User talk:DangerousPanda

Bubble tea!

-download | sign! has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

RfA start

Hey Bwilkins, I started up the RfA: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bwilkins 2. This is only my second time, so I can't guarantee that I didn't mess anything up. anyway, feel free to take your time filling out the answers and waiting for co-noms if you like; transclude whenever you're ready, I've got in on my watchlist! Good luck, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Conom added. Not sure how familiar you are with WP:EW, but if you're thick-skinned enough, that's one place that always can use admins. Guettarda (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

On this issue of recall (which I saw came up in a question), I would recommend this discussion. Worth reading, IMO. Guettarda (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...my response almost seems to bring up the entire sum of that discussion! However, do you think I should clarify my position further? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I thought your answer was good. Thought that discussion complemented what you had said pretty nicely. It's always nice to know that there are other people out there on the limb with you :) Guettarda (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think you are going to break the record for the most "thought he already was one" votes, I count seven already. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL ... well, if you're going to break a record, that's a good one! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you've gotten WP:100 already! Now just to see if you can get 100 "thought he was already one" votes specifically ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm jealous. I only got 95 over the course of both of my RFAs. Switching to Green-eyed oppose Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL ... it's all because of the quality of the nominations/nominators! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Switching back to Brown nose support Beeblebrox (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

*starts singing "Rudolph, the Brown-nosed Reindeer"*. I guess it probably would not have been appropriate if I had used my work on the disambig page Wilkins as one of the pages I was most proud of. Why don't we have "Featured Disabig Pages"?? *LMAO* (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

We do, but they call them "featured lists".  :) Guettarda (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Limerick requirement

May I assume Bwilkins is sufficiently competent in limerick composition (not only haikus) to competently fulfill the role of Wikipedia administrator? :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 02:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There once was a guy named Proofreader

Who questioned a potential leader

Who said "they're old hat,

I can write them like that"

Then warmed up his poetry seeder.

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Bravo, dear administrator-soon-to-be. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 09:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• (See also: Support #39) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 10:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thnx (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Essay,

Re, your message, oh, I am, trust me.. The same situation happened to me during the Frei Hans incident.. don't know if you were there or not, but he filed a sock case against Tan, that listed every single person who interacted with him as a sock. ... His reasons? They all have barnstars... You get my drift, heh. Also c.c I've looked it up, I've read the wiki article, but I still don't understand why they're called copy-edits.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 12:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, you're welcome. :D — Dædαlus ^Contribs 12:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would not be surprised if I did not start that essay way back during the Frei Hans episode ... the inspiration comes from everywhere! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I must say

That's a pretty impressive collection.

I admit to being slightly intoxicated at the time of writing on your RfA. Nonetheless, I hope readers there appreciate my point (that some people, in good faith, seem to be missing the point of RfA somewhat), and that it hasn't been looked upon as a WP:POINT (I don't believe I have disrupted wikipedia, and if I have, I apologise profusely).

Good luck, and all the best in your adminship. WFCforLife (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a technicality really. If a crat took that vote into consideration, they probably shouldn't be a crat. WFCforLife (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Dump Troll

Reported

[1] Mister Flash (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a few days after the comments were made. As a follow-up to this, I wanted to remind you that both making racist comments, AND accusations of racism can both be considered to be severe violations of WP:NPA. I'm going to assume that tempers have calmed down, and I would hope that we will not see repeated violations. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article is under attack yet again by the anti-British Isles POV army. This user, Þjóðólfr, insists on removing the relevant and obvious fact that Bert Trautmann was the first player outside the British Isles to win the award. I've explained above why this is the case, but to no avail, apparently. As with other members of the anti-British Isles group, this user is gaming the system by insisting on a reference to an obvious fact - and not any old reference, but one that specifically states, word-for-word, the contested sentence. I'll fix up the article for now, but we could be into edit war territory yet again. Mister Flash (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

RFA

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RFA as successful and made you an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask me if you ever have any questions. Useight (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Congrats, B-Dub! I didn't really doubt it would succeed but I'm glad to see that it did. Well done! -- Atama頭 22:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Congrats man. Long time coming. Tan | 39 22:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hope it's your size, cuz I threw away the receipt

Congratulations! Here's your t-shirt, check in with the leader of your cabal for the secret handshake. Keys to the executive washroom now require checkuser status. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. I didn't want to state it at the RfA since it is so cliche, but I always just presumed you were an administrator all along! Now you won't be fooling anyone else! Happy editing to you, --Taelus (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Congrats! I (back when I was TravisTX) remember being impressed with your work at ANI ages ago so I gladly welcome you to the ranks! —DoRD (?) (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Gratz! - Dank (push to talk) 02:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Here, Have a Wiki-beer! The Thing _{Vandalize me} 05:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers to that! :D Gwen Gale (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you everyone - that beer will come in handy ;P (although not at 5AM!). I'm honoured at the support. I shall say more soon. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll pardon me if I take the success of some other nom's success as a personal failure. Good to hear... finally! Padillah (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, look at my previous nom as a WP:NOTNOW ... take pride that you may have realized potential ... you are the Simon Cowell of RFA :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hurrah! I popped back to RPP and found that there's another admin doing some protection after I'd been holding the fort all day (again!), and it's the newbie! Congrats, and if you need any mopping advice, give me a shout! GedUK  14:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I stand by my promises. Hope I followed standard procedures :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

