User talk:Luciferwildcat

This user may have left Wikipedia. Luciferwildcat has not edited Wikipedia since September 2012. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Wikipedia ads	file info – #193

• User:Luciferwildcat/archive1

The article has been merged. Merging does not require a consensus (it can be done BOLDly), but I had one anyway. After more than a week of discussion, two people said the article wasn't independent enough of the Richmond Station, only you didn't. Explanation of my closing rationale can be found at Talk:Metro Walk. Furthermore, using a rescue template in a merge discussion is complete misuse of the template Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude you are the only one that supported the merge and I opposed, so no you can't. That is not a consensus, more opinions would be needed.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LWC, I'm working on Proletkult so no time for this one. Good luck with it though. Carrite (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC) (Are you two knuckleheads still fighting with each other?!?!)[reply]

Wow cool article, thank you for taking the time to respond. Your input on the merge would be useful if you cannot help edit. Thank you and happy new year.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please notify purpleback of the discussion Nobody Ent 03:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer, thanks for calling my attention to the "Metro Walk" article. I have put my comments there. Basically I think the article SHOULD be merged. There is little or no independent reliable sourcing to support the (unusual) inclusion of a whole separate Wikipedia article about a 130-home housing development. However, I would like to see it merged to "Downtown Richmond" rather than to the train station article. It's part of a neighborhood, not part of a train station.

If I could offer some personal advice: Please try to develop some perspective. I know you are passionate about Richmond, and that's good, but that doesn't mean that every little aspect of Richmond needs to have its own article, and it doesn't mean that every suggestion about merging or combining or even deleting articles has to escalate into World War III. Instead of fighting desperately to preserve this article, why not use the information in it to improve another article - for example Downtown Richmond, Richmond, California which is seriously in need of expansion and updating? All the information about the Metro Walk could be put into that article, and I am sure there is a lot more that could be said about downtown Richmond. Many times the best way to improve Wikipedia is to expand and improve existing articles. --MelanieN (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving in your two cents, I just want to be able to resolve any issues asap and get back to working on the content itself without constant unproductive and contentious reverts. My general problem is that I personally feel that the merge is just a mean spirited way to get to me by PBP. I also think its the wrong place to even suggest a merge and even after repeatedly explaining this I was ignored by him which gives him and anything he wants to do with this article no credibility whatsoever. I do like Richmond topics a lot, I feel the city has a bad rap and deserves better more thorough coverage. Having said that if something is not notable it isn't and I am fine with that and the community's decisions even from deletionists but people like PBP that just go around with a jagged razor and don't improve or create have little value to this project. I do believe that since the topic has multiple articles about it that cover it in depth, although PBP keeps removing sources which I feel is just an attempt to discredit notability and my efforts to copyedit, and that this represents notability for this topic separate from any station or 'hood. I do respect your difference of opinion and really harbor good feelings toward you for your professionalism in these manners and really would like to thank you for attempting to help out. I will definitely work to improve the downtown article as well and will add it to my queue. I will say that I don't go around creating Richmond article but I have a soft spot for them and improving them is just what I am interested in doing. That is how I stumbled upon Metro Walk and I worked hard to improve the city council articles and also many that are up for deletion or rescue.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tiang language has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Is this notable?

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zzaffuto118 (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only proposed deletion on the grounds that it was not notable. I still stand by that but if/when you improve the article I will change my mind. It is your job to convince me ( and the community) that the article you are writing is necessary. I only proposed it I didn't even nominate it so no worries. Please don't remove the tag though.Zzaffuto118 (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't drag it out. I don't really care. But you are very rude and you will continue to have problems with other users if you don't change your attitude. All things are not notable unless they have references and you can prove that it matters. When I first tagged you article it was because A) It was poorly written/cited B) It was marked for patrol C) After reading your article it sounded unnotable. I only proposed deletion, proposed, that means you could have simply removed my tag and life goes on (which you did). No I didn't have time to read up on the language as there is a huge backlog of pages. I don't want to sound rude but your writing style (on that article)was very lacking. The article is starting to look better so I have no reason to delete it. If you don't want to worry about these tags anymore then keep improving. Have a good day Zzaffuto118 (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking for a fight. I never was... I agree with you now. I certainly think the article is notable now and wouldn't think of proposing deletion. I just want you to be aware of the fact that you don't need to bite off my head for tagging your article. I am a new page patroller, I simply look at new pages and tag them and move on. I'm sure a couple of people out there would have tagged your article too. I'm just upset because you seem to think that its necessary to bully this point. I haven't contradicted myself, I simply stated that now I agree with you about the notability. Zzaffuto118 (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LWC - you wrote: Hi, you have edited Metro Walk and this article is currently under a contentious debate...

