User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Older stuff


You may be getting a bit over-eager with something like this. Most folks prefer to tend to their own talk pages themselves. I can appreciate the sentiment, but just thought I might mention it. — Ched :  ?  21:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

So, WP:BOLD is extinct?
Really, "you're not an admin" is annoying [1].
It drives against core principles.
Was that a good edit? If an admin did it, would it have been reverted? Why not?
See also [2]. Do you really think that all those messages were helping? I didn't remove anything; just tried to get things back on track.
Guess why I'm not a registered, active user any more. (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
It was just a suggestion. I would have likely said the same exact thing to an admin. too. (I'd have emailed it, but that's not an option for IP addresses.) No slight or offense was intended at all. — Ched :  ?  21:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I know. And I was not offended by your comment; I just find it sad that the 'admins are special' attitude is so endemic in the community; I think even you have caught a bit of it.
In theory, it's a good edit. So was this; If you have 10 mins, see also User talk: (me, a couple days ago).
Wikipedia is collapsing under its own bureaucratic nonsense, which is why I have (ok, mostly) given up on it. (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. 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 adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please explain the reason for my block, so I can appeal it. I don't believe I have made any disruptive edits. Thanks. (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, please post the following to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#ANI;

"I have now been blocked from editing; I have no idea why. (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)"

Thanks. (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request. (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

I think I may have been blocked in error, 'collateral damage' when a well-known-sock was disrupting things. I tried to explain that, but was blocked... please, check my contribs. I don't think there's anything I've done wrong, so I'm not sure how to phrase this appeal... help? (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I've reviewed the IP's contribution history, the comments here, and at [3]. This all looks like a big failure to communicate. It is reasonable to wonder why your report to a noticeboard was reverted without explanation. The tone of that inquery was not appropriate, and its not appropriate to edit war a message onto someone's talk page, but until the block message, no one responded at all beyond reverts with non-explanatory edit summaries. While not ideal conduct on the part of, in light of the failure to communicate, I don't think leaving the block in place is appropriate. Monty845 04:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I'm very confused what's going on; I can't remember the last time I saw someone blocked without warning except in cases of blatant vandalism and other things that demonstrate obvious bad faith. I don't see what you've done to deserve blocking (your comments on Seb___'s talk weren't blockable, and nothing else appears to be problematic), let alone without warning. Why didn't you already file an unblock request? Something like "unblock|I don't believe I have made any disruptive edits and I wasn't told what I'd done wrong" should work fine. I'm going to ask Bwilkins to comment here, and I'll copy your message to the ANI thread at AN. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
It's probably just a misunderstanding. I was trying to help with the ongoing problem, but everything was reverted before I had any chance... and then I was blocked.
Let me know if there's anything I can do to help sort it out. (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Your point about collateral damage makes sense, since a disruptive sock would be blocked without warning; perhaps you got misidentified? Although why would "disruptive editing" be the block reason, rather than "block evasion"? I guess we'll have to wait for Bwilkins to comment. Nyttend (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Help? Edit warring on one user's talkpage, wholly inappropriate AIV postings, unfounded and unproven accusations on ANI and elsewhere ... all disruptive (edit conflict X3) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps some of his other edits were disruptive (he's clearly not new here) but the AIV posting was appropriate. Dingypony (talk · contribs) really did need to be blocked as a troll. The "inappropriate" comment in the AIV report was a quote from Dingy. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
See the statement above: "Guess why I'm not a registered, active user any more". Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • FWIW - I don't consider any of the conversations I've had with IP88 troubling. (here and User talk:Ched). I actually agree that IP editors, and even registered non-admins. do tend to get the short end of the stick at times. Maybe I'm dipping into the AGF well one too many times, but I don't see anything extremely troubling either. I admit that I haven't really examined everything, but TY to Nyttend for the note to BMW. — ChedZILLA 00:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Review pretty much all of the IP's contributions (other than his talkpage) today - you'll get the right picture (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • [ec] This IP has only one AIV post, and it was Dingypony; yes, he was already blocked, so the "Requests for further sanctions against a blocked user (e.g., talk page, e-mail blocks) should go to AN/I, as a bot automatically removes accounts here that are blocked" warning should have been heeded, but that's a single incident of not obeying something that's easily missed. We only make an issue of that if someone edit-wars with the bot. After reviewing this IP's contributions to lots of different pages, I see edits that try (sometimes not the best way, but in good faith) to help communication and to participate properly, and I even see a calm discussion of copyright. The only little bit of problem is at Seb's talk, and that's only because he kept trying to get Seb to explain the reversion when Seb (as far as I can see) refused to reply. It's far from disruption. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