They let you into the admin for life cabal? Jeesh. Next thing you know even Everyking will make it into the club. It seems Obama's parties aren't the only ones where gatecrashers are a problem. ;) Oh well. Congratulations and enjoy yourself, but not too much. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC) It seems I'm late to the party and Everyking is already in. Now we need to get someone to nominate Giano. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL ... are you comparing me to Giano? Yikes! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it did seem to take a while to get you across the finish line. By "yikes" you mean to say it wasn't "that" hard and you're not really that outspoken on controversial subjects? Might want to clarify. I know you agree with me that he's one of our best and very worthy of the utmost respect. Congratulations. Your good faith efforts here give a good indication that you will be a worthy admin. If so, that would make 3. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Giano has a different level of passion than I do ... I enjoy a good battle, but will back away if it helps me win the war. I hold passion at its own level of respect accordingly. I will do my best to do the best I can do ... if that makes sense. I will never please everybody, but I will always try to act according to my philosophy, and hopefully that works out ok. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Late to party as usual. Congrats! Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Congrats! Guettarda (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

YOU ARE ABUSING YOUR POWERS>!?!?#?!!!!!111111111!!!!

YOU ARE CLEARLY ABUSING YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS! I AM REPORTING YOU TO ANI! _congrats :) --Smashville^talk 22:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Again? LOL. Thanks! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, congrats on your first block! :) --Smashville^talk 20:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, been a busy first day. You may not be so far off that ANI ;) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent AfD close

With respect to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politicalchronology, although you deleted the redirect of the article that was the primary subject of the AfD it remains as Chronology of world political changes because the author moved it (twice, in fact). There are also various related articles and redirects remaining, at least one of which was specifically mentioned in the AfD discussion. Please consult the original author's contribs for the comprehensive list. Can you delete all of these, or will I need to create a separate multi-article AfD and go through the process again? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I caught 2 additional ones that included "Politicalchronology" which was the key basis for the deletion... I'll go through the list again and remove any that include that title. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't just the problem of the neologism, but also the original research and apparent content forking. In my opinion (and this seems to be in broad agreement with the consensus at the AfD discussion), all related articles should be deleted. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm verifying with Beeblebrox, who assisted with the moves ... will get back to you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

May I point out the original article that was nominated for deletion still exists and is currently located at Chronology of world political changes? Thank you. Sorry, that has already been mentioned above.. O Fenian (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

St Cyrus protection

Thanks for protecting St Cyrus. At least that piece of church promotion shouldn't bounce back for a while. I've just removed similar information from Johnshaven — the two villages share a minister and are part of the same parish, so I suspect the same editors may be at work. There's also an article on Mearns Costal Parish Church, which looks to me to be of dubious notability. In fact both village articles seem to contain a lot of non-encyclopedic stuff too, but that's another story...! --Deskford (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

An IP editor has now reverted my edit to Johnshaven, without any explanation. I have removed the time of the church service and the name of the minister again, but I really don't want to get into an edit war with an IP editor, particularly one who seems to change his IP address on a daily basis. Any advice? --Deskford (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi'd as well for a short enough time to hopefully encourage discussion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! --Deskford (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry - we appear to have a disagreement about our interpretation of the guidlines. The page for Mearns Coastal Parish Church has been deleted. If I recreated that page and left little more than a link on the St Cyrus and Johnshaven pages would that solve our problem? Hope we can sort this out.--Uvghifds (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the main issues is that Wikipedia is not a directory. Most articles on individual churches, schools, etc are quickly removed, or blended into one larger school board article. Individual schools and churches are simply not notable. Please keep this in mind when you are creating articles - it is a shame to see such work continually deleted, and it's more harsh on the creator of the articles. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. However I still feel pn the St Cyrus page the fact that there is a church deserves a mention. Maybe you could write this in an encyclopedia friendly way?--Uvghifds (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be facetious, but doesn't every town have a church or two? If the church is a significant tourist attraction, or has the "highest steeple in lower Scotland", or "the first Prime Minister of Canada was baptized there"...and you have sources to prove it, then that's the only way the church becomes notable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Cerebro keep

Thanks for keeping Cerebro article. Can you give me advise how to improve article? May be you know good examples?--Khar khar (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

AIV

Breaking my usual rule and replying on your talk page so as not to encourage disruptive behaviour. Hi. The truth is I misread the dates. It is also possible that the vandalism was connected to this IP edit to the same article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blues-rock&diff=prev&oldid=340195081), and soon after reverting it I got this friendly edit summary to a change to my talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sabrebd&diff=prev&oldid=340209394). However, I have no evidence that they are necessarily the same person, and frankly do not think it is that serious. A stage 2 warning on their talk page for the vandalism to Blues-rock is probably appropriate and we will hope the problem ends. Thanks for taking the time to enquire into this.--SabreBD (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem - I was watching your talkpage. I'll let you provide the warning as needed. Cheers! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

