Epipelagic (talk | contribs) DanielTom's honest comments |
DangerousPanda (talk | contribs) →User:DanielTom: right, but where? |
||
Line 192: | Line 192: | ||
==User:DanielTom== |
==User:DanielTom== |
||
As a point of information, I thought [[User:DanielTom|DanielTom's]] comments were profoundly honest. --[[User:Epipelagic|Epipelagic]] ([[User talk:Epipelagic|talk]]) 10:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC) |
As a point of information, I thought [[User:DanielTom|DanielTom's]] comments were profoundly honest. --[[User:Epipelagic|Epipelagic]] ([[User talk:Epipelagic|talk]]) 10:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC) |
||
: Which part? I haven't seen an ounce on honesty or ethics in anything he's written. His rather bizarre last screed on his talkpage is also one he seems to expect me to reply to, although he's forbidden me to respond there, so it's probably one of the worst pieces of ethical conduct I've seen - he'll simply leave it there, and consider my lack of reply as "telling" - that's the way of the weak. However, if you want to point out somewhere that he's actually been ''honest'' (diffs would be nice) or even remotely ethical, I'd love to see it (and I do mean that) ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">[[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]]</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|←✎]]) 11:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:07, 3 May 2013
Can you update a photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubuntu277 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Please do it for me
You 've access to Twinkle, I nolonger do because my old computer broke and therefore my IP changed. I edited as an IP before.--Penssail (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I see no policy-driven reason to AFD it, so I won't. Besides, all registered editors have access to Twinkle - it's part of the standard interface now. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- I followed you from my ANI complaint and thank you for your input. In regards to Twinkle, I see no way for an IP to get access to this tool. The WP:Twinkle page gives links to pages stating the opposite.[[1]]. It would be a nice tool to keep an eye on drive by edits that seem out-of-line instead of checking them each session, manually. Too many irons in my little fire. For a start I cannot find evidence of a "preferences page". Thanks for any help on this! 174.118.142.187 (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Removal of User:Technical 13/Userboxes/Help me responder from Category
I'm confused. I only created the userbox because I couldn't find one, and I would think that on the category page everyone visits would be the best place to list available userboxes and let people decide if they want it or not. I even went through great pains to make to formatting and display of the box no be offensive and flow with the page. If that is not the place for those to be displayed, where should it be displayed Technical 13 (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- There's already at least 3 that I have seen. Plus, they would never go on the category page .... maybe the category talkpage (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, so I've copied the userbox from the talk page to the top of the talk page and added mine (which isn't rendering properly for me atm but that is likely due to my poor Internet connect (was displaying fine at school an hour ago and nothing has been changed on it)). You said you've seen at least 3, could you point me to the other(s)? Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Envita
I'm posting this here because I'm not sure you saw it on the Requests for Undeletion Page. I am not trying to annoy or SPAM you. The guidelines say "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Envita fits these guidelines. They've been featured on ABC 15[2] and numerous other secondary sources. I don't understand why I wasn't even given a chance to defend my article before it was deleted. That's all I'm asking for. A chance to improve this article, make it more objective, etc. Like I said, CTCA was given that chance and still haven't improved since the warning was issued in February 2012! Tell me what I'm missing, because I'm trying to be compliant. Blatantly Evil (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- It was promotional, and you know it - and at least one of the ref's was not considered "significant coverage". If you want to start from scratch, write a new WP:USERSPACEDRAFT, but I won't restore a promotional piece of text like that to anywhere. Yes, I saw your second request - which makes no sense, and has no place there. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Look, I tried my best to make it objective. I included an FDA warning letter (which is not something a company would advertise and, I think, constitutes at least some notability.) If there is need for improvement, fine, I'm willing to work on that. I want the article as non-partial as possible and I still assert deletion was unnecessary. Why doesn't my second request make sense? What part specifically confuses you? Even user Toddst1 agrees it wasn't an advertisement, so I'm having trouble understanding what your issue was. Blatantly Evil (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- ...and my colleague agreed that the "article" would not be undeleted. I think I've been more than patient with you, and I have provided you with a way forward: recreate as a draft, but please ensure that you consult with an experienced editor before moving it. Harassment and forum-shopping does not become you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed. More info at User talk:Blatantly Evil. Toddst1 (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- ...and my colleague agreed that the "article" would not be undeleted. I think I've been more than patient with you, and I have provided you with a way forward: recreate as a draft, but please ensure that you consult with an experienced editor before moving it. Harassment and forum-shopping does not become you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Look, I tried my best to make it objective. I included an FDA warning letter (which is not something a company would advertise and, I think, constitutes at least some notability.) If there is need for improvement, fine, I'm willing to work on that. I want the article as non-partial as possible and I still assert deletion was unnecessary. Why doesn't my second request make sense? What part specifically confuses you? Even user Toddst1 agrees it wasn't an advertisement, so I'm having trouble understanding what your issue was. Blatantly Evil (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Glass
