Things you probably never read on EatsShootsAndLeaves' talk page in the first place

He has crawled back from the depths of Valhalla to once again wreak havoc upon the unsuspecting bartender — Lord have mercy! :O Kurtis ^(talk) 22:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

God help us all, he's from Ottawa too! :-) Prabash.Akmeemana 23:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a certain amount of freedom being so dangerous LOL EatsShootsAndLeaves 00:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Want me to be your press secretary? Amply qualified, see userpage. darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 12:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I'm new to all of this, as I'm sure you've noticed. I've tried to upload photos via WikiMedia Commons and I'm all sorts of confused when it comes to the license. What is the best way for me to upload a logo as well as a few other likely copyrighted photos to the page I'm attempting to edit. Everything is 100% from the brand, I've just been placed with the task to upload everything. Let me know. I'd appreciate the help. Thanks.

Anthony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antgalasso (talk • contribs) 19:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would direct you to the image use policy - the company can release the images to Wikipedia, but they would have to be subject then to our licensing, which most companies really do not want. Most importantly, however, is conflict of interest at this time ES&L 10:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Purplebackpack89 and I are considering bringing User:Joefromrandb to WP:RFC/U. Do you have any interest in participating? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since I don't have any admin tools to lose, this time let me be the one to tell you to grow the fuck up. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's apparently rather obvious that it's required, however, I'm not certain that I intend to participate - I'd take some time to review all sides ES&L 21:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right, by all means look into the situation. I know that Joe has demonstrated his inability to move on and his propensity for revenge edits based on grudges, and I also know that you've been on the receiving end of his unwillingness to resolve disputes and move on. Hope all is well with you and yours, cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey panda, rock on. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You forgot to sign your last comment.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what ((unsigned)) is for, n'est-ce pas? ES&L 14:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too bothersome to correct the time stamp.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi ES&L. You recently welcomed me to Wikipedia and mentioned that the edit I requested involves a conflict of interest. I'm curious why adding iFixit's new logo to our Wikipedia page is a conflict of interest. I do not wish to edit content on the page; I just want to update our logo. Joshterrell805 (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just note that anytime you say "our logo", or "our page", you're merely emphasizing potential COI  :-) ES&L 17:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed siteban of Strangesad. Thank you. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm...sorry I missed that - surprised about the close ES&L 10:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They ruin the joke on your user page, don't you think? The manual would say: "Eats shoots and leaves". The pauses that are inferred by the use of commas are supposed to be implied. They ruin the innuendo, which is what makes it so funny. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The warning about serial commas is intended to be clear in the joke ... if one puts them in the wrong place, it changes the entire meaning of the sentence at hand. Hence, an idiot who used them in the manual turned a placid bamboo-eating mammal into a cold-blooded killer. The power of comma :-) ES&L 10:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that only works when it's in writing, but yeah, I see that. When I first heard the joke it was about a koala who performed cunnilingus on a prostitute and refused to pay. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What seems to be impossible is to get help for differently able editors. Regarding AspieNo1, please read WP:AUTISM and you will see some of the difficulties faced. I've been trying hard to help and failing miserably. The DMW article? I agree with the closure from the weight of argument, but wish some of the arguments had not been put forward. The gentleman does have a minor inherent notability, probably just the right side of the line for keeping, but the discussion was closed correctly in my view. Fiddle Faddle 10:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, trust me... I don't need to read WP:AUTISM to understand. I was lead on a 7-day special on ASD that won a few awards, and spent a lot of time immersed with a variety of people on the spectrum over a period of 3 months while researching it. I only glanced at the AfD, and found it closed properly, but yes, there are likely other factors that should be taken into account ES&L 10:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Awesome to hear that you understand many of the issues. AspieNo1 does listen, and does so in great detail with excellent comprehension, but it takes some time to be processed once understood. Fiddle Faddle 11:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copy of response to message on my talk: I have used Userfy request and asked to userfy or Sandbox as stated in every message ... no response. Many people in the autistic spectrum and with disabilities, have heard of, met or somehow know of or have had dealings with Damon and his family, and familiar. It would be weird if that wasn't the case! If I was close to the issue, don't you think I would have been at the funeral rather then holding the fort and posting yesterday, on work computer, laptop, etc? AspieNo1 (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) AspieNo1 (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is part of the problem Aspie: please only make ONE posting - do not copy it to multiple places. Discussions are ALWAYS to be kept in one location. I have reviewed Bbb23's talkpage - you did NOT ask for userfication/sandbox - you left paragraphs of reasons as to why the article should have been kept - which of course would make Bbb23 believe your intent was to return it to articlespace. If you did request userfication, it's well-hidden among giant walls-of-text ... so much so that even I cannot see it. I really believe you should spend a few weeks watching Wikipedia before making further edits ... this may help you to understand a) the purpose of this project, b) the processes of this project, and c) important things like notability. You clearly are too immersed in this topic to be objective, and I'm not saying that as a bad thing. There are reasons why I avoid certain articles myself ES&L 11:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To what is this apparently automated message from you in reference? Kylepeer (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's called a "Welcome message" - there's certainly no need to copy/paste it here ... I know exactly what it said. I'm sure that having read the article talkpage, you already realize that you're trying to edit an article that is extremely controversial in nature - certainly not the type of article that a new editor should jump right into. In fact, the concepts that you state you're trying to add have been the subject of extensive discussion ... but you already know that, having read the talkpage. Tread carefully in controversial articles ES&L 17:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

You welcomed me to wikipedia, thank you for that :) I am really confused as to what i am allowed to do. There is apparently a section where you can review new pages. I have tried this and there should be a curation tool, there is none for me. If you could help me out as to what I am allowed to do to contribute to Wikipedia, I would be grateful :) MrBauer24 (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This message is to inform you that there is an on-going RfC on WP:VPP#Advertising userboxes on categories which the userbox adds the user to. that I think you may be interested in. Technical 13 (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With appreciation for your quick review of The Departed film page and going through some of the dialogue. The consensus process is certainly different than a voting process and I referred to it only as a way to see if there were people on both sides of the discussion or otherwise. It was a surprise to me that no one on the page had asked any questions regarding the actual books which were meticulously studied and footnoted in the new section edit.

The Departed film (2006) is presently going through a process of major reappraisal in film theory literature following the capture of the leading crime character portrayed in the film. Following his capture in 2011 virtually all of the literature in film theory has gone to the view that the film is based on the biography of the captured Whitey Bulger. Prior to 2011, from 2006, virtually all of the literature was acknowledging The Departed as originating from a Hong Kong film trilogy called Infernal Affairs. After 2011 and the Bulger capture this view of the overwhelming Bulger orientation of the film even to the exclusion of even mentioning the film trilogy at all has taken place. The 4 cites were given together in the New Edit as evidence of this reversal of film theory opinion from 2011.

This situation is comparable to the film Citizen Kane in film theory (also an academy award winner) where the film was originally thought to be based on a fictional story developed by Orson Welles but only later discovered to be the biography of Randolph Hearst, the newspaper magnate. Today, opinion in film theory acknowledges the biographical aspect of the film as preferred.

The entirety of the wikipage for The Departed is split between the history of these two opinions, even though since 2011 the new opinion dominates film theory literature and all of the many books still coming out on Bulger as we speak. The Lead section you refer to in your note does not agree with the Summary Box for the film at the top of the Page which only mentions the film trilogy as a source for the film. The current Theme section of this film only mentions the Bulger influence and ignores the film trilogy entirely. The current Reception section of this film only mentions the film trilogy as a source and excludes mentioning the Bulger influence (i.e., not NPOV or balanced in the different sections of this wikipage).

My intention in adding the new section was to warn/inform readers of the wikipage that there are two radically different views of where the film origins came from and the Both points of views will appear randomly throughout the film page.

It takes roughly 21-22 hours to read the four books on Bulger to get all this info and I do not expect you to do that level of research. Your comment to me sounded well thought through and you can tell me if you think this is an issue or a non-issue worthy of clarification on The Departed wikipage for the benefit of its readers. Once again my appreciation for your looking at these film comments. AutoMamet (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First - you should keep ALL discussions together. The above should have been done as a response to my response on Bbb's talkpage - that way he knew it was being discussed in one location. As it's by your own definition considered "current research", the information you're trying to provide about Bulger makes more sense on Bulger's page, not on a page about the movie. A single, simple reference on the movie page makes sense. In about 10 years, the movie page may possibly be amendable once there is public agreement about the books, documentation, etc. The movie page is about the movie and NOT about a person. ES&L 14:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the quick comments. In the process of the discussion of the Departed dispute, two of the editors started to make retributive edit deletions by the going through my contrib page. As a result the entire Theme section of Raging Bull (Scorsese) was also deleted as a retribution edit. The Raging Bull Theme section has 3 separate edits and referenced (cited) paragraphs relating directly to the film. If you could look at the old Theme section there to see the status. A retribution deletion is usually not supposed to occur. AutoMamet (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not likely retribution - more of following up on other edits to make sure that similar problem edits have not occurred elsewhere. I'll be honest: movie articles are subject to a lot of problems - too many rookie AND veteran editors add things to them that really don't belong. You're learning early in your "career" what does and does not belong, so you'll be in good shape as you progress ES&L 15:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: (from last week)

Thanks for your comment from last week and for the learning experience add-ons. After reviewing a dozen other film examples and looking through the edit history of The Departed, I managed to find an old section which was partially deleted and which came very close to covering the material which I had in mind for my own edit and thought to incorporate them together. The result looks something like this:

"Section: The film Infernal Affairs as a source for Scorsese's film The Departed"

"There were three choices available to Scorsese in 2005 for the early production phases of planning for The Departed which included purchasing the book rights for either the 2000 New York Times bestseller on Boston crime boss Whitey Bulger by D. Lehr, or the 2004 book on Bulger by P. Kahem, or, third, to purchase the distribution rights for the 2002 Hong Kong film trilogy Infernal Affairs. Of the three choices, Scorsese chose the purchase the distribution rights for Infernal Affairs and to base the character portrayed by Jack Nicholson on Boston crime boss Whitey Bulger. The enumeration of the many differences and similarities of the two film have been documented extensively in many books including Kam Louie's Hong Kong Culture: Word and Image from 2010 and Mark Conrad's The Philosophy of Martin Scorsese from 2009. These differences and similarities can be explicated in the following enumeration: (a) The most obvious is the fact that Infernal Affairs takes place in Hong Kong, while The Departed took place in Boston; (b) The major "bust" in Infernal Affairs revolved around a cocaine deal, while The Departed focused more on the bust of a sale of microprocessors believed to be used for nuclear warheads (which were being sold to Chinese intelligence agents); (c) The character Dignam (Mark Wahlberg) does not have an equivalent in Infernal Affairs. (d) Dr. Madolyn Maddon is a composite of three Infernal Affairs characters: Yan's (Costigan) psychologist, Lau's (Sullivan) girlfriend, and Yan's ex-girlfriend; (e) Dr. Lee, like Maddon, counsels Yan and later realized his true identity; (f) Lau's girlfriend is another police officer, who like Maddon learns of her boyfriend's mob connection through a tape sent by Yan (Costigan), while the mother of Yan's child is a separate woman, unrelated to the other two; (g) Costigan has an unborn son, while Yan's daughter was born several years earlier; (h) Lau is kept alive at the end of Infernal Affairs and Infernal Affairs III, while Sullivan was killed in The Departed; (i)In the scene where Lau (Sullivan) meets Sam (Costello), they meet at a standard movie theater, while in The Departed, Sullivan and Costello meet in a porno theater; (j) In Infernal Affairs, Lau stops working for Sam due to a change of heart, and a desire to be "the good guy", while in The Departed, Sullivan stops working for Costello because it was discovered that he was an FBI informant, and he would have eventually given Sullivan over to the FBI; (k) In The Departed, Costigan tips off Queenan through text messages; (l) In Infernal Affairs, Yan (Costigan) contacts Wong (Queenan) through morse code."

