Duchamps comb has repeatedly removed sourced material from Rand Paul without discussion, and then began disrupting Paul's talk page by introducing misleading quotes. Duchamps posted this on the talk page:

"and its registered team only has one ophthalmologist" --[that entry is wrong because] Paul has had over 200 other Opthamologist re-certified by his NBO. --Duchamps_comb MFA 18:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In reality, the sentence said:

"its [the NBO's] registered team only has one ophthalmologist, Paul himself, listed in the annual filing submitted to the Kentucky registering agency."

Additionally, the source is a document that Rand Paul penned himself! When asked to cease the removal of sourced information in the article without discussion, Duchamps declined. As you've dealt with Duchamps previously, regarding similar actions, I believe this situation would benefit from your help. The Original Wikipedian (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

If you look at the conversation and Refs (that do not qualify as RS) you will in fact see WP:OR,WP:SYNTH, and WP:BLP being violated by The Original Wikipedian (in an uncivil manner to myself). I look forward to your comments.--Duchamps_comb MFA 04:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete this page I made?? It is an offical company and all the facts are right? I want to repost it again but it's pointless if your just going to take it down again?

If you take my post down again you should make your own post on The Sick Kids because they should be on here. It's pretty silly asking people to come make pages to just put them straight on the delete page without thought? It's time wasting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljackson88 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already advised you long ago on your talkpage why it was deleted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will review the speedy deletion criteria and use more appropriate standards in the future. --Aprabhala (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the contents of this section to User:WindarProd/Appeal discussion since there was more than one admin involved. You are welcome to comment on that page, and I would appreciate your input. Thanks!

Tariq ... this is a little inconsistent in many ways. You unfathomably unblocked a user who appears to be one of the most disruptive users on a BLP about someone related to the US and Switzerland (I don't think I need to say who)...that unblock based on the circumstances should have as a minimum been discussed on AN/ANI due to the long term nature of the issues, and the massive BLP disruption ... I'm not asking you to explain, I'm just questioning the bizarreness of it all. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the purpose of this comment, if you truly don't want me to explain anything and don't even mention what article you're talking about, but please don't interject with non sequiturs like this. I have removed your comment from the section accordingly. -- tariqabjotu 21:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I declined a CSD and changed it to a PROD, which unsurprisingly is now an AFD :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice "will be on international travel from 18-24 July 2010" as Rlevse's talk page header? Just a heads-up in care your request there was urgent, dave souza, talk 14:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did see it, which is why I also posted it elsewhere ... but I do notice that he's been off and on. Someone from DYK will hopefully take care of it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that hook so it makes clear what's interesting about the article subject. The article has similar awkward phrasing; I suspect the nominator/author was not comfortable enough with the language to revise it properly. Daniel Case (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you! Must go off and write a new article about the first golf club captain. So much to do, dave souza, talk 16:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello bwilkins, might I ask which edit peaked your interest? Thanks for the tip btw. --Faust (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Pvae, you might wanna read this: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Songfacts.com. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ontario Country Performer and Fan Association has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article does not meet the notability guidelines for companies and organizations.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bigvernie (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are the blocking admin, I thought I would inform you that I posted a further opinion about this. Basically, I put myself in Pvae's shoes. I would feel a little miffed if I was blocked for a week because "one editor" told me to stop doing something 3 months ago. Furthermore, the consensus on the reliability of Songfacts is not that clear.