Would you mind keeping an eye on Google Glass? I think it needs semi-protection. I'm involved as an editor. Thx. Toddst1 (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- I should have noted that a) I watchlisted it and b) spoke with the IP :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm inclined to extend the block based on this IP. The IP geolocates to the same region of Italy as the last IP Nick used. Nick.mon has also edited the same portal edited by the IP. I've removed the IP-added section from the Bersani article, in part because of my suspicion, but also because it's poorly worded and not fully compliant with the one source. (When it was originally added by the IP, there was no source.) There are earmarks of Nick's editing style, but there are also differences. Like Nick, the IP's English is poor, but it appears to be worse than Nick's. For example, take a look at this edit by Nick about a month ago. Do you have any thoughts on whether we should take any action?--Bbb23 (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Why not semi-protect temporarily? Force someone's hand. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- On the face of it, there's insufficient disruption to the article to semi-protect it, meaning we would be punishing legitimate IPs from editing the article. Also, how would that force anyone's hand unless we suspected that Nick is using named accounts. Do you think that's the case?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Nick also tends to use wikilinks and some degree of cites, which the IP does not. It's understandable that people from the same region would edit a highly-charged article about a controversial politician (how many people from Boston have recently edited a certain article...). If you don't feel comfortable with semi, then I suppose wait and watch? If you find something clearly WP:EVADE-based, then we extend Nick ad infinitum (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- On the face of it, there's insufficient disruption to the article to semi-protect it, meaning we would be punishing legitimate IPs from editing the article. Also, how would that force anyone's hand unless we suspected that Nick is using named accounts. Do you think that's the case?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Why...
I am very sorry for inadvertently removing your comments.--File Éireann 14:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- That's ok ... I'm sure you're restored it by now :-) Thanks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Green Phantom
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson - a pathetic timewaster. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Any help with nuking his articles appreciated, I've done most of the other socks. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ignore that, I found the fast way to do it! Dougweller (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
user name change request VHlab
Hello, I had requested the name change because I was trying to access material that was in the Sandbox of user VHlab. Can you please just give me access to the material that is in the sandbox? I have been trying to get access to it for some time. I thought that I needed to create the user before requesting a name change. Thank you CarpeCor (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- The sandbox was rightly deleted as pure advertising and cannot be viewed anymore. Don't forget: even though you have changed usernames, you're not absolved from WP:COI and WP:PROMO - you should never be creating or editing an article about a company/org you're related too or else it can lead to repeat blocks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I see you've deleted 🙈🙉🙊 as R3. Note that it was created by an admin after an AN discussion. That discussion IMO tended toward no consensus (Chamal N (talk · contribs) and myself said to create the page while Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs) and you said not to, and no one else expressed a view); thus, unilateral deletion is improper. (See CHEAP for example.) I'd appreciate your recreating the page. Thanks! — The Great Redirector 17:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I believe you misread the AN discussion - consensus was that it was not according to policy, and that deletion was proper. Remember, it's not a vote. Thanks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think I misread the AN discussion. I can't see deleted revisions, but I'd appreciate if you let me know the name of the page-creating admin so that I can inform him or her of this discussion and he or she can weigh in on it. Or if you let him or her know yourself. Thanks. — The Great Redirector 17:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- It was User:Killiondude. Why rehash the discussion when it was quite clear last time ... that can become disruptive eventually. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information. As I said above, I don't think it was clear. — The Great Redirector 17:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- It was User:Killiondude. Why rehash the discussion when it was quite clear last time ... that can become disruptive eventually. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think I misread the AN discussion. I can't see deleted revisions, but I'd appreciate if you let me know the name of the page-creating admin so that I can inform him or her of this discussion and he or she can weigh in on it. Or if you let him or her know yourself. Thanks. — The Great Redirector 17:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just commenting because I got a talkback template pointing here (for reasons unknown to me). I'm not really offended and don't care that it was deleted. It's obviously not an important redirect. If you'd like to contest it I think there's WP:RFD or some place you can actually get votes or whatever. I don't read the AN discussion as a vote. Killiondude (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. — The Great Redirector 19:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, this seemed like a fine redirect to me. If it hadn't required an administrator to create the page, this redirect would have been quietly created without incident or acknowledgement. We have a lot of silly Unicode redirects already (e.g., this gem: 🎉). I'm not sure what makes the three monkeys glyph exceptional enough to warrant speedy deletion. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. — The Great Redirector 19:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Your 1RR of an editor has been mentioned at WP:AE
Hello Bwilkins. See the bottom of WP:AE#Bobrayner where User talk:Evlekis/Archive12#March 2013 has been mentioned. It appears you imposed a six-month 1RR restriction on Evlekis as an unblock condition. It doesn't sound like you considered this to be an ARBMAC restriction, but possibly an admin could make a note in WP:ARBMAC anyway just for information purposes. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I did not originally note it as an ARBMAC restriction, and I usually am pretty anal about logging those things at WP:RESTRICT ... odd. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Advice needed
Hi, Bwilkins. I know you as fair and experienced admin and therefore I would like to ask your advice concerning this comment. Although it does not mention any names, it is in the thread about edit conflict between me and a group of editors and my name is mentioned in several postings above in the same thread, so this comment makes direct allegations that I am a corporate PR writer working undercover on the BP article. That kind of allegation about paid editors editing on that article are made before at different talk pages. So far I have tried to ignored this as also the ongoing name-calling and personal remarks (not entirely, I have posted several times request to avoid name-calling and comments about persons); however, undercover paid editing is a serious accusation. Therefore, I would like to ask your advice what to do to clean my name? I think that if there are doubts that any non-disclosed paid editor may be involved, these doubts should be investigated thoroughly but I don't knew what is the right venue to ask that kind of investigation?
