about his inability to apply for more permissions (all well-proven), the comment was 100% valid, and stands quite obviously on its own. The suggestions on improvement are to do exactly the opposite of what he's now infamous for, which is being a royal pain in the ass. If he wants to focus on writing, and STOP whinging left right and centre, then he'll be a better person/editor. Every 19th edit or so (unofficial estimate), the whinging recurs, and it's not becoming of anyone. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No. It was at best unfair and uncivil, at worst a personal attack. If you must return it unaltered, do so, but I would be requesting more eyes on the situation. If you'd rather request eyes on the situation, feel free to take it to any forum, I'll be happy to join you there.Worm^TT(talk) 11:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It was 100% supported by freely available evidence, and doesn't even push the boundaries of NPA, nor uncivil. WP:SPADE. I expect you to return it (and if for some reason, you feel it necessary to include my clarifying statements above then feel free to do so). You and I BOTH know the review was 100% accurate and supported. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

(Random comment) I would be interested to know how he "totally lacks a CLUE", and "fails to takes any advice" is either 100% accurate or 100% supported.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can show me ANY 7-day period where he has NOT at some point made a statement about "not being permitted to request additional permissions", then I'll be fully happy to retract that :-) That's something he's been told to stop doing over and over and over again, and it's fantastic advice (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I must note that the "not permitted —" is when editors have actually asked me why I don't have certain things. ⇒TAP 11:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Come on TAP, show me a 7 day period where you haven't said it. Do it please. Tell me you'll never say it again - when you say it, even in the context you provide above, it's still coming across as whinging - almost like you're hoping someone will step in on your behalf (like what you ALREADY did with the one permission you have) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Since TAP has been criticised by the blocking administrator for not mentioning the restrictions on his requesting additional permissions when the subject comes up, I think this demand is completely ridiculous.

BWilkins, you seem to have some sort of issue with TAP; it's obvious that you find him very annoying, and the interactions between the two of you do neither of you any good at all. I have a suggestion. Take everything TAP-related off your watchlist. When TAP-related things crop up elsewhere, ignore them. Resist the urge to comment. Forget about him completely. This is likely to be much more productive for everyone concerned, and indeed for the project. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ooooh, such brillance. In order to remove him from my watchlist I'd actually have to have him on my watchlist, wouldn't I. Instead, he just keeps showing up where I already am making the same whining comments, and being chastised for the same damn things by others. Like I said below and elsewhere (long before your sarcasm and literally unhelpful commentary), I want this guy to succeed. I'm fully within my rights and responsibilities to point out his shortcomings, and what HAS in the recent past been an annoyance to the entire project. By pointing out just how fucking annoying he has been it gives him the chance to learn, so as not be so fucking annoying to the project in the future, and to be a great editor. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The last 7 days, actually. As far as I can find (having checked all talk namespace edits in the last 7 days), he has made no reference in the last week.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you find anywhere in the last 7 days where TAP has commented on his topic ban on requesting user-rights, and if not, can you retract your statement, as you said you would do. Thank you.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 13:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't try and reverse the onus here. TAP has been asked to prove it themself - and I'll be happily willing to retract. I can guarantee that I have indeed seen him comment accordingly in the last 7 days ... I'm just not going to be bullied into digging into it because I honestly don't care. The BIG question is, WILL HE NOW CHANGE. Focus on moving forward, which is what I have been pushing ALL ALONG (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

How could he prove a negative here? Without looking through all his talk space contribs (which I have already done) and providing diffs of every single one, showing that he didn't mention it? --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

