User talk:Winkelvi

Request for advice on whether to report potential edit warring

I would like to ask your advice on whether or not I should report Ring Cinema for edit warring, since his editing may not explicitly violate the 3RR, but as I understand it you have noted he is a persist edit warrer (around September 19, 2014. The edits in question on his current edit warring revolve around two Michael Caine films, Deathtrap (film) and Sleuth (1972 film) Two days ago I added a sentence to the leads of both of these article noting the similarities of these films, and providing citations of reviews by Roger Ebert and Janet Maslin that explicitly mention the similarities between these films, as well as three published books that mention the similarities. Yesterday Ring Cinema repeatedly reverted these changes on the Deathtrap article. At that point, I attempted to start a discussion with him. Since then, he has reverted the change again. This is his third revert. His first revert was 16:25, 4 August 2015‎, and his last revert was 16:51, 5 August 2015‎. At 16:51, 5 August 2015, he also reverted the almost exact same sentence in the Sleuth article. So while it's two different articles, it is the exact same issue with the exact same editors in the two articles, and he is at 4 reverts of it in barely over 24 hours. This feels like edit warring if not a cut-and-dried violation of 3RR. I have opened a discussion of the content dispute on WP:DRN, but do you think I should also go to ANI/3rr? Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Report him if you think his actions are deserving of being reported, Mmyers1976. I have no opinion one way or the other. Yes, he and I have tangled previously, but I don't hold any animosity toward him and I'm certainly not looking for reasons to see him taken to a noticeboard. If you believe it's as cut and dried as you say, do what you think is appropriate. If you, however, have been edit warring as well, be prepared for a possible WP:BOOMERANG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I asked because I believe it's not cut and dried, it's more of those ambiguous situations like he was warned about before, and also because of the open DRN discussion, I don't want to look like I'm forum-shopping. I counted and have 3 reverts on the Deathtrap article, and then I stopped and discussed. Even though he has reverted me again on that article, I have let it stand pending the DRN. I have not reverted at all on the Sleuth article, and I have let his revert stand pending the DRN, so I believe I'm clear of an edit warring boomerang charge. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I see you have also asked Drmies for advice. I would go with whatever he says. I've found his advice wise and unbiased as well as trustworthy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Too much praise, Winkelvi. I'm a bit mobile and the keyboard is sticky (it's in Alabama, as am I), and I haven't looked at diffs yet, so pardon the brevity. But y'all, realize that WP:AN3 is also WP:EWN, that is, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring--in other words, while the template may suggest it's all about three reverts, it's a noticeboard for edit warring, and that's a broader thing than just 3R violations. You might say that's more liberal, but it's also intended, I believe, to bring to admin attention the more persistent edit warriors who tend to work long-term, outside of the clear bright line of 3R. So if you're suspecting someone of such edit warring, and if, of course, you're not the only one reverting them, you may well report it--just write up a good report in which you lay out the case.

It may be (but this is possibly not of any interest to you) that the "punishment" is different. Clear 3R violations are frequently met with a short block to prevent 4R, 5R, etc.; long-term edit warring violations sometimes call for different matters, and it may be that the matter ends up on ANI for POV editing or whatever. But don't be afraid to report edit warring: Bbb23 and EdJohnston know what they're doing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, great info, helped my understanding a lot. replied in full on your talk. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I just received your message. The reason I changed the information regarding Meredith's date of birth, which I'm assuming is the reason for your message, is because of a photo Josh Duggar just posted of his daughter. In the caption of the photo he says that Meredith is one month old today which would indicate that she had been born on July 16th and not July 19th. I think they simply announced the birth on July 19th in order to give Anna time to rest and the children a chance to bond with their new sister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckym1983 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Duggar date

Hi, I just received your message. The reason I changed the information regarding Meredith's date of birth, which I'm assuming is the reason for your message, is because of a photo Josh Duggar just posted of his daughter. In the caption of the photo he says that Meredith is one month old today which would indicate that she had been born on July 16th and not July 19th. I think they simply announced the birth on July 19th in order to give Anna time to rest and the children a chance to bond with their new sister. (Beckym1983 (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC))

Thanks for responding, Beckym1983. It's important that when content is changed -- especially dates -- that you give a reason for the change in the edit summary and that a reliable source is provided to support the change. As far as I know (without looking first), I believe the 19th date is sourced. I will check to make sure that's the case. If not, then we can look into the 16th date for accuracy and change that content accordingly. Thanks for wanting to edit for accuracy! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Ted Cruz Edit

Thanks for your note regarding my recent edit to Ted Cruz. I saw that resource you flagged referenced on a page for another candidate and thought it was useful for establishing ideological context, do you have suggestions on how to be able to provide that type of information from resources like Crowdpac in a way that isn't promotional? Thank you. Dapcrescendo9 (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Dapcrescendo9, the addition of the content was problematic from three aspects: It's not from a reliable source, it's from a biased source, and the source is promotional/spam in nature. You may not have intended for it to be "spammy", but it would likely be seen as such, regardless. The biased nature of the source you provided is also not acceptable. If you are able to find an unbiased, reliable source that can support that content, you are welcome to add it to the article. As it is, however, we cannot accept the content. Please see WP:SPAM, WP:REF, and WP:NPOV for more. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, thanks very much for your response, very helpful. Can you help me understand how the source is biased? One of the things I found useful about them is that they appear to be very objective politically outside of the issue of money in politics. I found their scoring model to be useful in that it is based on objective analysis of campaign contributions, and have seen them cited a few different places. I've seen similar methodology to the one they used from sources like fivethirtyeight.com and have seen their data cited in a few major media outlets. I very much appreciate you taking the time to respond to me and am just looking to better understand how bias is being defined. Would it be better to combine that data with other sources that have included that data or similar data? Thanks again. Dapcrescendo9 (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

References

It's biased because it is a pro-Conservative political action group, even though they claim to be non-partisan, the group's founder is a strong Conservative and much of their reports are anti-Liberal. Beyond this, addition of the source you provided is promotional. At the top of the chart was a solicitation for funds to the Conservative candidates listed. The inclusion of such is inappropriate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Walker

Hi Winkelvi. FYI: Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Photography_workshop#Scott_WalkerAnythingyouwant (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

George Takei

Could you please let me know what you were referring to as "relevant information" for the George Takei article I edited. Both sections I edited seemed to have nitpicking information that wasn't necessarily relevant to the page. Thanks! Mitchmasontim (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Mitchmasontim

If it happened and is written in a manner consistent with policy on Wikipedia biographies of living persons (BLPs), notablity, and citing reliable references, then it's inclusion-worthy. We don't keep negative content out of BLPs just because it's negative (which was the reasoning for removal you cited in the edit summary). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Jared Fogle

Hasn't Jared publicly admitted to having sex below the age of consent (which is 16, 17 or 18 depending on what state you're in). Well, I still find the pedophilia category inaccurate. Pedophilia is a medical diagnosis and while it has been said he has a medical condition and will be receiving treatment for sexual disorders, they haven't specifically said he has pedophilia. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 22:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he has had sex with minors and that is one of the things he was charged with. He was not charged with rape. He has also been charged with being in possession of and distributing child pornography. You could be right about the pedophilia category, however, you are incorrect to add a category for rape. Categories, of course, have to be supported by article content as well as reliable sources. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Isn't sex with people under 16 considered rape? I am probably right about the pedophilia category. In order to be diagnosed with pedophilia you must be primarily attracted to people under 11 (something that doesn't appear to be true with him). He has a sexual disorder but until he has a diagnosis he shouldn't be in the pedophilia category. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 23:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Rape has different definitions. That said, if the sources don't support that he raped anyone, and the charges don't say he raped anyone, then we don't say he raped anyone. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 23:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hi, I just read your post on WP:RSN. Informing noticeboards of RFC's that have questions are normally dealt with on those boards is not canvassing. You can read here for other appropriate places to publicise a RFC that are not canvassing. AlbinoFerret 00:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, AlbinoFerret. With the other comments left in conjunction with the RfC notification, there was an intent for something else. Trust me on this. As always, it's good to hear from you - I hope you are well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the statement was not neutral, but I wanted you to know what is acceptable so that you dont make unintentional false statements. I'm doing good, hope you are also. AlbinoFerret 00:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Glad you are doing well -- I am, also! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Duggar

Hello,

"In 1984, Duggar Michelle Ruark." doesn't sound grammatical to me. Is there a quirk of the English language that makes it correct to omit the word "married"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Bob_Duggar&diff=679158632&oldid=679156228 15.211.201.85 (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That was an error on my part, thought I corrected it, but didn't. My apologies for any confusion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

On Denali

Come on, you know it's true. 24.255.44.92 (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Which is completely beside the point. Follow the link he helpfully provided to you and learn how to use article talk pages correctly. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

User:24.255.44.92, you're being disruptive just for the sake of being disruptive. Talk pages are not a forum. If that's what you're looking for, do it outside Wikipedia, not here. And if you didn't come to my talk page to truly discuss, rather, to just stir the pot some more, please stay off this page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

(Notifications - any kind of ping, reverts, etc - don't work for IPs. However, as I understand it, they do get the yellow "you have new messages" bar if you post on their talk page.) ―Mandruss ☎ 05:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Undid

I made a recent edit to Jesse Ventura's page changing his unit affiliation and using a website address that had 3 pages of factual interviews from various Vietnam era SEALs that was copyrighted by Bill Salsibury yet you deleted the footnote citing it wasnt a credible website, yet several other attached footnotes from other websites were left alone and thus were deemed credible. What is your criteria for credibility on a website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.75.69 (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's not my criteria, it's Wikipedia's criteria for verification of references and referencing. The The reference you provided is a self-published source and that's not acceptable for referencing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ahmed Arrest