Yes, I did - I stub-sorted it five years ago. That's it. I doubt I'd be much help in the debate :) Grutness...wha? 01:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough :) Grutness...wha? 08:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is friendly advice on how to do with your PBP:

• First, just stay off their talk page. At this point, nothing good will come from you posting there.
• If emails from them are unwelcome, just delete them or set up a filter in your email reader.
• You can disable the "E-mail this user" option from this page Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal Nobody Ent 03:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this, I just didn't think that it would come to this. I don't think I should have to deactivate that option but if he e-mails me again I will do just that.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion that all primary schools ought to be considered notable, but you also ought to realize that consensus is against you on that issue. Repeatedly advancing the same argument is unlikely to shift consensus. Going to battle against PurpleBackPack is also not useful, in my view. Please consider that pretty much everyone observing the situation agrees that you two should stay away from each other. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am and I will continue to advance it. Notwithstanding there is no consensus on the notability of schools below the secondary level. In fact their are hundreds if not thousands of articles on them and many of them are kept. It is hard to find the sources as they are usually in old newspapers but simple verification is not hard, but deletion and merging prevents organic growth from what are usually inexperienced users that are unlikely to understand how to go about slow growth within a district/diocesan/subdivisional article. PBP started nominated Richmond articles and also Catholic school and other school articles just to spite me. In fact if I had not brought it to his attention I don't think he would have ever began his mass nomination of Catholic school articles. I believe also that my argument has been refined and that eventually I will be able to convince others that all schools are notable. And in fact they are because they always have references they are just likely to be on micofilm not the lazy-easy-convenient google books/internets. Don't get me wrong I love the ease of the web but just because it's not on there doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have a thorough interest in rescues and AfDs and as long as PBP keeps nominating I would likely keep running into him through commenting on them, or improving the articles. The problem is that PBP makes too many AfDs for me to completely avoid him but I am not by any means stalking his edits, but if gutting is involved especially without and sincere attempt to improve first, I will edit the article and find sources.LuciferWildCat (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone disagrees with him. And you shouldn't discourage people from stating their opinions. Many people argued for years that high schools were not notable, but eventually things changed. The more people see others stating the same opinion they have, the more likely they are to go take it to the relevant guideline page and argue to change things. Dream Focus 08:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are being helpful but I don't think he is exactly discouraging me, I think he just wants me to look better at ANI due to an ongoing dispute with PBP. Having said that I do find it annoying that I would be discouraged from a minority viewpoint, the opposition should be happy and rest in the fact that the school articles will often be deleted and that it's therefore not needed to chastise users that oppose that. Who knows maybe the deletionists are scared of a good argument or future change to policyLuciferWildCat (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am discouraging neither of you, and appreciate what both of you are saying here, and also both of your contributions to this encyclopedia. I agree with what I perceive as the current working consensus at AfD that most secondary schools can be presumed to be notable and that most primary schools (with a small percentage of exceptions) can be presumed to be non-notable. Sure, there are many articles about primary schools remaining here, and I will support keeping that small percentage (be it 1% or 10%) with clear and demonstrated evidence of historical or architectural significance. I recognize that this is an imperfect compromise, as most compromises are. However, compromise, as I see it, is a useful and necessary technique for streamlining the disposition of a large number of relatively similar cases. Improved and well-referenced articles almost always survive AfD, in my experience. And my experience is based on helping save many such articles myself. I do not like the "deletionist" versus "inclusionist" label very much here on Wikipedia, but it is an imperfect and limited but somewhat useful continuum for describing an editor's philosophical approach. Though I have participated in roughly a thousand AfD debates, I have only nominated one article for deletion and regretted that. Philosophically, my inclination is toward inclusionism, but in terms of practical application, I concede that many articles should be deleted. Call me a "moderate" if you want to assume good faith, or call me a fence sitter or an equivocator if you wish. But I end up agreeing with the consensus nearly 90% of the time.

I do not chastise you, LuciferWildCat, for advocating the position that all schools are notable, though I disagree. I just think that a "meta" discussion is the proper venue for that debate, not ongoing trench warfare in every primary school AfD debate. I am not "happy" when any article is deleted, even an article about a garage band that started twanging just last week. Instead, I see such deletions as part of maintaining the integrity of the world's greatest encyclopedia, and rest happy knowing that even the deleted garage band articles are not gone forever. Any article can still be userfied by an administrator and restored to main space when that obscure garage band records the next big hit song. Or when a major publisher issues a book that gives significant coverage to a primary school in American Canyon, California, which just happens to be my home town. I make that remark as the lead author of American Canyon High School. Please don't nominate that article for AfD. It is a secondary school, after all. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for what you describe as PurpleBackPack's "spite", a simple visit to his talk page will show that I (and others) have taken him to task repeatedly for his recent interactions with you. I am simply trying to encourage you to avoid any interactions that could possibly be construed as inflaming or inciting this most unfortunate situation. On another matter, I have an idea for a Richmond related article. The recent unpleasantness has inhibited my ability to propose new article topics to you. Perhaps we can talk more when things die down. I hope so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the essay and all the time you must have put into it. I am not trying to tear down every school article that is a lost cause, I just feel AfD comment happy sometimes and I do vote to delete at times as well.LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this image from your comments on WP:ANI. This is a speedy deletion candidate no matter which Wikimedia website you uploaded it to. First of all, you should not be uploading or pasting the content of private emails to Wikipedia without the permission of the writer. Second, it's a screencap of Gmail. Screencaps of anything are not allowed on the Commons and you clearly do not own any of the content in the image so you are not the "copyright holder" so you cannot release it into the Creative Commons. In the future, either don't do this in the first place or just use Imgur.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just upload it to a free image hosting site. They got plenty of those out there. Then you can link to it. Dream Focus 07:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its still not allowed. Copyright issues for the sender and all.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't copyright an email you send someone. Fair usage laws cover that. Someone sends you an email, you can post it and show people what it says. Dream Focus 08:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that you needed the other person's permission to post the contents.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legally or per Wikipedia policy? Don't think so. In any event, it's unwise to post the contents; the PBP / LWC situation is one in which that party that ceases interaction with the other first will leave a much better impression in the community. Nobody Ent 12:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe its true if someone sends you a message they have no expectation of privacy, if they call you however then you need their express permission to record or you enter wiretapping territory. In any case this was done to prove he was sending me harassing e-mails and it was done in good faith. It protects PBP from the scenario in which I could claim he said things he didn't and it protects me from the possible claim from PBP that he did not say what I copypasted that he said.LuciferWildCat (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lucifer. Happy new year. I don't recall any extended or consistent interaction with you in the past, but we have both been commenting -- starting with the last day or 2 -- at the same school AfDs. Such as yesterday at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Martin of Tours Catholic School and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Joseph's School (La Puente, California), where we had direct interaction, and differed. Though we often disagree, and I have raised questions as times as to the content of your comments, I appreciate your participation.