StevenMario

Based on that apparent understanding of the nature of OR at the end of the discussion, I unblocked with the usual proviso that any reversion to the previous behavior will result in a permanent block. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. Cheers! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

RFPP templates

Hello there! In case you didn't know,

{{rfpp|s|3 days}} will produce Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.,

thus avoiding the necessity of typing in the duration long hand. You can then explain rationale where necessary after the }}s. GedUK  13:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, cool, thanks ... I should have further read the template usage, rather than just getting right to work LOL. Other than that, everything look good so far with what I'm doing? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with your way, it just involves more effort! I haven't checked over any of your protections, I'm sure they're fine. If you come across one you're not sure of, leave it for someone else! GedUK  13:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Unambiguous promotion

Hi there. You might wanna take a look at this article. It appears as if the creator of the article is on a mission to use wikipedia as a promotional platform for his company. Amsaim (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Block

I saw your block to 63.119.30.126. It was good, but I think you should change the block settings to block the account creation as well if you know where it is. Minimac94 (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I contemplated that ... but WP:AGF'd that the anonymity was the fun part about their vandalism - if they have to create a userid, they may be less willing to be annoying. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Alabaman

I'd say that it's stale. I hope they have gotten their own account and begun to edit (properly) using it. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I closed it accordingly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked

I would like to write my first text after unblocking to thank you for tap my back and encourage me to continue in WP. You are a good guy Bwilkins. I guess as an admin you will never need my help so have my wishes for good luck. --Factuarius (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Admins only carry mops ... assistance is always appreciated. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Islam Diaa

Took me a while to find some evidence, but AfD doesn't preclude a speedy deletion if there's a clear contravention. In this case an article called Islam Diaa created by an editor called User:Islam diaa seems a pretty clear and blatant self-publicity move. Please reconsider. Bazj (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC) ...or if you feel you can't since you've already voted for a delete, restore the speedy for another admin to consider. Regards, Bazj (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No need for the ref, I know it can be done. Some of the original versions of the article had references, which have been removed as not necessarily appropriate. I have also left the editor a nice note suggesting that he voluntarily withdraw the article under G7 ... to be CSD'd once, then PROD'd, and now AFD's is a little WP:BITEy, and I'm trying to gently poke him into realizing that he is not yet notable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff. I just read your edit summary that you wouldn't speedy because of the AfD as... yeah, well. I like your subtle approach, but just don't think he'll get it. Bazj (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if it confused ya ... this may actually may have been the second CSD'ing of it. No doubt it has to go, but it was a contested PROD :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Racist Troll

Racist Troll Alert Þjóðólfr (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Also

Let me add that this post was a revert of earlier postings here, here, here, here, here, here where the IP also signs with the name Sutter Cain, here, here, here, here, here, and here. All of these posts return the same "Vandalism, Wildhartlivie?" silliness, comments about breaking the rules and threats of reporting persons who reverted it. This is a case of a long term vandal jumping IPs in order to continue. Both IPs, 60.230.198.186 and 121.221.237.10 trace to lns7.pie.bigpond.net.au. This is an issue. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops?

User talk:Dotcomchrome - I added that template, because they'd added {{holdon}}. So partially my fault there. Sorry about that. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! That's why we all work together :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/7SeriesBOT

It appears the procedural requirements are well in hand. Baring sudden changes, I expect the green light in a few days.

Have you warmed up the hosting environment for 7SeriesBOT? Got a python interpreter, downloaded pywikipedia, etc? How much hand-holding would you like? Josh Parris 12:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am warming it up ... I'm having to throw a new NIC into the PC that it will be running on (my wife won't accidentally shut it down :-) ). I will need a little handholding - but I'm reasonably technical. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

svn checkout --ignore-externals http://svn.wikimedia.org/svnroot/pywikipedia/trunk/pywikipedia/ pywikipedia to acquire the pywikipedia sources. Then set your PYTHONPATH environment variable to include the directory where that ends up. I hope you're not anticipating a massive amount of traffic; the overhead is going to be pretty light. Josh Parris 07:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You should probably review User:Josh Parris/Laws of Bot Ownership and brace yourself. Josh Parris 07:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Congrats!

Welcome to the mop Bwilkins. May you use it wisely. To mop. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers :-) And thanks for the support (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please unblock Iaaassi

Dear Admin, I would like to confirm that Iaaassi was editing Mures Template in good faith. There was a dispute on the deletion of a template created by me, in which we exposed seriously opposing views. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_26 After we received the admin's decision, we tried to work out a compromise, and as I see from the edits, Iaaassi wanted to implement a compromise that I proposed to him on my talkpage and I expressed my thank on his talkpage for the good intention. I think he may have simply edited more times than was good. This is not the Romanian-Hungarian edit war, but Romanian-Hungarian co-operation, so let us be happy with it. The template is good as is now. As I was the author both of the deleted Maros (Mures) county template and the new version this template, and had a main part in the discussion, I think I can impartially judge on this issue. It would be ironic that Iaassi is blocked when seeking compromise and undestanding. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 14:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Two editors do not make WP:CONSENSUS in most cases. To assume that because you said so, it's ok is a bit of a ownership issue. As he failed to address reality in his first unblock request, I will not address future ones. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