As a related issue, the overall atmosphere around this article is non-constructive, so maybe it deserves more close surveillance by admins? Thank you in advance for your advice. Beagel (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't go anywhere BP with a 10' pole :-) The comment is inappropriate, and the editor knows better. I have made an appeal to their personal ethics - but that does not "clear anyone's name". If any person's editing appears to have WP:COI, and non-WP:NPOV, then people will always believe something, whether or not they put it in writing. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. You are right - people always believe something and therefore one should have just a thicker skin. Your remark about "wouldn't going anywhere BP with a 10' pole" is wise. A number of editors like WMC and others has learned this during editing that page and probably it would be the way to follow. Once more, thank you for your advice. Beagel (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Note
I appreciate your reply. however, not sure that I follow your point here. how does the phrase "all possible wordings" relate to this item? that is not a part of my idea. I think that the idea is fairly workable. also, please note that this is a response to the process for an RFC which Arbcomm itself set up. feel free to read the next section there, which further explains it. You can read it at:
thanks very much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Deletion of my first article
Hello Bwilkins and thank you for the welcome to wiki. I uploaded a biography of a living person yesterday but it has been deleted. The title was "Douglas Cody Fielding." Can you enlighten me as to why the page was removed? I have read a great deal of wiki help articles but would appreciate it if you could possibly point out specifics about why my first BLP was deleted. Thanks in advance! Franfinsf (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- It would appear that your first article was trying to suggest that a personal trainer is somehow notable enough (especially as per WP:ATHLETE) to warrant being included in an encyclopedia. Besides not seeing anything that meets the notability requirements, the "sources" were not reliable for use in a biography of a living person. In addition, the writing was very promotional ... like it was trying to drum up business for the guy. Most new editors should spend a few weeks (minimum) or in some cases months editing existing articles in order to understand notability and sourcing requirements before trying to tackle a brand new BLP (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback and I will spend time now reading more guidelines before attempting to rewrite my article. I appreciate your constructive advice! Many thanksFranfinsf (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
A message
WorldTraveller101 has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks. Chat CenterWorldTraveller101Wikipedia Business 02:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
i did not get a responce and this was not about unprotection
why did you revert my edit, it was not really about unprotection it was about the sitionation that i described 95.195.194.139 (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Because you already had been advised that the situation WAS NOT within the remit of WP:ANI. When a thread stops receiving replies, it's because it will not obtain further action (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- who advised me? i got a responce supporting my cause, seriosly someone needs to fix this, evryone seems to agree that the baltics were successor states in the infobox but two users edit warred without disussion 95.195.194.139 (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you
Your block summary reminded me of why I am still here. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Cheers :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- File:Corfu Beer on the rocks.jpg This is for you. Cheers. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Restrictions
I was told to ask you first before going to WP:AN/I, I would like to loosen my restrictions apposed on my account. I created a topic at WP:AN/I but a user told me to first come to you so that's what I'm doing :D. Best, Jonatalk to me 02:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- My mistake; the ANI post didn't include the specific wording of the restrictions (which I just found) so I was unaware they explicitly referenced ANI was the place to go to request removal. NE Ent 02:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Legal threat
This contains a legal threat: [2]. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Howdy! I saw you were the blocking admin for Nestle. I strongly suspect that Nestle is a sock of User:Shutterbug, the church of scientology's sockmaster. The checkusers in past cases have proven inconclusive, S/he has been checked three times with one time actually being blocked as a sock but they filed a unblock request which was accepted as AGF. The rest have been closed as inconclusive. I think this investigation should be reopened and nestle tagged as a sock of shutterbug, but I honastly don't know exactly how to move forward. Please advise. Cheers.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Re: Head up
User NaymanNoland
