User talk:Manning Bartlett

This user may have left Wikipedia. Manning Bartlett has not edited Wikipedia since March 2023. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

An old timer. My userID is #100 and I'm now well past my 20 year anniversary. I'm an admin. I have a reputation for being tough but fair.

I spend a lot of my time editing anonymously.

		The Thrashin' Barnstar
		For your contributions to the world of skateboarding-related articles, and being one of the first people to edit the page for skateboarding back in 2001! Viva Manning Bartlett! Fun With Ahmed (EAT A REEF) 21:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen you around in a while :) T. Canens (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I was always here :) Just went underground for a bit. Manning (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the surface, then :) T. Canens (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! MBisanz ^talk 16:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're back ... Tony (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - I never left. But I did masquerade under another username for a while, and then just went back to being an IP for many months. Good to see you again too :) Manning (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manning. Firstly, welcome back to adminship.

I've just imported some old edits to your user page from the nost:Nostalgia Wikipedia. It's been possible to import edits from that site, plus Meta and some other language Wikipedias, for over a year now. My personal notes about the quirks of importing from the Nostalgia Wikipedia are at User:Graham87/Import. Because your username at the Nostalgia Wikipedia is ManningBartlett, all your edits imported from there can be found under that name in the English Wikipedia. Also, edits that were deleted before Tim Starling merged your old account with the current one can also be found under the name "ManningBartlett" (I've also undeleted quite a few of those edits BTW). Therefore, some time ago I created a redirect from User:ManningBartlett to your current talk page, and I've now updated to point to your recently restored user page.

Hope this is all OK! Graham87 06:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You rule! Cheers Manning (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've just done the same thing to User:Manning Bartlett/Contributions and User:Manning Bartlett/Naughty people, since they have a large number of revisions. Speaking of the latter page, do you have anything to add to what I wrote about the history of "VANDALISM IN PROGRESS"? Graham87 03:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My only addition is that had I known that ten years later it would be written about as part of the history of Wikipedia I would have chosen a slightly less dorky name for the page :) Manning (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My 10th wikibirthday is in november or so. When's yours? Surely you can hang on 'till then? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kim - not going anywhere! Just handing in my admin bit, I'm too old and I'll make mistakes. Cheers Manning

Nah, not much has changed, just take it easy! Handing in your admin bit is always a good idea though. Means you can get away with more O:-) . --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In September, the first WikiProject ever created will turn 10 years old. To celebrate, the Signpost's WikiProject Report would like do a special report on the history of the WikiProject concept. Since you created that first project and the famous proposal that started it all, we'd like to interview you. Would you be willing to answer some questions about your original proposal and how the WikiProject concept has grown and evolved over the years? -Mabeenot (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still interested in doing this interview? We have it scheduled to run later this month. Remember, you don't have to answer every question. -Mabeenot (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Manning, I just discovered some earlier edits to the scientific method article that you mentioned on your user page. (The Nostalgia Wikipedia doesn't show that you created it; rather it shows you fixing a grammar error). They can be found at the title "Scientific Method". According to the recently unearthed Wikipedia dumps from August 2001, that article was actually created by Jpmartin on the 6th of March. The Nostalgia Wikipedia contains many many gaps, but at least it contains more old edits than the English Wikipedia. Graham87 12:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet - nice to see credit going where it belongs. My comment about Nostalgia was based on the fact that people generally assume the first entry in the history is by the article creator, even though (as you rightly note) my edit was nothing more than a grammar fix. Manning (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Manning Bartlett. Maybe I could understand your comment. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am sorry for my rude behavior on Istanbul Pogrom page. The way I acted liked that is because I had very hard times before. I don't know if you know this event Assassination of Hrant Dink. I knew him very well. He was a really nice person. He was trying to tell the turth in Turkey and eventually he has been killed. It was not a simple killing you can read the article and see who was involved etc. After that I became really emotional and sometimes I can not keep myself calm. After this point I will try to explain everything in a calm way. Ali55te (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also understand that, people living far away from a place may not easily know all the details of an event happened somewhere far away. I am really sorry for what happened and I will try to make sure that it will not happen againAli55te (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - thanks for the apology. Manning (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still interested in doing the interview for the Signpost? We need to know by the end of this week so we have time to schedule another article if necessary. I think our readers would be very interested in the role you played in creating the WikiProject concept, and I hope you'll allow us to share your story in the Signpost. -Mabeenot (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manning,