This is what the restored section for "Infernal Affairs as a Source for Scorsese's film The Departed" should look like after a week of edits. The current Page does not have a comparable section. If you have comments on its usefulness or improvements possibly you could make them like last time? 208.120.96.227 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not getting involved in content overall - however, the fact that a similar section was removed in the past is a giant hint to you that you have a LOT of work to do in order to try and gain consensus on the talkpage for re-introducing any of that material. Again, most of it would never belong on an article about the film. ES&L 10:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now, please let me talk uninterrupted.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 23:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. When someone is screwing up Wikipedia policy so badly, someone has to take the bull by the horns and try and actually help bring you in line with the community, or you'll soon find yourself blocked. ES&L 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 1, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to clarify a few things here regarding your comment at WP:ANI to avoid filibustering there. I only refused to violate my topic ban. I did not refuse to help to the extent that I am permitted to do so, I was simply taking extra precautions to obey the terms of my ban [1]. Companies err on the side of caution all of the time to avoid legal action. I did not hide any templates. I did not say "unless I have permission from the WMF", what I said was "authorized representative of The Wikimedia Foundation", which includes the closing administrator or any uninvolved administrator. Supporting this is that I asked permission the next time around. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The very first time that you were told to assist Banner, you were told to continue assisting. You refused. Note: admins are not "authorized representatives of the WMF". ES&L 19:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply - The only requests I received from The Banner were 1) to locate information about Ron Thal and Matt Sanders, 2) To reply about organizations. I have done both promptly after receiving permission from the closing administrator. When I said "authorized representative of The Wikimedia Foundation", I meant the closing administrator or an uninvolved administrator. I apologize for the misunderstanding. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong ... as the closing admin, I recall the situation quite well ... no need to reply further as I expect honesty, yet I'm not going to beg for it ES&L 00:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, but I used to know a group called Friar Tuck & the Pheasant Pluckers who had some really cunning stunts... 8-+ Peridon (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LMAO ES&L 21:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	I am sorry for doing that unintentional promotion. So please restart my page --- link - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_R._S._J._Public_School_Senior_Secondary and i will remove all the promotional content. Pratham 13:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I recommend you start from scratch - as you have already been advised, that type of promotion cannot be permitted even in your userspace. It CANNOT be created as an actual article yet, you either need to make a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT, or use the articles for creation process ES&L 14:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding this, WP:BITE is an admirable policy that Wikipedia editors don't snap at new or inexperienced editors for not being familiar with Wikipedia's customs and policies. The user in question is neither. Someone with seven years experience, over 1300 edits to WP: space, and well over 100 edits to Jimbo's talk knows full well that if you want to propose a radical change in policy you either type [[WP:(topic in question)]] to find the ongoing discussion about it or if that doesn't bring something up you go to WP:Village pump (policy) (he has over 70 edits to VPP so it's not like he doesn't know it's there), not go to Jimbo's talkpage to administer yet another flogging to the dead horse. Sure, Jimbo has an open door policy, but that doesn't mean he wants his talkpage hosting the same discussion over and over again every few weeks. Mogism (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm PantherLeapord. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 00:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sure you read the edit-summary when I removed your "template"? It was bloody obvious - and you need to stay off of Dogmatic's talkpage, and he should stay off yours. Bloody ironic that you bitch about being templated, then head off and template people. Much more poking of bears will lead to you being treated like salmon ES&L 00:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record: while I personally prefer archiving a message of that type instead of removing it, I appreciate the sentiment.

By the way, I suggest you read that user's latest edit summary at my user talk page. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You mean this one? Yeah - pretty hilarious, especially considering that Wikipedia policy says nothing of the sort. Leapord was inches away from a WP:CIR block not that long ago - they clearly are performing the same behaviours that is now getting them inching back towards a WP:CIR block. I even more wholeheartedly enjoy how he closed a recent thread on his talkpage in the most huff-filled, childish, and policy-breaking way possible. <insert deity> save us all from the wrath of the mis-spelled leopard ES&L 12:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...what is your story? Why are you editing and reverting someone else's talk page? Especially before they may have even had an opportunity to read a message that was posted for them? There is clearly an ongoing dispute, one that has nothing to do with you and will likely end up at ANI. Why are you involving yourself? - thewolfchild 23:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because, as an admin, I'm sworn to uphold the rules - and I see no reason for you to act so stupid as to get blocked. Stop. Period. ES&L 00:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps you could clarify your reply? (and, perhaps, you could actually answer the question) Also, what "rules" are you referring to? And, where does it say that you can call another editor "stupid"? (as "an admin" or otherwise) - thewolfchild 04:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Between WP:UP and WP:TPG, an editor is given wide leeway as to how they maintain their talkpage, and who is permitted to post there. For example, they are not subject to 3RR on their talkpage - although the other party can be. I may also discuss the behaviour of ANY editor anywhere on the project without a) notifying them, and b) without requiring their input (except when formally reported to an admin noticeboard). Most importantly - since you seem to have issues with grammatical structures - "your behaviour is childish" is NOT the same as "you are a child". One is a discussion of behaviour, the other is a descriptor of the person, and when directed at an adult is considered a personal attack. The former follows Wikipedia's model: comment on the edits, not the editor - as our behaviour is only evident by the nature and content of our edits. You seem to be extremely confused as to what constitutes a personal attack - I would review WP:WIAPA and the other policies/guidelines linked above, and back away from the edge of the very nasty cliff you're currently standing beside ES&L 08:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem to be desperately trying to explain something that you yourself simply do not understand. My edits have all been reasonable and within policy. If you, or he, or anyone else has a problem with them, then you, or he, or anyone else can bring their concerns to ANI. Toddst1 has violated multiple policies. His actions are disgraceful and as an admin, he is an embarrassment. You are just as bad as he is, if not worse. You also made an edit that bastardized my username and constitutes a personal attack, and right here you have called me stupid. That is no more allowed than if I were to say, change your name to "Eats Shit, and Trolls", or call you a 'flaming idiot'. I'm sure you wouldn't care for that and you would consider those as personal attacks. Modifying usernames into insults and name-calling is not allowed. I don't see why you or he cannot get that thru your heads. Surely, admins must have more maturity than the two of you have shown here? I would ask you to explain your silly cliff analogy, but quite frankly, I don't care. In fact, I am beginning to believe that any further communication with you would simply be a waste of my time. This will be my last post here. Please stay off my talk page as well. Good day. - thewolfchild 11:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for proving me right. You surprisingly hit the nail on the head - communicating with you is apparently useless. Begone ES&L 11:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Begone, not to take sides here, but good adminning is to avoid this kind of heated confrontation. Your efforts to resolve any issues would be greatly appreciated (and is what the community expected of you when endorsing your RFA). Thanks. Tony (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure what you're talking about Tony - it's quite obviously a one-sided "heated confrontation". My attempts to protect them from becoming blocked led to a conversation that the OTHER party did not like the answer to, and then THEY escalated. Rather than escalate with them, I detached. Even in the ANI filing, I'm not proposing any specific action, merely that one needs to be taken. I cannot fathom what conversation you read that led to what you wrote above - they're logically disconnected ES&L 08:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I got your sig. wrong, ESL. I've read no other conversations. I just happened on this page and saw unfortunate heat. I don't like to see editors sniping in this way. I'll butt out. Tony (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

gentle bite
Thank you for greeting new users, for dealing with deletions, for a clear view in heat, for biting gently inspite of your shooting user name, for wisdom about apologising, "mixing humour and instruction", for missing, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, thanks! ES&L 00:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks - brief comment added ES&L 23:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breeze Barton, you may be interested to learn that I have opened a discussion to propose merging the article's contents to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. Feel free to comment. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was no real need to have a discussion to propose merging ... considering the comments on the AFD, WP:BOLD probably applied ES&L 23:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I removed this harassment from my page. Part of it is addressed to you. As you didn't want me to participate at ANI I'm messaging you directly. Widefox; talk 14:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see they unfortunately made it more difficult for themself. Good job ignoring ridiculous provocation ES&L 23:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You reverted the removal of the WP:PROD on Citizens Unity of India with the comment "You may only remove PROD if you actually fix the problems". That isn't the case: even the original editor is entitled to remove a Prod notice without comment or improvement. Not that it is a great thing to to do, as the next stop is probably AfD after one last WP:BEFORE check. AllyD (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because I think the break worked, and your comment made me smile.

—Locke Cole • t • c 10:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concerning the Topic ban appeal by Dolovis, you have voted to oppose the lifting of the topic ban because I failed to meet your two listed requirement of a request. I have made my reply to your comments, and I have now received the support of my harshest critic. I am hopeful that my response will also satisfy your concerns so that I may have your support also. Thank you. Dolovis (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Should_bots_be_.22fixing.22_archived_talkpage_comments.3F EEng (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

I'm a little confused by the message you left for me on my talk page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pg517 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... why are you confused? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, ES&L. I understood you were taking a break (soon to be over now) from administrative tools and roles[2] with this account, and that at least part of the reason was that your adminning got some criticism?[3] You were quite right to resume the tools in an emergency (I can't be bothered to look it up, but you'll know what I mean) and also right to take that incident to ANI, in my opinion, so that's not my problem here. But what bugs me a little is to see you relapse into throwing your admin weight around when you dislike somebody's reply to a post by ES&L.[4] There seems to be a bit of "Don't you know who I am, Sir?" going on there. It's not a big deal, and you don't have to reply to this if you don't like to, but I didn't think that post was becoming. Bishonen | talk 11:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Hmmm...I really didn't see my actions or statements to be anything like that, and I find it a bit odd that it came across like that. Let me review ES&L 22:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trick or Treat! Happy Halloween EatsShootsAndLeaves! I hope you have a great day and remember to be safe if you go trick-or-treating tonight with friends, family or loved ones. Happy Halloween! —  dainomite   15:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply] Help spread Wikilove by adding ((subst:User:Dainomite/HappyHalloween)) to other users' talk pages whether they be friends, acquaintances or random folks.

