Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:19, 13 March 2014

If I left you a message on your talk page: please answer on your talk page, and drop me a brief note here to let me know you have done so. (You may do this by posting {{Talkback|your username}} on this page, or by writing your own note.) (I make only limited use of watchlisting, because I have found otherwise I am unable to keep it under control, and soon build up such a huge watchlist that it is unworkable.) If you leave me a message here: I will answer here, unless you request otherwise, or I think there are particular reasons to do otherwise, and usually I will notify you on your talk page. Please add new sections to the bottom of this page, and new messages to the bottoms of their sections. New messages at the top of the page may be overlooked. Clicking here will open a new section at the bottom of the page for a new message. After a section has not been edited for a week it is automatically moved to the latest archive. Links to those archives are given below. However, I reserve the right to delete vandalism, trolling or other unconstructive edits without archiving them.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Thank you James for your help.

I appreciate your help all along.

Ryopus" (talk) 5:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Query about an unspecified page

why did you delete my page on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erandasahatqija (talk • contribs) 18:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Since no page that has ever been edited by the account you used to post this message has ever been deleted, I have no idea what page you are referring to, but if you tell me what page then I will try to answer. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I have now worked out that you mean your talk page. I deleted it because it was pure vandalism, created by an editor who is now blocked from Misplaced Pages. It just contained a childish attack on you, and nothing else. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Taylor Steele (2) and Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Taylor Steele (filmmaker)

Dear JamesBWatson: I requested a history merge of the two above Afc drafts because it seemed like the simplest way of avoiding confusion between the two drafts. The (2) article, which is a new submission, is a significant step toward NPOV compared to the first one. If nothing is done about the earlier draft, the most likely thing to happen is that an Afc reviewer will decline the second one because there is already another draft in Afc and ask the new user to go back and continue editing the first one. New editors don't need this complication. If you think a history merge is inappropriate, can you find another solution for this problem? Deleting for NPOV is not usually done with Afc drafts; maybe G6 will work, or maybe you know of something better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne Delong (talk • contribs) 10:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Several thoughts about this, Anne.

1. Thanks for explaining your reasoning, which makes perfect sense. I had not previously seen any advantage to be gained by the merge, but now I do.
2. I very often see your G13-clean-up history merge requests, and the substantial majority of them are clearly perfectly good proposals, and I just go ahead with them. A few, though, I decline. In this particular case, going ahead with the history merge would probably not have caused any significant problems, but since you have brought the issue up, it may be worth mentioning the reasons why I occasionally decline them.
3. As a general rule, when a new page has no content form the old page not written by the person who created the new page, it is usually better not to merge. Firstly, there is usually nothing to gain by doing so, as the main reason for history-merging is to keep editors' attributions, and in this situations that is not needed. Secondly, there are various situations where an administrator needs to trace the history of editing on a particular topic, but doing so is made difficult because the history has been obscured by moves and history merges. This can sometimes be extremely difficult when there have also been deletions, and the whole history of various creations of different pages and their subsequent moves, merges, and deletions is all combined together in one jumbled-up mess in the deleted edit records of what is misleadingly recorded as one page. It is therefore, as a general rule, better not to history merge unless there are specific reasons for doing so. Even when it looks a though no problem can be caused, it is not always possible to be certain that problems won't arise in the future. Thirdly, even a very straightforward history merge is likely to take several minutes, including checking the histories of the two pages, deleting one of the pages, moving and then deleting the other one, selecting which revisions need restoring and which should be dropped, restoring them, editing to remove history-merge templates. A good many history merges take even more work than that, due to overlapping histories that need sorting out. All that takes time that the administrator in question could have been using on other work, so this is another reason for taking the line "don't do it unless there is a definite advantage to be gained."
4. A much less important consideration, but I think one which is just about worth considering, is that on this occasion the editor chose not to edit the existing page, but rather to create a new one, and in the absence of good reason to the contrary we should prefer not to change the history to give a misleading impression as to what he or she did. Not a major consideration, but in my opinion just one more small piece of support for the principle that by default we shouldn't merge histories, but should do so only when there is a significant advantage in doing so.
5. On this occasion, as I said above, I now do see that there would be a possible advantage in the merge. However, as you may by now have seen, I deleted under CSD G6 as a redundant submission, which is a quicker and simpler way of dealing with the same problem, and also keeps the record of how the two separate pages were created and edited. (Of course, that record is invisible except to administrators, but it is usually only in admin-related tasks that such information about deleted pages is needed.)