I was, however, surprised to see today, in the wake of those 2 interactions -- despite the fact that we had rarely run into each other in the past -- you appearing at AfDs I had initiated on completely different topics, such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annand Pura and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indus Resource Center, where you took the other side. The articles in question are non-school AfDs. Given the above circumstances I couldn't help but wonder if it might be more than a coincidence. On the off-chance that that is the case, I would kindly request that you not hound me, as that is considered less than the best form and generally frowned upon at the project. If it is just a coincidence somehow, then no worries -- I appreciate your input. Many thanks. And again, best wishes for a new year.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not hounding you in any way and you should be careful to not use that term, I myself was blocked for using it when referring to PBP a while back. In any case, I have a lot of interest in AfDs, especially schools and California related topics. It was brought to my attention that many schools were up for deletion by you so I took a look a look at your edit history, the school related deletion discussions history, and the california related deletion discussions history as well. It wasn't meant to hound I just took an interest in the subject, left my opinion and have moved on. You should note that I voted keep, merge, redirect, delete, comment, and keep or delete for probably a hundred different AfDs today so the focus isn't really on you, it's on the AfDs themselves. Have a great day.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also since it has now come to my attention I say you should be bold and merge any elementary school mini-stub into its district, but not if you are not willing to add the content or a sentence or two to that article.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the advice I gave you before about disengaging with pbp, it would a very good idea to stay off of ANI unless an editor other than pbp asks you a question. Not responding to an unfounded accusation is a sign of strength, not weakness. Nobody Ent 03:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure, I am concerned about his what I see as a talent at making very spurious claims, how should I go about dealing with that? I would hate that he is able to misrepresent my statements or warp my actions into something that they are not in the minds of others. Also would it be okay to report further actions on his end such as his wiktionary or email related contact of me?LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to butt in on a conversation here, but I am concerned about this still unresolved battle between you and PBP. I would like to see you able to free yourself from it, which would be beneficial to you AND Wikipedia. If you recall, one of the points of my "proposal" (which was never officially accepted) was that neither you nor PBP should initiate any ANI actions; if you felt something needed to be called to the community's attention, you were to ask some other editor to make the complaint for you. I still feel that was good advice and I would urge you to follow it. If you keep running to ANI every time he looks at you crossways, you are going to irritate the community so much that you could both be censured. I'm sure you felt the community's disgust at the constant back-and-forth between the two of you. If you could show yourself to be the "bigger person" here, by ignoring small provocations, it might help everyone. So I agree with Nobody Ent: avoid ANI. i if you feel a provocation is so great that it needs to be brought to the community yet again, ask someone else to bring it for you - and stay out of the resulting discussion as much as possible. --MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced editors reviewing postings on noticeboards (including ANI) neither believe nor disbelieve posted statements -- they look at the evidence themselves and make their own conclusions. That's why WP:DIFFs are so helpful and important. Therefore, the best way to deal with a spurious claim is to not respond at all but merely monitor the conversation. If the claim is spurious there will be no responses from others or they'll just indicate the complaint has no merit.

Wiktionary is an entirely separate project from English Wikipedia, so any issues there have to be discussed there and shouldn't be brought up here.

I sincerely doubt pbp will email you again. If they do, follow Melanie's advice and ask for assistance on someone's talk page -- you're welcome to use mine. Nobody Ent 19:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.  This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Trey Scott Atwater has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:PERP and WP:BLP1E. Subject also not yet convicted of a crime.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trey Scott Atwater is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trey Scott Atwater until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Trey Scott Atwater (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Ordinances and C4

Fort Bragg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to C4

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the verge of asking for my bit back. The next one of you or Purplebackpack who brings a baseless complaint to ANI gets blocked. This is the end of the line. There is no sanction on PBP that prevents him voting at AFDs. Do not refer to him, respond to him or post about him at any forum. Just ignore each other and you will find your wikipedia experience much less stressful. There will be no further warnings. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few words. What do you mean by "bit back"? How was my complaint at all baseless and under what rules can I not make any comments there? If there is no sanction for him making any comments as the consensus showed how is there any sanction for me bringing an issue to ANI? Under what authority are you making such a claim of this being a final warning? And how can there be a final warning without you having issued me any preliminary warning here on my talk page? Thank you.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Spartaz is referring to their administrative tools as "bit". Your complaint was baseless in that no one saw any merit in it--it was baseless based on consensus. Preliminary warnings have been issued plenty of times in the ANI threads you started and participated in; there is no requirement that they be issued here. FWIW, I am an admin, and I've mentioned to Spartaz that I fully agree with them; no doubt the others involved at the previous threads feel the same way. That you still claim that your complaints need to be heard by administrators and other editors suggests a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT--the multitude of claims and the time and server space they take up on the noticeboards is a form of disruption. But I don't pretend to speak for Spartaz. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does sum up nicely where I am coming from. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I understand that but how can it be that I have to follow warnings and the other party does not and I cannot report the violations?LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer, a couple of points:

• 1) I was not the "main moderator" at the earlier discussion; I cannot be, since I am not an administrator. I did make a suggestion, and a lot of people commented favorably on it, but it was never formally ratified.
• 2) One of the points of that suggestion, and one that you really REALLY need to take to heart, is that neither of you should start an ANI discussion. Period. If you feel there is something going on so egregious that it simply must be reported, in spite of the community's exasperation with your quarreling, you were supposed to ask some uninvolved editor to start the ANI for you. And if the uninvolved editor declines to do so - to let it go.
• 3) It is unreasonable to expect PurpleBackPack, or anyone, to go and research the history of every article at AFD to find out who all has edited it, before they are allowed to comment on it.
• 4) What Spartaz is saying: they used to be an administrator, but recently resigned as an administrator and gave up their tools. But they are getting so fed up with the constant squabbling between you and PBP that they are inclined to ask for their tools - their "bit" - back, just so they can ban you. "Under what authority" - Spartaz, or DrMies, or any other administrator has the power to block a user from posting. It is not a power that they use lightly, but rather to protect the encyclopedia from disruption or other problems. You, with your constant running to mommy every time PBP looks at you crosswise, are a disruption and a problem. Any administrator has the right to block you - or PBP - or anyone else who is causing problems. Constant squabbling about "who started it" or who is following policy better can become a problem, and in the case of you and PBP it has.
• 5) If you think there haven't been any previous warnings, you haven't been paying attention.
• 6) What part of "just stop it, you guys" hasn't been clear? --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LWC, I wrote this essay last month in response to a similar situation. No one is interested in refereeing squabbles between editors; continuing to post about pbp on ANI will likely get you a block for disruption, if not from Spartaz then from another administrator. They (administrators) have accepted both the authority and responsibility to keep Wikipedia running smoothly by passing through the WP:RFA process. Melanie and I have been trying to help you, but it's up to you to decide what is more important; continuing to make valuable contributions to Wikipedia by continuing to edit, or continuing this attempt to battle other editors. When two editors are going at it, it only takes one to be the more mature one and end the conflict by disengaging, I decided to talk to you because my analysis was that you were the more reasonable editor. Please don't prove me wrong. Nobody Ent 00:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allrighty.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LWC,you are struggling to follow this, because my take is that you do not understand how wikipedia works. Enough editors have offered to work with you and, god knows, you have been offered enough advice, but your basic approach is that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Consensus is not a head count of involved editors and there is no consensus that Puplebackpack has any formal restrictions. What there is, is a deep frustration with the disruption caused your (collective) continual niggling and winding up of each other. I am not currently an admin, but was one from 2007 until earlier this month. I resigned the tools in good odour and can be an admin again at any time by just asking.

Any user can be blocked by an admin to prevent disruption to the project. That is actually no requirement to warn and an admin can use their judgement about where/when a block is necessary. There are three reasons why you have not already been blocked. a) because we no longer have enough admins for someone to just get fed up and drop the hammer. b) You clearly mean well but do not understand the issues - we have been assuming good faith but AGF only goes so far. Finally, c) you are making encyclopaedic contributions and that usually earns you an extra pass. But enough is enough. This silly argument is now sucking in too many other editors who would otherwise be making useful content contributions. This is why is it is disruptive and this is why it ends today.

One final word. There are many editors who delight in drama and there is also a small group of very inclusionist editors, some of whom like to poke deletionists as an esoteric version of playing the man rather than the ball. I see some bleed over into this issue by some of those editors (I am being very careful not to name names). If these editors are advising you behind the scenes then you are being very badly served. I strongly recommend that you find a trustworthy mainstream user to coach you on how wikipedia works and to help you understand all the little subtexts that are going on in the background. This is a very political and complicated project to participate in. If you want my advice, you should ask MelanieN to help you, if she hasn't already washed her hands of you that is. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If someone has done you wrong, keep a record of it on your computer. Just copy the link to the edit history in a text file on your desktop and save it. They may keep coming back time and again making personal swipes at you every chance they get, then trying to act like they are the victim. It helps to keep track of things in case that happens. Try to ignore them, and if they attack you point out how inappropriate it is and mention the rules to them. I haven't read your interaction with this other person, so not sure what's going on, but had problems in the past with others, most of which are thankfully no longer around. Somethings to consider:

1. When people say you don't understand how Wikipedia works, it usually just means they disagree with you, and want everyone to do things their way. Don't let them bully you into changing or leaving the project.
2. In AFD try not to reason with the deletionists. They have the insane mentality that anything they don't like is crap, and should be eliminated from the Wikipedia, and that they are somehow helping and improving Wikipedia by deleting hordes of articles that couldn't possible be harming it. You can not reason with such people. See [1] for more details.
3. In AFDs, don't say all schools/fire departments/churches/police departments/etc get coverage and are therefore instantly notable. Instead, say the one being nominated specifically is notable, and find references to back that up.
4. When you see someone going around mass nominating things for deletion, you aren't allowed to follow them around to every one to try to counter their arguments. You are only allowed to follow them if you agree with them. Strange how the system works, but that's basically it. You can look through things found on the same Wikiproject of course.
5. Whenever someone waste everyone's time in a pointless AFD nomination, please inform them of WP:BEFORE and explain to them how they could've easily checked for reliable sources themselves and found them. Dream Focus 07:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case. Dreamfocus what on earth are you doing inserting yourself into this discussion. It doesn't concern you and following your advice could very swiftly see this editor blocked. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically what advice of mine would get him blocked? Dream Focus 08:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DF, you are so not helping. LCW is not going to get blocked for arguing against deletion, even if they do so citing incorrect policy or whatever. LCW, you are NOT going to get blocked for participating in AfDs (unless it's disruptive or whatever, but I haven't seen that). You are NOT going to get blocked simply for not knowing all the policies and guidelines, though you might be pointed to those guidelines.

Dream Focus's message seems to be "them deletionists are going to block you because you are an inclusionist"--to borrow one of DF's words, that's insane. What gets Spartaz and MelanieN and me and others is the bickering and complaining at ANI--it has nothing to do with what DF is suggesting. DF's division of editors in inclusionists and insane deletionists is an unproductive and incorrect scheme that seems to be borrowed more from American politics than from reality at WP.

DF, "what advice of mine" etc? Well, "When people say you don't understand how Wikipedia works, it usually just means they disagree with you" this is bullshit--you were incorrect for instance about what WP:KEEP says. I trust you know by now what it means, and that's all there is to it. I pointed it out because it has a specific meaning and should not be thrown around lightly since it can imply bad faith. I would have said the same thing had the shoe been on the other foot. DF knows me long enough (though chances are they don't like me) to give me a bit more credit than that. The problem with statements like that is that they imply that everyone but you (and Dream Focus) is wrong, and that's precisely the kind of thing that brought us here in the first place. In other words, they are suggesting you persist in a way of thinking that has turned some editors away from you and that can never be productive.