I am the subject of an allegation by User:PantherLeapord in a discussion at WP:AN. Could you please comment in that discussion regarding this user's prior actions towards me? (Note that I am absolutely not requesting that you comment in the discussion in any other capacity - that is completely up to you.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you ever read WP:CANVASS? ES&L 09:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, and it's why I worded my request as I did - but I suppose it's pretty much moot now anyways. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To avoid Canvass, you need to leave a neutrally-worded message - yours was not at all neutral. Yes, it's moot, but I hope you take the clear warnings that you were provided to heart - you're not being picked on or ganged up on, you're simply at the end of the community's patience - WP:ROPE is only so long, and you REALLY need to start behviour according tot he community standards you agreed to when you signed up ES&L 11:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...and by the way, you need to stop behaving atrociously to volunteers on this project, and I'm specifically thinking of your behaviour on WT:TW at the moment. You're insisting on changes that have no consensus, and insisting editors reply to you - that's not the way things work; period. Cut it out, as you're rapidly becoming someone the community has no time for ES&L 11:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would point out that you're lying, but apparently I'm not even permitted to state that given that stating it is pretty much the only reason I got topic banned. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm "lying"? Why on Earth would you say that? Show me that I'm lying ... quickly, as that that suggestion is rather uncivil ES&L 15:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Quickly"? Sounds like a threat, "uncivil" kettle pot! In any case, I'm referring to your claim that I'm "insisting on changes that have no consensus". Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, on WT:TW you're insisting on a change to the Twinkle interface that has no recent discussion linked to it where consensus was to add it ... perhaps it's not your intent to insist, but your written words say otherwise. I see you weren't silly enough to deny that you were behaving atrociously towards other editors - that's a good start. By the way, I'm going to be blunt: if you haven't got a fricking clue as to what is civil and what is uncivil, stop accusing others of it. There's nothing I have said to you that meets the definition of "uncivil", so cut it out - seriously. ES&L 15:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, your usage of "quickly" can easily be taken as a threat and thus uncivil. Also, why would I question something as subjective as "atrocious behaviour"? It's almost as ridiculous as WP:DE itself (and WP:POINT for that matter)... what I don't deny is my insistence upon a response, but I did not mean that any particular user should respond. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• ESL, it seems like every other edit by this editor is a fist fight. Dogmatic, I urge you strongly to tone it all down, all over the place. You're picking fights that you can't win since you're not following policy and guidelines (as in the dispute with Pigsonthewing), and you're ruffling feathers left and right. That's not the way to go. Don't make Bwilkins come out of retirement and block you for disruption. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The unfortunate and inevitable appears to have occurred. Some people don't get "try and get along with people, and you'll be fine...otherwise, the community that created the rules will start to rule against you" very well. ES&L 23:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haha, you edit-conflicted with me, and when I reposted your comment (in the wrong section!) I edit-conflicted with you, so I couldn't correct my own mistake. We need a ticketing system for posting. This seems to happen occasionally at ANI, that solving an edit conflict (as you undoubtedly did the first time) doesn't solve the edit conflict. Later, Drmies (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just don't be so conflictory ... edit or otherwise LMAO ES&L 15:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hehe good point. And you know, I'm trying to be a nice guy, a reconciliator! I'm lousy at it, though. BTW, two Wikipedians walk into a bar, separately but simultaneously, or maybe one was there already, anyway they meet (if they hadn't met before, or perhaps the one was a sock of an editor the other already knew), and says the one to the other, "why are you so fucking conflictory? Asshole!"

Or, two Wikipedians meet at the psychiatrist's office, the one going out and the other coming in (I suppose that's in the waiting room, maybe, I'll have to check the source), or the one going in and the other coming out (as a sock, maybe, or a reformed ARS member), says the one to the other (or vice versa), "hey I'm much less conflictory now: I quit hanging out at AfD". OK, that last one has a lousy punchline, but it has the virtue of being true. Well, true--verified by original resource of course. So template me, motherfucker, to quote Churchill! Drmies (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you mean "template me, muthafuckaaaahhhh!!" ES&L 23:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you left a message on my talk page inviting questions so I thought I'd take you up on the offer. My current issue involves image uploads as I wanted to flush out some red-links for a number of local officials, villages, towns etc where maybe 1 in 4 has an actual entry and the others are just dead-red. I figured I'd start practice/template on one I know, and my main conundrum is that the photo upload form has an option for federal government images but these are on an Ohio Sever, I'm basically just planning to harvest their headshots from their bios on such places. Conveniently subject #1 is a judge and confirmed ohio state law on gov't websites mirrors federal, but that doesn't help since the form doesn't know that. I essentially need to know the easiest way to upload these headshots and/or town maps / pictures of city hall. Caasi560 (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caasi560 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Normally, such photos are not acceptable due to WP:COPYRIGHT...are you unable to get more specific help at the Files for Upload tool that I linked you to? ES&L 23:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately no, I finally went the route of listing it as her property done with her permission, evidence provided on request. Since that's the same photo she emailed to use on wiki when I inquired, I'm assuming that qualifies as evidence if someone requests. It's non-optimal though because I only know 2 of the 5 subjects and I wanted to do all 5 rather than leave them dead-red links. Photos aren't strictly necessary they just seem appropriate for a bio piece.Caasi560 (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

She's the one who's going to have to contact the project to release copyright ... you cannot do so on her behalf, as you're not the copyright holder ES&L 00:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! You sound like you would know: RFC/U seems dead - what happened to it?  —SMALLJIM  12:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was busy enough last time I looked - there's a couple that were recently on the go. Thankfully, it's not the busiest place in the world! ES&L 12:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I must be looking in the wrong place. Thanks for the ANI comments, BTW.  —SMALLJIM  12:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 21:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh yes, congrats. You screwed up again, refused to discuss it, and now are blaming others for your brutal misunderstandings of this project and poor behaviour. Fantastico ES&L 22:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you seen his userpage? Someone should probably remove that, but we're all banned from doing it ;) Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

His userpage and his talkpage. My bet - someone rightly removes them for violating WP:POLEMIC ... he restores them and BOOM gets blocked - and the sadness will begin ES&L 00:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Altough I am new at wiki, I can not understand your policy. You judged my article FoamFatale as wholly unreferenced, appears to be about a "the next big thing" which is WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge of notable things - not a place to promote new products or concepts. ES&L 09:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC) Therefore this submission has been blanked because its content violates Wikipedia's policies. This page has been blanked for privacy, security, or copyright reasons.

So please advice me: how to share the knowledge of a new, effective oiltank fire protection technology, it's scientific background, which is the only one that can really prevent disasters? Remember Bouncefield in 2006.

You can find on wiki several fire fighting articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_foam_system, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water#Fire_extinction, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_extinguisher, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_firefighting.

I understand and accept wiki policy, but somehow we had to find a solution how to share scientific novelties with the visitors.

Thanks for your kind help in advance. Gpont

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gpont — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpont (talk • contribs) 15:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, this is an encylopedia - we don't "share scientific novelties" with anyone. If the "product" is an evolution of an existing technology, then portions may be added to those existing articles - but do not under any circumstance mention brand names, etc. The NAME of this product is not yet notable/useful, and promotion of that name is inappropriate. Concepts surrounding the tech might be beneficial for this encyclopedia, but not in an article of its own ES&L 15:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You actualy do need to be confirmed to curate. JDgeek1729 (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Curating is - IIRC - rather different than new page patrol both in process and knowledge requirements. It doesn't invalidate the main thrust of my decline, however ES&L 21:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought the curator toolbar was for marking pages as patrolled for WP:NPP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDgeek1729 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not that I know if ... I've never seen a "curator toolbar" and I have npp'd many many pages ES&L 23:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh lord, that Cars analogy

ViperSnake151  Talk  00:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whuh, this one?? ES&L 00:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• (for those watching at home: this is the "form" of which PL speaks) ES&L 21:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As requested. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 08:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you sure that's everything? I don't see anything there that matches WP:WIAPA ... so I want to make sure you've clearly and appropriately expressed things before I respond - I'm not going to accept "new evidence" after I've commented ES&L 09:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you DO have evidence for those allegations against me then I would be happy to hear it! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 09:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That wasn't the question: is your submission all that you have as evidence of my "gross personal attacks"? If so, I can begin the process of review and response. ES&L 10:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright; if you want it made plain then by all means I will make it plain. Start the review process. Provide evidence to back up your gross personal attacks. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 10:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll remind you: accusing me of personal attacks without evidence is in and of itself a personal attack. Defining what you have listed there as a "gross personal attack" might not stand up to the evidence provided. "Gross" typically means "extreme" ... if nothing there qualifies as a personal attack to begin with, how will it stand up to being called "extreme"? I'll give you one last opportunity to review what you have submitted against the criteria for what is and is not a personal attack before I go forward - you need to remove your bizarre personal animosity towards me, and thing logically and objectively. ES&L 10:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fact that you are using obvious stalling tactics is a dead giveaway that you do NOT have evidence to back up your gross personal attacks against me. If that is actually the case then a simple apology will do just fine. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 11:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Stalling tactics"? Are you kidding me? Apparently I'm the only one taking this seriously. There's no "time limit" so talking about "stalling tactics" is ridiculous. Holy fuck, read what you type before you click "save page", ok? ES&L 11:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am DONE responding to you for the time being. I will give you seven days to either provide evidence of your gross personal attacks or apologize. After that I will launch an RFC/U unless one or the other occurs. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 11:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, there is no time limit: you are NOT permitted to give an ultimatum. I will respond, after reviewing your evidence - and your timeframes mean nothing to me, or to the project ES&L 11:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As was always my intention, I have responded within 24 hours to each. I have also provided you a space to respond to each of my 3 responses. Choose your words carefully, and again, I encourage you to check the wrongly-implanted chip on your shoulder at the door ES&L 01:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Wow, Panda. Can't believe Jimbo didn't personally yank your account. Seriously, PantherLeapord, there's nothing there that violates anything--at least not on ESL's side. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Careful good Doctor ... I might have hypnotized you with my awesome internet-enabled admin powers, and turned you into my minion, so that I can use your puny brain in my quest to take over the world, one editor at a time! ES&L 00:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Resilient Barnstar
	You are the pride and joy of Wikipedia! Without people like you Wikipedia would not move forward! Banaster Giver Extra Polite (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Katy's single Roar has sold over 4 mils in usa and 5,749,000 as of 9 november please update don't tell me give us sources u can do math — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.232.141 (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I can do math. But Wikipedia requires sources. Plus, we have no need to update regularly - we're WP:NOTNEWS ES&L 00:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	A special fish for a special editor
	What could be more rare than a coelacanth baby with yolk sack still attached? I'm plundering the museum to make you feel as "special" as you are. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now there's nothing fishy about that award! Takk! ES&L 12:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm pretty sure that unlike the other similar surname AfD nominations, this one does not have "clear consensus", like you have mentioned upon closure. I'd like to dispute the closure for this one (the rest of them are fine, however). --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not do that again without going to WP:DRV ES&L 14:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure thing, I'll go to DRV, but can you at least explain the reasoning behind your closure, though? --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DRV at Wikipedia:DRV#Li Surname (郦). --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I sent you an email, even though it was obvious. Short version: all of these "articles" should have been listed at one single AFD. As such, the consensus across ALL of the discussions was what needed to be taken into account. I did so. ES&L 14:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't aware that this was an alt account, I just realised from the email. I don't usually read userpages. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was a second article nominated as part of that AfD. Should Mikhail Ryabko also be redirected.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Didn't I already do that?

