On Manos: The Hands of Fate, please see the history of the article (Milestone). First it was a Good article nominee, then it was(n't) reviewed, then was promoted as featured article and finally, it was demoted. As far as i know it still being a WP:GA, because it never was nominated for a reassesement. The same happened with Israel. So the article still being a GA until someone nominate it to WP:GAR. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 16:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When articles are demoted at FAR, they usually have enough problems that they don't qualify as GA, so they do not become GA by default. You might view the FAR as an implicit GAR. Manos was delisted from FA over 6 months ago, at that. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, also Dabomb explained it in WT:FA, it is a pity. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 17:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 12 hours, for 4 reverts in 22 hours on Brenda Song, and the edits were just wrong, not vandalism. The other editor has been blocked 72 hours because of his use of anonymous edits in an effort to avoid detection. I've left User:Gimmetrow's block log clean out of respect. Please don't make me regret that.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 20:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, you defend the repeated insertion and retention of verifiably incorrect info in a biography of a living person? Gimmetoo (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, and the 6:1 ratio of his block to your block reflects that. I had issued a 72-hour block to the other editor, and had to consider whether I could let your edits go. I finally decided that you, as the alter-ego of an admin, certainly know that being right isn't the issue. The misinterpretation certainly wasn't demeaning to Song in any way. I nearly counted the "Chinese" revert as vandalism, but couldn't do it without realizing that I was cutting you slack I wouldn't cut a normal editor. I'm not going to piss and moan too hard if someone else decides that one of your reverts didn't count.—Kww(talk) 20:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP is no longer just about "negative" info, but any poorly sourced info, even positive. You have left this info in the article, and you issued a block. So by your actions, it would seem that you must hold editors cannot remove incorrect and poorly-sourced info more than 3 times per 24 hours. Is that correct? I suspect I will be raising this issue on policy pages in due time. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|This is a WP:BLP issue. The edits for which I was blocked involve the removal of repeatedly-added incorrect info from an improperly interpreted source. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I'll accept the BLP justification. It's an extremely marginal case in my mind, though: whether she won or was nominated for a trivial award is not the kind of detail that the BLP provisions were meant to guard by granting a 3RR exemption. Request handled by: —Kww(talk) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

I felt a trout slap was appropriate for your actions here. [1] The reflinks tool is used to add useful information to references which display bare urls. To undo such an effort in preference to a url is both counterproductive and reflects an asinine approach to editing. Perhaps this is your intention. So be it as an edit war is not what I was seeking when I filled in the 5 references in question. Nor was I seeking to waste my time improving an article simply to have you display your vast misunderstanding of WP:MOS. That being said if you want to fix the references, do it yourself, if on the other hand you like the bare urls, enjoy looking at them. Bear in mind when the day comes for you to be vetted for higher positions within Wikipedia, these actions and perhaps others will be revisited for you to defend. For now, I feel fine having slapped you with a trout. My76Strat 22:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re Halle Berry

Huh? I don't much care about all the 'Retrieved' vs 'Accessed', but you also undid some useful additions of cite templates, too. I'm going to go re-do those by hand. The existing style is not fixed. Jack Merridew 06:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well-developed and has no cite templates, so adding them is an inappropriate style change. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 12 is bollixed though. What is so wrong about cite templates?  pablo 12:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of these articles, it sounds an awful lot like Gimmetoo has WP:OWNERSHIP issues. [2], [3], [4] etc, even settling for blank references rather than using CITE. Nymf _hideliho! 12:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you are making an accusation of OWNership to defend someone who, contrary to Wiki guidelines, uses automated tools to edit numerous articles they don't otherwise edit to make those articles conform to their own arbitrary preferred style. Is that correct? Gimmetoo (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there's a consensus against you here ;) Jack Merridew 17:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetoo, I am not defending anyone. I saw your revert and thought it was an inane rationale. I use the tool myself, and will continue to do so. Nymf _hideliho! 18:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted you and taken the ref improvements further. You seem to be the disruptive party, here, and on some other articles; try peeing in the wind, less. It is impractical to address the referencing of a large article in one shot, so interim stages are fine. Jack Merridew 19:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, you've crossed-over into vandalism; at best you've a major WP:POINT vio going. Cut it out. Jack Merridew 20:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have now established a pattern of edit warring with automated tools in violation of multiple Wiki guidelines. Care to continue? Gimmetoo (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted at WP:ANI#obstruction of ref clean-up. See you there. Jack Merridew 20:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you indefinitely. Please see the block log to find out how the block may be lifted. NW (Talk) 23:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? On what policy grounds did you perform this action? Gimmetoo (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gimmetoo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

No policy basis given for indef block. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Preventing a masquerade may not be enshrined in policy, but it is a perfectly valid reason for a block. If you are Gimmetrow, log in as Gimmetrow and comment on this block. Please don't make the mistake of unblocking yourself, though. That will be take care of once Gimmetrow asks for it.—Kww(talk) 23:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.