  • "Edit warring on one user's talkpage"? No, I did not.
  • I asked why they'd reverted my (valid) AIV report [4] and they reverted it [5].
  • I undid that, just the once [6] and they reverted again with no explanation again [7]
  • I asked them to calm down [8] and they reverted that [9].
  • I posted on AN (because ANI was protected) and gave a statuary AN notification [10] which was also reverted [11].
  • "wholly inappropriate AIV postings" - Dingypony (talk · contribs) had been blocked, and had then written "Wikipedia's Judeophobic Islamic supremacist bias" [12], so I posted a request at AIV to "Please revoke talk, DENY.". I think that was appropriate?
  • "unfounded and unproven accusations on ANI and elsewhere"? What's that about - can you please show me what I'm supposed to have done?
  • "Review pretty much all of the IP's contributions (other than his talkpage) today - you'll get the right picture" - can you please show any diff that indicates I've been disruptive? I've only made 63 edits, so it's not much to check - I think they're all 'good'?

Thanks, (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


A review of my edits - my entire editing history;

  • I made comments about an unblock request on AN, discussing the need for users to show they understood the reason for their block before unblocking. [13] [14]
  • I looked at talk-page comments on Marco Polo and made some suggestions for improving it (I couldn't edit it, because of semi prot) [15] oh, and I removed some vandalism [16] then suggestions [17] [18] [19] [20]
  • Asked Ched about the unblock of 'Evangp' [23]
  • Discussed the copyright implications of archives on Mr. Wales' talk [24] [25] [26]
  • Commented on AN re 'Headstrong4ever' [35] [36]
  • Fixed a typo in passing [37]

...I'm getting bored now, but the rest... I added more about copyright on Jimbo's page, spoke more about blocking notices, tried to help fix an article... then - when I wanted to post on ANI - ran into the semi-prot of it, and tried to help out with that.

That is all I have done. It's not much, but - what of this is "abuse of editing privileges", which warrants a block with no warnings at all?

I can't appeal a block if I don't understand what I've done wrong.

If my block is valid, can you please tell me what I've done wrong. (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It certainly does seem to me that Bwilkins made a bad block, but I'd be interested to know why, immediately after the block, other users started vandalizing Seb's talk page to the point that it had to be protected. Did you have any control over those IP's? That is the only thing to me that looks suspicious. The AIV report was probably just a misunderstanding (they thought you were anti-Muslim, not the person you were reporting). Soap 01:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Those IP's, and any of that vandalism, is totally unrelated to me. I can't request a CU, but I'm absolutely happy for any CU to poke around. (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
"why, immediately after the block, other users started vandalizing Seb's talk page" - I guess that's not unusual for that prolific sock? (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Considering all this, I would support unblocking. If the editor really ends up making further trouble, there's no prejudice against blocking again, but at the present time, I just cannot find a way to solidly justify a block... and that seems to be the opinion of other users responding here. I would boldly unblock but I generally have a lot of respect for BWilkins's judgement and am assuming I'm missing something, and that he'll clarify the situation for us. :) ·Salvidrim!·  01:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The only reason I even became aware of it, Soap, was because I wanted to post on ANI regarding "Headstrong4ever" and couldn't, because it'd been semi'd. See [47] (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

@Salvidrim Forget "a way to solidly justify a block" - can you suggest any way to justify any kind of block? (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested post while waiting[edit]

{{adminhelp}} Please post this to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Headstrong4ever

- - -

The user has made edits like [48] and [49] [50] . Not perfect, but surely not "just another one of the Brazilian schoolchildren" that can't be productive editors? Hey, they used references (even if they were bad ones) - that's 1000% better than most new articles. (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

- - -

I can't post it because I'm blocked; but even if unblocked, ANI is still semi'd. Thanks, (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


{{helpme}} Please post this to User_talk:Sphilbrick#Durneydiaz_Unblocked;

- - -

"Can I get you to agree if someone was blocked incorrectly, it would be a rather weird policy that they should explain what rule they broke, if they didn't break one"

Hahaha, stunning irony, because I'm incorrectly blocked right now; I've broken no rules, so I do not know how I can appeal.

Have a nice trip; I hope this is all sorted out before your return. (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

- - -

Thanks, (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)




You just said "Don't put words in my mouth" [51] - but, come on...