• 07:08, 10 November 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-3,808)‎ . . Mikhail Ryabko ‎ (redirect as per AFD - someone can merge the important info)
• 07:07, 10 November 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+130)‎ . . Talk:Mikhail Ryabko ‎ (add afd) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]

Let me know if it didn't work ES&L 12:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess I was too quick off the mark. Sorry. Anyway thanks it works fine and I did some further clean-up. Cheers.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why you gotta be a "DIABLD8INFASHIST"? A disabled-(user)-hating fascist? Be kind! Trolls need love too! Doc talk 11:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOL ES&L 11:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a passing note that before reading on I tried to decipher that alphabet-soup myself, and the best I could come up with was "diablo-dating fashion historian". ??? Organics^LRO 15:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a discussion at ANI where you have been named regarding the behavior of Thewolfchild (talk · contribs). The discussion can be found here. Toddst1 (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After much consideration, and a review of his edits the past couple of weeks, I've commented. Maybe someday when he grows up, Wikipedia will make more sense to them ES&L 00:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re this: I've been practicing law for over 35 years. The last 30+ years of that has been transactional law, i.e. contracts, mergers, acquisitions, real estate, and the like, but I had a period of about 2-3 years at the beginning of my career when I practiced criminal and, yes, divorce law. I can, without hesitation, point to the worst single moment in all those years as having been during that time.

I'd been hired to represent one of the ex-spouses in a child custody fight. They'd been divorced a few years back and the wife had been given custody of the kids. The father had now gone back into court saying on slim, but not altogether untenable, evidence that she was unfit and asking for the custody to be changed. After making several frustrating settlement passes back and forth in which both parties were absolutely unwilling to consider anything proposed by the other party and which were taking forever to go back and forth, I called the other lawyer, who I did not personally know, and asked if we could all set down together and try to work it out without having to have a trial. She agreed and we decided to meet at her office. When I and my client got there on a cold winter day we discovered that her office was a single room about 8 x 10 feet and had an defective thermostat which kept the temperature at a balmy 80 or 85 degrees or so. We had no more than stepped into the room when both parties started screaming at each other. The other lawyer and I tried to maintain order so that we could try to get something accomplished, but every comment and proposal brought on another round of mutual furious screaming which would have to be brought back on track. After about an hour of that, during the current round of screaming, I looked over at the other lawyer. She looked me in the eye, leaned back in her chair, and threw her hands up in the air in a clear indication that, "I'm done with this." She didn't say another word, but I kept working on them and after another three hours of deafening screaming had managed to work out a settlement that they were both willing to accept, even though they screamed at each other up until and through the final agreement.

So don't be so hard on divorce lawyers: some of us earn our keep and regardless how much we are paid (and, come to think about it, I don't think I ever did get paid in that case), in some cases it's not enough, regardless of how much it may be. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure you actually read what I said - the message as written says "as much as I personally dislike divorce lawyers...I would not wish wish them this level of badness". You seem to have taken something different out of my statement ES&L 21:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I read it, I just thought you might enjoy the anecdote. Hey, it's Friday... Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[5] I've no problem with your revert if you think I'm mistaken but do you not think something to alert the editors who took part in the 3RR discussion would be helpful? Open to suggestions (and even a flat no). Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 10:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally, I find you've become disruptive in this matter - I think you were given clear direction in the origin AN, and you've now gone well beyond. Again, personally, I'd recommend you be blocked until you stop being disruptive this way ES&L 10:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I'm rather disappointed you'd consider that, [6] indicates an appeal should be lodged at WP:AN. Could you explain how he is supposed to appeal to WP:AE whilst blocked? Please note I'm looking at this discussion as a learning experience, hence I'm asking questions. Also I would ask you to note, whilst you may think I had clear advice I may not have understood why lodging an appeal in this manner is disruptive. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As per WP:GAB, it's HIM that needs to generate the appeal. Someone else can copy/paste it on his behalf, but otherwise, it's non GAB-compliant. You cannot appeal on behalf of another user, and you were advised of that before. You cannot speak on their behalf like that, and that's obvious to anyone one.

By the way, much of the thrust of your appeal is false: just because we didn't find out about the violation until a couple of weeks later, doesn't mean it's not actionable - consider massive copyvios that we don't find until years later. It's their response when found out that becomes the key. "Meh, it was not an issue" or "meh, I was justified" shows that a block is needed, whereas acknowledging the error - or at least understanding the potential problems - would likely not lead to a block in any manner. ES&L 11:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK I get it, so if he had made the appeal and I'd copy pasted it that would be OK? I will in a moment close that thread myself.

Back in a moment on your second point. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course, if he basically copy/pastes YOUR unblock request, that's not going to look good either - you cannot create his appeal for him ES&L 11:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will make that point to him. On your second point, Marshal mistakenly thought he was allowed to comment because of the vandalism clause. When I pointed out he was wrong and that applied only to clear examples of vandalism eg penis comments, he withdrew and redacted his comments. So he actually recognised he was mistaken two weeks before the block was applied. So the sequence was he makes a mistake, then he gets it, acknowledges he was wrong and only then gets ban hammered. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That might be believable ... if it was not for the fact that this was his second AE enforcement block. He was unblocked early on a 1-month AE block because he gave clear assurances that he understood the ENTIRE nature of his enforcement restrictions. This was his second (and therefore 60 days, due to standard escalation processes), and it therefore looked very obviously to the community that even though he stated he understood that he was purposely pushing the envelope. It's the fact that this was a repeat behaviour that makes this action problematic, and much more difficult to defend/appeal. ES&L 11:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes but this is a football article Chile–Peru football rivalry. As I commented at WP:AN, WP:Banning policy allows him to edit a football article but not those sections of the article related to Latin American history. Its not repeat behaviour, its not even skirting the topic ban. This is an overly broad interpretation of broadly construed, made worse by the fact arbcom gave an exemption for recent history.

Don't get me wrong, the edit warring warranted a slap for both and I've castigated Marshal for his initial edit summary as that was provocative. However, they both got to 3 reverts within 5 minutes so a 3RR block for 24 hrs would be a justifiable action but not a 2 month incorrectly applied AE block.

I think I could have resolved the whole mess in talk and neither editor need to have been blocked. Instead Marshall's block encouraged the other guy to make the 4th revert that got him blocked. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having been to both Chile and Peru in my professional life, I would argue (very successfully) that the entire subject of that Chile-Peru rivalry is a core part of the cultural history of those two countries, and is such the entire article is part of Latin American history, narrowly construed. That's not even arguable. It's not an article he should have touched with a ten foot pole, based on his topic ban ES&L 11:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting, I lived in Argentina for 6 months (Patagonia to be precise). Football is a religion not history in Latin America and so I think we shall have to respectfully disagree on whether the ban is justified. I do nonetheless thank you for pointing me in the right direction at WP:AN, my intentions were honourable but ultimately flawed. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 12:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The lede of that article says it all:

There's no possible way to claim this has nothing to do with history, based on that lede ES&L 12:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't claim there is nothing to do with history in the article. I pointed out that Marshal didn't edit anything related to that. [7] This is about an event in 2013. 90% of the article is concerned with football teams and results. WP:Ban#Topic ban states

He isn't allowed to edit articles on Latin American history, he is allowed to edit Football articles but not those parts related to Latin American history. Point me to a history edit and I will promise to STFU. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The entire article is about a rivalry that developed via history - the lede says so. As such, this entire article - although focused on football, is also a "history between the two countries" article. Again, the lede is clear about the nature. We don't have a "Canada-Greenland football rivalry" even though, historically it could exist (ok, barring the fact that Greenland is an overseas territory - so subst Iceland). The lede is CLEAR and UNAMBIGIOUS that this is a history article ES&L 12:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:LEDE indicates the lede should "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." It doesn't, its crap, poorly written and completed unrelated to the rest of the article raising something brought up nowhere else. Sorry but honestly you're stretching a poor argument there. WP:Banning policy is on my side here, the core of the article is unrelated to the topic ban and he edited nothing related to it.

BTW I said I would STFU if you could point me to a history related edit. You didn't, I think that rather proves the point doesn't it. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lord Almighty, he doesn't have to make a "history edit", he merely has to edit an article that involves "history" in order to violate his topic ban. The fact that you don't LIKE the current lede is irrelevant. However, as it stood at the time the edit was made, the lede was clearly defining the topic of the article as having historical significance, and was therefore under any narrow definition, subject to his topic ban. I cannot fathom how you're reading anything else ES&L 12:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me clarify: there are 2 ways to violate the topic ban: 1) make a history-related edit anywhere on the project, or 2) edit an article that is clearly and obviously related in any way to history. This is SOP for a topic ban. ES&L 12:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article about football is not clearly and obviously related to history. The lede refers to a historic event, which allows for creative interpretation but leaves considerable room for disagreement about whether the topic ban applies. Which is where a community discussion is required. I honestly think your argument is wrong and the topic ban is unjustified. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WCM, I personally think you're smarter than to try and make the ridiculous argument you're trying to make. Shake your head a bit, or as the Brits would say, "pull your head out of your arse". You cannot ignore that the lede, as it's written, shows the historical significance of the rivalry, and thus automatically includes the article as a history-of article. You're smarter than this, come on. FFS, think....THINK!!! ES&L 13:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me put it this way, I am grateful for the advice and I can now see how I wasn't helping so I've stood back. I also think the lede is obscuring the issue and if you put that aside would you be making the argument you are? Hence, I honestly don't think it to be as clear cut as you infer. Now you can interpret that as me stubbornly defending a friend and lord knows I acknowledge stubborness as a character flaw of mine. I can assure you this isn't the case and its because I genuinely believe the block was wrong. BTW I don't claim to be perfect but I am trying and I do accept I may well be wrong. Can we not agree to disagree on this? I respect you have your opinion but respectfully disagree but I've taken your advice and arguments on board. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 14:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS I don't think my head is up my arse either, I'm not that flexible since the incident with the Land Rover in Bosnia :0) Wee Curry Monster talk 14:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To add, I am dropping the WP:STICK OK? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, just let me know when someone files the official appeal - it should link to this discussion :-) ...and thanks for taking this discussion (and my humour) the right way ES&L 21:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

