Can you update a photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubuntu277 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Please can this page be undeleted? They clearly meet the notability guidelines.

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]

Search the band name on Pitchfork - the biggest music website in the world - and you will see loads of content about them. Reviews, video features and interviews. I have referenced this from the wikipedia page. There is of course plenty of other content in other magazines.

2. Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable).

They've released albums on Domino

3. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Read the article on Chillwave, they are mentioned as one of the most prominent artists of this scene.

Thanks

You're kidding, right? Am I on Candid Camera? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- no... please explain what's funny? Is all the above not true? Does that not mean the band satisfy not just the one necessary criterion but three? Marcushamblett (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if I've done something wrong. I'd like to get this page undeleted. Marcushamblett (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may be willing to userfy it so that it can actually be brought up to Wikipedia standards, but it will not go back into articlespace (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can you let me know what is wrong with it so I know what to improve? Do you agree that all the conditions for notability are met? Marcushamblett (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, please can you userfy it like you said? Or better yet put it up for vote as to whether it should be deleted? Because I strongly believe that it shouldn't. Marcushamblett (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What an unexpected surprise. I had C&P'd material from one article IOT improve another article. Then I proposed XfD for the source article. When checking to see the notice was posted, I was flabbergasted to your Sua sponte action. As a side note, in some ways I feel comradeship with that other editor – we both have served in dangerous overseas assignments and I had made several efforts to coach him. It was frustrating to see that nothing worked. Your course of action is the right one. He will find other pursuits I'm sure. (Also, I thank you for giving me appropriate coaching (and wraps on the knuckles) when I needed it.) Thank you so very much. – S. Rich (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to thank you again. While the drama is a timesink, watching and reading the comments as it unfolds is worth it. Yours in particular, with their straightforward eloquence, are the best part. – S. Rich (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

…to your query on my Talk page. Should I edit the CHU request? — ZigZagStudios (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank You. — ZigZagStudios (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As advised in the Change Name article, I recreated ZigZagStudios to redirect to my new name and avoid anyone trying to impersonate me. I also went to create "LoveRobin" (no space) in order to protect a Doppleganger/impersonation as well. However the system kicked the registration back as "too close to 'Love Robin' and 'Loverobin' Choose another name". How can this be by-passed? Also, in looking at "Loverobin" I do believe that is mine from '07, as I stated in my CHU Reason I had thought I made one before but cannot access it (send prompt to email doesn't go to the email account it should, yes, checked spamfilter). How can I regain that one as well too? It has no usage on it. If I need to talk to someone else, a link would be appreciated.

Thank you for the help. — Love Robin (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment at this talk page DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC) .[reply]

Thanks for your offer of help with the template/editor issue. This is User:AdamDeanHall's original message on my talk page, left after I'd reverted his removal of by-episode ratings for the two-episode premiere of Red Widow absent a sufficiently explanatory edit summary. Later in the day, it was pretty clear there were some issues with the first release of the ratings, and the network or Nielsen eventually issued a composite rating for the two hours. All that could have been explained, but he chose to kill an ant with a hand grenade rather than deal with the situation calmly and in way that would head off any further confusion, even after I started a discussion on the talk page. Since that original post on my talk page, I've noticed increasing aggression in his edit summaries, even when asking for help with archiving his talk page. He also tagged about a dozen TV articles for over-long summaries that were well within guidelines, apparently believing a TV Guide-style blurb is appropriate. I've worked with him in the past, when he was using too many boiler-plate edit summaries that weren't sufficiently explanatory, when he'd bother to use one at all, and he's shown some improvement. Based on what I've seen, I think he's young and needs an nudge. Anyway, I'd value your take on the message on my talk page, and whether it's as OTT as it came across to me, since that's the foundation of my concerns. --Drmargi (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a follow up. Looks like the warning worked for the time being. I'll holler if any further problems arise. The back-up is most appreciated. --Drmargi (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to request that the full protection be removed from the Christen Press article or that a discussion be started on its Talk page including information on the decision to make it fully protected. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious from the history of the article as to why it's been protected. Feel free to start a discussion on the article talkpage regarding reducing its protection level (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the main instigator has been blocked. [1] Hmlarson (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bwilkins, I am a thai wikipedian, and now I am developing an article titled Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chulalongkorn University. I am not quite sure with my English grammar. So would you help me verifying the article or correcting that one.

Thanks for ur help in advance, I would be appreciate if you teach or tell me how to correct them to improve my English skill. --M sky (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot help you with your English skill, but I will say that I highly doubt that the individual faculty is inherently notable in its own. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is humble request for creating article Isrg Rajan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.129.183 (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only contributions I saw from this address were to the talkpage of a deleted article. The edits were unsourced and were about a wholly non-notable person. Please see WP:BLP (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't there used to be an "M" somewhere in your sig.? Kinda like a "BMW" (like the car). Back in the old days when you worked that one dispute board. I think it's obsolete now, and can't even remember the name of it - but you settled a ton of bickering there IIRC. — Ched :  ?  12:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh .. found it ... bottom of your user page. Just didn't scroll enough. — Ched :  ?  12:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do miss WP:WQA at times :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may not be in the right place, so please forgive me if you are the wrong admin to seek out. I was brought to your page because of a block you imposed on User:Johnny Squeaky for disruptive editing and personal attacks. However, it is the notation on your user page about editing by consensus that encourages me to pursue this here.