It would be different if his talk page was filled with multiple warnings and reasonable requests to stop doing something which were being ignored, I don't see that here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You explained this delete with a WP:CSD#G7, but that says "if requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page" and there is content on the page so it does not cover this delete of the talk page. Further although I am wiki-lawyering here I do not think that deleting comments on a talk page is a good idea, particularly if they are bot generated. Comments such as these should remain on the talk page so that other editors can make informed decisions about the edits to the article. -- PBS (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page was blank when it was deleted. As per the FAQ for the Bot, WildBot merely makes a "shopping list" for disambig repairs. Once repaired, WildBot removes the list. There had been no other edits to the talkpage other than WildBot, and the shopping list was no longer needed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know why you did it, but as I said I do not think it is a good idea, because comments such as these should remain on the talk page [even if only in the history] so that other editors can make informed decisions about the edits to the article [which resulted from the comments on the talk page]. And as I said WP:CSD#G7 does not cover it as the there is "substantial content to the page". -- PBS (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why you feel that G7 does not count. A list of items that need disambiguation is created. This is not substantial content. Wise people fix the disabig issues. WildBot says the list is complete, and blanks the page as per its approved modus operandi. 7SeriesBOT then deletes it. There is nothing substantial, or even necessary to keep - a list of things to be disambiguated is not necessary to keep, as it has little bearing on the article itself in practice. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But equally there is no reason to delete the edits, and the deletion does not fall under G7. Let us suppose that there is already a comment on the page. Would you delete these edites? If not why do it in these cases? -- PBS (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It 110% falls under G7 as it's BLANK, with just a CSD-G7 from WildBot asking for deletion when it gets deleted. What part of G7 does not fit? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"if requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page" (my emphasis). The page has substantial content, it is the talk page that does not, so you can not use G7 to delete a talk page of a page that has substantial content." As I said initially I did not want to wiki-lawyer about this, I think it is useful to leave the page history intact even if the talk page is blank, and I do not see the advantage of deleting such a history and the history could be useful for following the accuracy and utility of the bot. -- PBS (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no content - the talkpage is considered separate and divisible from the article itself. PBS, you've ben around enough to know that. If your goal is the verification of bot actions then WildBot has a log of its actions and you can check its accuracy, and 7SeriesBOT has a log of its deletions so that you can check its accuracy. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what G7, so were do you get that consideration from? -- PBS (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and don't cherry pick from policy. G7 continues "If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page or category page, this can be taken as a deletion request" - a talkpage is a page of its own, and therefore qualifies. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear up front I don't think there was any need for Verbal to be blocked, although I do think it was s 3RR However I don't understand how you can say you were an uninvolved admin.

• You had already taken a position on the subject both on Verbal's page but also had issued a de facto warning to the person who reported him
• You were in dispute with the original blocking admin
• Unless it was through a back channel you didn't consult with the blocking admin Sarek