His appeal has been filed, and it does link to this discussion. On a personal note, I appreciate direct speech so no I wouldn't take your humour the wrong way. [;0}. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are lots of threaded discussions in the comment sections. How could I have known? Anyway, it would be a huge pain for me to actually remove all the stuff I wrote, so I guess you can do it if you want haha. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moreover, I only did it because I saw ZScarpia doing it. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow. Having moved all of your comments, I can see you have about zero understanding of Wikipedia:

1. You should not have replied here on MY talkpage - when you edited this page, you saw the statement if "you are replying to a message I left on your talk page: please reply on your talk page, not here. Why? It keeps the conversation centralized and in context."
2. It's not appropriate to make snippy comments about other editors anywhere on this project, yet that's pretty much all you've been doing on the ArbEnforcement page
3. It's laughable that what you're doing on I-P pages is exactly what you're accusing everyone else of doing

ES&L 10:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm only editing talk pages, bub. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moreover, how can I create an echo chamber with only little old me? I'm no saint, but I have a problem with the clique of editors who I noted systematically attempting to shut down their ideological rivals. You don't see me submitting ArbCom requests. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are you doing reverting the changes? You're already being disruptive...are you trying to prove it now? ES&L 11:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, because you refused to move ZScarpia's comments and sniping. Stop making up rules. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I asked you to move yours, you said you weren't smart enough to do it, so I had to do it myself. I have already asked ZScarpia to move theirs and I am awaiting their reply ES&L 11:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's hardly a matter of smarts. I'm plenty smart (I'm a homotopy theorist). Please stop with the WP:Personal attacks. Also, I don't see how I'm at all similar to my opponents, given that I'm not submitting arbcom requests or deleting other people's speech. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can I be doing a personal attack, if I'm simply re-stating your own comment about your inability to fix the mistake that I fixed rather simply? Anyway, ZScarpia's have been removed, and they have been advised how to create their own section. Your comments are now following the guidelines for that page. Smart people do that when they're first advised to - after all, when you follow the format and guidelines, people are usually more willing to listen to your perspective :-) ES&L 11:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Smart people don't necessarily follow rules when they see other people violating them and see them selectively enforced. Originally, I was fine with you moving crap around, but then I saw that ZScarpia's comments remained, and I felt like the rules were being upheld unfairly so I did all those reverts. If you want to enforce the rules uniformly, I will follow them. =p 174.44.174.192 (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are smart enough to have seen that I had also asked them to move their own comments - so there was no "selective enforcement" - we usually give people time to fix their own edits first before forcing anything. Seeing as ZScarpia hasn't edited in many hours, it can be easily assumed they're in a different time zone - this is an international project, after all. ES&L 11:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although you made a case to uphold my block, this is not meant to argue it. I won't contest your reasoning. However, I do sincerely apologize for having inadvertently hurt your feelings on a subject that is sensitive to you. MarshalN20 | Talk 14:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for this ... but you should re-read: I made no case to uphold your block. I merely laid out facts, and corrected those who made bad interpretations. I intentionally did not !vote either direction. Cheers ES&L 19:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you made a comment that my article needs more citation with reliable resources. I have rewritten the article as well as added citation as per the demand. Secondly my request to you is that if you can clarify why this article seems more notable to Wikipedia then my submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bansal_Classes

Saxenanishank (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, could you look at the bottom of this diff and confirm that it was just a weird error? Thank you. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whenever you see my own edit summary say "(ec)" it means I had an edit-conflict. They happen, and yes, it sometimes removes yours. Sorry :-) ES&L 19:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem! I don't think I'll add it in now, as it looks like it would make a messy thread messier. But thanks for letting me know! __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi ESAL,

I am completely new on Wikipedia, and find the whole thing quite daunting. Why has it been made so difficult to get anything done?

Anyway, I would like for someone to proof read the artile which I have posted: Cyber-Duck. After your message it seems as though there are places on the edit which seem to imply I have a conflict of interest. I am trying to do this by creating a Userspace draft page which is apparently found on a user subpage (is that right)? Once I have created this page, how would I get you or any other of the "bureurocrats" (Wiki's words not mine) to proof it?

Sorry if this seems a bit slow of me, but in an age of "drag and drop" this whole process seems to be a bit finickity... I am sure there are reasons.

I have also requested a name change as per your suggestion in the welcome message.

I have created the new draft here: User:MattDuck/Cyber-Duck... is there a formal process I need to follow to get anyone to proof read it?

Many thanks and apologies for my noobness, we all have to start somewhere.

MattDuck (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why would you duplicate the article into draft, while it still exists? The simple fact is, as the Founder of Wikipedia has said, "those affiliated with an organization should NEVER edit the article directly, they should only recommend sourced edits on its talkpage". When I read either the draft or the "article", it's full of promotion, peacock terms/phrases, and I'm still not 100% sure it meets notability for companies. Those are the standard problems when someone involved with the company tries to write about it - they're completely unable to view the org objectively ES&L

I duplicated the article because after your message I was led to believe that the original would eventually be removed. As you left me this message: "To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it."

I have made some more edits, in order to keep the content factual and removing any hyperbole or peacock terms. I am determined to make the content impartial and factual about the company. I appreciate your help with this. MattDuck (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't login as MattDuck anymore ... you requested a username change, and that was actionned a couple of days ago, which means the MattDuck account no longer was supposed to exist ES&L 00:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, I will no longer use the account. Is the content on the Cyber-Duck page now acceptable? I will no longer be editing the content, I just would like to know if it will stay there now that it is edited. ManCalledMurdock (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You wondered of a couple of questions here. Since my post and your comment is by now gone (deleted), I can only reply here. (Actually, that page instructs us to only add notifications rather than replies anyways.) Here's the reply to the questions:

1. Not every issue has involve violations of WP:NPA or WP:UP
2. If user talk pages had no purpose other than to share greetings and make social connections, it's totally fine to delete anything. But if they are to solve issues and allow communication, someone who doesn't let others "force an answer" from them will be frustrating to find on Wikipedia. I personally do not mind it much. I know others who never reply and have no big problem with them. But JBW goes even further: he says I'm trolling. If he really felt I had a problem or was really close to trolling, he could start a discussion on my talk page. Now why wouldn't he do that? At least that way I could clarify that I'm certainly not trolling. The problem can be seen if you imagine you need to talk to me, and I deleted any comment with the summary "EatsShootsAndLeaves is probably trolling." 135.0.167.2 (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Let me say one simple piece of advice: be careful with the written word, and your approach when using it. The way you wrote your question can only be read one way - and you received your response (or lack thereof) in a certain way because of it. If you were trying to be friendly and respectful, it failed miserably because your words read like you were indeed trolling. Pretend you're someone else and re-read what you said in the overall context of your edits: you'll have no choice but to see the exact same thing everyone else is ES&L 11:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the late reply (I forgot about my comment here) (I'm pretty sure you're talking about my first comment to JBW) I did word the comment to only be read one way: I was implying that I would have an issue with JBW's block-summary comment (to that other user I forgot the name of)... unless he can show how it's acceptable. It's obvious if you look at that comment. JBW stopped trying to defend his interpreting my comment as trolling in later discussion. Fact is, raising an issue with someone's talking is not trolling, and it's hard to imagine any contrived formalization under which it would be. Here's a link to my first comment, the one I believe you're talking about. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, "unless he can show [me] how it's acceptable" ... fully explains the [lack] of response. It was an ultimatum, and one you had no power nor right to issue - wholly uncivil. It was in and of itself trolling of the highest degree - so be careful what you accuse others of. ES&L 10:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for bothering you (again), but pardon me? You're not trying to say that, while raising a RFC on someone is acceptable, warning someone about it beforehand (to give him or her a chance to show that's not needed if he or she is convincing enough), is "trolling of a highest degree?"

I'm assuming it's the word "unless" that bothers you... but the word "unless" only has negative connotations because it's usually followed by some horrible threat. If what is said after it is fine on it's own, then it's fine with the "unless." Again, sorry for bothering you. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"their" is also singular possessive — No, it's plural, clearly referring to two or more subjects; it's just that lazy English-speakers, mainly American (as is yours truly), don't bother to speak grammatically. Sadly, one often hears wait-persons and clerks saying "your guys's" in place of "your," because Eng., unlike other European languages, has no first-person plural possessive pronoun, either.

PS: I realize Beeblebrox didn't create the user box. Sca (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You do, of course, realize that you should always keep conversations together. Oh, and I'm not American. "Their" has a direct relationship to the word "leur" in French, in that it also means "their" in both plural and singular. It's lazy people who don't study grammar who think otherwise ;-) ES&L 20:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For going out for ArbCom. Best of luck. Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 18:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very kind of you. Thanks ES&L 12:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello EatsShootsAndLeaves. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Shania Junianatha, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No issues ES&L 12:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have made a statement in the clarification request relating to Argentine History. This message is to let you know that a motion amending the original decision has now been proposed. You are welcome to add comments on this motion underneath your original statement. Thanks, AGK [•] 11:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:AGK Thanks for the heads-up ... I hope you've seen the amendment to the amendment I proposed yesterday. I don't find the current motion allows other forms of editing, yet ES&L 12:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the help in the clarification request, ES&L. I'm still a tad concerned with the wording, but at least it seems to be more specific. Your comments are also indicative of the intent, which I may need to refer back to in the future (if any funny business again takes place). Happy holidays.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Season of Forgiveness - an Olive Branch