I think you're an asset to the community; you clearly have interests and want to write about things, and that's all great. Contributing also means following certain policies and guidelines and rules of engagement--well, Spartaz, Melanie, and I have pointed those things out. We live and learn, all of us, except, perhaps, Dream Focus, if they insist on division into camps and on explaining everything as if it were a party-political issue. All the best, Drmies (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz made a comment above mine about a certain group of inclusionist, it obvious who he was talking about based on past history. And when I said deletionists, I was thinking of the die hard people, the ones who see coverage for something, but still say delete because its either not in the article yet or they don't believe the person is notable no matter what, etc. As far as people saying you don't understand AFD, I was thinking of Yaksar's comment at [2]. That seems like obvious bullying to me. You seem to be ranting off the specific topic here. And most of the articles I say Keep in, do get kept, so policy and guidelines are on my side, as the closing administrators usually have sense to realize. Dream Focus 16:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What past history are you alluding too? I have no recollection of any particular arguments with you. And to answer the point about blocking, do you serious believe that encouraging LWC to challenge PBP on their talk page about their AFD nominations isn't going to lead to a massive row, a quick trip to a drama board and blocks all round. If you don't, then you haven't been paying attention. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] Settle down, please, Dream Focus--"ranting off the specific topic" is uncalled for, especially since I'm neither ranting nor off the topic. I have explained, above, what is problematic and what isn't. LCW is not going to get blocked over edits like this--Yaksar's comment overshoots the mark and I will tell them so ( Done). Your track record at AfD, and mine, are irrelevant here, and that some of LCW's ANI threads seem to start with AfD issues doesn't mean that the AfD issues themselves are problematic. It's the calling out of Purplebackpack that's disruptive, at least in my opinion. (And before you misinterpret me, that's not to say that that editor is without blame!) But dragging the AfD matters into this dispute only clouds the issue, and painting with a broad brush (which would color me as well) is not productive. Let's focus on the matter at hand. There are, in this thread, two admins and two seasoned editors who have given what I think is reasonable advice, none of which directly bears on AfD participation, and none of whom have called for LCW to be blocked at this point. I'm waiting for LCW to respond and to recognize that problems are perceived and that they need to be dealt with, and they can be in relatively simple way: recognition and abstention. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz et al, I am done trying--see recent edits on [La Peña Cultural Center]]. I think competence is an issue here. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating an article about Save The Bay! I've been intending to do an article about Kathleen Kerr but it's been languishig on my to-do list for quite a while. Maybe this will inspire me to get working on it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me second MelanieN's comment. Thanks for creating an article about an indisputably notable topic. The fact that Wikipedia hasn't had an article about this group until now shows that this encyclopedia is far from finished, and that you can be a very productive editor here, if you can avoid unnecessary disputes. Well done! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for the credit at Jim Rogers (politician). However, you might want to take a look at the formatting requirements for Did You Know. The "hook" has to begin with three periods and a lowercase "that" (in other words, so that the question reads "Did you know" "...that so-and-so did such-and-such"), and the subject within the hook has to be bolded and wikilinked. Take a look at how I did it at Jim Rogers. Also, be aware that the person who reviews your nomination will look for certain things, for example, the fact cited in the hook has to be specifically referenced in the article, and they may ask you to make changes in the nomination or the article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I look at it, you might want to withdraw the DYK nomination for Jim Rogers. It doesn't qualify. The article has to have been either created or expanded five-fold within the past five days. The Jim Rogers expansion doesn't come close. --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that sucks, I thought it just had to have been done recently.=(LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the requirements: Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK rules. Did you really nominate eight articles for DYK without first checking the rules?? With a quick check it looks as if these six don't qualify: Jim Rogers (not expanded enough and not recently enough), Mindell Penn (not recently enough), Tiang language (article not long enough), Richard Griffin (not expanded enough and not recently enough), John Marquez (not expanded enough and not recently enough), La Peña Cultural Center (not expanded enough), Shattuck Avenue (not expanded enough). You might want to go delete those six nominations, before people start yelling at you. And you might want to format the other two properly. --MelanieN (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where the heck did you put those nominations? I can't find them in the proper place, which would be here Template talk:Did you know, listed under the date the article was created or expanded. --MelanieN (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh, I typed in dyk in da search>>Wikipedia:Did you know>>Template talk:Did you know>>How to post a new nomination>>and clicked the click nomination buttonLuciferWildCat (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know what happened, but they don't seem to be in the proper place to be evaluated. Maybe you missed step 3, which is listing your nomination page under the appropriate date (the date of creation or five-fold expansion) on the TempleTalk page. See Template talk:Did you know#Instructions for nominators. You might want to ask for help from an administrator - or you might ask Cullen, who is not an administrator but seems to know his way around pretty well. If you want to delete the six non-qualified nominations you may need administrator help. --MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can place {{db-author}} on them. I looked at a couple of them and those that I saw indeed do not qualify. Thank you Melanie. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into it and if they don't well I can make them qualify by expanding them.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They must qualify before they can be nominated. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion to make some users perhaps more interested in keeping the article is to change the articles name into the incident itself and perhaps a small rewrite to cover the incident more then the person himself.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well once it is deleted I was going to recreate from my userification just that.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed something on your talk page. Please consider this friendly advice: we're not all young and hip, and "this is my page bitches" does not mean to me what you may think it does, and if you want it to mean what it means to me, you should remove it. Also, we don't "own" "our" pages... Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL but I am, and it should stay. And when I get old and crusty, I leave my crusts up too.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't get it. You're talking to your visitors, not to yourself. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• On my talk page I am, but on my user page people are given pretty broad leeway to include whatever they want as long as it doesn't exceed in size.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? You're talking to yourself on your talk page but not on your user page? People can contribute to your user page? (None of this makes any sense.) I see this: you say "this is my page bitches." That's incorrect--it's not your page--and I am not a bitch, at least not yours. I see something else: you have yet to respond to the discussion above, which directly concerns your future here. Instead, you're bickering here with me about a very simple thing: an insult on your user page. That may be a completely minor and irrelevant thing in your eyes, but why not take it seriously? You are missing another thing: that I am trying to NOT get you blocked. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to butt into a private conversation, but I would be offended by this too, if I had seen it. I don't know where this comment is or what you are talking about. I have visited this talk page a dozen times in the last week and I haven't seen that gratuitous insult here. But Drmies is right: it may sound cute and hip to you (I don't know your gender or generation but I can guess). But I am an older woman, and people like me find this kind of talk offensive - especially when it is apparently directed at me. I can't imagine why you would want to provoke this kind of reaction in people, particularly people who may be trying to help you or befriend you. --MelanieN