I think you are misreading the press release. There's a possible distinction with juveniles regarding custody but the reasons for taking him to a juvenile detention center for processing is functionally equivalent to an arrest. "Taking him into custody" = "Arrested." They cited the law he was arrested and that would have been the probable cause for taking into custody. For adults, they would not have been able to take a person into custody like that without an arrest. A Terry stop is a detention. People are making more out of handcuffing, though. It's generally policy in police departments that anyone arrested is handcuffed with hands behind their back while being transported unless a medical condition prevents it. After arrest and further investigation, they chose not to charge him but it doesn't negate the arrest. --DHeyward (talk) 05:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

And I stand corrected that in Texas, for juveniles they explicitly state that "taken into custody" is not considered an "arrest" under the law. --DHeyward (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I think his detention does constitute "arrest". The law in question (as I understand it) says that when someone has been arrested but is free not to disclose it, they can say "no" and be considered to have answered truthfully. I think that's because requiring them to say "yes but I'm not required to disclose this fact" would be incoherent: it would require them to disclose the fact in the course of saying that they're not required to. As I understand it, there is instead an implicit clause, in effect: it says only "Have you ever been arrested?", but it means "Have you ever been arrested, that isn't privileged from disclosure?" Furthermore, if I read it correctly, the Texas statute on kidnapping and unlawful restraint makes exception "when it is for the purpose of effecting a lawful arrest or detaining an individual lawfully arrested" -- not when it's either arrest or the substitute-for-arrest applicable a juvenile. (There are a bunch of clauses saying it's lawful to restrain a child, or for a child to restrain another child without force, intimidation, or deception. So I might have missed a pseudo-arrest clause in there. But I don't think so.) Nor do I think that this detention constitutes a Terry Stop. Here's how Terry describes arrest: An arrest is the initial stage of a criminal prosecution. It is intended to vindicate society's interest in having its laws obeyed, and it is inevitably accompanied by future interference with the individual's freedom of movement, whether or not trial or conviction ultimately follows. That's what they were doing. At that point, they suspected that he had perpetrated a bomb hoax, and were acting toward a possible prosecution for that offense. Finally, there's video of the police chief being asked about the "arrest", and not objecting to that description of what happened. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. There is so much about this incident the media has gotten wrong (for instance, saying charges were dropped - there were never any charges filed) that I'm sick of reading the distortions of the truth in the news. Nothing personal, but I'm also sick of talking about whether he was arrested or not arrested, to be honest. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You really templated me ?

Nice going, but no. I'm enforcing WP:POLEMIC, consensus exists that his writing is polemic and per the policy, it needs to be removed, full stop. KoshVorlon 16:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Twice now. Cut the bullshit. You were told to move on. Do it before you get taken to a noticeboard and will surely be blocked. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, cool story bro, but I have both consensus and policy on my side, you don't have anything except WP:ILIKEIT. Take it there, if you dare! KoshVorlon 16:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC) PS: You reverted me with Twinkle and you referred to me edit as vandalism, which it wasn't. That's a mis-use of Twinkle, better read the manual again sport! KoshVorlon 17:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Where is this alleged consensus to be found and viewed? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It was in the edit summary | here . KoshVorlon 17:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said: Blocked for disruptive behavior. You should have seen it coming. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Outing Attempt

I've warned the IP once more and sent a message to get this stuff suppressed. Is there something I'm missing here? Thanks for your vigilance.

Best, GAB^Hello! 21:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Have no idea what the mission here is, but the IP does seem determined. Annoyingly so. Their quoting of policy and use of Wiki-speak tells me they are not new here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Suppress, indef, rinse and repeat. GAB^Hello! 21:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of others' talk page comments

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Stephkollm. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 32.218.35.60 (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope. It's WP:OUTING, and that's strictly prohibited. GAB^Hello! 21:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

Hello,

I'm confused about the "lack of citation" on my post about Ronald Reagan. I attempted to cite the Economics/Finance blog Calculated Risk. Does the citation not come up? If so, what are the steps necessary to properly include the citation?

Thanks,

Waltersjoe86 (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by. The cite was there. The problem, Waltersjoe86, is a blog is not a reliable source. This was stated in the edit summary where I reverted your addition. There needs to be a reliable source accompanying such content -- especially a change in statistical content. Please see WP:CITE for a better understanding on what is acceptable reference-wise in Wikipedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the clarification! I'll find a different source to cite.

Waltersjoe86 (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warning?

You placed a stern edit warning on my Talk page. Care to elaborate? Checkingfax (talk) 03:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks pretty clear to me. What's confusing you? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

AfDs of blocked editor's articles

Please comment here, if you like. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

No desire to comment there and dive headfirst into the drama. Especially since the user has previously told me to stay off his talk page. But thanks for the thoughtful notifcation/invitation, Anna. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. What are your thoughts on holding off for a couple of days until it is sorted out? I have yet to start checking to see if his claim of innocence may be true. Are you planning on nominating more? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm finished with that work for now, Anna. As far as his claims to not be the banned user, I find it highly doubtful MikeV would have blocked JTV without an SPI and by using CU only if it were not certain they are one and the same. CU is about more than IP addresses for clues. There had to be very solid evidence against JTV for him to block in the manner he did. Regardless, even with simple steps of investigation regarding the usual signs of sockpuppetry taken, this could have easily been a good case for a Duck Block. I have faith in MikeV's determination, I imagine ArbCom will as well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I trust Mike V's judgement, of course. I first posted at JTV to start a dialogue with the view that the block is right. DENY is for trolls and vandals. Socks who sock because they think it is the right thing to do should be engaged. Nobody wants to hurt other people, especially volunteers. We spend time here that could be spent with puppies in the park. When someone socks, it hurts us, personally. It steals our time. And it hurts the project they are trying to help. I want socks to make a choice: Own up, make a deal, and come in from the cold ...or... understand that they are really causing harm even though they think they are helping, and stop. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

G5 category

According to WP:G5, "G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or to categories that may be useful or suitable for merging." (emphasis added).

You nominated Category:Papakating Creek watershed, presumably because it was created by JackTheVicar. It looks to me like it might be a useful category. Do you disagree?--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I deleted Category:Wildlife Management Areas in New Jersey before realizing the exception to G5, so let's discuss that one as well.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's a useful category, Sphilbrick. I don't, however, agree that it should be kept and should be deleted per G5 but also the spirit behind WP:DENY. It appears that JTV/ColonelHenry is a long-time sockmaster who should really go into the WP:LTA category. Take a look at everything (several sections worth of discussion) at AN/I last year regarding this individual [1]. His antics (and they are quite extensive and messy) go back over a decade. After you take a look there, and you still think the category should stay with JTV as the category creator, I won't protest. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't really need to review the history. I'm comfortable with the concept of DENY (while recognizing that editors have good faith disagreements with the policy.) It is my understanding that G5 exists specifically for the purpose of DENY. I think the transclusian exception exists because we don't want sensible policies generating unreasonable amounts of headache, and deleting trancluded templates would be cutting off our nose to spite your face. However, G5 specifically has an exception for useful categories. I don't know the history of the inclusion of that exception. It may simply be that while no particular article is critical to the encyclopedia and therefore the exclusion won't cause major harm and will achieve our goal of denying recognition, if a category was created that turns out to be useful, it may create more problems than it is worth to delete it. I don't want to belabor this too much but I'd be interested to know if anyone can shed light on the rationale for this exception in case I'm missing something important.

One other possibility is that I delete it and then someone perhaps you are I immediately then re-creates it. Does no copyright infringement for a single word or two, and perhaps that would achieve the goal of DENY while not depriving the encyclopedia of the useful category. Any thoughts?

I may post this at ANI to get broader input.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Your proposal to recreate it is one I have recommended to other editors when they balk at deleting an article or category due to G5/DENY, Sphilbrick. I see it as a win-win for Wikipedia as it keeps the legitimate category but removes the banned/blocked sock from the equation and any history in the creation of it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a bigger challenge in the case of an article. If you save the text and then simply re-create it you've violated copyright. If you don't say the tax credit from scratch good for you but that's a lot of work. At least with a three word category you don't have to worry about either.

This isn't a rush.

I want to emphasize, because sometimes text doesn't convey the right connotation, that I'm not criticizing your nomination. I'm genuinely puzzled that an apparently clear-cut CSD category has two exceptions, one I understand (I think) while the other isn't quite so clear to me.

There are also some additional complications. The editor in question denies being the originally blocked editor. I think that's being discussed behind the scenes and we shall hear at some time what they conclude. In addition to the two categories there is a good article in the mix.

