User talk:Biscuittin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Nohat-logo-XI-big-text.png This user is one of the 4000 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

My talk page.


Welcome!

Hello, Biscuittin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Gwernol 16:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye[edit]

I have been a Wikipedia:WikiGnome for some years but I am now leaving because I am disillusioned with the way Wikipedia is being run. It is no longer the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Biscuittin (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I read some of your edits and I found them interesting and brave. Thank you for contributing. I agree with your sentiment expressed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.176.124.196 (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Censorship again[edit]

I've removed the vague attempt at outing from the ANI thread. Please don't attempt to "out" other editors. Recurrence will lead to an indefinite block. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't outed anybody. Biscuittin (talk) 09:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
That is incorrect, and these notification violate WP:CANVASS: 1 + 2 + 3 because they alert editors perceived to be opponents of your target. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I repeat that I have not outed anybody. As a gesture of goodwill, I have removed my edits 1,2,3. Biscuittin (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Here is a comment which includes "As another Admin told Biscuittin, it will be an indefinite block", and the above includes "Recurrence will lead to an indefinite block". And you have no doubt at all about your position? In fact, you added the misleading heading "Censorship again" above the post by Euryalus (diff). Thanks for removing the edits, but the phrase "gesture of goodwill" suggests that you do not believe the notifications were canvassing—they were for the reason I mentioned above. Johnuniq (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Opinions[edit]

Also please note that having opinions is not a conflict of interest. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It depends who holds the opinion. Some Wikipedians are more equal than others. Biscuittin (talk) 09:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Articles at Wikipedia are based on reliable sources, not the opinions of fringe groups. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
It does not depend on who holds the opinion. A conflict of interest means you have some sort of personal interest in, that you for example are *payed* to push a specific opinion, or you work for a company, etc. Opinions are not WP:COI. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Holding an opinion is one thing. Being an active campaigner for or against a particular cause is quite another. Biscuittin (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
No. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016[edit]

You were warned if you continued to make edits like the ones that were removed at ANI, you would be blocked. Your edits at User talk:Liz were identical. So now you are blocked. -- GB fan 12:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
No problem. I shall pursue this matter through other channels. Biscuittin (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I've removed talkpage access as you were using it to repost the outing threat. As this will impede any block appeals, point of this post is to let you know that if you do wish to appeal the right venue is UTRS. If preferred, it's possible oversight blocks can also be appealed to Arbcom. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Block modification[edit]

Biscuittin,
After a discussion on the functionaries email list, we agreed that this should not be an Oversight-only block (one reviewable only by oversighters) because the information you threatened to publish was actually available on Guy's talk page. The blocking admins (and, it appears, you) didn't know this at the time. As a result, the visibility of your posts that were originally oversighted have been restored to page histories, but remain blanked due to their inappropriate nature.

However, your behavior leading up to, and after, the block is still considered block-worthy, based on its inherent battleground attitude, and the fact that you clearly thought you were threatening to out someone if they didn't do what you demanded they do. You'll need to address this in any potential unblock request. Since you repeated the threat to attempt to out someone after being blocked, your talk page access has not been been restored. But you can appeal this through UTRS, and any special rules about Oversight-only blocks no longer apply. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

SPI[edit]

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biscuittin, courtesy of Jytdog.

If there's any defence of yourself you would like to add to this, I would be happy (per WP:EVADE) to cross post it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Mayan Astronomers[edit]

Hello, Biscuittin,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Mayan Astronomers should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayan Astronomers .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Daniel kenneth (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alcalá de Henares railway station[edit]

Hello, Biscuittin. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Alcalá de Henares railway station, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Daniel kenneth (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to rename category[edit]

Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:Spain military-related lists to Category:Spanish military-related lists per C2C Hugo999 (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of John Ruthven (born 1783) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Ruthven (born 1783) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Ruthven (born 1783) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of UK Rail Leasing for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article UK Rail Leasing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Rail Leasing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nordic Nightfury 07:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Biscuittin. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rating (electrical)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Rating (electrical) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Transwiki'ed but deleted from Wikitionary. WP:NOTDICTIONARY

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Train2104 (t • c) 02:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)