HIP DRV

I appreciate your closing the Human Instrumentality Project DRV in my favor, but is it really necessary to full-protect the redirect? Obviously that makes it more difficult for me to make a full article in the future, and in the short-term makes it more difficult for the redirect to be updated. (Some editors like BreadNinja or Dandy Sephy are constantly agitating for various page moves & renames; it is not implausible that in the next year or three the redirect will need editing.) --Gwern (contribs) 15:31 6 February 2010 (GMT)

I didn't do anything "in your favour" :-) I made the logical decision based on the information at hand. If you want to make an article, that's why you have a WP:SANDBOX. Any admin can then move a completed article over, if it's written correctly, and likewise, you can make a request on the talkpage of the redirect to have an edit done to a protected page. Someday, you might make a request to have the entire page unprotected at WP:RFPP, however, I 110% agreed with the suggestions in the DRV to protect it for now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Bah - if it was really so logical based on the information at hand, we'd turn over all DRV closes to an AWB or Pywikipedia script!

But alright. --Gwern (contribs) 19:48 6 February 2010 (GMT)

GoRight unblock

While I will admit that I am disappointed that you didn't include any restriction on GoRight's participation in dispute resolution in the terms of your parole (as was suggested by 2over0 in his original terms), I trust that you will be extremely vigilant once GoRight starts to involve himself in other editors' disputes again. I fear that his insertion of himself into other editors' fights was perhaps the most inflammatory and unconstructive aspect of his conduct, and seemed to be a major concern of both admins who previously indef-blocked him. That your unblock terms appear to gloss over any direct mention of these problems is worrying, but I hope that you are prepared to deal with this problem when it resumes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged - there's enough rope in what he already has, and I expect he may violate sooner than later. Inserting himself into other's fights will lead him into the realm of incivility, and that's covered. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I intend to try and find something else to do for a while and let things just cool down. After that, if I feel that I want to express an opinion in such a venue I will try to limit myself to a single civil paragraph and voting in any polls that crop up, and possibly responses to any questions which are directed specifically at me. Would this be considered out of line or disruptive in your opinion (I understand that content has a lot to do with it, but in general)? --GoRight (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Content and context will be important. Stay out of fights, and edit. When push comes to shove, click "logout" and go and spend time with family/friends instead. There's nothing on this site worth getting hot and bothered over, and nothing that cannot wait until cooler heads are prevailing. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't being an admin fun? Are you enjoying all the crap you have to take if you actually try and do the job? Seriously though, I was about to step in here myself just to put and end to what is probably the longest unblock conversation I've ever seen, I'm glad you stepped up and made a decision nobody else seemed to want to make. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for showing good faith in GoRight. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For someone who hasn't had the mop for more than a few moments, unblocking GoRight was a bold move to make. It is very good to see a new administrator that isn't afraid to get things done. Good job. Trusilver 21:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You referred to a "mentor" for GoRight. Who would that be? A search for the word "mentor" on his Talk didn't see any explicit offers of mentorship. Perhaps it was implicit in other parts of the discussion, but I'd be grateful for clarification. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I had the same question but even without a formal answer I was planning to seek guidance from Bwilkins, Trusilver, and Lar should the need arise and I invite any of the three to be pro-active in keeping me on the straight and narrow. On a separate point, even though it is a bit of a formality you might want to consider recording a final set of the language for my editing restrictions at WP:RESTRICT. I have argued that this is an important step in the past and I don't want myself to be any exception in that respect. --GoRight (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I think such a statement is more than a "formality" given that the unblock statement as it stands is ambiguous and incomplete (except that you are in fact unblocked). As well as the lack of clarity in the mentorship provision it's also unclear what the "accepted topic ban" refers to, what is the "specified period," and so on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I assume, and correct me if I am wrong, that his references to an accepted civility parole and an accepted article ban were regarding my acceptance of Trusilver's proposed framework. I just want a clear articulation of the final wording that is going to be applied and at WP:RESTRICT seems a logical place. My reference to such a recording being a "formality" was because in past discussions it has been pointed out that there is no requirement that these restrictions be recorded anywhere to make them "official", which by WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is obviously true but it seems a good idea in any case. --GoRight (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I very much agree with your call for "clear articulation of the final wording." It's to everyone's benefit for us to avoid ambiguity. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's all good, Boris. I am going to focus on other things for a while, Trusilver's framework is my operating assumption unless I hear otherwise, and so these i's can be dotted and the t's can be crossed in due order. --GoRight (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Done, the restrictions have been recorded on WP:RESTRICT. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to let me know. Trusilver 02:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. I have every hope that GoRight can be a productive editor going forward. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Fort Mason, Texas