I just wanted to bring your attention to the prominence a post of yours from a couple of years ago has been given in this summary of the history of the debate about that title. I didn't see it at the time, but I appreciate it today. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was delighted to see your comments from an old-timer on the blackout discussion page. I was also delighted to reread your anti-rules, which I saw a long enough time ago that I had forgotten them. (If you have never seen m:How to win an argument, you may enjoy it.) Glad to see you still hanging around. Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 03:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite a positive surprise to see you so active lately :-) Nyttend (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks for stopping by; it's always pleasant to see old familiar names around. I'm very lucky to have stumbled into Wikipedia as an after-school time-filler so long ago (when I was 14!) — finding my edits accepted by adults as contributions from just another peer was incredibly encouraging and rewarding, and I'm pretty sure participating helped prepare me for my career-so-far in working with large, messy, semi-technical online communities. Somehow I never got involved with the more bureaucratic side of things here — I wonder if it's only because I had no idea how to sign up for mailing lists back then — but that may have been all for the better. :) Also, somehow my user ID is 32, and I've always wondered how that happened, because I'm sure I wasn't the 32nd user to sign up...probably more like in the hundreds. I imagine some early database migration rearranged usernames alphabetically or something. Heh! Dreamyshade (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your opinion is about to have more weight again. :) Good to see. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, remind me... if you start with zero and double it you get, um... Manning (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC) PS, thanks Flo :)[reply]

Thankyou so much for undoing some of the malicious edits to this page 25 January. I half expected some sort of negative editing to Pankaj Oswal wiki page due to the subjects increased media presence at the moment. Being somewhat new to wiki editing I doubt I could have successfully dealt with yesterdays onslaught of edit changes. Again thankyou so much.A fair go (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you unblocked the IP putting in the unnessacary wrestling media tags in the first place? Tech43 (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the actual edit that I blocked him for was a genuine wrestling-related article. So I had no choice but to unblock. He promptly vandalized a different article and the block was reapplied. Manning (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that.... but he had done it to several non-wrestling articles even before that edit. I had to revert several of them. So I would know. I'm quite dissapointed that with as long as you've been around, you didn't know better. It's obvious that he was going to keep on doing it. I think you should do your research(i.e. look at all of his contributions) next time before being so generous. Just my 2 cents. Tech43 (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you've been around quite a while as well, you would know that it is unacceptable to block someone without first issuing a warning. I issued the warning at 08:03 UTC which was when I first became aware of the problem. I blocked shortly afterwards. Manning (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should at least make the black more strict. i feel like Wikipedia is way too lenient on vandals. Once a vandal, always a vandal. Rememeber that. Tech43 (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted. Feel free to run for admin and you will be able to exercise your judgement. However in my view this was not a deliberate vandal, it was merely someone with misguided enthusiasm. Every article was being tagged because it had some form of tenuous connection to wrestling. So the reasoning is comprehensible, (though certainly not desirable). I'd rather educate these people than blacklist them forever. Manning (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this [1] but it looks like he has just got an indefinite block from Alexf. Thank you. Cloudz679 11:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...for your note. A new editor left me a message as well; we may see more activity in the article. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I used to believe the same as you: that sources were not required for the blooming obvious. And then I got into an edit dispute with a user called Doniago. This users edit history shows that he has never contributed anything positive to Wikipedia. All he does is just trawl articles and delete anything that is unsourced (wheter tagged or not) - often 60-70 items at a sitting (Have a look [[2]]. The dispute in question was the existence of 7 pin S-Video connectors as commonly found on computer graphic cards and laptops. Doniago maintained that obvious or not, a citation was required for their existence and that he was perfectly entitled to delete the entire section as there was none. Following a complaint on the Admin noticeboard, I was duly advised that Doniago was not only perfectly correct, and that he was indeed entitled to delete unsourced content without either tagging it or discussing it. The admin pointed to WP:VERIFY, I would love to point you to the discussion on my talk page, but that was many IP addresses ago, and I can no longer locate it (though the opening shots are still on the S-Video discussion page).

