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.


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)


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 (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)


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]

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)


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)