Hi BW. I got this bizarre automated notice on my talk: diff to which I replied diff, but got no answer as yet, regarding the speedy deletion nomination of Fort Mason, Texas. As you were the deleting admin recently, could you please try to educate the editor who posted this on my talk that I have no involvement whatsoever with the deleted article? Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I replied there also. Thank you very much for the clarification and the speedy response. Take care. Congratulations on becoming an admin by the way. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Pete Williams (journalist)

I happen to agree ultimately with your closure of the AfD, so I added this: [2] to WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Glad you agree, and that it was that good of a decision! Cheers! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

List of schools in Trinidad and Tobago

Sounds like a good idea. Badly needs work, but if the right sourcing can be found, it has potential. I'm in. Guettarda (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

User:inuit18

This User:inuit18 is valdalisme the article Jamal-al-Din Afghani, but not with his account but only with ip-address and talks bad and he is scolding in his own language and you didn't understand it. Ask it to User:Ketabtoon to translate it for you. look here [3] and here [4]. If he can't talk like a gentlemen, than he has no rights to talk bad and scolding, and hide his face by editing this post without his account (he did it also in the past, look and read my talk page User talk:Abasin). I think is not right and wikipedia most do something against it. If you (User:VirtualSteve) are the one who has blocked me 2 times. I will see what you are doing with this. I will see your justice and of wikipedia. May justice triumph.Abasin-اباسین (Tofaan-توفان) 16:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a threat of some sort ... care to explain? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Vernonheng

Thanks for fixing my template gaffe, your unblock review doesn't show up properly and I can't figure out why. Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No probs ... I noticed it was messed up, searched for the problem, had to sign out for a bit ... and I have now found the missing ]]'s. All fixed now (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, looking again now that you've explained it, I can see the problem. He probably doesn't work for Ritech, I think this is the guy [5]. Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

He may not work for Ritech, but, he may sell products developed by them, OR he may be responsible for selling raw materials (chips, etc) to the company ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

He's got some connection, that's clear. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

PROD

Please help. What do I have to change to publish the rather nice history of Tycobrahe Sound Co. page, which you deleted for "lack of notability." What exactly does that mean?

Tycobrahe Sound Co. is no longer active, however it is of some historical interest to those in the music business, having developed the first portable studio-quality concert sound system (for The Beach Boys) and creating the most powerful concert sound system ever in 1974, with over 50,000 watts RMS, for the ABC-television production called "California Jam."

Of course I neglected to save a copy of the page, so I hope you did.

Included was a referenced link to another site with historical data, including a published article.

Please help

Ralph Morris (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done It's been userfied - see your talkpage for caveats. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Page Move

Hey, I was wondering if you will help me with a title correction on a page.

I uploaded a media file and when I typed the headline, I typed "INVALID" and it should say "VALID" instead, also in all caps in that part of the title.

I want to leave the Title IDENTICAL as it currently is as a .jpg file as it is.

My move tab is there, but it doesn't work in the media section yet, but does in the wikipedia section.

Please keep the title and attached all the info the same, just change that one word (IN CAPS) from INVALID to VALID.

Thanks....

File:New York Times February 29th 1892 United States v Ballin REEDs QUORUM WAS INVALID.jpg it's the picture of the article on the incubator page.[[FILE:New York Times February 29th 1892 United States v Ballin REEDs QUORUM WAS VALID.jpg}} it's the picture of the article on the incubator page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prose072 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

the page is New York Times February 29th 1892 United States v Ballin REEDs QUORUM WAS INVALID.jpg

Prose072 6:45 am.. BTW I will do the cloture section later today, the one you was asking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prose072 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done ...although I have grave concerns about the filename: remember the KISS principle. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.. I didn't realize it would be a wikipage, I thought it would be like photobucket..but thanks again.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prose072 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SCIPHONE N19

Should be of interest to you. Pcap ping 23:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyedeye asking for unblock

Hello Bwilkins. Did you ever find out where the WP:MEAT charges come from? I see you asked Seddon about this, and you declined a previous unblock request from Copyedeye on 3 February. I notice that Alison makes this guy a 'likely' sockpuppet in the Mantanmoreland sock case, but I see you arguing (in the unblock dialog) that it's a meat not a sock problem. Thanks for any clarification, EdJohnston (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ed, I supposed I'm emphasizing Seddon's original description on the block for Meat - indeed, him arguing that he's not a sock almost raises alarms of Plaxicoism. Honestly, if the guy simply addressed Meat, I would probably support an unblock, but arguing sock tells me "methinks thou do'est protest too much". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

7SeriesBOT trial

7SeriesBOT has been approved for a 7-day trial, but instead of actually deleting the trial is to log intended deletes. I've changed the sources and uploaded; I'd encourage you to do the trial to shake out any problems with your hosting environment and to get a feel for what's required from you as operator - but if that isn't doable right now, I can take the reins. Rather than have it log locally, I've made it log live to the desired page (skipping a step and increasing transparency). You know how to acquire the sources, right? Josh Parris 06:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User:7SeriesBOT/Dry-Run 1 - Ah, crap. The formatting is slightly wrong. Can you throw a \n onto the end of logpage_text, line 28? Josh Parris 11:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, make the *the start*, it's to do with appending to a page. Josh Parris 11:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

like this? logpage_text = "\n *[[%s]] %s http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%s&action=history ~~~~~\n" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Did you happen to pick the lung up and bag it for later? (did you copy the call stack of the program halt?) Josh Parris 11:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Also: those pages were tagged for u1, not g7, so that's why "there's no template" on the page. Josh Parris 11:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sleeping for 7.4 seconds, 2010-02-12 04:52:46