100% Supported? On current behaviour? No, I certainly don't "know" that. I'm not going to be replacing it, for reasons most of the people responding to you in this thread have made clear. I agree, TAP is not a perfect editor, but your review was not a productive review, and WP:SPADE is an essay which has nothing to do with your statements. From an outside perspective - I'd had almost nothing to do with TAP until today - it was direct editor bashing. As I said, why don't you replace it with something constructive? Worm^TT(talk) 14:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Whilst TAP does seem a little materialistic and pushy at times, I would have to agree with Worm here. He's show a willingness to learn, and unlike certain other editors on here learns from his mistakes and always correct his mistakes if there are any. I've given him a lot of tips on creation and he really does appear to be learning from them. His Bulgarian and Moroccan stubs, especially Bulgaria are informative and quite valuable new entries. And he has shown himself to produce decent content like The Wedding Dance in which we together produced a GA quality article but the article is largely his. I think he deserves to be treated a little better and given a chance to prove himself. I personally am not a fan of the masses of beetle stubs his and several others are producing as they are unlikely to be expanded but I think he has a lot of potential to produce a lot of good content and we need keen, bold editors. He has a few flaws, and seems to get sidetracked very easily, but deserves a chance to prove himself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. And my review simply referred to the pain-in-the-ass portions of his all-too-recent history (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Word, Demiurge, and Dr Blofeld, to be honest. TAP came to me quite a while ago with numerous problems and I was unsure whether he'd cope here. He regularly requested rights he didn't need, reverted good faith edits as vandalism, made some poor NAC closures at Afd, etc etc. I've watch him slowly turn around his editing - he has taken on board a lot of advice that has been given him and has become a decent editor here. Of course, he's not perfect (are any of us?), but I am very impressed with TAP - he has not given up in the face of (sometimes unpleasant) criticism, he has taken advice from other users, and he has made a good contribution to the project. I would strongly challenge the assertion that he "believes that creating poor stubs is an actual substitute for writing articles": firstly, as Worm said, writing stubs is by no means an intinsically bad thing. Secondly, he has 3 good articles and 7 DYKs to his name. I would have agreed that he lacked clue a few months ago, but he has certainly improved recently; I don't think we can justly say that any more. TAP could certainly improve, but I have no doubts that he will, and am very confident that he will take in his stride anything that other editors believe he could improve. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, more than once, especially in what should have been a closure of this thread, how he behaves as he moves forward will tell all about the editor. Period. End of sentence. It's EXACTLY what I strongly hinted at in his editor review, and exactly what I have said in this entire fricking thread. Grow up people. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to note: some of the people commenting in this thread may be here because they were canvassed to be here: User_talk:Thine_Antique_Pen#WP:CANVASS_applies_to_you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

As one of the main contributors to this thread I can confirm that I was not canvassed in any way, having several hundred user talk pages on my watchlist, and did in fact send an e-mail admonishing TAP when I saw he was sending a couple of people e-mails.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfuckingbelievable. However, always good to have my point proven. Bravo TAP. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:13, 17 June 2012 (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.

A question on Balkans editing

Hi there. At the moment, it is all quiet on the Balkan-related subjects so I'll take this chance to ask you - are you officially in charge of disciplinary on Balkan related editing? The reason I ask is that if problems do re-emerge, would it not be better to address you here directly rather than go through the formalities of ANI. Obviously if a user is being reported then I'd still link him to the section but I'm just curious as to what to do. If the other admins are happy enough to leave this one to you, it will just be painful viewing for them to read the same old blah-blah. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

All admins are responsible - in fact, I rarely get involved in ArbComm Enforcement issues. However, if the event is related to the breaking of ArbCom restrictions, either ANI - or more formall ArbComm Enforcement should be used (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

BWG Foods

Hi Bwilkins. I am wondering could you advise/help me on this one, an editor, Malachyhanberry -an SPI, is editing this page and has a COI, he is, qouting the additions he has made, "sales and retail advisory services director of BWG Foods". He has added certain onesided phrases, leading and such in the article which I have removed or tidied around SPAR Ireland is renowned as a leader in convenience retailing . I have added to his talkpage User talk:Malachyhanberry to show him COI and general style, the five pillars and such. Have I been abit heavy or blunt? I dont think I have but maybe an admin (yourself hopefully) interacting with him would help him understand WP:NOT. I dont feel it warrants AN/I, even with the COI, as it is only effecting one article and I believe he just types "sales speak" as part of his mind set if you get my drift. Thanks for your time. Murry1975 (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the welcome template you gave him with {{Welcome-coi}} which directly addresses COI issues. I have also removed some non-encyclopedic content - although it sure needs trimming. I'll add it to my watchlist for a bit (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the (very) quick response. Murry1975 (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Tanisha Thomas