Once again, the substantial majority of your hist-merge requests are perfectly good, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking you for the considerable amount of work you put into cleaning up G13 deletion candidates, rather than just leaving them to be deleted whether it is appropriate to do so or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear JamesBWatson: Thanks for time to write to me about this. I want to assure you that I don't ask for history merges of even half of the copy-pastes that I find. There also seems to be a variety of opinion about where the line falls between those worth merging and those not, and a while ago I read some encouragement from a couple of admins, saying that it was better to paste these back together if they were copy-pasted by new users who didn't understand the difference between copying and moving (sorry, I can't remember who now). I may have taken this too much to heart, as I have since found that this isn't the general consensus.

There are a few cases in which I believe that history-merging articles by the same editor are justified:

• Cases like the one above, where the the page is an active Afc submission; Afc history may be helpful to the reviewers, the split was likely caused by a misunderstanding of the process, and the existence of more than one draft is a problem. Also, the new user receives a message saying that their article has been deleted, and this can be disheartening if he/she didn't know that it was just an older version. Long explanations on talk pages about this can result; I know I'm not an admin, but my time is valuable too.
• Cases in which most of the article's development is in the older draft. Having a long, complex article, especially by a new editor, appear in one or two edits can lead to comments at Afd such as "this is the user's only edit" and lead to suspicions that the text was copied from somewhere or that the user is a sock puppet. The new users themselves may not understand why their list of contributions is shrinking. Also, sometimes new users accidentally or through misunderstanding delete useful material which could be re-added from the history.
• Cases in which the older draft shows that the article developed over a significant period of time. Often text from Misplaced Pages is copied onto other websites, and if a copy-paste move makes it seem as though the article is new, when in fact the editor has been developing it as a draft for a year, it could be erroneously deleted as a copyvio, and the evidence to the contrary is gone.

I agree that experienced users may sometimes make a deliberate choice to make a new article, although the only reasons I can think of for wanting your own edits deleted are to get rid of evidence of inept or bad faith editing, or to change the creation date of the article. With the new editors in Afc, though, any copy-pastes are usually the result of either wanting to change the name of the article, wanting to move the article and not knowing how, or forgetting the name of the draft and not being able to find it.

About maintaining the evidence that there were two pages: Usually when I have requested a merge, my edit with the request, which has the name of the older page in the edit summary, appears in the history of the newer article after merge. That should help others know that there were two pages.

Okay, sorry to have gone on about this and I realize that it's just my personal opinion. If you decline any of my history merge requests in the future I will accept your judgement. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You make some very good points there, Anne. Clearly there are various issues, and it is often a matter of judgement how to weight the different factors against one another, and I will think carefully about the points you have raised. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I have recently been reminded that the histmerge template has "reason=" and "details=" parameters, of which maybe I should make better use. Thanks again for your consideration. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The Hadum Mosque

me and my friends created this page : https://en.wikipedia.org/The_Hadum_Mosque — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erandasahatqija (talk • contribs) 19:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like a very good article. I think you and your friends can be proud of your work, Erandasahatqija. See also the answer I am posting to your other message, above. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

can i get my talkpage back ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erandasahatqija (talk • contribs) 20:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Your talk page has been re-created. The deleted version consisted simply of the single word "shit". Do you really want that back? As far as I am concerned, I would prefer not to restore it, because the less success vandals have in getting their vandalism established on Misplaced Pages, the less encouragement they get to come back and vandalise again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Boris Filatov

hello there! i was going to create an article about this person, but maybe it is beter just to restore it. could you please be so kind and tell me the name of the editor that created this article? i want to ask him/her if it is okay --アンタナナ 10:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The article was created by an editor with the username BorysFilatov. He/she created the article in August 2011, and made just a few edits to it over about 3 weeks. He/she never did any other editing, except for coming back on 1 March 2012 and asking for the article to be deleted. The article was also edited by an editor using teh username Filatov.press a few times in December 2011 and February 2012. It looks to me as though those two accounts were probably the same person: if not then they were certainly two people in contact with one another. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

thank you very much --アンタナナ 19:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Somebody out there hates you ...