In terms of timing, I'm signing off for the evening, have a meeting in the morning, then have to rush off to another family meeting in another state. Expect to be back in the afternoon and will look to see if there's any update on the functionary review. Depending on the results of that, I may post something at ANI to see if the possibility of deleting and re-creating is a good idea or not.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

In terms of the article, considering what you have pointed out, it would be impractical and unwise, Sphilbrick. I'm not quite sure what the solution is, however, I have seen articles deleted but re-drafted later and then recreated. I do want to make it clear: my actions in regard to the articles and such created and edited by the editor in question, have been nothing less than honorable and never for the purpose of anything other than what is right and for the good of the encyclopedia. Certainly not a personal vendetta. I state this only because I am being accused by some of having nefarious motives with the reverts and AfDs and speedy deletion noms I have made today. As far as that editor now blocked, this will all be clear in time. As I have said elsewhere in the last several hours, I have faith in MikeV's decision to block and why. I am confident that the CU he performed was correct and that he wouldn't have blocked in the manner he did unless the results were without question. And yes, no rush. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I saw, without looking closely, that there were other aspersions cast at you. That was part of the reason I made the comment I did. Without comment on any of the other issues, I fully support the action you took in this case and we are, as editors are supposed to do, talking it through, to make sure that conflicting priorities are handled correctly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Advice

I'm looking for a more experienced editor to help me with a potential BLP issue. I made this edit [2] to remove a claim implying (if not directly claiming) criminal fraud. The source for the claim is a single buzzfeed article, which I understood as insufficient for negative BLP claims. My removal was reverted [3]. Is my understanding of sourcing requirements wrong? If not, can you advise me on how to proceed? I don't intend to edit war. Thank you. 107.150.94.5 (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

As the reverting editor pointed out in his edit summary, previous discussion on the article talk page is in regard to Buzzfeed being a reliable source. I don't think you can do anything more, considering such. And be careful not to violate WP:3RR should you continue editing there over the next 24 hours. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI thread

Please just do not answer the undue etc stuff. It only encourages them and the thread is already almost swamped in back and forth. Thank you! Cheers. Jbh^Talk 19:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I had no intention of answering. It's obvious (especially considering his history) that he's looking to stir the pot and derail the discussion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I sometimes give in to the temptation to respond to that type. ANI - Wikipedia's gladiator pit - "fun for the whole family"

Also thank you for bringing up the issue at ANI yesterday, I didn't have the time to pay attention to anything beyond gnomish stuff between random spurts of RL activity. Jbh^Talk 20:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Rocky Dennis edit

Hi, just got your message on my talk page. I'm relatively new to this so I'm not sure how to link to the relevant rule pages, but my edits that you undid fall perfectly within the guidelines.

1. The un-boldening of the quote marks around the name "Rocky" is in line with all other articles that follow this rule (see Tom Hardy or Caitlin Moran).

2. Unlinking 'American' is correct, as it's unnecessary linking.

3. His parents should not be mentioned in the infobox unless they have Wiki pages of their own which can be linked to.

4. Large geographical areas should also not be linked, specifically countries; this is why I unlinked the US.

5. I added the US to the end of his birth and death places because I'm yet to see an article on a person (non-sportsperson) where this wasn't the case.

Let me know if we need to discuss this further; I realise I would have a much stronger case if I could find the relevant rule pages to link to, so sorry about that. All I know is that my edits fall within the lines of advice given to me by senior editors. -- HughMorris15 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

HughMorris15: Regarding the above:

• 3 - His parents most certainly should be named in the infobox. It's the names of any non-notable children you don't add.

• 4 - There's no harm in linking large geographical areas.

• Other changes made: Your size push of the image was totally unnecessary. The year you put in the caption was impossible since Dennis went to junior high in the 1970s and died in 1978. And yes, you really need to be quoting specific policy if policy is what you say you are going by. No one is perfect, and I think you were trying to improve the article, however, the changes you made didn't seem like improvements. To be honest, they seemed a bit like intentional disruptive editing (especially with the year change being completely incorrect). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi:

The year change was a complete mistake on my part (mobile editing; I should've paid more attention), and I appreciate you pointing that out, though it's a bit paranoid to assume that it's intentional disruptive editing when you can blatantly see from my history that I don't go around trying to do that stuff. The size change of the image was, again, something I was told was the norm for biographies. I guess I was given dud info. Could you link me to the pages about linking geographical areas and including parents in the infobox? I'm pretty sure you're incorrect on both counts, as I've been scolded by senior editors before ("large geographical areas shouldn't be linked because there's too much blue in one space for it to be easily readable", "non-notable relatives of any kind have no point in being in the infobox"), but I'd be happy to be proven wrong if you could help me out with a link to some help pages. HughMorris15 (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Not "paranoid" at all. If you had any clue how much vandalism and disruptive editing takes place in Wikipedia during a 24-hour period, and how much many of us have been dealing with for a while, you wouldn't call it paranoid at all. And it doesn't always come from anonymous IP editors. Yes, it does come from those with accounts. Especially new accounts such as yours.

Pretty much everything you need to know policy-wise can be found from this starting point: WP:PG. If you don't get your answers there, keep looking. As far as having been "scolded" in the past, sometimes WP:COMMONSENSE just needs to be applied along with WP:IAR. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

RE Ben Carson edit warring

Hi Winkelvi, Not sure if you're aware but Calibrador is Gage Skidmore, There's a huge report here, Long story short he prefers his name on every single image in every single article and there's nothing we can do, If you edit war and go to 3RRNO his buddies will probably turn up and defend him so to be absolutely honest it's not worth it in the long run,
Anyway just thought I should make you aware :),
Thanks & Happy editing :), –Davey2010^Talk 18:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I know who he is and really don't care if he's a professional photographer or if his buddies show up. The photo he's edit warring over was too dark - the one I replaced it with is a better rendition. Don't know if you are aware, but he was blocked by Bbb23 back in June for the same kind of edit warring behavior over one of the photos he contributed. This is an ongoing issue for him, and his ownership issues are obvious. If he doesn't want to have the photos he takes and contributes changed, he shouldn't submit them to Wikipedia where they are fair game for being edited or removed. That's my feeling about it, anyway. Thanks for the heads up - always good to hear from you, Davey. Hope you are well and, if you celebrate, have a Happy Thanksgiving! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah right sorry , Ah I didn't realize you amended the photo - I thought you just reuploaded it under a new name , To be honest it'll always be an issue, Anyway it's nice to hear from you too! :), I don't think we celebrate Thanksgiving in the UK but thanks and I hope you have a Happy Thanksgiving too :) –Davey2010^Talk 18:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops! I forgot you are not on this side of the pond. We Americans in en.wikipedia tend to think of ourselves as the only ones here. Have a good upcoming weekend, then! :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Haha well most people on here are american so it's easy to think that , Thanks and You have a great weekend too :) .. Infact have a very Merry Christmas too haha . –Davey2010^Talk 19:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi and DRN question

Hi Winkelvi, I don't believe we've been formally introduced before, but I've seen you around on the wiki. I'm wia; nice to meet you! I'm wondering whether you're interested in continuing the DRN moderated discussion over at the Talk:Shah Rukh Khan dispute. I don't mind jumping in and helping out there if you're not able to or have other things on the go. Let me know if that's okay with you! Thanks, /wia /tlk 21:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to jump in. I looked at it yesterday, and didn't see any real progress. I will head over there now, but you are welcome to help out. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

DR/N Khan etc.

Hi, please note the following edit. Based on the input at DR/N it seems pretty clear the content should not be in the lead. Best, Semitransgenic _talk. 17:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Semitransgenic. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

can you advise? it appears another editor believes the dispute is unresolved 1,2. Semitransgenic _talk. 20:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

for the record, second attempt to address objectivity matter. Semitransgenic _talk. 23:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

over there at CS talk

after at least 8 edit conflicts - I'm going to watch some NFL for a bit. :-) — Ched :  ?  19:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oh - for future reference, what I was trying to post:
• (edit conflict)x? In response to "sources say": Most of the sources at this time are news articles. Wikipedia in not a newspaper. We are an encyclopedia. (or at least that's what I've been led to believe). — Ched :  ?  19:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

NFL sounds good to me, too, Ched. The POV pushers are about to have a stroke, I think. :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Alsee

Hello, I'm Alsee. I noticed that you've Templated The Regulars, and pointlessly did so while you were already engaged in an article talk discussion with the user. These templates serve to explain the various policies to new editors. When novice editors breach policies, it is quite possible (if we assume good faith, which we must) that they are unaware of them, and educating them is helpful. On the other hand, most editors who have been around for a while are aware of these policies. If you believe that they have broken (or are about to breach) one, it is frequently the result of some disagreement over the interpretation of the policy, or temporarily heated tempers. In such situations, sticking to "did you know we had a policy here" mentality tends to be counter-productive in resolving the issue, as it can be construed as being patronising and uncivil.

Professional staff operating under professional editorial control are not commonly classified as "bloggers", and they do not fall under Self-published sources portion of policy. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message at Reliable Sources Noticeboard#Salon.com. Alsee (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, it could be construed that way -- if someone is overly sensitive and defensive. Or someone could see it as a reminder and a chance to stop and think about what they are doing or have done. In which case, leaving such a template is a helpful thing to do.

Professional staff at online publications most certainly can -- and are -- classified as bloggers. You've heard of the Huffington Post, have you not? There are also other online news-blogs where their writers are referred to as "bloggers". If you aren't aware of this, you should take the time to familiarize yourself with it. As far as referencing goes, no, I don't need a refresher, nor am I in any way a "beginner". Nice attempt at condescension and being patronizing/uncivil. Something you are chastising me for. Ironic, isn't it, Alsee? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll concede I was a bit pointy tossing your tutorial back at you, but there's no high ground for you to claim here. I can just echo back every comment about the templates. They sound just as (un)reasonable to me, as they would sound to you, if I copy-pasted them back.

I thought about what I had done. I had posted a Due Weight Reliable Source, accurately informing the reader how sources generally cover the subject. I understand you may not fully agree with my policy interpretations on that. I understand you were trying to protect a BLP. But there was an on-going article talk and we could have constructively and respectfully discussed any policy disagreements. It was very bad form to template my talk page, especially in the middle of discussions on article talk. I don't need a tutorial any more than you do. I fluently cited a pile of Policies and Policy subsections backing up many of your reverts. And did you notice that you posted a beginner tutorial directly below Wikipedia Tech Newsletter??