Updating page User:7SeriesBOT/Dry-Run 1 via API

Bot exits

Traceback (most recent call last):

File "C:\pywiki\g7bot.py", line 179, in <module> bot.run()

File "C:\pywiki\g7bot.py", line 139, in run if self.hasBeenMoved(page):

File "C:\pywiki\g7bot.py", line 113, in hasBeenMoved for record in history_record.keys():

AttributeError: 'list' object has no attribute 'keys'

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

On line line 113 delete .keys(), leaving:

for record in history_record:

and that won't happen again. Josh Parris 11:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

New one this morning: Updating page User:7SeriesBOT/Dry-Run 1 via API

Bot exits

Traceback (most recent call last):

File "C:\pywiki\g7bot.py", line 179, in <module>

bot.run()

File "C:\pywiki\g7bot.py", line 136, in run

self.log(page, u"isn't a Talk page")

File "C:\pywiki\g7bot.py", line 120, in log

print "%s %s" % (page.title(), text)

File "C:\PYTHON26\LIB\encodings\cp437.py", line 12, in encode

return codecs.charmap_encode(input,errors,encoding_map)

UnicodeEncodeError: 'charmap' codec can't encode character u'\u1ec3' in position 8: character maps to <undefined> 7SeriesBOT (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Changes have been applied; download new sources. Josh Parris 12:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

alumet

Hi Bwilkins,

i notice you have deleted the Alumet page? can I ask why? the page has been there for four years with no problem, i simply updated it to be more relevant. could you explain please so I know where I went wrong?

thanks, Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blade32 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the reply. I see what you mean. Would it be ok to put it on if it is linked to numerous reliable sources and references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blade32 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied. Cheers! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Reg. CSD tag

Thanks a lot Bwilkins. Definitely I’ll ask for your kind cooperation/help when it’s required. Regards -- XETELI ^(HELLO) 02:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Article removed

Hello Bwilkins,

I'd like to know why the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signtronix article was removed? Please let me know what elements of the article you felt that has violated the policy guidelines.

Signtronix has over 50 years of participation in an industry and I believe it should have a place in Wikipedia. Besides, we modeled the article after the one published about Hewlett Packard.

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Priscila —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pripramos (talk • contribs) 18:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you'll note that someone else was wise enough to catch that the article was 100% promotional, and that the company is non-notable. The article actually had pictures of signs in it. It was nowhere close to being modelled after HP. I merely checked someone else's tagging of it, and found it 100% non-qualifying for inclusion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy of Greek pederasty

I see you speedily deleted that as G8. Where did it redirect? As far as I know it redirected to Pederasty in ancient Greece, which is still around. See my talk page. Pcap ping 14:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It was originally tagged: {{db-g5}}, {{db-banned|name of banned user}} (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I know Haiduc edited it, but there's no indication he did that after he was banned, so it's not in "violation of their ban or block", which is not retroactive. Wikipedia:CSD#G5 does not seem to indicate that articles created while in good standing can be speedily deleted. And G8 is technically incorrect, so please undo. The guy even contributed to FAs, so not all his work is crap. Those articles I've redirected do have problems, mostly direct use of ancient sources, but also have some salvageable material cited from secondary sources, so they should not be speedily deleted. The salvageable material should be merged to the main article, but non-admins cannot do that if you delete the history.

By the way, who tagged it as G5? I hope it's not User:Tonalone, a known troll [6] [7] in the style of Peter Damian. Pcap ping 14:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Although I don't think this needs to exist as a redirect, I have undeleted to preserve the significant history - this could likely have been achieved with a history merge instead. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

re: Pizzeria Bianco

Hello Bwilkins- Thanks for your comments about my "Pizzeria Bianco" entry. First, I should say that I do not have any conflict of interest with the entry. I'm just a pizza fanatic / graduate student in Baltimore who thinks this Phoenix, Az pizzeria meets the notability criteria to warrant an entry. That said, I understand that the page may look biased, and I'm happy to change it to fit the system.

I am fine moving the page over to a draft page for the time being. However, I understand that doing so by cuting and pasting is frowned upon, that I should move it instead. But my account is not old enough to be allowed to move yet, so if you want to / can move it over to here, that would be great: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Apizzaiolo/pizzeriabianco

When you suggest that I have another editor revise it, do you mean editor in the general sense as in anyone, or do you mean a formal wikipedia editor?

Thanks, I look forward to making this article work, and then doing more with Wikipedia after this.