Across many faiths, and in many countries, it's a season of friendship, family, celebration and forgiveness. Throughout this year, I have been unfortunately involved in a number of on-wiki "altercations". To those involved, please know that there has never been an intent to demean, belittle, attack, or anger you. However, through either my actions, or the wording I have used, I have offended and/or angered a number of you, my on-wiki colleagues and fellow human beings. For this, I apologize profusely and sincerely. For most of you, we have been able to resolve these communucation challenges together - however, there are number of you where this was unfortunately not possible. In a very small number of those cases the situation escalated to a point where I requested that you no longer post here on my talkpage. In the interest of personal peace, and in the spirit of true forgiveness, I rescind any such limitations. May we take this opportunity to work peacefully together towards the common goal of open knowledge for all   ES&L 17:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 29, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Since the user in question has reported me as a response, go toPage and you'll understand perfectly the problem with no reason to refer to other pages. --Tco03displays (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were told the right way to do it, and you made it worse instead. Not surprised it was closed as "no action" ES&L 00:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, I find the admins' patience quite surprising. I I copied everything on the talkpage and I will try a bit more to reach consensus, then I will move into filing a dispute in the hope it will be solved. --Tco03displays (talk) 07:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you however clean up your statement? Was my position not justified, or the whole process of solving the dispute was wrong? (which it was). --Tco03displays (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AN/3RR is ONLY in existence to help resolve cases of edit-warring. As such, it has nothing to do with anyone's "position" - in fact, the moment you start to discuss content and position, you've gone beyond its remit. The instructions are very clear for a reason - and the reason is for you to realize that you're quite possibly in the wrong forum. Another key aspect of Wikipedia is that you should never be copy/pasting from anywhere ... on any board, if you need to refer to specific parts of a conversation/edits that exist elsewhere, you use a WP:DIFF to point to it. For the main part of your incident, however, we have dispute resolution processes for a reason :-) ES&L 10:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, You've recently declined a submission I made, an article for Computer Scientist Ron Pinter. Perhaps you would like to attend the symposium held in his honor at the Technion on January 6? Two talks will be devoted to his contributions in the fields mentioned in my rejected submission, maybe the speakers can persuade you of his notability. http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/news/2013/657/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuval pi (talk • contribs) 12:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You clearly have not read the general notability guidelines yet. Wikipedia does not care if people at a symposium say he's notable - we need appropriately published reliable sources to say it. Understanding notability is not rocket science ... or even Computer science :-) ES&L 12:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A random cookie for a panda... (this is for your ANI work) Epicgenius (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Gamaliel is an active participant as an editor at Gun Control and, IMHO, qualifies as "involved" due to the intersection of the complaint and that article. [8]. They also appear to have sparred editorially at Ted Nugent, and Lee Harvey Oswald (long ago) in the past. IMHO, admins ought not act with regard to articles directly or indirectly where they have acted as an editor, and ought not interact as an admin with a person they may have had prior disputes with. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um, no. I responded once to an RFC as an outside party. I have not, to my recollection, ever edited the article or otherwise commented. Gamaliel (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad to hear that -- the question as to at what point a person making statements related to the editorial content of an article is an "editor" is ill-defined in policy. I recall a person being chastised for making a spelling correction on an article, which I found a tad less substantial than the opining on an RfC. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A spelling correction? I hope that the chastiser was laughed off. I guess I take a narrow view of what involved means. As we have to often compartmentalize ourselves on Wikipedia - separating our personal opinions from writing articles in an NPOV fasion, separating my role as admin from that of editor, etc. - I feel that it would take a lot more involvement to meet the 'involved' threshold. And the whole point of an RFC is to bring opinions from outside parties into an unresolved dispute between involved parties, so the idea that opining on an RFC suddenly made someone an involved party never even crossed my mind. Gamaliel (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for taking the time today and for your attempt at coaching me...some of us are hard headed sometimes. I read your essay on civility and it is quite enlightening and brings up some of the challenges out there with the community. It's a difficult topic area and editing contentious articles can be very challenging as well. For some reason, I have no issues editing the more mundane botany articles (not the fightclub tomato fruit vs vegetable debate). In any case, I think we've likely cried enough over the spilled milk. I still think there has to be a better way to deal with contentious articles, but I haven't found one. We'll get there. Cheers -Justanonymous (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Best wishes
	for the holidays and 2014 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks ... it's about -6C with sleet that arrived on top of an extra 8" of snow yesterday. Warmth looks nice! Cheers to you as well! ES&L 11:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A nice 30 centimeters in The Hub right now. Only 12% of Christmases in The Hub are white Christmases. Happy holidays. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy Kwanzaa! I hope you got lots of nice Christmas gifts and your guests have all gone now so you finally have the house to yourself again. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry/happy/jolly/vrolijke whatever you're celebrating as well! ES&L 22:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having stupidly started the unfortunate situation, I've made apologies and a comment at the User talk for RM. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heh, thanks for throwing me under the bus though :-) I hope he understands that my responses were more based on "I can see where the nom and deleter were coming from". I appreciate you having the cojones to step in there ES&L 17:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this edit you deleted my comment - I presume this was unintentional. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not his fault. I opened the edit buffer after you (scs) posted and was baffled because I planned to reply directly to someguy, and was looking for the spot between sg's post and yours. Yours simply wasn't there, so I backed out, tried again and it still wasn't there. Software does than on ANI from time to time; I'm sure the ridiculous size of ANI right doesn't help. NE Ent 22:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the Ent says, wholly unintentional, and not a rarity whatsoever on ANI ES&L 17:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't there a way to get all these articles onto a single AfD discussion? You seem to be ahead of me on tracking down all this fancruft, so I'm back to something more constructive. Btw I see you have an admin account: one of these articles, Playdown, (not by same editor) had had a PROD on it since May 2013.TheLongTone (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm on a holiday from my admin acct until late next month. You could create one large AFD - include all the truly non-notable songs from this very list - except of course the ones already AFD'd ES&L 17:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh cripes, I had to have a stiff drink after looking at that. I don't think I know how to do a mass nomintation. Got as far up as 48 so far, 7 clear canditaes plus a couple of questionably notable musicians/bands. TheLongTone (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably about twentfive similar articles on that list, which seems a lot for a multiple deletion. Slowly putting a list together in my sandbox: I actually prefer improving and adding content to wikipedia. I have also found[[9]], a very similar username and editing obsession.TheLongTone (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Twentyfive on the button, not including those already at AfD. Second user has rather more, & I,ve just come across User:PogiJmon, who added a load of guff to one of the AfD candidates on my watchlist. This user has over a hundred articles created: those I have had the strength to look at (one is liable to be confronted by a picture of the Brothers Gibb) seem pretty similar.TheLongTone (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am admiring your constitution :-) ES&L 22:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. My secret is that I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast. Seriously, what is a realistic limit for the number of articles in one afd? The second list is 27, I'm up to #40 of 100 on the third & there are 27 so far. An afd with c.100 candidates is asking for trouble, no-one is going to look at them all. I've come across one article which has been recreated after an afd deletion & have speedied it, no keeps from the other accounts on its discussion so looks like its not sockpuppetry per se, the worst I've come across is a note from one account to the other saying 'what a splendid article'. Nowt so queer as folk. On the subject of which, also a couple of notes from witless page reviewers, one saying that it was the best article they had seen that day. God knows there are few enough articles that appear on New Articles that one can actually be bothered to read, but even so.TheLongTone (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Put up half a dozen under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idea (song), but I found the multiple deletion process a real pain. Shamingly, some of these articles have been afd'd & kept simply because nobody at all contributed to the discussion.TheLongTone (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Considering the comments being made at each of the AFD's, I think we have a sockpuppet on our hands ... ES&L 17:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...which I have now filed an SPI report ES&L 17:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two down.... but what about User:Sam navera. Socks do not always come in pairs.... similar editing obsession, similar name. What to do with the article? pobably simpler to turn them into redirects. A couple of the family articles deleted or on the way at AfD.TheLongTone (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a post I'd like to add to the Lyon College page. Because I am an employee, I was asked to have my posts proofread. Lyon College will be the only page I'll be making edits to, and those edits will be for the sole purpose of keeping information about the college up to date and accurate. Please review the post I've created in my drafts titled Recognitions and let me know if I can add this to the Lyon College page. Thank you. Hekell (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Hekell, what you need to do is to create a section on the article talkpage, submit the proposed location, wording and the sources (that obviously cannot be from the institution) that support the change. There will then be a discussion to obtain wP:CONSENSUS to add it, change it, or reject it ES&L 17:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the ew noticeboard, you mentioned that there had been a discussion on the use of http vs. https for outgoing links. Could you provide a link to that discussion? thanks, 108.41.173.242 (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you have that a bit wrong. The filer only started editing early December. I'm hoping ArbCom rejects it as I'm slightly worried they might think article protection isn't enough. I'm sure it is and wish I'd managed to file the AE report I'd planned before the OP filed the ArbCom request. I've got no hope of the OP being able to edit anywhere constructively - complete failure to understand policies & guidelines, unwillingness to listen and a battlefield mentality. Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.9.135 (talk • contribs)