Hopefully things aren't too tense to make this comment, I'll try to be as constructive and collaborative as possible: We're on the same team trying to improve the encyclopedia. When someone makes an edit with several changes - and you have cause to revert one aspect - please don't jump to the revert button. Please keep the good parts and manually revert the objectionable piece. Alsee (talk) 08:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you read this?

FYI, a really wonderful article by Eric Garcia on being a journalist with autism from a somewhat unexpected media outlet, the National Journal. Hope the link works for you. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a great article. Thanks for sharing it, Vesuvius Dogg. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

MacFarlane

Hello Winkelvi,

Just looking for feedback as to why you reverted my edit for Seth MacFarlane as I removed the ambiguity and misinformation about his ancestry and provided a reference.

The original statement was: He is of English, Scottish, and Irish descent,

My edit was: He is of Canadian and English descent

In my research, I found no evidence he is of either Scottish or Irish ancestry. His genealogy, the reference I used, which is the same reference used in the page for William Brewster goes back to 1620 and does not show any Scottish or Irish ancestry. One cannot make the assumption of ancestry based on his last name. Besides, in the last 400 years he has no Scottish or Irish ancestors.

Perhaps you would agree with this edit: He is of English descent since this is the only known fact of his ancestry.

Take Care Rapprochement (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

We can't add content derived from original research, which is what your edit added up to absent of a reliable source. I agree that a last name doesn't always equate a certain ancestry, however, in MacFarlane's case, I think his ancestry is a given (unless his father or another MacFarlane ancestor of his father's was adopted). At this time, I'm going to put a cite needed tag on the content about his ancestry being Scottish. As of yet, I can't find anything that is a reliable source which supports his ancestry. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Timed Text MFD's

Please stop nominating these with the same rationale - I agree this is a cloudy area and needs to be fleshed out, but MFD is not the best venue for this. I am going to abort all of these and refer to a centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. If these ARE copyvios, they don't need to go through MFD, as they would be speedy candidates. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Could you be any more rude about this, Xaosflux? Being an admin and having the tools to delete with a click of the mouse doesn't give you carte blanche to be so abrupt and bring this to me in such a brusque, harsh manner. The way you've communicated here seems to be designed to shame me, as if I broke something or committed some huge policy vio. I didn't and you could have been much more kind. 'Tis the season to be jolly, after all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm so sorry this came across in such a negative way. In rereading my statement above, you are correct and this was very poorly communicated by me. I think you have brought up a VERY important point and these do need to be dealt with. I hope you will continue in the discussion and not be put off by this. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for walking it back a bit, xaosflux. I never meant to do anything inappropriate - obviously, because I did do it, I thought it was the right thing to do. No longer put off and I will take part in the discussion. Thanks again, and best of the holiday season to you! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

WTF?

What "stated POV"? I have an opinion, that a used car salesman is a specific thing and distinct from a salesman who also sells new cars. That is hardly controversial! There are a metric fucktonne of sources describing Duggar's business as a "used car lot" and him as a "used car salesman". This is lame beyond belief! Guy (Help!) 01:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

WTF, indeed. What's truly "lame beyond belief" is that an editor of 10+ years is defending the your use of "used" tagged onto car salesman because in your opinion all used car salesmen are of low character and that's the appropriate description for the subject of a BLP in spite of policy on BLPs and POV. [4], [5] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

And all because that's what the sources say. How stupid of me to want to follow the sources. Guy (Help!) 18:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Please, cut the bullshit. This edit summary from you, "there is a differenc ein character between those who sell cars and those who only sell used cars." (found here: [6]), shows exactly why you wanted that content in: POV agenda. Has nothing to do with sources, and you know it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement sanction

Note that your arbitration enforcement sanction has been revoked. I know you know it, but since the sanction is visible in the page history, I thought this revocation had better be too. Bishonen | talk 16:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen. I understand, red tape and all that. Best wishes for a Happy New Year, by the way! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Sign

I think you forget to sign at Talk:Jeb Bush.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

An olive branch

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice

Hi Winkelvi, I hope you don't mind that I've removed your notice from my talk page. I do appreciate the reminder, but I wanted to say that I knew better and should have left that bit out. It was late last night and I was trying to sort out the best way to communicate the problem, and I dropped the ball on that one. I am bipolar and get quite hyper sometimes. I will remember in future. Thank you. Carlstak (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you know

LP has filed a sub-section on you on the AN/I report against him; you may want to reply. Not involved, just saw the thread and thought it was strange that he hadn't notified you. Kindest regards, Chesnaught (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I responded to allegations he made in the thread, so notification is fine but I don't believe it is required. Legacypac (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Chesnaught555, thank you for letting me know, I truly appreciate it. I have responded at the AN/I report in regard to the subsection and the non-notification by LP. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem sir. Chesnaught (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia writing guidelines

In your recent edits to Billy the Kid, you have cited several rules in your edit summaries:

• better wording, colons are to be avoided in prose such as this
• we are to write so the average 6th grader can understand what they are reading
• if "of" is kept, it should not be redundant (referring to the change from "guilty of the murder of Sheriff Brady" to "guilty of Sheriff Brady's murder")

I'm not sure where you're finding these rules (especially that about the sixth grade reading level). In the last case, I actually prefer the first formulation ("guilty of the murder of Sheriff Brady"). The second formulation implies a possession of the murder by Sheriff Brady rather than Brady being the victim of the murder. The general upshot here is that you appear to be making minor changes that do not improve the article, merely for the sake of making the changes. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiDan61: I'm sure those actually reviewing the article for GA will pick up on any issues and comment accordingly. As far as your final, parting shot that I'm not improving the article, I guess that kind of assessment varies from editor to editor. Do you have anything to say that is encouraging? Personally, I get tired of editors seemingly forgetting we're all volunteers, giving up our own time to make the encyclopedia better - not to intentionally "not improve [articles]". I get tired of editors whom they have never communicated with or meaningfully encountered prior that their writing looks like shit. If you have something encouraging to say, please do. If not, please stay away from this talk page. You are making comments that "do not improve" my attitude and cause me to ignore everything you have said here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

19 Kids and Counting - Anna's birthday edit

Hi Winkelvi! I just made a recent edit regarding the grammar of Anna's birthday on the 19 Kids and Counting page. As it stands, the entry reads "Anna Renée Keller (born June 23, 1988 (age 27)[98] married Josh Duggar on September 26, 2008." As you can see, there is an open paren "(" but no close paren because the ones surrounding her age do not correspond with the one for her birthdate. I attempted to explain this in my edit summary, but I think I did not explain it well. Additionally, the other members of the family have a separate set of brackets surrounding their birthday information and the citation, as in "Derick Michael Dillard [born March 9, 1989 (age 26)][citation needed] married Jill on June 21, 2014. Children" and "Benjamin Michael "Ben" Seewald [born May 19, 1995 (age 20)][citation needed] married Jessa on November 1, 2014.[46]" (bold added by me for emphasis). I'm just curious as to why you did not accept this edit and reported it as vandalism? I was simply trying to make the form consistent across the page and add a close paren (or bracket) as is customarily and grammatically correct. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.152.108.87 (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It did appear there was some vandalism going on, but I apologize for not seeing the first parenthesis that went with the one you inserted. I have fixed the bracketing problem. Thanks for bringing this error to my attention. I will remove the warnings from your talk page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Acute accent in "née" - re Billy The Kid

Hello again. I'm pretty sure that there is an acute accent in the word "née" - it is French and means "born". In your recent edit to BTK I noticed you removed it. I reverted some vandalism on that page just now, but is it OK for me to place the accent back? Kindest regards, Chesnaught (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)You are correct; it is the French/female word for surname/family name at birth. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 13:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Gareth Griffith-Jones Thank you Gareth (fellow Welsh user too!). I will do that now. Chesnaught (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad to "meet" you!
Hi! to Winkelvi. Are you affected by the blizzard? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 13:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

And likewise sir. Saw that on the news this morning. Chesnaught (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for handling the acute accent, Chesnaught. 'Hi' back to you, Gareth! No snow issues where I live at the moment. Would love to have that problem, though. Everyone loves a snow day, right? Cheers, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Once again, no problem sir. Chesnaught (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016 2

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Floquenbeam (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This has gone on too long; 5 blocks for edit warring in the past (not counting the one that was exempt. In particular, you continued to edit war after warning the other editor about edit warring, and after starting a discussion at WP:ANEW. If an unblock is requested, I'll defer to any uninvolved admin, but my own opinion is that this needs to stick for the full week, so Winkelvi realizes that he actually can't do this anymore, then promise to stop after the block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I finally had time today to get all the edits done at BtK that were being suggested at the GA2 review for the article by BlueMoonset and Display name 99. In a week, I will no longer have that time. I also have noticed at the 3RR report that you blocked without looking at the comments EdJohnston had made there, yet you think your block is the answer. EdJohnston didn't think immediate blocking was the answer. This seems kind of like a WP:WHEELWAR situation to me, but I could be wrong. Regardless, now the GA is pretty much fucked because I can't edit the article for a week and in a week won't have time to do so. I could say "Thanks", but that would be inappropriately sarcastic. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

My block conflicted with Ed's comment; I didn't overrule him, I acted in what I thought was the best way, and saw his comment after I was done with both of you. Calling this wheel warring is cynical wikilawyering; you know it isn't true. So don't do that. And don't blame me for screwing up the GA work, blame yourself. Also, I don't think your ping of Ed worked, so I'll do it here: @EdJohnson:. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. Trying again: @EdJohnston:. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