-JB / apizzioloApizzaiolo (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, don't mean to bug you, but if you could just let me know if you mean editor in the general sense as in anyone or if you mean a formal wikpedia editor for revising my entry, that would be great and I can get this underway. thanks. JB Apizzaiolo (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder on the article. I'll try and lessen it's ad-likenes. I've just asked some wiki people who edited similar articles to take a look at it.Apizzaiolo (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Mangal Dhillon

You must reconsider replacing csd tag on this article because

1. Does not cite secondry sources. Personal website is no relible source (anyone can make it).Wikipedia has strong emphasis on this aspect of article. 2. The whole strucure is like an advertisement. One can see that it has been clearly made with sole purpose of publicity. 3. It seems to be made by the subject himself and maintained by himself throughout...

You should replace tag and invite others to consider what do to with it.

 Jon Ascton  (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. If you don't like the removal of CSD, then AFD it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Berislav

Bwilkins: "Actually it was 8. The source that you claim to be a reliable academic source is not. Besides, Wikipedia is not a WP:LINKFARM." I am sorry for wrong information (5 instead of 8). Please tell me how do you know that "the source that (I) claim to be a reliable academic source is not." I have strong reasons to believe that the source I offered links to is a reliable (academic writers, editorial boards, review process, citations in scientific and professional publications). I would be thankful for additional information for revising my belief. Berislav (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berislav (talk • contribs) 13:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's not push your luck. I unblocked you, and provided a link to appropriate policies - based on your promise. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Bruce Momjian

Hi,

I noticed that you deleted Bruce Momjian without looking at the {{hangon}}, which pointed out that BLPs that assert significance, as mine did, do not qualify for deletion under CSD A7, which is what you deleted the article as.

(A7: No indication that the article may meet the guidelines for inclusion (CSDH))

I await an explanation. -Zeus-^u|c 21:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I looked at the article alright. There was clearly no indication that the person met any sign of notability on Wikipedia. I don't even think based on the way the article was written - and its references that they would be notable for even a local newspaper. Thanks for your WP:AGF on this one. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The person has been written up in the newspaper numerous times. The article specified that the person in question was part of the PostgreSQL core team, had been mentioned with import in other articles, and numerous references and interviews. If you have a problem with the written style of the article, that can be addressed - not through a CSD. -Zeus-^u|c 21:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:CSD, A7:

An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability.

The article clearly indicated importance / significance, and I don't understand how you dispute that. -Zeus-^u|c 21:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It needs to reliably indicate significance. From my reading of the related references (which is how one determines reliably), the person clearly did not meet WP:AUTHOR, nor any other notability guidelines for people. WP:BLP is pretty picky - especially these days. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

CSD A7

The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source.

I'm pretty sure that the article made a credible claim of importance (author, core team member of an important database, etc). I apologize for my initial tone. -Zeus-^u|c 22:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I write regularly for hi-tech newspapers and various related articles. The person clearly was not being credibly claimed as notable, based on the writing, and my knowledge of the industry. Yes, your tone was wrong, but that never interferes with my judgement. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Very well. My apology was not intended to disparage your judgement but merely to acknowledge a mistake of mine. With this in mind, could you talk a little bit about what the exact requirements are for significance or importance? (By the way, you said that the person was "clearly not being credibly claimed as notable", which is a non-issue here, as A7 disregards notability. But I take your point). -Zeus-^u|c 22:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet another tweak to 7SeriesBOT

I've thrown in a suggestion from Tim1357, which limits the namespaces of pages retrieved. The bot should be *much* less chatty. Josh Parris 03:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

vandalizm

reverting everything of my edits is vandalizm if i understood correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 19:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

i have done nearly all of this here [[8]] , what now? i spended hours to search for admins and search for third opionion, i spended hour to explain my edits and ask for explanation of his ones. i create maps for the article and add content, and he reverts it always . what is this, what is the name for this. can someone simply what to do. i want to improve the article i add statements and entire sections and he reverts without explanations. what are my options, deleting my account. everyone sends me links to "disolve disputes" i have done this already this methods dont work... Blablaaa (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa and Dapi seem to have reached an agreement to work together collegially going forward, so I have unblocked him. If you think I've missed something, I won't consider reinstating the block to be wheel warring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Nah, we'll see how this one goes. Cheers! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Alexandra Daddario

Hi. The birth info you added was already removed four times already, for reasons I explained on that article's Talk Page. Please do not add it again without citing a reliable source in the article text. Nightscream (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A little more polite might have been nice. Do you prefer tv.com ? movietome.com ? listown.com ? I can find a few dozen sites that list the birthday the same way. It's a non-controvertial piece of information. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you thought I was not polite. (Which passage was impolite?) D.O.B. is not "minor". It is important information that like all other info, must be sourced. The only information on Wikipedia that doesn't need to be sourced is stuff like "Christmas is on December 25". Yes, other BLP's lack sourcing for this, and they are wrong too. I didn't know you were an admin, though. But yes, I argue this point frequently, since WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CS must be upheld.

If there are "multiple sources", and they pass WP:RS, then adding them should be easy. As long as they pass WP:RS and are given in the form of an inline citation, any of them would be fine. Sources whose content is user-generated, however, do not pass WP:RS. The content on TV.com, for example, is user-generated. If you look at the movietome page for Alexandra, you'll notice the link that says "Submit a bio", which would indicate the same thing about that site as well. As for listown, I don't know if the links that say, "Join In", "Submit Blog", or "Post A AD" would indicate the same thing, but I started a discussion at RSN to address this. The bottom line is, you can't just slap any ol' info in an article because you found it elsewhere on the internet. Blogs, sites with user-generated content, sites that mirror Wikikpedia, etc., are not reliable.