I understand some people can be that sensitive to something such as the This is Sparta image on my user page, but it is not on my talk page as some are apparently suggesting and never has been. In fact I am not the only one to have this addon of flare to my page. Furthermore nothing is directed at you, it's kinds of just a funny reference to the film 300's "This is Sparta" slogan and a reference to it. If you mean the word bitch, it's not directed at women or anyone its just a word, in fact it's used as an interjection in the phrase "This is my page, bitches!" and is as offensive as "This is my page y'all", it's a petty complaint if someone dislikes it but no one is forced to go to my user page, my talk page I understand of course could offend others. I happen to be a 24 year old male but I could be as sensitive as an old lady or an older woman could be far more vulgar than I. No disrespect is intended toward anyone. It seems like some people just like picking fights.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. It is on your user page, not your talk page. I misunderstood what DrMies said. Certainly your userpage is your own domain and you can put what you want there within reason. If you find this cute or something, you are within your rights. But just a word to the wise: if you think "bitches" is as neutral and inoffensive as "y'all," you are seriously mistaken. There are plenty of us who realize that "bitch" is, or was until recently, a vicious word, often accompanied by physical violence against the woman so named. --MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that "cute" and it really is inoffensive, I can't imagine anyone getting offended by being called one as much as I called them "silly" or "dummy", it's only very mildly pejorative and usually endearing. Must be a generational thing cause I don't know what it would include violence against women but not men.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It totally is a generational thing, and you should be aware of that. A few decades ago "bitch" to a woman was as vicious and offensive as "n-----r" to a black person. Why has the vicious insult toward women become harmless and cute, while the vicious insult toward black people has become an unmentionable obscenity? I couldn't begin to tell you. English evolves - as they say, English is an open-source language - and to your generation, what you say may be correct. But you should realize that not everyone sees it that way. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think nigger is very insulting at all, black people call me nigger or nigga all the time and I am white. My generation finds being told not to do things or say things in our whole lives just because others have had a bad experience to be way more offensive.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Drmies is right about "your" pages: most people would regard your userpage to be your own domain which other people should not edit except in unusual circumstances, while your user talkpage is the place where other people can post comments to you. Please see Wikipedia:User pages#Ownership and editing of user pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the image of the empanada. I looked on Flickr, and the only image that seems appropriate is this one, of their choir. Unfortunately it does not have the licensing that allows me to upload it to Commons. You could consider emailing the contributor and asking them if they care to a. change the license or b. upload it to Commons themselves. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the image of the empanada illustrates what they serve there and also Chilean American culture while the lack of a better image continues.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to La Peña Cultural Center. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. This text is clearly not neutral, even promotional. I am using a template because nothing else seems to get across. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Tiang language at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 22:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer, you are still at it - nominating things for DYK that are obviously not eligible. Please READ the requirements I linked to above. I told you that Tiang language was not long enough, and it isn't; somebody has now pointed that out at your nomination. I also told you that an article has to be expanded fivefold - in otherwords, the readable text has to be expanded to FIVE TIMES what it was - and that is nowhere near the case for Orange County Sheriff's Department where the content was not even doubled. Please don't nominate things for DYK without first checking to see if they have at least a shot at meeting the requirements. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OCSD is brand new, it doesn't have to have been expanded. I did listen, I deleted several nominations that could not make it. I understand about Tiang but I have the chance to look up more sources and expand it so I am going to do that.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a new article on December 28, but that is too long ago to be nominated now; new articles have to be nominated within five days of creation. Your expansion since then has not been enough to count as a fivefold expansion so it doesn't qualify there either. Too bad, because you had an interesting hook for that article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the following nominations as "not eligible" for reasons that I explained there: Template:Did you know nominations/Ocean County Sheriff's Department, Template:Did you know nominations/Shattuck Avenue, and Template:Did you know nominations/La Peña Cultural Center. I'll leave the other nominations to be evaluated by others. --MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dang.LuciferWildCat (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Luciferwildcat, and thank you for your contributions!

Some text in an article that you worked on Case of Trey Scott Atwater, appears to be directly copied from another Wikipedia article, Trey Scott Atwater. Please take a minute to double-check that you've properly attributed the source text in your edit summary.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Case of Trey Scott Atwater at any time. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luciferwildcat,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

This is nice article, but I dunno.

Lewandowska is alive, so WP:BLP1E applies. I don't know if down the road she'd just as soon as she and this incident fade from memory, but it's possible. This article will likely live for many decades at least (in mirrors and in whatever forms the Wikipedia database morphs into), keeping this event more alive than is maybe warranted. So I've PROD'd it, which you can remove but then I'd likely take it WP:AFD for discussion.

I don't mean to disparage your good work, and it's depressing to have an article you've worked on deleted, but there's not helping it in this case, in my opinion. Herostratus (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Attempted murder of Michelina Lewandowska has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:BLP1E

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Herostratus (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Luciferwildcat! Thank you for your participation in gathering a concensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academy Hill. As a fellow editor, I wanted to recommend that in the future you consider using only one course of action in bold text, e. g., "Keep" or "Delete". The reason being, bots and tools which parse AfD's only recognize bolded votes. Following this convention is highly recommended to avoid any conflict in determining your opinion on a recommended course of action. If you have any questions or concerns, this information and more regarding basic practices that most Wikipedians use in AfD discussions can be found at WP:AFDFORMAT. Happy editing! Stubbleboy 20:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Attempted murder of Michelina Lewandowska is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attempted murder of Michelina Lewandowska until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SmartSE (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Case of Trey Scott Atwater has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

duplication of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trey_Scott_Atwater

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bihco (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Case of Trey Scott Atwater. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Trey Scott Atwater. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Trey Scott Atwater - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Luciferwildcat. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The calmer you can be while the block is being discussed the better off you'll be in the long run. I'd suggest just taking a break from Wikipedia and letting other editors review the situation. Nobody Ent 03:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to some biographies of living people have been problematic; I agree with the assessment Qwyrxian has made of the situation on ANI.

Please take his comments to heart and remember that Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. We have an ethical and legal responsibility to ensure that biographical content is written with the greatest care.

Consider this a warning, made pursuant to the requirements of this Arbitration remedy. Further edits in violation of policy may result in special enforcement sanctions, which could include restrictions on reverts or other specified behavior, bans from editing any BLP or BLP-related page or set of pages, blocks of up to one year in length, or any other measures which may be considered necessary. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be reasonable to provide diffs of such edits; the ANI referenced above is in regard to article creation, not "edits." Nobody Ent 12:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article creation, which, by definition, consists of edits... If you wish, I can amend my warning so that it reads "You have recently created problematic BLPs"... It really doesn't change the gist of my message. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your interpretation that LWC violated either RS or NPOV? Nobody Ent 12:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do I mention RS or NPOV? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a productive path for either of us (my apologies for starting down it). Let's put this discussion in abeyance pending consensus forming at ANI; we can revisit the warning here after the discussion closes. Nobody Ent 13:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ocean County Sheriff's Department (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Secret Service