EdJohnston had stated at the 3RR noticeboard that both editors should stop edit warring. I noted his comment, decided to no longer revert at the article, and that was that. From what I read at the 3RR report, EdJohnston was saying "stop edit warring now or you will be blocked", and I heeded that advice. As far as what has now been deemed edit warring on my part: I continued to revert because the addition of incorrect content and section headers looked and felt like vandalism to me -- especially after the filing of the ANEW, the AN/I report, and the repeated warnings on the other user's talk page by me and one other editor seemed to be totally ignored. After Ed's comments at the ANEW report, I realized my edits weren't being seen as legitimate, and decided to stop reverting regardless if it appeared to be necessary. As far as my part in this, I was honestly seeing something that - as it turns out - wasn't happening. Ed's comments (because I have always trusted his judgement in the past as he has always been fair with me previously) was the snap back into reality I needed to see what was really going on. In the way of further disruption, this block is unnecessary, because -- as I stated above -- I've seen the error in my perception. I have to say that the block itself seems to fly in the face of what Ed already noted at the 3RR filing. I am trying to bring the article (Billy the Kid) to GA status. This block puts a serious lid on that effort -- I finally had time today to perform the edits being recommended at the GA review, in a week, when this block is slated to expire, I no longer will have the time. I imagine the GA nom will now fail because of the edit warring and my block, rendering me unable to continue working on toward GA status. I hope someone will recognize my sincerity and reverse or shorten the block. Truly, I have NO intention of edit warring at this article or causing any further disruption. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC) *NOTE: I'm asking anyone who might review this unblock request to also look at my most recent response to Floquenbeam below. I'd add it here, but don't want to increase the already existing wall of text. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Okay, having discussed it with interested parties, I'm now unblocking you with the following caveats;

1. You are now on a 1RR restriction. This means no more than 1 revert within a 24 hour period per article.
2. Any attempt to "game" the system, such as reverting just out the 24 hour window will be treated as a violation of the restriction.
3. If you break the restriction, you can be blocked for 1 month.
4. The restriction lasts for three months and hence expires on 1 May 2016.
5. You are a grown up, so I'm not going to be stalking your edits, pouncing on you at any point you may make two reverts within 24 hours. However, if anyone else is tempted to do that, I'll remind them that it takes two to edit war, and it is perfectly possible for other parties to be blocked as well, to prevent disputes escalating. This restriction is not an entitlement for others to "dump on Winkelvi", so watch it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• NOTE: I'm asking anyone who might review this unblock request to also look at my most recent response to Floquenbeam below. I'd add it here, but don't want to increase the already existing wall of text. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)}}

I agree with the block. It was surprising that Winkelvi continued to revert. Given his block log, there is not much excuse for him to keep reverting so long after the matter was filed at AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston: I continued to revert because the addition of incorrect content and section headers looked and felt like vandalism to me -- especially after the filing of the ANEW, the AN/I report, and the repeated warnings on the other user's talk page by me and one other editor. After your comments at the ANEW report, I realized my edits weren't being seen as legitimate, and decided to stop reverting regardless if it appeared to be necessary. On my part, it was honestly seeing something that wasn't happening. Your comments (because I have always trusted your judgement in the past and you have always been fair with me previously) was the snap back into reality I needed to see what was really going on. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

One more thing Floquenbeam and EdJohnston: My ANEW report was ignored while others around it were tended to. When I filed it last night, there was no backlog. This isn't the first time AN3 reports I've filed have been completely disregarded. I've had the same thing happen at other noticeboards. Legitimate concerns ignored while similar reports filed by others are taken care of in a timely manner or even immediately, the editor(s) being reported allowed to continue edit warring, harassing, and so on. Please tell me what someone is supposed to do if Admins don't step in? Just let the edit warring, insertion of inaccurate content, perceived vandalism, etc. stand? I realize there is no deadline in Wikipedia, but when trying to get an article to GA status and it seems like there are those who are trying to sabotage the process, it's pretty frustrating. We are volunteers here who are trying to better the encyclopedia. It's my impression that the purpose of GA status is supposed to be moving toward that goal. When our legitimate concerns get ignored, it feels like no one really gives a shit about what the purpose of this place is supposed to be. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't speak to the whole delayed-response issue you raise - I don't know the answer. But I do have a couple of comments that might help:

• If you reach the point where a report to ANEW is needed, that's a very strong signal that you need to stop reverting too.
• You're operating under the assumption that you are right and the other editor is acting in bad faith. When you approach it that way, you're ultimately setting yourself up for getting blocked. You say that you thought the other editor was vandalizing, but there was no reason whatsoever to think that. It was not a reasonable assumption. He may or may not be wrong, but if you start out assuming someone who disagrees with you is a vandal, you're causing problems for yourself. You seem to do that a lot.
• When you react to another editor with aggression, it shouldn't be a surprise when they do the same. It doesn't make their aggression right, but it does make your acting all innocent wrong.
• You can ask for uninvolved eyes at the appropriate Wikiproject talk page, or WP:3O, or some other WP:DR method, rather than act as if it is only you who can make the article better.
• If someone disagrees with one of your edits, that doesn't prevent you from editing other parts of the article to bring those up to GA standard. You're acting as if his disagreeing with that section brought all your GA work to a screeching halt, delaying all further improvement. There was no reason for that to be the case.
• I am not saying he did things right; he's blocked too. But you've been through this before. If 5 previous blocks for edit warring haven't resulted in change, then you shouldn't be surprised at the sixth. And, ultimately, a very long seventh, and a likely indef eighth.
• You might consider a voluntary 1RR restriction; it would be essentially impossible for you to get in edit warring trouble if you only revert people once.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam: After reading this through a few times, I have to say I felt my heart go into my throat a little bit because of the truth in it. As smart as I am, I can't say I recognized or saw until now how right it all is. Yes, all of it. But especially the parts about what I see and what others see. For too long, I've been looking at what I do here from my own eyes rather than thinking about what others could be seeing and thinking. Not in a manner than equates being uncaring about the participation of others, but in the way that many of us see our participation on the internet: alone with our keyboards and no one else is in the room participating. Which, literally is true, however, the "Wikipedia room" is invisible and there are hundreds, thousands upon thousands in that room at the same time -- and we should never forget that nor should we forget they are also involved in the experience in which we are taking part. Talk about an epiphany!

Editing here for a while, 20k+ edits, and it took me this long to really "get" what you've said here? Stubbornness has always been one of my biggest faults; not seeing things with clear-headedness is also one of my character flaws (mostly due to being on the Autism spectrum). I will keep these words from you around for a reminder in the future. But, back to the edit warring: I know I should stick to 1RR but remembering to do so when it really counts has not been my strong suit in the past.

Thanks for your patience in explaining all of this above -- I sincerely appreciate it. Great advice. I will take it all and make it new day forward for me in the editing-realm. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I don't think we have encountered each other much but I am very used to seeing your name at WP:ANEW. I did a quick count and I found 42 edit-warring cases where you were either reported or, more often, reporting another editor. Some of these cases resulted in a valid block of the other editor who you reported but I have to wonder why you keep finding yourselves in these edit war situations.

Continually finding oneself in an edit war with another editor, even if the other editor is at fault, is not an ideal situation and invariably leads to blocks like this. I'm not going to lift Floq's block, I think your unblock request should be considered by an admin more familiar with your editing, but I think you should do a little self-reflection and think about how you can avoid finding yourselves in the midst of these edit wars. You might alert an admin to an edit war going on rather than filing more ANEW reports which can often just inflame bad feelings between warring editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• I got Ritchie's ping, but haven't read some of the comments here yet, as I'm a little swamped this morning. @Ritchie333:, Winkelvi, whatever you guys can agree to is fine with me. Is 1RR for forever, or time limited? I'm still OK with it either way, but it's a detail you should figure out. Winkelvi, I saw your post above, that's promising, I hope it is indeed a sea change of some kind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Since Floq said "next block will be for a month" in the current block notice, why don't we go with that ie: 1RR probation lasts for a month, going over it gets a month's block? It's enough time to show that Winkelvi really does want to change for the better. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ritchie333 et al, one-third through this section I was already thinking that this might end with a 1R restriction, albeit I wasn't thinking of a voluntary one. Winkelvi is pretty prolific so maybe a month is enough; then again, if we're going to overturn a weeklong block on the second day, we should make it clear that we're serious about the other end of the bargain, so maybe three months is more appropriate. Keep in mind, Winkelvi, that such a restriction is as much to protect you from yourself (as patronizing as that sounds--my apologies) as it is to prevent the disruption for others. What's just as important, though, is the realization that GA reviews and whatnot are not an excuse for anything, but Floq already said that. Liz, you have any opinions? Drmies (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that those who have worked with Winkelvi should take the lead in deciding to lift this block AND holding him/her accountable to the conditions of the unblock. Personally, I think the 1R restriction should last longer than one month but if the result of a violation of the restriction is a month-long block, that should be an incentive to adhere to it. I also don't think otherwise productive behavior gives an editor license to violate other Wikipedia policies, practices and guidelines. But I think the goal of most admins in cases like this is to try to bring an end to disruptive editing and if Ritchie333 believes this is a solution, I'll defer to his judgment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but I'd like to weigh in quick. Why is there consideration for lifting a block while WV is ignoring the block right below this discussion, pinging and even fighting with editors? As long as his flagrant lies about me remain with no Admin action at the of ANi, followed by his efforts to topic ban me below that I prefer to see him remain unable to edit. Legacypac (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac, that you are not an admin is both correct and a correct statement. Kindly refrain from piling on here: we are more than capable of handling ourselves and looking at all the angles. You are not going to rehash and reargue the points made in that ANI thread. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, I concur. WV has previously asked for LP to refrain from posting on his talk page. I take it you've read the AN/I report. Ches (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, Ritchie333, Floquenbeam, Liz: I have read what everyone has written here -- the advice and the proposal(s). The advice is great, the proposal(s) confusing. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to agree to or where these proposals stand. It seems what started today has been abandoned (which is fine, I know everyone has their own life to tend to). Some clarification would be helpful. The first proposal was 1RR, indef block if 1RR breached. The second proposal is 1RR for one month, one month block if 1RR breached. The third proposal is 1RR for three months, one month block if breached. And, am I to assume that if I wait out my block, I will be subject to the typical 3RR, and I could expect a one month block if 3RR is breached? Thanks for all the admins who have taken the time to comment thoughtfully as well as Chesnaught555 who has taken a productive interest in the GA Review I've been involved in and has offered to help out there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• This is administration in action, Winkelvi. We're trying to figure out what we can all agree on. Only's comment below is insightful, and you know it's true: you have have a large number of unfruitful interactions with others, many of them of the repetitive and disruptive kind. Now, in all those cases you were probably absolutely correct (like I usually am), and I know a few cases where you certainly were, but the fact remains that, well, you act a bit rashly sometimes. This is why we're discussing a 1R restriction--I know, from experience with other users, that this can work.