The point in dispute is the IPC section in the Medgar Evers article. User:Johnny Squeaky is trying to tag the section as trivia when it is in fact a presentation of some significant works that deal with Evers' death. Two other editors and I have removed the tag, and I have pointed out to this editor that there is a functional consensus not to include the tag. I have tried to engage this editor on the Talk page (under "Edits June 2011" because that is where JohnnySqueaky posted his remarks) and asked for a response, but he keeps overriding the reverts with assertions about IPC sections that are, at the very least, neither welcoming nor collaborative.

I am not requesting a block on this editor at all but rather an intervention in the editing of the article. There is a de facto consensus against this tag, and JohnnySqueaky is ignoring it. I'm not sure that this is an area in which you could be of help, but any assistance or advice you might be able to offer would be appreciated. Sensei48 (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elvey and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Climate change. If the SPI is confirmed.... Dougweller (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the decision concerning my editing. This brief note is to confirm that I agree to the 1RR+restrictions for the next six months. I'll do my best from here onward. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No issues. Just note that a WP:BAN is very very different than a WP:BLOCK - make sure you use the correct terminology :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BWilkins. I noticed the discussion at User talk:Evlekis#March 2013. In my opinion, anything which is agreed to as an unblock condition such as a personal WP:1RR may be listed in WP:RESTRICT so the issue is not overlooked in the future. It's up to you but it could be helpful to other admins and avoid unnecessary debates. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After all this leniency what we have been able to achieve are these replies:

1. DS very aggressively claims that he has never "fucking" pretended to be an admin. He has always exhibited a proclivity to defend his unsavory conducts (I mean always!). You were right that he was trying to create a chilling effect by pretending to be an admin. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and now he is trying to make a case that these are all just nugatory and he never (that's right never) pretended to be an admin. The truth is
   1. he could have added an additional text to explain that he was a non-admin.
   2. he had COI in doing so
   3. he could have |admin=no (The template page is clear enough about it)

   He doesn't read what people write against him, I suspect he doesn't even care.

2. DS asks me to "show" him where he was impolite. At this point in ANI his behavioral problems would be self-evident, I presumed. As usual I am the lone observer.

I am asking myself is this flat-out denial or something else which I am absolutely unable to see? Still we expect that he is going to rectify his problems? How many more blocks does he need?
Frankly, I am losing my faith on this process. We claim we are not a bureaucracy or an anarchy but we're nothing less either. Just review his general mode of working, his general demeanor towards those who oppose his edits. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The latest is his attempt to make it seem that I am the reason he is uncivil (as it seems, I didn't earn his respect, I don't deserve respect, he says). He is uncivil, rude towards others too. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Why did you delete the article of Damin Altizer? He is a former basketball player. Many young basketball players must read about him.

Regards, Alin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alinlish (talk • contribs) 19:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you have already been told more than once. See your talkpage (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DangerousPanda. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I do believe you, and thanks for the comments at my talk page. I apologize again for all the mess I have caused, and I would really like to have a good relationship with you when I come back. Although you wouldn't believe me, I like you, and I worship all the work you do on the encyclopedia. I do really feel discouraged right now, but I expect to feel better soon. Have a nice day :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am unsure whether only I was tagged for being in an editing war, but I do wonder what to do about it. The last time I edited the page, it was not a reversion. Debresser said the material was vague to him and thus deleted. Thus I expanded the material to flesh out any thing that may have been unclear. However, he has just once again deleted my material and accusing me of violating Wikipedia rules. I do not see how what I did was in violation, and since you are the one who posted on my page, could you clarify. I have begun a talk section on the Birthright page, but I do not understand how Debresser has completely monopolized authority over the page in such a way that if something is unclear to Debresser then it must be removed.