Hey, can you tell me what I should do about this IP who continues to vandalize the page? I can't send it to protection because its only that IP, or can you get involve?. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 17:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably the edit-warring noticeboard, but I've nabbed them for a few days. Make sure you warn them appropriately, and follow WP:DR (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

your opinion

i would like your opinion on this comment by user:frotz, [7]. if this isn't islamophobia then what is? how do we deal with this sort of nonsense? the eurabia, dhimmitude and other similar articles are hijacked by people with similar prejudices.-- altetendekrabbe  10:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I cannot say that I see anything wrong with his statements, his tone, his request for valis sources. He's not advocating racism, immediate attacks, violence, etc. He has an opinion, as far as I can see (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you know

that one of your edits is being used as a bad example? See WP:VPR#Revised proposal:Proposal to ban instant blocking for all editors over 3RR unless a warning has been issued first and search for " because it's an example of a person offering an opinion of another person " and then " because it's an example of a person offering an opinion of another person". Someone should have told you earlier. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice one Doug, you want a stick to help you stir the shit?. If you want to know my opinion of Bwilkins its from what I've generally seen he's a very competent and decent individual. He had every right to comment on TAPS review. I thought it was a little harsh but you didn't see my hound him with the civility stick did you? I can think of far worse example of admin vs editor behaviour but I had just seen it and the editors commenting on that page were discussing how perfect admins were that's all. No offense intended Bwilkins and I don't think it was appropriate on my part to link it there, its not usually my style.. Regards.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Why the attack on me? If someone is mentioned on a board, particularly in this way, it's courteous to let them know. You seem to disagree which surprises me. Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see Dougweller's notice as an attack in any way - I saw it as polite notification that I (or at least one of my actions) was being discussed somewhere without me knowing. Cheers to both of you  :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Emailed. Have cancelled out my link at the pump as its irrelevant to admin blocking.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

XB70Valyrie Block

There appears to be something wrong with the block notice you placed at User talk:XB70Valyrie. It shows that the block is temporary rather than indefinite and it also doesn't display your sig. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

A bot substituted the notice which caused your signature to appear; however, it still stated that the block was only temporary. I have replaced the block notice. Please correct me if I made a mistake. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You're probably right - block notices have to be manually done when I use the device I was using last night, and I appreciate you fixing it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Help with Removing Clean Up Tags

The article page Playdom was tagged as 'needing cleanup' in February 2011. I have been cleaning up the page, removing biased statements, adding references, and generally fixing grammar and syntax as needed. At this point, I think the 'needing cleanup' designation should be removed, but I'm not sure if there's a process to follow in order to do so. I'd love some guidance on whether there's a process, what that process is, or if I can just go ahead and remove the tag. Thank you! Noreenst (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If it's a commonly-edited page, a brief discussion on the article talkpage would probably help. If you propose the de-tag, and get no replies for 5-7 days, it's probably good to go. However, if discussion does take place, remember that WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Thomson affair

While I have no issue with your close overall, there are some now-removed edits to the article that were clear BLP problems. Would you mind hiding/deleting/whatever those versions in the edit history in addition to the close you performed? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 01:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the topic to be able to WP:REVDEL readily (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi - I see that you've closed the AfD for the above and moved the contents to a new page. I am not sure if you saw this when moving the content and talk pages over, as there are serious issues with regards to wp:npov , wp:blp AND wp:undue in the article and talk pages, as well as the content in this article being completely disputed by multiple editors. In order to start the "Health Services Union affair" again from scratch, is it necessary to re-list the article for deletion? Or what are the next steps? (Sorry if the answers seem obvious to you; I am a newbie at this). Best, One21dot216dot (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Why delete and re-start? Do an WP:RFC (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No consensus?

Hi, I see you closed the Afd discussion at wp:Articles for deletion/Shawn Welling (2nd nomination) as no consensus, and respectfully request a clarification. There is a single line of argument by a single editor for keep based upon the notability of awards received and the subject being world class. Numerous editors attempted to locate reliable sources to establish that claim, and none were able to. In fact, that same editor acknowledged that a large bulk of the sources he had based his initial argument on actually came from an author who has a financial interest in the subject and agreed they were suspect. The only other keep !votes at the discussion were a "me too" and "It is interesting" which are not truly valid arguments for an AfD. So may I ask how you have concluded there is no consensus? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope the math curriculum is stronger in BC than it appears ;-) as I see 2 real Keeps +1 additional. Remember, AFD is not a vote. The actually policy-based arguments (and that by Michael Q Schmidt is very strong) were taken into account (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)