  If you wait out your block, that is if nothing else happens or is decided here, well, I suppose you're back to normal again, but you have to remember that an editor doesn't need to get to 2R or 3R to be guilty of edit warring. In other words, it is very likely that you can get blocked after just one revert. With a 1R regimen, at least you get the one! In principle, that is--3R is not a carte blanche to go reverting, and neither is 1R.

  Ritchie333, given the comments by Liz and Only, I think three months is a good idea. My dear Winkelvi, you and I have some history, and I have been on your side more times than not, I think; I want to see you editing, not being blocked. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you have been on my side many times, Drmies. I've always appreciated your advice, your humor, your ability to see things for what they really are and cut through the b.s. You're a good man. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

(talk page stalker) Liz made a comment about how it's telling that you've been involved in 42 different 3RR reports either as reporter or reportee. I think the number of people who are banned from your talk page (per your own decrees) is also quite telling. Since you've been blocked, I've noticed you speicfically mention 2 users being banned. I also have seen plenty of others over the past year or so who are banned from your talk page. And I know others have banned you from theirs. This suggests a lot of aggressiveness and contention that goes against the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. only (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You are making a lot of assumptions here, Only. "the number of people who are banned from your talk page" How many are there, Only? Any clue? You seem to be thinking there are more than two - indeed, from your comments, you seem to imagine it's a large number. Any idea why I've asked certain editors to stay off my talk page? I'll give you the answer for this since you likely don't know (based on the fact you are making assumptions): every one of them have a history of harassing, haranguing or attempting to bully me. More than one of those asked to stay away from this user space has been caught tag-team vandalizing said user space. Some only communicate with me in order to provide extremely negative commentary, and usually when I am - what some would say - "down", their comments noted to be "piling on" (not just by me, by the way). Come on, Only, you've been here long enough to have witnessed such editors and that kind of behavior: kicking people when they are down, gravedancing, chiding, taunting. That's pretty much the only reason(s) I will have to request editors stay off this talk page. I don't think that's wrong at all. And, by the way, I've never told someone they are "banned" from this user space. I've only ever asked someone (in some cases told them) to stay away. So, now I have to wonder: what is your' point in coming here? Looks and feels like more piling on and kicking when I'm down. That's hardly part of "the collaborative nature of Wikipedia" you invoked above. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

yes, that's EXACTLY why I came here. To pile on and kick you when you're down. Not to lend another admin's insight into an unblock discussion that is ongoing. (Hopefully you caught the sarcasm in these lines). What a poor lack of good faith here. As for the number, I don't have a count, but I know of five off the top of my head which is a large number compared to the amount of people a typical Wikipedia user has banned from his talk page (usually it's around zero). only (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please stop piling on. What a pathetic excuse for an admin to simply show up to berate a blocked editor. Do you not have enough decency or self-respect to limit your sarcasm to your own talk page? Invite Winkelvi to comment thre if you wish to continue the discussion. Leave the condescension to your own talk page. It's obviously not welcome here and your judgement is lacking if you think this helps. --DHeyward (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sarcasm noted. Silly edit warring at a blocked user's user space also noted. To the admins taking part in it: great example. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, you are free to remove any comments on your talk page that you find unhelpful. Including my comments and sarcastic admin comments. They may revert me, but would be on shaky ground to revert you on your own talk page. You don't have to ban anyone to remove their comments. --DHeyward (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. And thank you for the reminder. This, and your attempt to help is greatly appreciated. I've always thought of you as a stand-up individual. Even more so now. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Billy the Kid

The article Billy the Kid you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Billy the Kid for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Display name 99 -- Display name 99 (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hold on

Display name 99, I'd appreciate it if you would look into things before you start pointing fingers inappropriately, inaccurately as well as making pronouncements about the GA review that you are the main reviewer of, but others have had to step in and assist you with. BlueMoonset doesn't seem to think (according to his comments on the article talk page) that things need to be finished in a specific time frame for the GA review to continue. You might want to check with him on that. I'm blocked for 7 days but you want me to fix everything within seven days? That hardly seems logical or fair. Further, you have invited MaranoFan, someone with a history of harassing me, vandalizing my user space, hounding my edits, and recently, intentionally trying to stir up trouble at this GA to work on getting the article to GA status? Really? Did you notice that he placed a "article needs help" category at the article being reviewed just today? Is that a helpful or collegial move on his part? Of course not. It's a way to needle and WP:POKE me because he knows I can't do a damned thing about it. It's likely to get others at the article based on the category and put a good wrench into the points raised. He knows it, he's trying to get the article failed, and that's his only interest in the article. Trust me. I, and several other editors, have been dealing with his antics for over a year. Last, you claimed that I did not try to compromise with Shooterseven. That's a falsehood. I did try to compromise with him. He ignored it and continued to edit war and remove sourced content and place incorrect content in the article. Chesnaught555 has offered to work on the article and keep an eye on it during my block. He's about the only one, at this point, that I trust to take up where I left off because he seems to have a handle on doing what's right there. Hopefully he will have time to do so. But, please, if you are going to comment on the goings on at the article and the players, know what's been happening before making snap judgements that are inaccurate and make the whole thing worse than it has become. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm completely free this week minus school and all that (I can access a library computer there though). I will have the time, I promise. Ches (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed the section inviting you to edit because when I wrote it I was unaware of the block. Anyway, MaranoFan and Chesnaught555 are both free to edit the article, as is anyone else who is not blocked. I have been in communication with both of them. Anyone who can wish may edit it so long as he does not commit vandalism. I will monitor the edits made and make recommendations accordingly. If MaranoFan, or anyone else, does something harmful, I will do my best to correct it and, if necessary, report it. However, it is not your place to tell me who can and who cannot edit what. The process of improving an article is collaborative. I am willing to work with whomever is willing to get involved in the process, including you, so as to improve the article. Evidently, the article does need help. Maybe BlueMoonset, whose contributions have been essential to this entire process, can provide that. But if he doesn't want to, I don't blame him. Display name 99 (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't tell you to not say who can and cannot edit the article, I said, "Please use better judgement and look into things before making pronouncements". I'm asking you to be a little smarter about your surroundings. Because of all this, I think, at this point, it's wise for BlueMoonset to step in and hopefully mentor you through this process and possibly take the reins for a bit -- if he's willing to do so. From what I can tell based on your most recent comments, you don't seem to have a good handle on policy in general or in regard to reviewing for GA. The category MF placed there is problematic, especially since it's in GA review. If you don't realize that, you've proven my point about your inadequacies as a GA reviewer. What's more, you seem to now have contempt for me - as evidenced by this: "as is anyone else who is not blocked" - as well as a low opinion of me because of that comment. Based on that, Display name 99, I'm not sure I trust you to give a fair GA review and leave personalities aside (unless, of course, you have a good explanation for saying something that looks very much like a non-AGF dig aimed at my surrent editing status). Last thing: please, don't ping someone to my talk page who has been told to stay away from my user space because of their history of vandalizing both my talk page and user page as well as harassing me here through tag-team edit warring/vandalization. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur. In my opinion the reviewer of BTK needs to be more experienced. Ches (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

By placing the article on hold, I intended to communicate that, for 7 days, the process was, in some ways, stalled. It was "on hold" until the block expired. I did not intend for it to mean that in 7 days the article will fail. You are right in saying that this would not be fair. In 7 days I plan to remove the "on hold" template and replace it with "on review," unless of course, someone talks me into failing it before then. Display name 99 (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

"unless of course, someone talks me into failing it before then." What the...? You're the main reviewer at an article nominated for GA, which is a position of some power, and: (1) You're threatening the nominator by saying you would allow someone to talk you into failing the article for GA?; (2) You would allow someone to convince you to fail the article, not by following policy and because it isn't eligible to be nominated and considered, but just because they've convinced you to fail it? Is that what you've just said? Please clarify, because that's what it looks like you just said.