Point Isabel Regional Shoreline (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Angel Island

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Save The Bay, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Save The Bay helped stop San Bruno Mountain from being destroyed to create landfill along 27 miles (43 km) of San Francisco Bay? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Save The Bay.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your DYK and a very good article! --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please provide citations for the statements that Trey Atwater attempted to board a flight at various airports with a smoke grenade. This would clarify which airport the incident happened at. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you moved 2009 Richmond High School gang rape to Richmond High School gang rape. I don't have a problem the move, but when moving pages you need to perform a page move, (via the "move" option in the menu bar), rather than a cut-and-paste move, as copying loses the attribution history from the article. If this isn't possible (normally because the page to move it to has been previously edited, you can always ask at Wikipedia:Requested moves. - Bilby (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for signing up for the meetup/lunch at the Wikimedia Foundation. Just a reminder that this is happening at noon tomorrow, Saturday the 4th. Our office is located at 149 New Montgomery Street in San Francisco, a short walk from the Montgomery Station BART stop – please see the meetup page for more details. Looking forward to seeing you there! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Would you be interested in contributing to this Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey/Requested articles? Tinton5 (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC) sureLuciferWildCat (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Seton Medical Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daughters of Charity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I love the new BART map that was added to the article but it has a few mistakes or omissions. It does not include the Oakland Airport connector that is currently under construction including the Oakland International Airport BART station, nor does it include the Warm Springs, Berryessa, or Milpitas on the Warm Springs and San Jose extensions that are both under construction, it also omits the new eBART extention Antioch station, in addition to the proposed Livermore Extension and it's two stations Vasco & Livermore in addition to the other proposed stations at Calaveras, Irvington, Pittsburg, and Doolittle. The map also incorrectly states how the service beyond Daly City or SFO on the Richmond-Millbrae and Pittsburg/Bay Point-SFO lines respectively operates. It's weekday and saturday nights and all day sunday. The map also leaves out the Downtown San Jose/Santa Clara extension and the intermodal connections with Capitol Corridor, Amtrak, VTA light rail, and SF Muni, and ferries.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I didn't make the new map. I made an old map. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Received from you on my talk page)
Doctors Medical Center and Seton Medical Center

Good afternoon, I am trying to have these added to DYK and improve and expand them. I was wondering if I could get some feedback or peer review from you?LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some minor clean up for these articles. Both articles are in good form, referenced, and written in neutral point of view. What remains is that the Doctors Medical Center article needs more inline citations/sources to verify information in the article. I'm more into working on articles than reviewing them. When people work together to improve articles, it can yield very positive results. Best regards, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thanks for creating the new articles Doctors Medical Center and Seton Medical Center. Your efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage of notable organizations and institutions is appreciated. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Seton Medical Center at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ishtar456 (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made another comment.--Ishtar456 (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I am not saying the source can't or should not be used, but the article is to dependent upon it. All but four of your citations derive from it.--Ishtar456 (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Seton Medical Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heather (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 March 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Seton Medical Center, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Seton Medical Center was fined $100,000 when the cap of the breathing tube of an elderly woman was left on, suffocating the patient? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Seton Medical Center.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Rschen7754 00:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add spam links to encyclopedic articles. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Richmond Medical Center at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Allen3 ^talk 19:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Oakland Medical Center at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Allen3 ^talk 01:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Job! Nice work improving the Richmond Medical Center article, and thanks for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia for the public.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Rip-Saw (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sanitized cow anus. Since you had some involvement with the Sanitized cow anus redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 07:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Salvage meat has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Page creator seems to be on some kind of anti-pink slime crusade

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 08:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Salvage meat is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvage meat until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 08:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you over rescuing the article, but it needs source to save it. I've tried to find them and failed. I think it may just be too early in the life of the phrase. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about politics. I think you know me well enough form my edit history to know I care not one fig for anything except article quality. Pink Slime is disgraceful, but that would never prevent me from working to ensure the article on it was neutral, for example, assuming I became interested in editing the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're unclear on it, do let me know and I can elaborate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

here's some elaboration for you: [3], [4], [5], [6] -- four separate reverts (where the revert part is obvious from the edit summaries. Clear enough? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Lucifer, you certainly opened a hot one this time! I am trying to add some changes but it seems we keep getting in edit conflicts. Could you hold off for about ten minutes so I can put in some tidying up and some neutrality-balancing statements? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm done for now. I just spent 20 minutes of so revising and "neutralizing" the lead section, but then I got ANOTHER edit conflict! Fortunately the other edit was minor and I was able to work around it. I think the article needs reorganizing but I can't do anything about it right now. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rescue template was deleted in February. Quite a discussion if I remember correctly. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised. Found the discussion via the logs Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_16#Template:Rescue Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pulverized cow anus. Since you had some involvement with the Pulverized cow anus redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). First Light (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, you may want to consider filling-in the edit summary field for all edits when making changes to articles, to briefly describe the changes being made, particularly in articles that are considered to be somewhat "controversial". Doing so helps others to understand the intention of your edits. I noticed in the revision history for the Pink slime article that many (but not all) of your changes to the article lack edit summaries.

See also: WP:FIES, "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit..." et al.

— Thanks for all of your work to improve the encyclopedia for the public. = ) Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]