So while I think the effect of the unblock is the right thing, this does smack of a failure to follow process. --Snowded ^TALK 03:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was (as stated in the block log) in contact with Sarek, who concurred that I was "uninvolved"...and I certainly would not call that a "dispute" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute reference (per the pipelink) was to Tariqabjotu not Sarek. It was not clear in your unblock which you were referring to. Thanks for clarifying that --Snowded ^TALK 10:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did say "blocking admin" :-) Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this page been deleted numerous times? Coverage is growing in the UK on the BBC and in music magazines. Matt Henshaw should exist if only even in the form of a stub. Locking the page seems very wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilsonowl (talk • contribs) 13:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Ilsonowl (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for posting this on your talk page, I am fairly new to wikipedia (early 2010) as you will note and trying to read all the internal workings is difficult. It is easy to take umbridge and pages your are trying to create or modify being deleted. It seems that everything that has been questionable that I have contributed is due to the the coverage being in the Uk and considered minor over the Atlantic. I will post the Matt Henshaw article and links up on the Help Desk. I'm sure you will also note, that due to my pre-occupation with the deletion of certain articles I haven't contributed to much else through fear of deletion. I hope you appreciate my time in writing this and will look further into it, along with other administrators. Ilsonowl (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article went through a community discussion called articles for deletion - it failed, miserably. In short, my armpit is slightly more notable - my armpit has, after all, appeared in an internationally-released movie. Sorry be in jest there (even though it's true), but until this guy actually meets notability guidelines (specifically WP:MUSICIAN), any versions of articles about him will be removed on sight. Pretty soon we may also prevent creation of that specific article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you look at the talk [[2]] page and explain to me how Verbals actions constutute an attempt at compomise?Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And even I, as a long term supporter of a lot of the work Verbal is doing, am getting to breaking point on this. Can you please help out? --Snowded ^TALK 16:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, I'm allowed to disagree with you. What's the point of having a poll if I'm not allowed to comment in it. Also, I'm not the one referring to "flag waving Nazis". Verbal chat 16:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" Unblocking should not lead to additional editing problems from this editor. A continuation of the block would be punitive, not preventative" I would argue that your tone indicates to me that that is ot in fact that case and had the page not been locked the edit war would have coontinued. That you are in fact going to have the word pliitvcal in the lead regardless.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no editwarring, and I stopped editing the page way before I was blocked/unblocked/blocked/unblocked, and had already committed to no further edits. I believe the word political will end up in the lead, but I'm not going to edit war over it. Verbal chat 16:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No and I agree Off2Rio is making nonsense statements, but want we really need (begging) is a more collegiate style. All you are doing is antagonizing people to the point where they will oppose you just for the way you are behaving.--Snowded ^TALK 16:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across this as a standard reply to unblock requests a couple of times (I don't know if you were the editor in the other case). Is this a substituted template? If not, I might create it as one (with your permission of course). —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can always {{subst:User:Bwilkins/coiq}} ... it's free for use :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've created it as {{subst:coiq}} (with appropriate attribution), to save me having to remember which userpage to put in. I've also wriiten a brief doc page, though I'll need to find a category or so to add it to. Hope you don't mind! —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you deleted an article for Herman Pfisterer for reason G-12 Copyright infringement. Is there anyway you could restore that article. I think that was in error. I believe it probably generated that based on the Medal of Honor citation which is in the public domain. Thanks and let me know if you have any questions--Kumioko (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if you had a chance to take a look at this yet? Sorry to hound you I am trying to finish creating articles for the Spanish american war medal of honor recipients and he is one of the last ones. Before I create a new article on him I want to make sure the one that was previously posted doesn't have more info than the one I am going to create. --Kumioko (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the article ... the second issue becomes that findagrave.com is not a valid WP:RS. All of the claims put forward apparently are based on that. Without proven and cited ref's, it would have been deleted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, the find a grave website is used as a reference to some degree on thousands of articles throughout WP with a project dedicated to ensuring that articles with a Find a Grave page have it on the article. There is even a template for it and its mentioned in at least half a dozen places in the various manuals and guides as to how it should be used. Therefore, the argument that the article should be deleted because it was used as a ref is not valid. I agree that it is not the greatest source out there, based on the fact that it is updated mostly by volunteers just as WP is. However I again request that you reinstate the article and if you still have a problem with the find a grave reference then I suggest you submit the article for deletion at AFD so that I may discuss the issue properly or bring up the reference issue on the MOS references page because this is a far more massive issue than this one article and if your view is to delete any article that uses this reference we need to clarify immediately for all whether or not this reference should continue to be used and if not what should be done with the thousands of articles that use it as a reference. Also, if you are unwilling to reinstate this article then let me know and I will just recreate it. I don't want to spend any more time requesting an article be reinstated when its likely a stub anyway. --Kumioko (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may be willing to userfy it. I agree that Find A Grave may be useful as a secondary reference if additional primary ref's exist, but not it it's the only source. Let me know if you want it userfied. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to be honest Im not sure what you mean by userfied...tell you what is it possible to copy the text to a sandbox for the page. Then I can look at it and clean it up before I post it. --Kumioko (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what WP:USERFICATION is.  Done The article is now in your userspace here. Don't move it back to articlespace until you've introduced peoper ref's, cleaned it up, etc. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Itds done the article is recreated. --Kumioko (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in the note that I just left here, just FYI. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bwilkins!

I was wondering if you would consider restoring this page (Stitches (Australian Band)). I will endeavour to make it meet the guidelines for suitability and notability.

Stitches may not be the most 'notable' band in the world, but they have released music on CD, supported overseas acts and had a degree of press coverage in numerous places (in our part of the world). There was once a long running comic about them in a street press magazine. One of the members is noted for using innovative guitar tunings and techniques. The band also has animated sequences projected over them during performances and are becoming known for this aspect of their performance. This request isn't about promoting them, but simply giving credit to what I believe is one of the most interesting and innovative bands out there.

They are certainly far more notable than Stitches (Welsh Band)!

Best regards, Epsychlopedia Enpsychlopedia (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive18#Admin_Gwen_Gale.27s_usage_of_administrative_Blocks.

You have recently sought out to comment as an administrator on my edits, via your following of Admin Gwen Gale's page. As above, you made some rash and harsh comments on my editing without citing anything of what I had done. I asked you to explain, to which you refused. I noted your failed usage of WP:SOAP also, which I encourage you to review.

To me, from the perspective of an editor, you are using you admin role, to squash content that you disagree with, even though its well within the guidelines of Wikipedia. I ask you again to explain your remarks, with regards to whatever you believe that I did that deserved admin blocking. If you are unable to be specific, just say so, say that you have no concrete actions that warrant the remarks you have made. If you are simply unwilling to spend the time to back up what you are saying is the justification of admin blocking of editors, I would question the wisdom of your initial entry into the fray. Thank you. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]