Because in case you had not noticed, Jimbo's page is pretty much the "other version" of either the admins noticeboard, or the Village Pump discussion board. Jimbo clearly states that other knowledgeable editors may reply. You asked a question where you seemed to be missing key components of policy - it's very common for someone to try and stop drama before it becomes more heat than light by actually helping to enlighten them as to policy and/or common sense ES&L 12:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP 37, when everybody says you are wrong, it's time to stop and think, "maybe they are right." You ought to drop this matter and move on. I am sure Jamiri can create a username like "JamiriComics" if he wants to edit Wikipedia. Don't make such a fuss about nothing. Jehochman ^Talk 14:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please explain why it is natural that an edit should be made undone just because it is around 8,000 bytes. Rump Bass (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because anything that resembles section-blanking or large-scale removal of text is and should' be immediately reverted ES&L 17:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you mean iif there is a load of crap in an article, I have to sort this out piece by piece over a lengthy period of time? The commentes made on the talk page and the edit summaries don't matter? Rump Bass (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Manageable chunks" ES&L 17:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heh heh, that's stupid. :-p Rump Bass (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No - it would be "stupid" to believe that large-scale changes wouldn't be considered possibly problematic - even if you simply spelled 4 words wrong (even if the rest was good) it could be immediately reverted. Articles evolve slowly. ES&L 18:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...seems to have gotten an account: User:Eatshootsandleaves/sandbox. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am a little surprised they were permitted to create that so close to mine. ES&L 22:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. We could ask an expert, but I'm not sure we can afford their hourly rate. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the username is missing an "s" (Eatshootsandleaves vs. EatsShootsAndLeaves) in addition to the capitalization, so I'm not totally surprised. I dunno what Mediawiki looks at for similar-username matching, though. Also, we should probably, y'know, talk to them, before some username zealot comes along and blocks 'em; i doubt there was any impersonation intended. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good catch :-) ES&L 00:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((of course, it wouldn't be an issue if you just used your other account...)Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I promised to stay away from my reg account for 6 months. Last time I came back sooner, and some people still hold it against me. It's going for a rename soon, by the way ... but apparent'y Eatshootsandleaves is now suddenly unavailable :-( ES&L 00:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like this name ;) - I liked your clarification statement, and what you alter ego had to say here. However: do you really want to miss discussions like Sellers and Padukone in the future? No more spice like this? What would you guess: when was the last time Andy added an infobox "disruptively"? My guess: 26 December 2012, if adding an infobox to a woman (who isn't really a classical music personality) two days after she was TFA can be called that, - I think it's not even bold, simply trying to improve Wikipedia. That is what needs to be sanctioned. Really? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ever. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, you'll find that such a request carries no weight if I ever need to weight in on administrator matters. My apologies, User:Lugnuts, that you felt compelled to "boot me off your talkpage" - simply for trying to prevent you from getting blocked by posting there in a polite, non-judgemental and friendly manner that actually spoke in favour of your knowledge of the project. Your response is bizarre, considering the goal and content of my message - perhaps you've horribly misread. ES&L 14:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"perhaps you've horribly misread" Wrong again. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The perhaps this discussion would be better served by you explaining what you consider "wrong" with the message I left, or so offensive that you want to boot me off the page after a single friendly post - there was no implied threat, simply pointing you to the relevant policy, and speaking to your wisdom. Please, educate me ES&L 14:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, dear EatsShootsAndLeaves, thank you for reviewing and editing the article of Burkard Schliessmann. I want to include something about the particularity of his pianistic style and interpretations by using critical reception on the base of quotations of some international reviews. I would be very glad if you could have a look on the following proposal and, more, would be gracious if you could do corrections where necessary. Of course I will include 'References' that all can be verifiable. Looking forward in hearing again, I remain sincerestly and with all my thanks, Joanna--Joanna at EVP (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joanna, I have removed your proposed text for a few reasons. First, my talkpage is not the place to have that discussion - I have zero interest in the subject, and have no desire to discuss the content - the correct place to do so is on the article talkpage where many editors can help to obtain WP:CONSENSUS. More importantly, however, it is 100% impossible to discuss the wording you're choosing without having the associated references. When you have the discussion about content on the talkpage, please ensure the references are appropriately attached, or you'll find no possibility of inclusion. Finally, beware of WP:PUFFERY - some of your wording was horribly promotional - I'm 100% sure you're somehow involved in the topic, which means you should not be editing the article whatsoever - and when I see the types of wording you used, I'm even more concerned about promotion. This is an encyclopedia, not a marketing tool ES&L 16:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear EatsShootsAndLeaves, I apologize. But please accept and be ensured, that I'm really not involved in the topic. All the best, Joanna--Joanna at EVP (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to apologize for my rude and aggressive behavior. It wasn't the appropriate way to resolve the conflict, instead, made everything far worse. My attitude wasn't civil towards anyone at all. -- ♣Jerm♣729 20:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's appreciated. We're all passionate about the project ... we just have to direct the passion :-) ES&L 22:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, I deeply apologize for what I caused, and I would like to thank you for your progress in ending the conflict. Your just trying to do your job -- ♣Jerm♣729 01:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You better tell this guy to back off my daughter he has her in tears because she was trying to be helpful and she is only 10 years old. It is sick you allow someone to pick on a 10 year old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.24.163 (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, your daughter may lack the maturity and ability to read the rules and policies to edit on this project. Please do not make threats: Wikipedia is not a place for babysitting, and nobody CARES if she's 10; we care if people follow the rules, which she's not. ES&L 15:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey - I just dropped you an email regarding the ANI situation. Sorry for the silly question, but there are still things related to the admin toolset and policy that I'm getting used to, since my RfA was only like a week ago. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know that several people didn't take this motion 2 well, but we all didn't oppose, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear ESAL, Can I Use Your Signature? It Looks So Cool and I Will Replace ES&L With Titusfox! PLEASE? Regards, Titusfox ^(Chat?) 17:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC) <-- My Current SignatureReply[reply]

No issues - I appreciate you asking in advance ... you may wish to change the base colour ... foxes are brownish-orange :-) ES&L 01:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your kind advice to Aharonz1 (talk · contribs). I hope you don't mind that I took the liberty of making this edit to your message. Confusingly, WP:NOTNOW and WP:TOOSOON are not shortcuts to the same page. The former is about RfA, the latter about topics for which it is too soon to have an article. WJBscribe (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A peace offering, I hope you'll confirm me now MovieManJames14 (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't get extra rights based on "peace offerings", but thanks ES&L 21:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I've asked a question here. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How special. I always thought WP:AGF was a core requirement DP 09:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, you'd not answered my question (I'd not tagged you, so my fault) and I saw that there was only 20 hours left. It was unclear to me if I should ignore what I found or raise it. Still not sure (my judgement on-and-off wikipedia has been questionable the last week or so), but I generally prefer to do things to being passive. Eh. Hobit (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not a matter of "ignoring" or "raising" - it's a matter of actually reading what you found and make good judgement of what was said before trying to raise false drama, and false red-herrings. You have been very "it's either black or white" lately, sprinkled with horrible judgement and arguing the wrong side of reality without seeing the bigger picture - and that's not like you (at least I don't think it is) ES&L 11:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On your elder alter ego's talk page, in case you see it here first. Pakaran 03:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's an interesting turn of phrase, Mr Panda. Is it something young and fashionable people nowadays regularly use? ps:

Q: Why did the hipster get burnt lips?
A: Because s/he drank his coffee before it was cool.
Q: How many hipsters does it take to change a light-bulb?
A: It's an obscure number, one that you've probably never heard of.

(Twenty or so years ago, me and my set wore unusual clothes, enjoyed stoopid things ironically, listened to obscure music, and got around on bicycles. Were we proto-hipsters? Absolutely not: we were so. incredibly. cool. there wasn't even a word to describe us.)

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I quoted some song I don't think I was even around for - it's a lyric I never understood, maybe it's because English really wasn't my first language? Hipness is, of course, variable and cultural - people over 40 actually think that I'm hip, while someday my kids will believe that I'm "so unhip, it's no wonder my bum doesn't fall off" Hope you still have those bicylcles...I hear that's good for strengthening your hips :-) DP 10:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is requested that please do not remove the tag added by me on wikipedia unless and until it violates the wikipedia policy. INPanda 17:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It does violate. And you re-adding it violates WP:EW. The tag you added has no benefit to the talkpage, nor the discussion. The only related "tag" is a template about ((Notaforum)), but your custom tag was inappropriate, and inexcusable. You asked ME a question about an image; I responded to it, and in addition advised that you should not be uploading images at all, period. ES&L 19:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there. I would kindly like to ask you to read the article in its entirety and give three examples of advertisement in the article. I have edited the article more than four times now. One admin undeleted the article once before, but Trivialista and Tokyogirl, etc. other users believe it still to be advertisement. The Columbus Dispatch wrote an article about it. The C. Dispatch is the biggest Newspaper in Ohio and the article was on the cover. The company was in TV broadcasts, where reporters reported about the tech, etc. The company showcased their products at a booth at the geneva auto convention in Switzerland. The Article was written in a way to show how the technology works. To my knowledge there is no sentence or phrase contained within the body of the article that coould allure advertisement. Regardless, maybe you can help me and point out the sentences that would deem it so, if there are any. I am new to wiki and haven't contributed anything other than the article. There are many articles like HuettlinKugelmotor, EcoMotors, FelixWankel that are written in the same fashion and style. I believe to get singled out here. Maybe you can help. Thanks, for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alreim (talk • contribs) 11:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for taking the time to review the proposed new page for McGraw-Hill Education -- I'm hoping for a bit of clarity as to how it might have been declined on the ground of notability, and how I might rectify the issue. I realize that the page's references could certainly still be built out beyond where they are, but I sort if hoped that references including the Financial Times, Reuters, TechCrunch, The Boston Globe, and Education Week, to name a few, would probably be enough to get the initial page off the ground.

I'm not affiliated with the company, so it's a little hard for me to personally devote a ton of time to this, but it seemed a little bit silly to me that the second biggest education publisher in the world wouldn't have its own Wikipedia page -- especially since the company recently split from the McGraw-Hill Companies, making its reference on that Wiki page largely irrelevant. If I add a banner asking for additional help securing sources, would that help?

Anyway, thanks so much for your help! Look forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M274779 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a good thing that you're not affiliated with them, as that would render you unable to edit the article :-) I'm going to dig through the article a bit later - let's just say that "a major digital learning company" is not sufficient notability in those words. On top of that, the divestiture is poorly emphasized - I didn't even pick that up the first 3 reads, so it appears to be a non-necessary article when read with that perspective DP 08:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

about this: How did I bait? nightscream wrote in a rude manner to me under the guise of 'help'.
I wasnt going to be disrespected so I said dont post to me get a neutral party. I followed #4 of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility and told nightscream. it brushed me off saying i'm not rude yoo are wrong.
It kept reverting my talkpage, was insulting, theatened me with a block, and follow through with that block.
Really? ass is worse? 172.243.183.183 (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Number 1, please don't ever copy/paste anyone's comments from elsewhere like you did above - I removed it. Second, yes, "ass" is worse, so stop asking about it; period. Third, I have reviewed this not rude help, this amendment to it (also not rude), this detailed, and also not rude post on your talkpage, and I stopped there ... NONE OF IT WAS RUDE - it appears you simply didn't like the message being delivered. Obviously, when people don't stop to read the policies they AGREED to, then it's problematic (remember: you don't have a right to edit here, but you're welcome to edit according to the rules you agreed to). You were not disrespected, at least in the first 6 edits to the IP talkpage that I reviewed. I didn't go any further, because if you ACCUSE someone of doing something without providing proof, it's considered to be a personal attack. So, from what I see, your original personal attack (calling them an "ass") on them was 100% unprovoked. It APPEARS that you were given advice, wiped it out, and repeated the same behaviours that led to the advice/warning. As such, editors have 2 ways to advise you that you're still breaking the rules: re-create the same advice/warnings, or revert your removal. Obviously, the revert is easier and basically says "look, I already told you to stop!" I mean seriously, when someone says "stop", why the hell would you keep doing it? You were very very validly blocked for your own stupidity of not stoppping when shown the rules. When you're dealing with biographies of living people, the person removing improperly-sourced statements is IMMUNE to the edit-warring and 3RR regulations and cannot be blocked for it. Of course, you were already told that - but blanked it and ignored it. You made a mistake, you were told to stop, you didn't stop, you were blocked - easy as that. This isn't rocket science: learn when people tell you something; don't be surprised when they get frustrated that you personally made the choice to refuse to learn. Now, read WP:STICK and WP:OTHERPARENT, go back and re-read this, and everything it links to and try again - your WP:IDHT is really not becoming ES&L 17:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why administrators should apologise. They always go against Language expert and has never blocked bunch of socks ZORDANLIGHTER,Vvarkey,Whistlingwoods and Soham. Interestingly ZORDANLIGHTER two days ago was not able to type on WP. Now he can even file a SPI. He can format bold or italic. can tag other admins. WAOW what a deception by socko king Soham. No matter what, i will always respect WP Administrators. TakenUrs (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find your comments offensive - you're required to respect a) all other editors, and b) the policies you agreed to. There are no options. ES&L 14:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Eats, Shoots, And, Leaves,

I am very disappointed in your lack of motivation. You have been rolling around wikipedia, making your edits, but ignoring the larger issue. Sure, some of your edits may be helpful, but in the grand scheme of things they are nothing. I demand you stop at once. I have found a panda for you, and you need to begin procreating immediately. We all want baby panda bears; stop wasting time here and get to work on saving your species. Thanks in advance for your cooperation in this matter, you can name the first-born panda after me if you like.