BlueMoonset, your intervention, wisdom, and guidance is desperately needed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I was not trying to intimidate you, however the presence of edit-warring is grounds for an immediate failure. It is unfortunate that things have deteriorated to this point. Based on your reaction to the comments that I posted on the GA talk page, it appears as though you believe that you are in no way at fault. That is not true. Now, things have gotten so bad that we aren't even talking about the article. Let's try to turn that around. I have presented Chesnaught555 with the option of revising the popular culture references section, which it appears you did not quite get to before you were blocked. Maybe work can be begun on that. Display name 99 (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

(1) Please, in the future, indent your comments appropriately when responding to others. (2) This comment, "it appears as though you believe that you are in no way at fault" is inappropriate and totally off the mark. It's also a perfect example of what I mean by "please be aware of your surroundings". Have you taken the time to look at the comments and discussion here on this talk page surrounding the edit warring at the article the subsequent block? Any of it at all? Because, if you had, you would not be making such an accusation, DN99. Which takes me back to what I already said to you: don't make snap judgments and and make pronouncements before you know the whole story. Look, I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, I'm not trying to be disagreeable or make the review harder for you. I do have serious doubts about your ability to give this review a fair shot, a knowledgeable and neutral review -- and all just from what you've said here today. Even if it fails (for valid reasons), I'd feel better about it happening via someone with more experience and a neutral approach. Which, at this point, seems to be lacking with you. I don't think you're a bad person or a bad editor, I just don't think you have the experience or good judgement skills needed for a task such as GA reviewing. BlueMoonset does. Would you consider letting him handle things from here on out (if that's allowed via GA policy)? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe that it is permitted. It is not out of the question. However, let us examine your reaction here. I attempted to diffuse the situation by mentioning Chesnaught555's proposal to make some of the changes that you were going to make himself. However, you ignored that, and went right back to the old arguments. This is what I meant by saying "unless, of course, someone talks me into failing it before then." Anyway, I think I'm done with this for today. I'll check back later to see if BlueMoonset says anything. Other than that, don't expect to hear from me. Display name 99 (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"However, you ignored that" No, I didn't ignore it, Display name 99. Obviously so, in fact, because I stated above that I'm fine with him taking over at this point and until I am no longer blocked. I'm not sure why you think I ignored the suggestion. Also, please note that I have (once again) had indent for you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll carry on tomorrow. Not in the best frame of mind to deal with it at the moment, my apologies. Have already started by adding a reference for a book. Ches (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Some light reading material ...

... while you wait.

• Wikipedia:How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?. I trust some folks will Grok this.  :-) — Ched :  ?  04:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

<SMILING> Thanks, Ched. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't notice already - take a look at who created it. Then you might LOL. (I really do hope that you, Richie, and Floq can work this out soon) — Ched :  ?  05:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

"I really do hope that you, Richie, and Floq can work this out soon" Thanks for that -- yes, I hope the same. And I did LOL. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• If you ever want to talk - feel free to post, ping, or email me. I might not have the right answers, but I'm a good listener. :) — Ched :  ?  21:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I sincerely thank you for the offer, Ched, and will likely take you up on it in the future. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this canvassing?

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.

---

Jillyjo has posted on Legacypac and MaranoFan's talk pages in regards to what happened last night: SarahSV warning her to stop harassing you, and you thanking her apparently being "harassment". I've spoken to Jilly on her talk page, who still thinks that warning you twice (harassment in itself) was perfectly acceptable. I'm certain that this constitutes canvassing, as she's fully aware that you don't want any interaction from LP or MF, and what happened with Legacypac was a completely different and irrelevant matter to the BTK GA review. Prior to letting LP know, she had given him a barnstar for the vague reason of being "resilient". --Ches (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

No Ches it s not canvassing, I contacted some editors I know to give me their opinion on a matter on my talk page. You might want to read over WP:CANVASS. Have a wonderful night! Jilllyjo (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't ask for your input. And it is late morning over here. --Ches (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

but you were lucky I gave you the answer that you were wrong. Have a good day then, I forgot you were across the pond. Cheeerio to you! Jilllyjo (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Jilllyjo, you deliberately notified several editors whom WV doesn't want any interaction from. It's Wikihounding, and you tried to do it to me by telling Maunus what I said. He even deleted your childish discussion from his TP. You are acting like a primary schooler telling on another student. Stop it. --Ches (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think continuing an argument on this talk page is helping the situation at all. The aim is to deescalate conflict not stir things/drama up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Ches, thanks for caring so much. No, it's not truly canvassing (if there was a noticeboard filing and JJ was doing all this in response to such, then it would be). It is disruptive, childish, and stupid behavior, though. Can't say I haven't behaved in a similar manner at one time, but certainly not when I had caused the problem myself. At least Maunus had the foresight to finally call out the obvious: JJ is not a new account and it's going to be an issue if there isn't some forthcoming honesty about it. My advice is to not communicate with JJ about this any further, sit back, get some popcorn, and see how the whole thing unfolds. JJ is doing enough to make this a bonafide drama, no need to stir it up more, as Liz pointed out. I appreciate you wanting to do what you believe is the right thing - you have a good heart. The way this is going, though, I see WP:ROPE in the future of our red link editor :-) Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Winkelvi. My apologies if I seemed to be stirring things up. No popcorn around so a packet of crisps will do the trick I guess :) --Ches (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of WP:ROPE, this particular stunt was strange but not surprising: [7]. And thanks to Liz for stopping by and attempting to diffuse. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Not surprising at all... funny how you predicted that would happen. --Ches (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) My god. That "stunt" as you call it appears to be a user attempting to revert a vandal and accidentally reverting the anti-vandal bot instead (notice how the vandal bot and Jillyjo's edits both occur at the same minute). Stop trying to assume bad faith here! only (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

"My god", sorry, I misread it (I guess). Apparently, you've never done anything similar? No need to have a stroke over it, though, right as there seems to enough bad faith assumptions happening at the moment to go around. "My god", indeed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the problem: you want to read bath faith into your "enemies." Stop doing that. Stop calling this user a "red link editor" as if there's something wrong with not having a user page. Do you want people to refer to you in conversation as "the Aspergers user"? Probably not. I'm not going to sit idly by and watch you attack and attack another user like you've done with so many before. only (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You know, I've come to realize with this and other times you've popped your head up concerning me, only, when you get it wrong, you really get it wrong. This instance is no exception. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Only, I have AS too, watch what you're saying please. That could easily be interpreted as an NPA violation. --Ches (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2016 (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.

Chesnaught555, it wasn't a personal attack. It was an example to illustrate a legitimate point. By the way, I have borderline AS. Display name 99 (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is closed, Display name 99, so I have moved your comment outside the blue box that indicates a closed discussion. Hopefully no one else will comment further. I'd really like the matter to be done, okay? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks also for being a kind and helpful editor. That cannot go by unnoticed! :-) Ches (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ches. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem. --Ches (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Billy the Kid

The article Billy the Kid you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Billy the Kid for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Display name 99 -- Display name 99 (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Have responded to this at the GA Review page, found here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

That notice gets sent automatically, so there's no use replying to it. Display name 99 (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Display name 99, I'm quite aware it was sent automatically -- the fact that it was sent by a bot was not only indicated in this page's history, but it also says so above. Noting here that I responded was my specific choice for a specific reason. And yes, I can respond to it, and did, as you know -- but I didn't reply, because you can't reply to a bot (something I also knew at the time, hence the reasoning for my above comment, "...responded..."). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

• Special report: New internal documents raise questions about the origins of the Knowledge Engine

• In focus: An in-depth look at the special report's newly revealed documents

• News and notes: Another WMF departure

• In the media: Jeb Bush swings at Wikipedia and connects

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Traffic report: A river of revilement

• Blog: Wikimedia Foundation removes The Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law requirements

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Wordseventeen

You could add user:Zpeopleheart to the checkuser. I was sure that W and Z were the same person but checkuser said they were not. However it might be that one or other of the ones you have listed are socks of Z rather than W. (Z was blocked at the same time time and for the same reason as W.) I would think it highly likely that Z and/or W is editing now under a new name. They are leaving Allie X alone, wisely. Oculi (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, Oculi. When that whole debacle at Allie X and AN/I was happening late last year, I had also wondered if they were the same editors. I'm not going to add Z at this time, but am pinging Bbb23 to make him aware and give his thoughts on whether we should add Z. Thanks for the heads up. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I will observe the checkuser with interest. (W had edited Z's page, Z had edited W's page, just as if Z had forgotten he was not W. It seems amazing that they are not related.) Oculi (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Results published. DatGuy wasn't involved but the other two were confirmed. Best, --Ches (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Good. I still think there is something fishy about Zpeopleheart. It is a pity that checkuser did not test Z against DatGuy (who started on the day W=Z was taken to ANI). Oculi (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Oculi, I completely agree. Beginning to wonder if that is the case now. If any more evidence can be found then one of us can file the next SPI. Best, --Ches (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I have an idea for more evidence. I will follow it up. Oculi (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Oculi, sounds good to me. Thanks. --Ches (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a little while ago, I was beginning to question DG's involvement in this; following his comment at the SPI, in which he accused WV and I of assuming bad faith, I apologised to him on his talk page (due to the fact that he wasn't a sockpuppet of Jilllyjo). He has accepted my apology, but if Oculi thinks that the evidence is strong enough, they can file the SPI if they wish to do so. --Ches (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I've had a look at their editing patterns. W, Z and J don't appear to sleep: they edit throughout the 24 hrs. D has a different pattern and has never edited between 0:00 and 6:00. It seems likely that more socks of W or Z will pop up. Anyway, I might consider a 2nd attempt to link S W and Z. Oculi (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

• Special report: Search and destroy: the Knowledge Engine and the undoing of Lila Tretikov

• Op-ed: Shit I cannot believe we had to fucking write this month

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Traffic report: Super Bowling

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Blog: Antonin Scalia and the editor tracking his legacy

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it really a good idea..?

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.

