User talk:DangerousPanda: Difference between revisions

This is DangerousPanda's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 15 days

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

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

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

Thanks! (Lifespan9 (talk))

Hi Bwilkins! an IP editor started a discussion concerning you at ANI. --SMS ^Talk 22:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the infamous racist-with-a-single-braincell. Thanks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, before that comes across as a personal attack, all racists have but a single braincell - that's one of the reasons they're so misguided in their racism (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i am trying to develop this page, but some newcomers and IP users adding pics of several stations of india which is truly vain for the page. I request you to keep watching that page and stop others from editing improper materials without citations and all.Also check my contributions for that page and warn me whenever i do wrong editing. I consult others admins also to get over this issue.(please reply on my talk page) Thank you 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it done but I wasn't sure what the purpose behind these things were. I am sorry for the mix-up. Now you've added yet another comment I am not sure what to do. Shall I restore the comment with the cross-out or shall I just leave it as it is? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-add it, with the strikeout. Refactoring is a no-no. Feel free to then remove my comment, with my full permission (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Section now makes sense top to bottom. What is refactoring? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I was actually doing it myself, and got edit-conflicted with you. See WP:Refactoring talk pages ... especially this section (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you protect the article until December(?) 2012? There's no edit war at all. Irvi made a move without a rationale, WhiteWriter reverted him without a rationale too and then I checked both claims and added the results on the talkpage for each use and made the appropriate edits. You may not be familiar with the geography of the region but the related articles White Drin and Drin have that spelling because of common use. I'm not trying to get you involved in discussion, but a protection that'll last about half a year about such a non-issue is rather uncommon.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You move-warred, and have now been formally warned on your talkpage as per WP:ARBMAC. Don't even dream of using WP:GHITS as a reason (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I don't understand what you mean "WhiteWriter reverted him without a rationale" ... the rationale was clear in the move: no consensus to do so. Read WP:BRD. Memorize it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GHITS? ...these are google books/scholar results not raw google ones.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bwilkins, I'm afraid you may have gotten the wrong end of the stick here. This article had been at the "Drin" title since 2005, without any objections. If anything was disruptive, it was the undiscussed and unexplained move to "Drim" on 25 April 2012, by Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs). Of the three following moves to and fro, by three different editors, Zjarri's move back to the original location was the only one that was accompanied by relevant arguments on the talk page, so I'm really at a loss to understand why he, alone among the four users, now gets an Arbmac warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, as there appears to have been no complaints (as per BRD) after the April move, that was stable for all this time. Move-warring today was therefore the violation. Perhaps all of today's movers should have the ARBMAC warning - feel free to do so. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One month of inaction after an undiscussed bold move, on a minor out-of-the-way article that basically hadn't drawn any other edit for more than a month before that move and didn't draw any for more than a month after it, is hardly evidence of "stability" constituting consensus. The move back today was the first sign of any attention to the article at all following that first move, and as such a legitimate "R" part of BRD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see >1 month as meeting R. That said, move-warring occurred today; period. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no time limit to how "fast" BRD works. If nobody notices an edit in three years, then the next step in the discussion process will be in three years. By the way, I must also correct you on a point you made above, where you seem to imply that citing Google hits as an argument about a move is illegitimate. Google hits are explicitly recognized as one of the standard criteria in naming discussions at WP:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Multiple local names, and Zjarri's use of them is fully in line with common practice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine on both - although, the second is useful in move discussions but not unilaterally especially on restricted articles such as this one. As noted at ANI, I have provided one very valid ARBMAC warning. Probably 2 more due, but as I said, I won't be the one giving them at this point. I also won't remove move protection from the article until it's worked out where the name really belongs. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you keep protecting the WP:WRONG version - especially in WP:ARBMAC situations. Don't you know, there'd be peace in the region if you had protected the right version? Toddst1 (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm such a warmonger :-( (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If fine on both then would you please tell me why I did get a logged warning? I'm not even related to the cases you've been dealing with and ARBMAC warnings are supposed to serve as tools against disruption. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You read the whole thing I said, not just cherry-picking your favourite parts, right? Hey, guess what - edit-warring is disruptive. Turns out you've already been warned about ARBMAC ... which means discretionary sanctions against such disruption again. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to add that User:Irvi Hyka has of late made several unilateral, highly POV page moves without any discussion and oftentimes absurd rationales in the edit-summaries: [6] [7] [8] [9], and especially [10]. This is really starting to become a problem. Athenean (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's being dealt with in ANI. How else do you think I found the additional moves today? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to tell you that Zjarri was already warned officially regarding ARBMAC, back in 2010. You doubled the log today... All best. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. As such, I have started a discussion on ANI in order to obtain some rough consensus for new discretionary sanctions against them (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting thing about nomenclature debates is that they're all trivial. Nomenclature is all arbitrary anyway; there's no actual truth or factual basis in any issue. DS (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone has to eventually paint the bike shed. I have no experience in "move wars" but I am noticing from the discussion that the original mover now supports Black Drin. Therefore, I think that in this case "Black Drin" (the name it had since 2005) might be the "right wrong version" pending closure but that's just my opinion. I may be wrong. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it to the right wrong version, as suggested - adding the alternate wording in the opening sentence. At this point, Zjarri has been firmly reminded of his previous ARBMAC warning (with apparently no repercussions for their poorly-timed re-move). It is quite possible that the other 2 parties involved in yesterday's move war have not been - and it's my recommendation that they should be. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you intended to delete Ibrahimov Ibrahim (Haci Ibrahim Nehramli) when you closed the AfD, instead you only got the redirect. I've tagged it for deletion under G6, but wanted to leave you a note in case I was mistaken or you otherwise wanted to take a look at it. Monty₈₄₅ 16:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)  Done --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't a content fork as List of bus routes in Hampshire was created as a list of lists, instead of the usual format. Peter E. James (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw in White Drin article that you are neutral admin, and familiar with ARBMAC. Therefor i am asking for your fine comment. For any possible question or solution, i am here. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bwilkins