See here. Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Meh, it's just a common-or-garden troll, doesn't necessarily mean they dislike JBW. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Nathan James Taylor

Hi James. I wonder if it's appropriate to keep all these personal details about location, birthdate, full names of minors, including the author, etc? This is supposedly a 15 year old boy. This puts his identity at risk and the IDs of the other minors he mentions by name, and goes against Misplaced Pages:User pages#Personal and privacy-breaching material. I tagged it as directed in userpage policy: "privacy or BLP violations can be speedy deleted using a suitable template, such as {{db-attack}}". INeverCry 02:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think the page was suitable as a Misplaced Pages user page, and I did consider deleting it. However, it really was not an attack page, so I had to decline the speedy deletion nomination made for that reason, and at the time I could not see any speedy deletion criterion that applied. I was rather short of time, otherwise I would certainly have posted a message to the user explaining why it was unsuitable, and very probably also nominated it for deletion at Miscellany for deletion. However, rather than do those two things in a rush, without giving myself time to think out exactly what to say, I just put a "user page" tag on the article, and left it to come back to now, when I would have more time. The user page tag would at least cause it to be removed from Google and similar, though unfortunately it can take quite a while for that to take effect. In fact, when I eventually came back to it, I found your message. I have now deleted the page, and given the user a note saying why.

"A suitable template, such as {{db-attack}}" has to be taken as meaning "a template which is suitable for the particular case; for example, in some cases {{db-attack}} may be appropriate", and not as meaning that {{db-attack}} is always appropriate. In fact, the quote you take is merely part of a longer statement, the full sentence reading "However, unambiguous copyright violations, attack pages, promotional text, and privacy or BLP violations can be speedy deleted using a suitable template, such as {{db-attack}}, {{db-copyvio}} or {{db-G11}}, other pages likely to require deletion (or where remedial action is not taken) may be submitted to deletion discussion", making it quite clear that there is no intention to suggest that db-attack is always suitable. What qualifies for deletion as an attack page is defined at Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion, and one which does not "disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass subject or some other entity" does not qualify for deletion as an attack page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think it was an attack page either, but wasn't sure how to get it the quickest attention from an admin. Userpage policy doesn't give a clear speedy option for taking down privacy violations/inappropriate personal info of minors that needs to be taken down quickly. In future, I'll manually speedy tag these with an explanation. We should have a speedy criteria that addresses this kind of situation directly. I've seen more than a few young people putting up pages where they give way to much personal info about themselves, their family, location, etc. Thanks for taking care of this one. INeverCry 18:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@User:INeverCry: Perhaps it would be worth proposing this as a new speedy deletion criterion, because it seems to me it should be speedy-deletable, but it does not obviously fall under any of the criteria. The best suggestion I can make is to use {{db-g6|rationale=Fill in the reason for deletion here}}, but that is stretching the meaning of CSD G6. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll see about putting a proposal together. INeverCry 19:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Time to go down to the casino

Just noticed that one of your template counters says that today you have been a Wiki editor for 7 years 7 months and 7 days. Not important in the grand scheme of things - but just happened to notice it! Badanagram (attempt) 11:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow! I hadn't noticed. At 23:53 (GMT) it will be 7 years 7 months 7 days 7 hours and 7 minutes. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Mobina Sadat Atashi