---

Do you really think it is necessary or wise to try and revert, strike, or otherwise remove every edit by Jilllyjo? It seems gratuitous at best, and WP:POINTy at worst when editors in good standing (i.e., me) have asked you to cut it out. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

G5 exists for a reason. The sock's comments are still there, just struck. If anyone wants to read them and take them seriously, they still can. I'm also an editor in good standing, and with a considerable amount of experience with filing SPIs and deleting edits and comments per G5 and WP:DENY. Based on that, I can say that this has nothing to do with being pointy. Unless you want to consider telling a blocked or indeffed editor to not waste their time socking because any edits they make while socking will be deleted, as if they had never returned, to be making a point. Then yes, I guess there is a point being made when G5 is exercised in a case such as this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Fine, do what you want. But I will revert you when you remove non-disruptive edits to things on my watchlist. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Great. Another defender of disruption. Surely, something to be proud of. Give yourself a barnstar for it. And super interesting how you claim Malcolm X is on your watch list when you've never edited the article or (as far as I can see) have edited the talk page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:31, 20 February 2016 (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.

GA review of "All I Ask"

Can I ask why you chose to review the GA nomination for "All I Ask"? It had only been nominated for 18 hours. About half of the Song Good Article nominations waiting to be reviewed were nominated in 2015, some for 7 or 8 months; it would have been more beneficial to review one of these. MaranoFan has canvassed someone else, I do hope that you wasn't a victim of canvassing done in a more discreet and less public manner.  — Calvin999 21:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a type of article I'm fairly well familiar with, it's small, not complex, and I felt it could likely be done in a relative short amount of time. MF did not canvass me. Are you concerned about my involvement or is there something else you are worried about? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I was just worried that you'd been canvassed, as you wouldn't have been the only one. I thought this also because the review was taken up extremely quickly after nomination. But if you chose to review it of your own accord, then that is all. I do, however, have many concerns about the article, and I have left these on your review in the general discussion. I hope you don't mind my input.  — Calvin999 21:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. It's helpful for any working decisions during the review as well as the final decision to pass or fail. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Can you go through the article again, I think I sorted out the quote farms.--MaranoFan (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah so you've actually read what I said and acted on it have you? I take it your thanks will make it's way to me at some point.  — Calvin999 08:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Can I just say that even after the mess that is that review page, and given our history, you are still giving the article a fair review. I really hope this is a turning point in our wiki relationshipp. Thanks so much. MaranoFan (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The AIA GA

When can I expect the next batch of comments, I feel like all the ones already there have been addressed. And before that intruder stalks me here again, (this is a polite enquiry). I am not asking you to rush it up but rather just asking a ballpark so I can respond in a Timely manner. It would be good if it could conclude before 1st March, when my final exams will start. Thanks, MaranoFan (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Below is a separate post regarding a different matter, posted by an IP.

This concerns my attempt to edit the entry for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan within the past 24 hours. "Original research or novel synthesis" was not required here, nor did I resort to either one.

There were two different edits that I wanted to make. One was to add the fact that the original release prints (contrary to the posters and advertising at the time) did not use the "II" in the title. This is simply an added fact and doesn't contravene anything already in the entry. In 1990 I wrote to Leonard Maltin about this and other entries in his annual paperback movie guide, and in all subsequent editions the following sentence was added: "Originally released without the 'II' in its title." If you want me to claim that as a source, I will!

In any case, it's simply a fact. I thought it would be of use because it ties into my other point (see below) and also because there are people who never saw the original release and believe the "II" was always part of the title, just as there are people who mistakenly think Star Wars was always called "Episode IV: A New Hope" during its original release.

As for my other point: Your reply made it seem as though there were preexisting evidence that The Wrath of Khan was in fact a sequel to Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and that such evidence stood behind every mention of TWOK as a sequel to TMP in the entry. But there's no reason to presume that there was any such intent. If anything, a "novel synthesis" would be required to construe that TWOK was a sequel to TMP rather than that it wasn't.

Consider: Paramount could have implicitly called the movie a sequel by consistently using "II" but did not do so. Not only was the "II" missing from the original prints, it was also missing from the pre-release advertising (of which images can be found online, in particular a 4-page color insert from a Time Inc. magazine that I myself saw in May 1982) and was missing from the cover of the novelization by Vonda McIntyre. Adding it was a late decision.

Moreover, no one at Paramount wanted to repeat the difficulties of making TMP, which are well documented. As already noted in the entry, Gene Roddenberry was given an "executive consultant" credit and new producers and writers were brought in. Production was moved to Paramount's television division.

The most important point is that there is no story continuity of any sort between TMP and TWOK. This was deliberate, and is true even though a few effects and spaceship models were reused from TMP for cost savings. As already noted in the entry, James Horner's music refers not at all to Jerry Goldsmith's score for TMP. Other areas of deliberate discontinuity between the films include the radical change in uniforms, differences in set decoration, the fact that at the start of each movie Admiral Kirk is stuck in a desk job and is itching to get back on the Enterprise, etc.

It is, of course, true that in the intervening years, books such as the Star Trek Chronology of the early 1990s have attempted to fit both movies (and the various TV series and later movies) into a date-based continuity. But there are inherent difficulties in doing so, which have been argued about on discussion boards ever since. One can as easily - in my opinion, more easily - make the case that TWOK deliberately ignores everything about TMP and starts fresh, by making a sequel not to TMP but to the episode "Space Seed," which not only was produced 15 years earlier but concerns events 15 years before those of TWOK.

So for me it boils down to "Why should I have to provide evidence that it's not a sequel, when there's no evidence that it ever was a sequel?"

I would appreciate a reasoned reply - thanks in advance.71.191.51.87 (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) 71.191.51.187 - as far as I am aware, WV is on a break, so I'll respond to this on his behalf. I can answer your question instantly: you violated Wikipedia's policy on original research, and to any other reader who isn't directly a fan of Star Trek (i.e. not you, nor I) the idea that ST II is not a sequel is unclear. It therefore needs backing up by a reliable source. Thanks, --Ches (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes I just ignore posts, which is anyone's right, Ches, and sometimes a smart thing to do. Besides, I'm not on a break, I'm just very busy and not editing much at the moment. You know, that "real life" thing that gets in the way. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I took your recent comment on my talk page a little too literally. Sorry about that, I wasn't aware that you were ignoring it. I completely understand - that "real life thing" happens to most of us, right? :-) --Ches (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

• Special report: WMF in limbo as decision on Tretikov nears

• Op-ed: Backward the Foundation

• Traffic report: Of Dead Pools and Dead Judges

• Blog: Wiki Loves Africa brings the continent’s fashion to the world

• Arbitration report: Arbitration motion regarding CheckUser & Oversight inactivity

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Warren Jeffs

Hi. I've just noticed that you reverted an edit of mine on Warren Jeffs while I was preparing a subsequent edit. Your change got lost in that update. You ask in your edit summary "Why was this removed? the category is accurate and appropriate?". I think my edit summary "in a subcategory" was quite clear enough so I am not going to restore. We do not normally put articles in a parent category as well as a subcategory. --Mirokado (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Your edit summary actually wasn't clear as it was without true context. If I had known it was already in a sub, I wouldn't have reverted. I will revert my revert now. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You are earnest, and I like that!

I came to this user/talk page because your signature was pretty. I read some of your user page and talk page and, while it seems like you have a lot that you are working through and learning, you are very earnest and you care.

I like the person I see in your user page and in your responses to admins, even in the points that I would handle differently. I can see your good faith.

I know exhaustion and frustration can escalate situations to problems to battles. Sometimes we need to rest to have our sense restored to us; but sometimes, a person's heart simply wants to have the good parts seen. I don't know if that's true for you or for the other people on the opposite side of the situations mentioned on this talk page. And sometimes, people will even take good faith the wrong way. :)

I'm being vague and philosophical because I don't want to dump more advice on you. You have enough to digest at the moment. (About that one list you said helped you to understand some things: I wonder if the bullet-points format helped you process those points separate from the surrounding situations, and if also it helped the admin elevate those observations from by being muddied by those situations. Just a thought.)

Also, I am constantly ill in a way that doesn't allow me to reliably follow-up, so I have to do data dumps like this when I can, while I can.

If any of this is helpful, then I'm happy! If nothing else, know that a stranger to any of your WP activity—except your pretty signature—took a look at the you beyond the patterns others were pointing out, and liked what she saw. And, uh, sorry if this was too sappy. :) — Geekdiva (talk) 21:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph

Winkelvi, I wish you'd stop arguing with Sir Joseph on his talkpage. I understand where you're coming from in your arguments, but it's unkind to go on at him when he's already in a corner (the way the AE is going suggests that he is in a corner). Please just let him have the last word on his own page. Bishonen | talk 15:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC).

Okie dokie. I certainly don't want to come off as an unkind person. It was never my intent to be unkind to him, just matter of fact. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC).

Moving that same discussion to Jimbo's talk page is of course hardly a better idea. Could you stop there too, please? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, please. If I choose to stop commenting there, it will be because it's time to stop commenting there, not because you want to continue to coddle SJ. Please wake up and smell the truth behind Sir Joseph's deplorable behavior and childish inability to just stop being a non-productive, disruptive nuisance. You are only enabling his bad behavior with your defense of his bad, harmful choices. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

• News and notes: Tretikov resigns, WMF in transition

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Traffic report: Brawling

• Recent research: Wikipedia and paid labour; Swedish gender gap; how verifiable is "verifiable"?

• Blog: Wikimedia Foundation details requests to alter or remove content in new transparency report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

"International" woman

On the Main page, chosen for the International Women's Day: a Czech soprano who performs German cantatas with a Japanese ensemble, - I like it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)