Hi. You reviewed and declined a block review request by this editor. As I've just explained to the blocking administrator (Toddst1), I am not convinced this was a good block based on edit-warring, nor am I convinced that it was warranted for personal attacks as you state in your rationale for declining the block review. It appears to me that this editor was acting in good faith, albeit with some intemperate language, in addressing an issue with BLP implications. As you are probably aware, there is an ongoing controversy involving public criticism of Wikipedia by Amanda Filipacchi. In seeming response to this criticism, User:Qworty has engaged in disputed editing in the past 48 hours involving removal of information from the mainspace articles on Ms. Filipacchi as well as Ms. Filipacchi's three novels, her father, her father's company, as well as her mother, Sondra Peterson. While I assume good faith with respect to Qworty's motives for these edits, and while some of the individual edits may be within policy, their overall effect has been extremely problematic and I can readily understand why NaymanNoland would have thought it in the best interest of the project to reverse them. Moreover, it was Qworty who used genuinely extreme language in his talkpage posts concerning, among others, a BLP subject (some of these posts have since been removed at SlimVirgin's request), which is the backdrop against which NaymanNoland's comments must be read. in that light, I wonder if this block was necessary or at least whether it should be shortened to "time served." You thoughts would be appreciated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Your comments would still be welcome, but this has been addressed by the blocking admin, so it's not urgent. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- The guy doesn't help himself at all, does he. "...even in your faux amicable form..." is just getting his last digs in on someone when he's just told them they're not allowed to defend themself. Not very civil whatsoever. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you that in context, that was unnecessarily confrontational. My hope is that these two editors will not cross paths again for a long time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- The guy doesn't help himself at all, does he. "...even in your faux amicable form..." is just getting his last digs in on someone when he's just told them they're not allowed to defend themself. Not very civil whatsoever. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, Ched. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Good cop, bad cop
It was kinda different seeing you being the "give the guy a break", and me being the "these are the rules" type of thing. I always thought that any time you and I ended up in the same thread that we worked well together. I always got this impression where I was way to "AGF" and you were "These are the rules" type of thing, and that in the middle we found the right things. meh ... just rambling ... take care. — Ched : ? 21:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The Carolinas, Clemson University, and User ban
I was reading wikipedia articles tonight while sandboxing some sections in Word. I noticed that a ban was placed on User:GarnetAndBlack pertaining to college / university pages, namely Clemson University in South Carolina. After reading several page histories, I am suprised this hadn't happened sooner, given the amount of deleted and suppressed content I found through edit-warring and puppetry. I couldn't find any positive edits made by this user involving content. I have been reviewing some of the pages, and am in the process of compiling and re-editing some of the content that was removed, and would like to re-write and add some historical content to the articles. Would you be willing to take a look at some of it (also saw Prodego on the admin board); it may take some time for me to get it all done. Thanks. W.T.Diane (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm smelling sockpuppet all over this "new" editor to Wikipedia. First day here and you're already an expert on my posting history and canvassing editors in some sort of campaign against me? Not an auspicious beginning. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
For this message...very nicely said.... TheStrikeΣagle 14:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC) |
AN mispost
Should I move the section to ANI? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Like I said, I think you should go talk it out somewhere - if admins need to get involved, we will (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Edit credits
If I had an old account, but stopped using it because I had a history of problems with a disruptive user, can I merge my good edit history in with a new account? Point me toward the right persons? I didn't know what kind of administrator to ask that question to. 98.94.197.108 (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
PERM/C
Hello Bwilkins; Just a FYI (I think), Am I looking at something else ? according to that page User:TA Kosice is not autoconfirmed. My apologies if I'm incorrect :P Mlpearc (powwow) 16:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
User:DanielTom
As a point of information, I thought DanielTom's comments were profoundly honest. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Which part? I haven't seen an ounce on honesty or ethics in anything he's written. His rather bizarre last screed on his talkpage is also one he seems to expect me to reply to, although he's forbidden me to respond there, so it's probably one of the worst pieces of ethical conduct I've seen - he'll simply leave it there, and consider my lack of reply as "telling" - that's the way of the weak. However, if you want to point out somewhere that he's actually been honest (diffs would be nice) or even remotely ethical, I'd love to see it (and I do mean that) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)