hello mester watson,Mobina sadat atashi paper is quite standard and had no manager has no problem with it, but for the candidate you delete your user:Nojan vandalism. He is also very well known Persian Misplaced Pages users say they have problems with other users .Now delete this article are solely the struggle and stubbornness. Kindly to deal with them because they have broken the law and are trying to destroy. Vltfa remove labels from paper to remove Mobina sadat atashi Dear Manager: We've removed the article was previously nominated for deletion by adding reliable references from this article is neglected., Please look at history. Thank me if this article is valid, do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazaninan (talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, some of what you have written is difficult to understand, as your grasp of English is evidently not good. However, if I understand correctly, you are saying that Mobina Sadat Atashi is notable enough to be the subject of an article, and that Nojan is a vandal, and his or her proposal for deletion of the article is part of that vandalism. I have withdrawn the deletion nomination to allow a chance for evidence of notability to be provided. The one source given as a reference at present is not enough to show notability, but if you can provide better sources then the article may be saved. However, if no better sources are provided the article may still be deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Since writing that, I have seen more information which encourages me to think that the claim that Nojan is vandalising is probably false, including (1) the fact that the equivalent article on Persian Misplaced Pages has been repeatedly deleted, and has now been protected against re-creation and (2) the fact that you are blocked from Persian Misplaced Pages for a year for abusing multiple accounts. However, I am willing to give you and other editors a chance to reply before taking further action. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Ah! Yet more interesting stuff has come to light. I have now seen that the block on Nojan was placed 2 minutes after the same administrator on Persian Misplaced Pages blocked Sorudeh, who created the article on English Misplaced Pages, for abusing multiple accounts. Also, in between blocking those two accounts, the same Persian admin blocked ویشکا, whose only edits on English Misplaced Pages have been on the same article, for abusing multiple accounts. Well, I am still willing to wait for awhile to give editors a chance to explain what is going on before taking further action, but it looks increasingly as though I shall be re-nominating the article for deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• hello Mister watson,nojan thinks the two are one!

Despite their different IP that are not under one of the two users are not objecting to the way they were suspending their dealings with Members. Ironically, they are the only user who have similar ideas and unfortunately are rather stubborn realism and wait for users to its power to prove himself in his own words, as Misplaced Pages so that the Persian Misplaced Pages does not make the progress I mentioned to him but he threatened me and pulled Mdyrtshan to happen.It is unfortunate that people with your attitude Persian Misplaced Pages administrator know. They do not give any value to the users personality(Nazaninan (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC))

I'm afraid I can scarcely understand any of that. (Are you using some sort of automatic translator? It looks more like the kind of garbled English that comes from a very poor automatic translator than like the sort of poor English that is produced by a human being with a poor command of the language.) About all I can make out is that you deny the sockpuppetry, that you attack one or more Persian administrators, and that you make no attempt at all to address the issue of whether the article should be deleted, which is what I am waiting for. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunately my english language is Weak But my purpose is:nojan thinks This 2 user are a person,,,nojan thinks Misplaced Pages being with him.To him it does not matter People make false accusations.And when I mentioned to him That is not vandalism.,He threatened me.he many of paper Without sufficient reason To remove But Similar articles Does not remove.he user Accused.

He knows his manager but Does not respect the law.i am very uncomfortable he unreasonable accusations users...he not give any value to the users personality.Meanwhile The more Members expressed themselves nojan is wrong he dont accept.He will insult users! i am hope Better than before i speak english.(Nazaninan (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC))

Well that escalated quickly

Well, this is something you might be interested in. STATic message me! 03:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And again. STATic message me! 18:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It is hard to imagine what is going through the mind of someone who responds like that to a good faith attempt to offer advice. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Explanation

hello mister watson,i talk nojan sang and he lies again!.Unfortunately, he insists on his lies.I want not argue with him.He is not logical.And so is unaware That thinks I've created this article Mobina sadat atashi Whereas When This article was created I was not a member of Misplaced Pages!!!And only once on this article I edited!Whereas 2 previous user So before me Been a member of Misplaced Pages!!!He's just Pertinacity sabotage!Unfortunately he has trouble with a lot of users!I wanted you Be aware of His vandalism As I mentioned to him But he Persian Misplaced Pages has threatened me!He must have noticed his error!Because he can not Used to deny prove!(Nazaninan (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC))

London Wiki

Can you expand on my comment on Saviour1981's talk page. (Wikia is not WP etc) Jackiespeel (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As a general comment locality-orientated (and other subject-specific) wikis may be more appropriate for some articles which are too marginal for WP - but they should be appropriately formatted (and not provide 'too much detail'). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I know nothing about "London Wiki", in fact I had never heard of it until I saw your message, but a little searching produced london.wikia.com, which I guess is what you are referring to. Whether that is what you mean or not, I don't see why it is appropriate to use a talk page on Misplaced Pages to debate what should and should not be posted on another wiki. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

As you blocked the person here, seeing if you wished to comment. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Heads up...