I assume you are a panda bear, because not much else eats shoots and leaves. If this is an incorrect assumption, please do not correct me. Greedo8 16:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You "demand I stop at once"? I'm sorry, Greedo, but who are you to "demand" any such thing from any editor? That would be harassment, specifically in that "the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely". ES&L 17:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aside from being pandas, you two have another common interest: you both like wikipedia. Yet you refuse to even consider the prospect of having adorable panda babies, and this lack of action is contributing to your species' endangerment. "Demand" may have been a strong word, but these are worrying times for the panda race. Drastic action is needed. If you have any free time, then by all means edit wikipedia. But your main concentration should be on the survival of your kind. We should all set aside our own immediate wants and instead think about the future. A future with pandas, or a future without. I prefer with. Greedo8 18:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course, Greedo, you have noticed that DangerousPanda and EatsShootsAndLeaves are both my accounts, right? It's listed right on the user page for this account ... right? Maybe you already knew that, and by suggesting that I try to have babies with my own self, perhaps you're trying to tell me to "go fuck myself"? Not that civil either. One way or another, I feel I'm being trolled here. DP 20:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, that would make the repopulation of your species considerably more difficult; it takes two to tango. I'll keep an eye out for further suitable companions for (the both of?) you. Don't get your hopes up though, most other pandas are currently owned by China. I'm a bit confused about your last comment, I don't see how Troll (gay slang) has anything do with pandas. Greedo8 00:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[10] Back in October User:Drmies indefinitely blocked Martin for disruptive editing (you commented at the time). It appears that he and his nemesis User:DeFacto have decided to decamp to simple wikipedia, where both have again been blocked [11]. Rather tiresomely it appears that DeFacto has a new sock puppet [12] trying to drag me into it. Frankly I am really tired of being dragged into such petty backbiting and have been enjoying writing articles again. The duck is strong here, what would you suggest? I will also be posting at User:Drmies FYI. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Already blocked, my little pandabear. WCM, I think you need to revise your statement: it should read something like "the duckishness is strong here". Come on now. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The duck is strong in them, it is" is the appropriate statement DP 22:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comment at User talk:Redmoon660. I think your comment that "the socking is a symotom, not the cause" is spot on. (However, you may like to edit the word "symotom". ) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have an essay somewhere about not editing Wikipedia while drunk. Perhaps we should have one about not editing Wikipedia without caffeine? Fixed it, and thanks for the heads-up  :-) ES&L 11:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fuck away from my shit. Fairly certain I said this to you before, anything at all to do with me, just piss off Darkness Shines (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no clue what you're talking about. If you wish to engage some form of WP:IB then go look for it, but try providing some diff'sDP 00:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am kinda shocked to read the bad language above in here, but it makes me understand your pov. I left you a message here and I wanted to say thanks and apologize for any insult that turned up in that discussion. It was not meant that way, sorry. Have a nice day ► robomod 12:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see User:Lecen has retired again. This is usually a cue for his supporters to attack those they see as "responsible" for his departure. I'd appreciate it if my talk page was on your watchlist. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 07:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done from both accounts ES&L 10:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, re your post at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Statement by DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves - why WP:IB? I assume that is a typo for something else, but what? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) Interaction ban, probably. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yup, meant WP:IBAN ES&L 18:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... sorry about that. I blame the new typography (or more precisely, the jump that occurs when my watchlist loads the script to make things look normal again). I've undone my own edit to put your comment back. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heh, I was wondering! LOL ES&L 14:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not say you were the bad guy (that was why I removed part of my original innaccurate comment). Actually, I recommended Thanatos to not talk to you as my advice to him to try and make him stay unblocked for longer, not because you are on the list of "users to avoid". Now, about the "I know, and that's exactly why I won't put my hands on that mess": He asked me to take action against you (Sorry but DP him/her-self is or has become in this case a major reason/cause of this request.) and that's something I'm not willing to do. Now about the "sudden anger": I don't have any anger against you (No, I don't have any hard feelings because you opposed my RfA), and I certainly apologize if my don't talk to him comment looked like that. → Call me Hahc21 18:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sigh. I deleted the entire thread and take back whatever I said there. I am not going to intermeadiate and risk my skin for Thanatos, so if you end up blocking him I won't certainly yell at you. Yes, the hatch has been long buried and I have no hard feelings to you, but I still prefer that we cross our ways only when necessary, and I think that's fine for both of us. → Call me Hahc21 18:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks very much for your support during my RFA. I found your "frisky feline" comment very amusing and I didn't want to withhold from you the equally amusing memory that it evoked: Many years ago a colleague of mine published a scientific article about aggressive behavior in mice, describing that he witnessed "fearsome feats of furry fervor". He got away with it and the journal published it as he wrote :-) Cheers! --Randykitty (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heh, thanks for sharing that! Congrats, BTW ES&L 17:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm begging you. Please! Please!

DridsOBrien (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I agree that your closure of the IHTS IBAN enforcement request discussion summarised the position well as far as the discussion was so far, I would've preferred if it were open for just a few hours longer to have expressed a further comment as I have here, which may have warranted that the block be lifted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand your point, but it was a) becoming a dramafest, b) he should have been blocked last time not this time, so the lifting part was moot, and c) I can't say I'm overly convinced that he was unaware - I think by the time that was discussed and proven, the block would be long-over the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I agree with the last part, I think it is still worth recording the issue in the discussion itself where the sanction was imposed from. On another point, it's clear that the action elected to be taken was a warning - yet if the warning was probably (but unintentionally) not conveyed properly, I don't see how it makes it moot. The issue isn't what sanction should have been imposed last time (although I personally think the warning was more appropriate rather than a block); the issue is the chosen sanction was not enforced completely to begin with when that discussion was closed, so the underlying basis for the follow up enforcement is a bit of an issue. On the dramafest issue, that is in a lot of ways the nature of many noticeboard threads, but a few more hours was unlikely to have escalated further given that the editor was already blocked and there was more light left to give than heat.

Of course, for the reasons I already stated there, I'm not terribly convinced that an enforced wikibreak is such a bad thing - more so if it were dished out to both. But my concern is that it seems to have been the opposite of a wikibreak for the sanctioned user, and there is a strong risk that it will drag more good users into the vortex because things were possibly being dealt with too hastily. I'm not particularly impressed with either user's approach, but even if things stay as they are, I suppose I don't lose anything from it personally so I don't need to bother really. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting review of EatsShootsAndLeaves block of Flyer22. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you fucking kidding me Neil? You barely started discussing above, and now you take to ANI? Holy AGF, batman! the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You didn't seem too interested in my point of view. So, you can get other point of views from your peers at AN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was very interested in your point of view - you just needed to start with AGF'ing a bit more first. You've already been told above that your words were inmappropriate by someone besides me. You catch more bees with honey, and all that. the panda ɛˢˡ” 18:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not telling you like it is, I'm telling you how it appears. Look, I'll make this personal. Most of my edits involve recent changes - a lot of reverts. Some outright vandalism, but a lot having to do with making sure content added by new editors meets our guidelines. I always respect WP:3RR but if an admin can suddenly swoop down and block me for edit-warring after I've reverted unsourced content or "Kim Yuna was robbed of the gold medal!" (with appropriate sources) twice, holy hell, I'll just let someone else fix the article when they happen across it. Editors know in theory they can be blocked for one revert but they also know that won't (or shouldn't) happen on an unrestricted article. There needs to be some consistency. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, your phrasing above was an inexcusable attack - as is the phrasing of your AN. You either don't understand WP:EW (which is common) or you had an ethical requirement to continue your discussion above but in a polite manner. Coming here and attacking - indeed your attacks at Flyers page which are quite obviously based on your misunderstanding of EW - is not a way to get anything accomplished the panda ₯’ 19:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, DP. I've been looking at your block of Flyer22, and I find myself agreeing with NeilN about it. I don't know about your history or whether you're involved or not; I'm not sure the situation requires you to have been involved to explain the call you made. I could see you doing it simply to be even-handed between the two edit-warring editors. But I think NeilN makes a good case that the two are not equal. Certainly, neither broke 3RR, though of course that's not decisive. But the thing here is that, after their warning, Flyer didn't continue edit warring, and in fact was discussing it on the talk page, whereas Mdthree continued edit-warring after warning Flyer (relying on the fact that they themselves hadn't been warned as a sort of "extra life", one might say). Mdthrees's gaming of the rules can be considered worthy of a block without Flyer's lack thereof being worthy of the same, and I don't think that reverting twice, then stopping after having been warned, is worthy of a block. Not optimal, sure, but not at all block-worthy. Would you consider reversing it? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to further explain my concerns. As far as I can see, this was the sequence of events for Flyer: Revert, Revert, Warned by other editor, Blocked by you. There were two reverts and none after the warning. This block is essentially saying you will impose WP:1RR as you see fit. Present this view to a group of experienced editors, ask them to look over their edit history, and see what kind of reaction you get. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What Neil, you lost me at the "saying you will impose WP:1RR as you see fit". You're welcome to come here and discuss if you're going to have a little bit of WP:AGF, but that's a grossly negligent and offensive statement. the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay. Is "gives the appearance you will impose WP:1RR as you see fit" better? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not really - you continue to put things into my head and actions that are wholly unrelated to the situation - indeed, your comments on Flyer's page were atrocious and incendiary. On that topic, you are, of course, aware that edit-warring can take place over a single edit, right? I did not place any block for 1RR or 3RR violations (I'd be quite specific about those), I placed 2 simple 12-hr blocks to stop issues on an article that has had more than its share of issues (and more than its share of blocks) the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I wouldn't say what NeilN said here (it's far too sweeping and generalized), but the point is that the issues were already stopped, at least from Flyer's end: they had stopped after receiving a warning and had started to use the talk page. Surely that's not block-worthy? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, well let me review again - the times I saw certainly didn't show the above. the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've compiled a list of the diffs in time order here: User:Writ Keeper/FM-Interleaved edit history, if that helps. Some minor and/or unrelated edits excised, but that should be everything that's relevant. Also, I sent you an email a little while ago; did you see it? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having reviewed your diff's listed there, I can state without a doubt that the alignment is very different from what I reviewed this morning. After all, it takes serious situations to cause me to login to admin account from work. I am going to doublecheck on my own compared to your datestamps on that list, and will be back the panda ₯’ 19:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have decided to leave an extensive discussion of my significant analysis that led to the blocks on WP:AN the panda ₯’ 20:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) I've unblocked Flyer based on the above note. You may want to view my note on ANI for my reasoning, but TLDR let's not block people when without reviewing all of the facts, eh? Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WTF User:The ed17, I never said any such thing - and the analysis I posted on AN runs 180 degrees from your statement. I did extensively review all of the facts, and I never stated that I had not done so the panda ₯’ 20:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Writ Keeper yes, I read your e-mail, please read my reply very carefully the panda ₯’ 20:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]