Personally, I agree that it is courtesy to tag it and discuss it (good faith), but apparently Wikipedia policy is otherwise. 86.167.21.68 (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that happened to you. The actual policy is that it is OK to delete "dubious" unsourced material immediately - I think the exact words are "likely to be challenged". There's some leeway to what "dubious" means, and the rules for biographies are much stricter than for other articles but this case you describe above is nonsense, and certainly does not accord with WP:VERIFY. The editor was certainly entitled to challenge it, but wholesale removal is unproductive. It's worth noting that there are very few absolutes in Wikipedia, judgment is regularly called for. If a single Google search provide immediate supporting evidence for an issue, then I would be inclined to associate automatic deletion with pointiness, particularly if there was a pattern of such behaviour. Manning (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I appologise for the delayed response, but my Internet access failed just after I posted the above and I have only just got it back.

I take your points made above. I note that the User:Doniago is still deleteing anything unsourced without following, the 'good faith' procedure that we seem to agree on above. I note that in his recent tranch of deletions is this diff [[3]] (not a unique example by any means). Nothing contentious here, whowever added it may well believe it's true - 10 seconds on Google confirms it ([[4]]). But Doniago just deletes it within 10 minutes of its addition, not even a ^{[citation needed]} tag - so not even an opportunity for anyone to provide sources. It may help many frustrated users if you were to explain the good faith issues on his talk page. Thanking you in advance. 109.145.21.107 (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manning,

Sorry to bother you again with the situation regarding Lecen. The problem he has (or had) with Sandy aside, the user still has other complaints against his behavior by other users [5] (Wee Curry and I). Even if the ANI resolution resolves the Lecen-Sandy problem (doubt it), there is still this matter regarding Lecen's aggressive behavior revolving the discussion at Talk:Paraguayan War (which the WQA complaint summarizes up to a certain point; Lecen never presented his side of the story). Considering that Lecen will inevitably return (assuming the process in WP:DIVA is correct), I fear that he will simply continue to exhibit the same kind of behavior as discussed by Wee Curry and myself. My guess is that nothing can be further done at this point and the WQA will end up archived since Lecen is already blocked. Assuming that Lecen continues behaving in the same manner (which is for some reason apparently being encouraged by the "Lecen was wronged" posts), I hope that this message (which you do not have to reply to) can stay in your memory in case any further problems arise with the user. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:MarshalN20 - understood. When I deal with an AN/I issue I try to stay focused on only the precise matter at hand. I am often aware of much more, however if I start raising separate issues I am implicitly inviting everyone else to do so as well, which only leads to chaos. AN/I is a beast of a place, and anything I can do to reduce the clutter is a good thing. (This may well be a futile effort, but oh well, whatever). Of course anyone is free to leave relevant details on my talk page (as you did), they are always appreciated. Manning (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may not mean much, but I thought you handled the matter perfectly (or as close as it can get to perfect). You should keep enforcing your method and hopefully others will soon find it to be a more-efficient way of doing things as well.

I honestly wish the situation could have been resolved in a much more pleasant manner. I remember even asking Lecen to talk to me on my userpage so that we could discuss any specific problems he had with me. Instead, he went to his "friends", and they in turn acted as enablers by either encouraging his behavior or simply ignoring the behavior. Wee Curry Monster and I were apparently unlucky enough to get into an issue larger than ourselves (and which, by the looks of it, will continue), just when the bubble was ready to pop.