Hey, I just created JamesBMatson (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal). Since the name is so similar to yours, I thought I should inform you of this account. I hope and don't really expect much issue here, but if there is, please let me know so I can make a note in the ACC tool. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} 12:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. It does look similar enough to raise doubts, so I'll keep an eye open. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Your decline of an unblock request

For 50.157.103.28 (talk · contribs) - my bad, I'd unblocked and explained why but was about to remove the unblock request when somethng came up at home and I forgot! not sure where to go from here. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)‎

I have reverted my unblock request decline. Feel free to post an acceptance. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for restoration of vandalism

can i get my talkpage back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erandasahatqija (talk • contribs) 16:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean that you want the edit history of the vandalism restored? If so, why on earth do you wan that? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for National Defence Radio Establishment (Sweden)

An article that you have been involved in editing, National Defence Radio Establishment (Sweden), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Gavleson (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Beatmaster38 user page

I think an experienced Misplaced Pages admin needs to have a look at this and possibly remove it entirely. The user page of User:Beatmaster38 is just a page being used in a crude and derogatory manner. Also, User:Zepterz and User:Elijah Williams I think need to be looked at as well because they are the ones editing it. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that Beatmaster38 was using the page as a joke page. It was not suitable as a user page, so I have deleted it, but he probably meant no harm. The other two editors, however, were clearly vandalising, so I have given them vandalism warnings. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I gathered that. Thanks for the help. DaHuzyBru (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you from helping Zepterz and Elijah Williams from editing my page. This is not the first time they vandalized it i took you advice and made a new website from a free host. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatmaster38 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Help

calling someone an ass is not allowed, but a troll is ok?

I find this uncivil. This is allowed ?

nightscream posted to me in a rude manner, and set a tone. I let it know this. It replied I'm not rude, it is merely a phrase. I asked for a neutral party.nightscream got its friend orangemike who reverted my talk page--which was wrong. I am allowed to remove content from my talk page. I dont have to have an account to do that-- then blocked me. This has bothered me as it doesnt seem neutral/fair/upright. 172.243.183.183 (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking me to do. Are you asking me to take action against Nightscream? I agree that he has been less civil than he might have been, but I am not going to take action for minor incivilities in an incident which took place several days ago, especially as he was provoked by you, and considering that, apart from the civility issue, he was trying to be rational in the face of persistent irrationality from you. Are you asking me to defend Orangemike's actions? I am not going to do that: if you look on his talk page you will see that the reason he unblocked you is that I raised criticisms of his blocking you the second time. Maybe if I looked into the history in more detail I would also criticise other aspects of his handling of the case, or maybe I wouldn't, but out of all the thousands of things I might usefully do on Misplaced Pages, I have time to do only a minority of them, and checking to see whether an administrator might have acted a little differently in a fairly minor incident which happened several days ago has low priority. Are you merely asking me to express an opinion? Well, I have now done that.

On the issue of removing talk page content, that is a much greyer area for an IP talk page than for a registered editor's talk page, because some types of content should be left in case of other editors using the same IP address. However, I think Nightscream was mistaken in invoking that principal here, and I will drop him a note saying so.The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I have replied to your message on my talk page, and I have made a comment in response to your message on Orangemike's talk page. I very strongly advise you to stop continually going on about matters which have been dealt with, and persistently asking again for answers to questions which have already been answered. You are being disruptive, and wasting time of other editors who could be using that time more constructively. If you continue in the same way then you are very likely to be blocked for far longer than you have been so far. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear James,I am asking you because you took the time to answer. If you want me to leave you alone let me know and I will ask someone else.
I am asking you to see it from my view point. If saying ass is incivil, surely 'obnoxiousness, hypocrisy and poor-reasoned inanity exhibited by this troll' are incivil.
I honestly felt that I and I was alone hit on my knuckles for being wrong. It really frustrated me that nothing was said to nightscream. My point about neutrality is that I feel nightscream was automatically sided with--is it because I am an anon editor? it a registered editor--and that is why nothing was done. I was blocked. nightscream didnt even get told to take a break from the article for 2 hours or get a 3rr warning. Now you are saying it was incivil, but you say 'minor' and 'provoked by 'me'. I said ass--which is in the Bible-- and that is minor, right? I repeatedly asked for nightscream to leave me after its initial rude commment, and then to please let me finish my edit before making its edit...to noavail; but you say I was 'persistent irrationality'. I was accused of not being collaborative and blocked. If you are an admin then looking into a situation in a detailed fashion is part of your job. Perhaps if you had you would have pointed out nightscream's being incivil as you call it 'in an incident which took place several days ago'.