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

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

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

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

Thank you,

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

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

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

Hello again Bwilkins

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

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

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

User:WhiteWriter, who was involved in the Black Drin dispute moved the Kosovo-Serbia border clashes without any consensus(he somehow claims that this section started by him, represents a consensus, although it's neither a proper and official move discussion nor does a 4-day limited discussion, which basically only the most involved editors that supported the previous move noticed, represent a consensus) to North Kosovo crisis[11]. No consensus was reached about the same move proposal about half a year ago[12] when WhiteWriter first proposed to move the article. User:Majuru per WP:BRD moved it to the original title and asked from WW to start a move discussion, while WhiteWriter reverted him and claimed that Majuru was acting as WP:IDONTLIKEIT Of course WhiteWriter has been blocked about disruptions on Kosovo topics and talkpage abuse regarding them. On ARBMAC the latest log related to him is from 2011 when he was involved in any edit war with another user (Vujacicm (talk · contribs) issued ARBMAC warning and edit war warning for a slow-motion edit war with already-sanctioned WhiteWriter (talk · contribs) on Duklja. WhiteWriter also warned about edit warring. Toddst1 (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)). (Majuru has an ARBMAC log in 2011 too) Apparently there is a need for article protections/warnings/sanctions.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the edit-war finally a move discussion was started.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zjarri, it is below your numerous years on wiki to sue me each time you disagree over something. We had 3 users agreeing on subject, with only you disagreeing, and that is (not the best one. but still) consensus. We will see what will new RM do, but previous one was 8/4 for move. Therefore, even that was consensus for move. Also, next time talk to me first over dispute with me, and not to mamadmins.. I could also do that in opposite direction, but that will not help. And, omg, block log. Well, you know, Bwil, Zjarri was possible sock of User:Sarandioti, major DE sockmaster. But Zjarri, that is behind us. We should try to cooperate, and not just to run to report, when that is NOT last resort. P.S. Bwilkins, sure that "report" by Zjarri was fabricated, as before... Read with care, or join request, and state your opinion, as editor first. That may be the best! --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is 8-4 ever considered to be "consensus to move"? This is not a vote. We don't; go by simple majority. We go by strength of policy-based arguments. 8-4 was apparently rightly closed as "no consensus to move" and it therefor cannot be moved (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was closed as no clear consensus for move so I fail to see how that could be interpreted as therefore that was consensus for move and I don't know how reports (?) can be fabricated. That being said it was appropriate to inform (even though I have just used the talkpage and haven't made any edits at all) an admin involved in previous such processes especially since an edit-war began based neither on sources nor on consensus (3 including you and someone who was deeply involved in the previous move proposal) and since that's done I'd suggest that we both don't use his talkpage anymore . Now that there's a move discussion it's also appropriate to post anything related to the subject there.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bwilkins, would you mind unprotecting Black Drin again? There is now consensus for the (old and current) "Drin" version among three of the four editors involved in the moves, and the fourth has not chosen to participate in the discussion on talk. Another uninvolved editor has closed the move discussion, and I don't see any immediate danger of new edit- or move wars at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inappropriate FPP. Please undo or link to policy justifying arbitrary action. See also [13].Nobody Ent 22:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just saw this in my watchlist:

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

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

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

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

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