On the larger spectrum, this whole matter seems to involve competing factions (is that where Wikipedia is ultimately heading?). As a historian, I know that individuals generally don't fare well in such situations. So, for the time being I think it would be best for me if I stepped as far away from this issue as possible. Thank you Manning for taking into account the information. Cordially.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the general topic of "how I handled it"... I've recently returned from a long Wikibreak and I've received a few comments congratulating me on "the way I handled <whatever>". I'm more than a bit disturbed by this. I assure you, there is nothing special to my method, it used to be the default manner across the entire admin body. If that culture has changed (and I'm not saying it has), well then it is time to return to it. As far as competing factions... I joined WP in 2001 and we had competing factions back then. We'll survive :D Thanks for your kind words. Manning (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of unacceptable edits… Alarbus (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC) <and I'm off;>[reply]

Sorry, I've only just seen this, some 9 hours after you posted it (you posted at 11:35 PM my local time and I'd gone to bed). I'm at work now but I'll try to look into it if I get time during the day. Manning (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been dealt with for this week, at least. It was gonna get noticed on a place like ANI. There seems to have been rather more on his talk. FWIW, Lecen is a nice guy, who's been hard-pressed for some time. Alarbus (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

inappropriate use of talk page while blocked

• seems pretty clear-cut

Alarbus (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of this. I am also aware of efforts being made by others to diffuse the situation, hence for the moment I'm electing to not get involved any further, other than to support Salvio's actions. A small degree of post-block, talk-page ranting is generally tolerated (though that IS limited). Most importantly, in my opinion if I do anything now it will not achieve anything constructive and only make things worse. While I don't always succeed, I do try to use my admin tools to achieve positive outcomes, and try to avoid making bad situations worse.

I have no issue with Lecen. I expect he'll be back soon enough, and then we can try to resolve the various issues at play. ("try" being the operative word, I'm no miracle worker). Manning (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also left Salvio the above diff; Wehwalt, too. User:Bbb23 also alerted Wehwalt. I didn't see it until after; I expect it was while I was leaving the others. Anyway, Ceoil has made a lot more attacks than that; he called me dangerously stupid on ANI and nothing happened. He's called me a prick at least a dozen times. I noted this at the arbcom civility case request and nothing seems to have happened. Simply put, civility enforcement is selective. Lecen makes a joke and is blocked for a week. Ceoil flames-on, though. Truthkeeper called User:Diannaa and I fucking cunts and nothing, even though I alerted Prodego to it later that day.

Lecen is retired; a last straw, I expect. The edit summary in his block log is 'battleground mentality' which is a direct personal attack. Lecen has written nine FA on Brazilian topics despite hostility from the FAC clique (Empire of Brazil, Pedro II of Brazil…). I believe he feels his reputation is destroyed, here. Someone came along after the fact and says wait and is ignored. This isn't defusion, it's free pass to those with a lot of political connections. This stinks.

You wanted to separate the issue of Lecen's joke from Sandy's hostility; ok, he's toast. What about her lit flamethrower? Alarbus (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alarbus - you probably aren't that familiar with how I operate as I have only just recently returned from a long break from admin duties. Anyway, I mean no offence, but I avoid in-depth discussion of anyone or anything on my talk page. If you have a specific issue you want to raise, log it at the appropriate forum and feel free to drop me a link to ensure I see it. Regards Manning (talk) 07:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear about that part. The rest is very clear.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"If so you prove to lack any sense." (diff). That's an insult in my book. Manning (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In mine as well. Yes, not seeing the forrest through the trees.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manning, a thread has just been archived at ANI, and I would like to restore it. Do you know how I do this? It is about the WP:RS closure. I didn't know about the 24 hours archive procedure. Granateple (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the archive box next to the table of contents. The AN/I archive is the second set, we're current on page 737. Press the edit tab, copy the entire section you want, close (without saving!) and paste the entire text back into AN/I as a new section. I'm not suggesting that you would ever do this, but for the record, failure to copy the entire original section is a big no-no. Manning (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed description. I think I will manage. I am new to Wikipedia. The WP:RS closure was brought before ANI for review. Do you know why almost nothing happened? Granateple (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no idea, never even looked at it. You can only do what you can. I spent most of yesterday trying to mow the lawn after weeks of summer rain. Manning (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds nice. Here in Oslo we shovel snow. I will ask the other user:olive involved in the discussion for advice. Granateple (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for being a nit-picker, but you should at least be pleased I read your user page so carefully. In the first two paragraphs, you almost repeated this phrase: "I was in the first group of admins ever appointed." If you want my opinion, I would eliminate the first instance and keep the second.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arrgh. Your advice has been followed to the letter. Manning (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1 (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I express the upmost gratitude towards you. I highly thank you for unblocking me. -Jibajabba