Thank you Yaakov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk • contribs) 18:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, of course, reject the accusation of WP:OWN. But I do apologize that I hadn't noticed that YBF's last edit was indeed better and clearer. This is because he started with undoing my edit and the editsummary said "Undid edit by Debresser". Nevertheless, his last edit is still vague. I have asked a specific question on his talkpage. Debresser (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REVERT does explain that changing another part of the same article can be considered a revert. Of course, an edit summary that states you're reverting simply draws the wrong attention to it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gave up caffeine a week ago. Bad idea. Thanks for pointing out my error. Toddst1 (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giving up caffeine is a bad idea LOL. My fault on that block - if I had edited the AIV report first to say what I was doing, then it would not have been an issue (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have recently requested for an unblock. I wish to continue editing Wikipedia in a constructive manner, and offer my apologies towards all those affected by my foul behavior. Please consider it here (User talk:ObscureReality). Thank you, ObscureReality.194.46.226.154 (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I ran across this IP's post at WP:AN, and in attempting to respond to some of what he was doing, I discovered that you'd blocked him. Could you explain what's going on? I'm not sure that this is a serious enough mistake that I should fix it immediately (in reference to your editnotice), but both the IP and I are quite confused why you blocked — I can't see anything that would justify a block, even with a warning, and I can't find any warnings either. Please respond at the IP's talk page, where I've left a message. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you're aware, this IP editor was recently unblocked by Monty845. There's also an ongoing discussion about it at AN which I thought you might be interested in. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to drop you a note regarding the unblock, but it appears Kurtis beat me to it. If you would like to discuss my explanation on the unblock request, or elaboration at the AN thread, please let me know. Monty₈₄₅ 04:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Insufficient justification for block"? Even based on the discussion at AN, that most certainly was not an appropriate entry in the block log. what happened to "I can sort of see where Bwilkins was coming from"...how did that turn into "insufficient justification"? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've been a bit trigger-happy lately, BWilkins. I hate to bring this up since you've always been very kind to me but I've seen your name behind a few questionable blocks lately and it seems like no one's told you to slow down. I can understand that you made a mistake here ... I myself wasn't about to unblock because of the coincidence regarding the vandalism of Seb's page immediately after 88.104.27.2's block which left me unsure whether to believe his explanation ... but I think it's a mistake that could have been avoided if you'd taken a little more time before pulling the trigger. —Soap— 00:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the input, as always Soap. I would of course be interested in hearing which blocks have been "trigger happy" and unnecessary as temporary protection of the project. I've explained the 88.x one more than once, and as you can see there's not a consensus that it was a "bad block", but consensus that "if it was bad, it was at least an understandable block" (yes, I read that as a "proceed with caution" message from my colleagues) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• BWilkins, I'm sorry I didn't have an opportunity to contribute to the discussion at WP:AN before it was closed. I don't necessarily agree with your block, but I could "see where [you were] coming from", and I'm surprised no one else commented on the very bizarre quality of the IP's edits. Why would anyone come out of the blue and start questioning a sock's unblock request as their first edits? And did anyone notice this phrase, "That happened with MF this week, and caused rather a fuss"? The reference is to Malleus, which, to me, indicates that the IP is really someone else, although I'm not sure who. Now socking in and of itself isn't necessarily blockable, but ... And the edit summaries (e.g., "let the dog see the rabbit"), the reference to WP:VEGAN, the use of "our" and "we", which usually only admins or very experienced editors do to refer to Wikipedia, and the list goes on. Again, none of this is disruptive per se, but it sure is fishy. And now that he's unblocked, he's citing WP:IAR. Ah, me.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 88 hit up my talk page pretty early on. It didn't take long for me to wonder if I was being "punked". If there wasn't a "lesson" being taught, I thought there might be at least an "example" of why people get disillusioned with the project. I could take a guess at who it is/was, but it wouldn't really serve any purpose. One example: diff - ya gotta admit, if nothing else, there is a certain "baiting" aspect to something like that. I know it comes with the territory, but it does make one ponder a bit. — Ched :  ?  11:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking a look at this in the context of this warning about WP:POLEMIC? I'm rather involved at this point and I just don't see anything good coming of this. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You told me, "Please ask questions directly in the future so that we can avoid communication problems" [7].

So I put a 'talkback' on your page when I asked you something - [8].

You reverted it, saying, "Reverted good faith edits by 88.104.27.2 (talk): No tb's" [9].

So... I've replied again, but I'm not sure if I should tell you or not.

Make your mind up; if you want me to be direct or not. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the edit notice says "no talkback templates as i'm watching any discussion i am still involved in. i see you replied on your talk. you still have shown no signs of having read my explanations, or the explanations above which i have clearly stated are correct. as you refuse to read, i am no longer required to further respond: i have fully been accountable as per admin policy. you'll find, if you try, that i'm pretty easy to get along with. i do expect the ability to read, however. again, until you show signs of reading what i have directed to to, i will consider future similar requests to simply be WP:IDHT (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I understand, we've reached an impasse. You think you've answered, I do not. I'll consider whether there's any point pursuing it. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What part of 3 sections above this don't you understand? What part the fact that edit-warring does not require you to break the 3 revert line, and that it was the edit-summary combined with the revert on someone's talkpage that was disruptive do you not get? This has all been shown to you and explained to you. What game are you playing? I don't often use the word "troll" because I have a higher belief in people, but when all of the evidence has been handed to you, why you consider that you have not had an explanation is very troll-like. I have fully complied with WP:ADMINACCT since the brief block occurred. You were required to come right here to my talkpage to discuss it if you had an issue, before going to AN/ANI. Other than your ill-advised talkback, this is the FIRST time you have approached me, yet you're still complaining. Take some responsibility for your failure to approach me as required, and as would be ethical (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]