See this at the top of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

See also Jimmy Wales' words on the subject here. Nightscream (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Križevci anchor

Hi, I was wondering, under which criterion did you speedy delete the Križevci anchor article? Timbouctou (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability. It was originally tagged as too short to get the context, but from what I read, it was clearly a private zoo - context was great. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

R3

Why did you speedily delete Craig hoffman under R3? The name of an article in lower case letters is a completely plausible search term, is it not? Swarm^(Talk) 22:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No, not the way the search engine works. We don't do redirects from lowercase. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't? Every article name I've ever typed in in lowercase redirected me to the proper article. WP:R even mentions "likely alternative capitalizations" as a reason for redirecting. The other thing is that you speedied it as implausible. Do you really think typing something in lowercase is implausible? I do it all the time, since Wikipedia is streamlined enough to not give me an annoying search engine page every time I don't capitalize someone's last name. Swarm^(Talk) 20:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Why you delete my article?

Why you delete my article?

In my article there's nothing show promotion/advertising

about profile company

so please, don't delete my article

Johannovtirajamal (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The article (note: it's not your article) has three specific tags related to its deletion on your talkpage as to why it should not remain on Wikipedia. It has now been deleted 3 times because of it. It included the text of a speech from the chairman - it can't get much more promotional than that. It ended up with the phrase "Get the brighter future with Telkom Education Foundation" - that's pure sales/promotion. It was also deleted once as a copyright violation. Because you failed to respond to the problems, and simply re-created it, it has been prevented from re-creation at this time. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

translation Salpêtrière school

Thank you for adding the references. I was planning on adding them en vrac as they say in french, doing all the references at once. With regards to the title...Charcot is associated with Salpêtrière and the Salpêtrière school is referred to in other articles in english on hypnosis. Or we can use Salpêtrière School of hypnosis...or Salpêtrière School (Charcot) The French title is, as you see, the Salpêtrière School (Hypnosis) but I don't find it satisfactory. The Paris School is really associated with art and it might be too confusing. I will continue to think about this. Thank you for the help. Will you be helping in the future? If so, let me know if this is a good way to communicate.--Lilymaielang 08:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilymaielang (talk • contribs)

Selina Hakki

Just had a question. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selina Hakki this was closed as a redirect to Flunitrazepam#Drug-facilitated_robbery but it looks like the page was deleted and no redirect left. I was thinking of adding this as a redirect, but thought I'd check first in case there was some reasoning that I missed. Thanks.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed ... for some reason, the "delete before redirect" missed the second half of that command. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Singarella

An article that you have been involved in editing, Singarella, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singarella. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Woogee (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I declined a speedy as it was tagged wrong, and made some minor fixes as I did ... why not just PROD it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That attack page

In fact that page, if you read it, is not preparing to file a sock puppet case. The case has already been decided on the majority of that list, with clear evidence that it was not proven as I noted in my complaint about the page at WP:AN on the accounts MisterSoup, KermitClown and SkagRiverKing. Those names were disproven already at an WP:SPI case. It's nothing but speculation and allegations about editors in good standing with no proof or diffs to support his suspicions. Four of the names are of editors in good standing. But you know, go ahead and run a checkuser for Pinkadelica, Crohnie, Mosedschurte and Yachtsman1. They are not me and I am not them. I don't even know where he dug up Mosedschurte and Yachtsman1, except from articles we've worked on. That page also contains attack commentary like "Possibly relevant: the contents of User:Wildhartlivie/Viewpoints & Politics are all pretty straightforward lefty stuff, so you'd think there'd be a pro–gay rights or gay marriage box there. Nope." Judgment of my political beliefs and stances based on userboxes on my userpage and conclusions based on his POV from that. This page is not a SPI case in progess, it exists solely as an attack. I find the reticence of some of the administrators here to deal with this disappointing and a huge let down. It does qualify under WP:CSD G10 and the editor clearly said he "would probably delete it in the near future" here, so how does that support he has any intention to use it. He's gone around to various talk pages all over this website posting content just like this, which I won't revert because he'll attack me for doing it and how interesting that no one will revert it or deal with the attack page either. Yeah, I was blocked last month for a week, but damn it, I did my block time and for some reason, I keep coming up against reluctance from administrators to deal with any issues that are raised by other editors that I bring up. What? I'm scum now? I don't deserve to have done my "time" and come back? Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not willing to speedy it ... I said to MFD it. It's nothing against you here, and MFD is most common for this case. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

But if I nominate it for MFD, then I am opening myself up to being attacked again. I wrote to three different administrators about this, as well as a couple editors who are active in AN and AN/I and dispute resolution and no one responded. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

G10 doesn't only apply to BLP subjects, Bwilkins. No comment as to whether it actually meets G10's other facets though. –xeno^talk 16:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)