I quoted you saying Not perfect, but surely not "just another one of the Brazilian schoolchildren" that can't be productive editors? [52]

You'd written that exact thing [53]

So, I object to your claim that I put words into your mouth. I directly quoted what you'd written. (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

 Left a message for him gwickwiretalkediting 02:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I never said that Brazilian schoolchildren couldn't be productive editors, only that it was approaching the point where one could conclude that this particular one could not be.—Kww(talk) 03:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


Not wishing to be awkward here but... I've been blocked for 3 hours now, and nobody has told me why... there's no reason for the block, no warning, no explanation of what I have done wrong. The only reason given is "Disruptive editing" but I have made no disruptive edits. I had no warnings, and I've had no explanations. (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Just an FYI[edit]

I've opened a subsection below your original posting on AN calling for an unblock. Kurtis (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


Sincere thanks to those who helped me get unblocked. (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I noted this morning that you opened an AN regarding me, and forgot to notify me as per the rules (I do have e-mail enabled if you're unable to post there, or someone else would most definitely have helped you to let me know). I'm concerned that you felt it unnecessary to give me the opportunity to "defend" myself. If you had visited my talkpage, you'll a) find that I'm extremely open to discussion when politely approached, and b) see a fairly extensive discussion of the block there, which has been described as both possibly bad, and also quite possibly understandable. In your AN report, you linked here to your talkpage stating that I had not responded to a question. As I had already posted here twice, and because the block had been lifted, I no longer had your talkpage watchlisted and was unaware that you were waiting for more of a response. Please ask questions directly in the future so that we can avoid communication problems. I will repeat what I have said elsewhere, my first investigation of edit-summary-less AIV reports that appeared to match some bizarre similar ANI postings, incivility, and reversion of someone's removal of your comments on their own talkpage added together to appear to be disruptive in toto. The first rule of blocks is that they are designed to protect, and it was my belief that such (extremely short term) protection was required. I'm certainly glad that was not the case in the long run. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Why did you block me?
Which specific diffs do you think are "disruptive editing" worthy of a block with no warnings? (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
So you're refusing to read everything on my talkpage, here, AN and everywhere? It's been explained by me and others (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I have read all those. I have not seen you answer those questions. Please can you answer. (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think there's something to be learned from the fact that this user dropped his account and only edits from his IP Address now. There's definitely something wrong with WP that we as a community need to try and figure out. Now I may not be the most experienced editor, heck I may even still be in the vicinity of WP:BITE but i'm no idiot, 88 where would you suggest we start for trying to fix Wikipedia so that users like you would be proud to contribute again?

BWilkins, the IP is simply asking for you to provide at least one diff that could be unarguably described as disruptive. Surely that's no problem for an experienced editor like yourself right? Either provide a diff or admit that your block was wrong and I have no doubts that the IP will leave you alone, unless he/she comes out and surprises us with something then as soon as you have done so chances are he/she will leave you alone. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 13:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you should ALSO look where he's been pointed. In fact, the IP has already replied to a thread where it was explained EXACTLY why he was blocked (more than once). Why does this farce continue? Attention-seeking? Perhaps looking for "excuses" why he can't be damned to edit. Whatever; Wikipedia is WP:NOTTHERAPY (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would it be too much trouble to pull one diff from your lists? If you have so much evidence to back you up then it shouldn't be. However you neglect to do so and instead point to different locations. Please, follow WP:ADMINACCT as 88 has below pointed out. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 21:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting. It's correct to think that, if BW just either a) explained the reason for the block or b) accepted it was wrong and said they'd try not to make the same mistakes in future, that that'd be the end of the matter. Of course, I think it was a mistake, but BW has so far indicated he doesn't, without really explaining why. I'm not looking for abject apology, but it'd be nice to think that this would be less likely to happen to other users in the future. It's not "trolling", and I resent those accusations; the reasons I'm pushing for answers are purely what it says in WP:ADMINACCT.
As regards my thoughts on "fixing Wikipedia" - I'd like to reply, but not right now. I do have thoughts on the matter, and this issue illustrates part of them pretty well... but it would take me some time to write it coherently, and I don't want to rant.
I'm dismayed by how things have gone - it's quite upsetting to be treated in the way I was, and depresses me to think that Wikipedia is in a state where admins treat people like this, and are not accountable for their actions.
Thus, I can't get my enthusiasm up to write much at this time. I'll try to, ASAP. Thanks again, (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem, I can be patient to those who are on the right side of the conversation. If BWilkins continues to refuse to provide one of his diffs here I will request that the conversation about your block be reopened with this or start a new conversation about it. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 21:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


Pictogram resolved.svg
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please move User/jesmion to User:jesmion - it's pretty obvious that's what they intended. (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Jesmion has already re-created it in the proper place. JohnCD (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


Look, you need to move on. You've been unblocked. If you continue to hound Bwilkins, you'll find yourself blocked again - this time for harassing him. Toddst1 (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

If I "hound" an admin to be responsible, I'll be blocked? Well, that may be true, but it's not right. I'd just like a reason why I was blocked, that's all - and either an acceptance that it was wrong (so it is less likely to happen again), or a convincing reason why it was right. (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
You were blocked because you were acting disruptively. You really should know that by now.
Blocking you was a judgement call by Bwilkins and perhaps a harsh one, but he's not going to be de-sysopped over this and you just need to move on. Toddst1 (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I would still like to hear his reasoning for my block, which he has not given.

I understand that the next step is RFC/U - is that correct?