I didnt see that and I thank you for criticising the 2nd block. But that was 24hrs later after I waited to see --and was proven right as no one came. I was erroneously blocked 20:40, 9 March 2014 for 3 days when I didnt make any edits. The block stood all of the 9th, 10th. I had to ask for {help} and then you, writ keeper, came and challenged the second block. On the 11th I asked and then the block was lifted 17:32, 11 March 2014; almost 2 days later : 45 hours later.

The matter was dealt with in your eyes. I was the one blocked for 4 days. I feel there was bias. I did ask about the blocking actions and you then said forget it or I'll be blocked longer. Now the block is finished and you are saying the same thing. Am I not allowed clarity? Questions I asked you I hadnt asked before so what had you already answered? I dont get why asking a question is being disruptive. If I dont and then continue on I'm likely to make a mistake and be entrapped all again. When a defendant is in court are asked if they understand and are allowed to ask questions.

I am asking you because you took the time to answer. If you want me to leave you alone let me know and I will ask someone else. Thank You. 13:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.243.183.183 (talk)

(talk page stalker) Rather than asking someone else, simply drop the stick. In any edit-warring situation, there are too many variables. In any civility situation, (s)he who baits is usually more at fault. Yes, "ass" is worse than "troll", as "troll" comes from "trolling" which is a behaviour especially defined in internet terms. If you edit-warred AND baited, then it means a logner block. ES&L 13:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, 172.243.183.183, I have just spent some time writing quite a long answer to you, but while I was writing it, EatsShootsAndLeaves posted that much shorter answer, which I actually think is better than my long one, so I will leave it at that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to read your response. eatsshoots probably doesnt know the whole story so its opinion are formed from not knowing all that has gone on. 172.243.183.183 (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

EatsShootsAndLeaves has summed up the essential points that I made, but more concisely and clearly. I don't see that anything whatever would be gained by saying any more about it. Please take the advice you have been given: drop the stick. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you want me to stop writing to you. 172.243.183.183 (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Your message

user:Drinkreader and IP addresses

re: the multiple IP addresses, I've been authorized to inform you that these were the result of editing from a variety of internet cafes during a prolonged period of homelessness. As such, I think it less an attempt to deceive and more a circumstantial issue. DS (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I remember, I never suggested that use of multiple IP addresses was intended to be deceptive, but since you have chosen to raise the question, I will just say that when an editor uses the same IP address over a fairly long time, is eventually blocked, and then within minutes is editing from another IP address, it does look like deliberately changing the IP address to evade the block. However, it really doesn't matter what the reason was for changing IP addresses, and whether it was deliberate or not, because editing from IP addresses while your account is blocked is block evasion anyway. The main reason why I mentioned the use of multiple IP addresses was to make it clear, both to Drinkreader and to anyone else who had any cause to be reading the block notice, that the block was based on the whole of the editor's known editing history, and the whole history of his receiving messages about his editing, both of which were far more extensive that would be evident from just looking at the history of his account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Medeis

Do you have a diff regarding the specific edit or series of edits that led to the block? Thanks! --Jayron32 23:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. I found it, I think. I assume it was this one. The content is self-evident and answers all questions I had about the block. Sorry for taking any of your time. Toodles. --Jayron32 23:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for helping with Phyllis Krasilovsky page!!!! Her family will be so happy! It seems the more I read the more confused I got. Thank you for your mercy!!

Sedaray (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Medeis unblock request

User:Medeis, whom you blocked, has posted an unblock request. It would probably be helpful to the reviewing administrator if you were to respond on her talkpage to the grounds she gives for unblocking. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I for one, appreciate the break that the Medeis block has given the Ref. Desk tonight. The full 48 hours would give the editor a little more time to reflect that their verbal attacks are unacceptable. The claims of misinterpretation could be considered with a single confrontation, but lose credibility given the regularity of the disruptive outbursts. 54.224.141.248 (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)