That requires 2 people asking him to explain his actions before I can perform it. Will you help me with that - to try and sort this out? (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I will not. File the RFC/U if you'd like but I recommend you move on. Toddst1 (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, such an RFC/U, would not be considered hounding or harassment. Toddst1 (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

My articles[edit]

I don't think it's fair to say I'm doing the exact same thing that led to my block. Previously I created even shorter articles and gave no references. Now my articles are longer and do have references. I'm trying my best. Evangp (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Your views on Talk Discussion Group[edit]

First, thank you for showing interest in the Talk about the 2 Quotes on Soka Gakkai page.

I would like to make a point about WP Talk page and how different it is from Internet Discussion groups on Facebook. There is an icon of "Like" on facebook to vote. To calrify to you why a Talk page is different from "let's vote: like - not like", I will kindly re-enter my answer to your perspective on the subject of 2 Quotes:

The real question here is about WP Guidelines in regard to Deletion. Let's be clear of what we are discussing: In order to present the contents of a certain source, editor can make "citation" - summerizing the source's opinion - or also can give direct 'quotation" of the source on the subject. Citation may be presented by the editor involved to include editor's personal interpretation (of what the source said). This turnes the citation into a POV, and into something which was not truly mentioned in the cited source. On the other hand, bringing true quotes - impartially - clarifies the perspective of the source without adding own interpretation, POV etc... The subject in the text was about Toda's publications - and the two quotes were exactly about that subject, precise and clear. The problem emerged not from the contents of the quotes - but from rejection of including other views, quotes or sources into the text. I am determined to resolve this matter of dispute on how WP works. The firt stage is to discuss it here. Again I am focusing on WP Guidelines. The problem here originated from the editor involved rejection of balanced views. This makes WP article a propaganda platform for one view only deleting others contribution. I said that in every intelligent discussion you have other views presented, not just one single interpretation. This was openly rejected by the editor involved, and this is the origin of the problem: rejection of balanced and mature editing.

Before discussing anything, knowledge about WP Guidelines should be demonstrated.

The subject here is about principles in editing, deletion etc... Editing requires impartiality, it requires academic honesty, it requires other sources (and views on the same subject) to be mentioned. This is the backround on which the discussion is focused. In general, if subject {A} generates opposing views, then both views should be mentioned, there should be no fear and rejection of other views. Encyclopedias are not written by "consensus", but by refrences to verifiable sources. In some Yahoo discussion groups, yes, true, subjects are taken by consensus. Any presentation of the subject at hand here as a conflict about the 'contents' is a misunderstanding, because in encyclopedias and academic work, quotes are not included upon agreement of observers or their private opinion about the subject. I welcome discussion on this subject of : 'Should editing include variety of perspectives on the same subject or it should represent one view only. This Talk page directly reveals one's level of understanding of the meaning of Encyclopedia - as different from a discussion club (about: hej guys, let's vote: how many readers like or dislike quotes). If it is not clear for someone what are WP guidelines which the subject is related to, then it will take sometime to make a shift to agree that: already established guidelines are the solid ground for discussion. Otherwise, Yahoo groups are available for voting (on accepting a quote or not liking to accept it). SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC) SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said - one thing at a time.
Let's decide if those two quotes should be in the article. Then let's discuss other things.
Keep it simple. (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Your views do not show that you are qualified to contribute or suggest any meaningful suggestion. Please save your time and find another subject to "contribute" to. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

SafwanZabalawi now considers you an involved editor on the talk page. Shii (tock) 02:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Altering posts[edit]

Please do not alter the posts of other editors without a more pressing need than was exhibited here. And you "advised" the wrong party of your action, BTW. Tiderolls 04:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I got the wrong person, and I apologize sincerely for that. See [54].
But I do not apologise for removing the message itself, quickly. I'd do that, every time. (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The original post was not, in my opinion, an incident for that noticeboard. However, it was not a gross misuse either. Best to leave those types of cases alone. Tiderolls 04:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Debatable, but I err on the side of caution with such things.
Anyway, we're quibbling about un-quibble-worthy things, I think. (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the high assessment of my opinion. Tiderolls 04:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh come on now, Sarcasm is really helpful?
I massively value your opinion. That's not sarcastic, it's true, because you're beaten me to reverts a gazillion times. But I won't apologize for occasionally over-reacting to something perceived as a threat.
Also, this is a waste of keystrokes (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

New article[edit]

I want to create an article about Preston Guild Hall. Would this link be sufficient as a reference? As you might imagine I'm afraid to create new articles after all the complaints about my references. Evangp (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

  • [Just passing through.] Hmm. I can tell from Google Books and News that plenty of notable bands have played there, for instance, but I see no reliable sources (besides the one you offered) that actually discuss the place. I'd say it's not notable, but that's just my opinion. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)