You're welcome. Play nice and there won't be any future problems. Manning (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manning, and apologies if this is not the right place, but I am going to try you anyway! The PROD process seems to be broken, do you know why Category:Proposed deletion still contains 12-day-old PRODs and they aren't marked with the automatic tagging of Category:Expired proposed deletions? Thought you might know. Thank you. Cloudz679 14:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns have been noted. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Half Barnstar
	Please accept this Half Barnstar in recognition of the fact that while we may not agree with each other on some matters, you showed a degree of civility and a willingness to listen that I could not let pass without notice. Doniago (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After your recent contribution to WT:FILM - Dude, I think I love you. :) Doniago (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manning My name is Ashish Acharjee, art historian and curator.

I had edited an article on 'writism', which was existent om wikipedia for the last couple of years - adding some material from the official website 'www.writism.net, with full permission from the copyright holder, Mr Thomas Abraham. The material was originally removed from Wikipedia, by 'fastily' on 13 Jan 12 , and we wrote to him. After editing the matter we put in the matter again. This time it was removed by 'material scientist' . but in the meanwhile, between 13 Jan and 27 Jan 2012, we had got permission from the copyright holder in writing. He had also sent the permission in writing to Wikipedia in the prescribed format, giving full right to put the matter in the public domain. We communicated this to 'material scientist' last evening. However, today we see that the matter was deleted by you citing that the matter was deleted earlier, so cannot be uploaded. However , the situation on the ground has changed substantially, since the date of the first deletion on 13 Jan 12, as we had in the interim, got the copyright holder to put the matter in the public domain. If needed we can send you a copy of the legal copyright held by Mr Thomas Abraham as well as a copy of his letter sent to Wikipedia giving permission to put the matter in the public domain. We noticed that once we write to one administrator/contributor and convince him/her, somebody else deletes it.Could you suggest how we can avoid deletion in the future, as the process has been going on, back and forth for weeks ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideaworldwide (talk • contribs) 12:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to User_talk:Ideaworldwide#Writism. Manning (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi manning

wrote to you earlier, but the 'talk' doesn't seem to reflect on the page...perhaps forgot to save it. so writing to you again

the entry on Wikipedia on writism existed way before i edited it in Jan 12. i thought it needed to reflect changes in the artists oeuvre over the last couple of years, since Wikipedia carried the writism article.

this is not a self promotion article. i am an independant art curator, academic and historian, alumnus of IIT and head of SPREAD , an entity dealing in promotion of heritage - both traditional and contemporary.i dont want an article on myself or my organization. But i think equus gazing's work is among the most challenging and astounding i ve encountered any where in quite a while

as for the Times Of India article, both in their daily newspaper on 29 Jan 12 and in their coffee table book TRAILBLAZERS,released the week prior, i could send you a scanned copy of the articles

Ashish Acharjee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideaworldwide (talk • contribs) 13:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Manning (talk)

For one, thanks for stopping to look at it. Two, I'm so glad you said I documented well. I'm a fanfiction author, and authors have the tendency to not appreciate their work, and the whole time I was writing that post, I kept thinking to myself "There's not enough sources, and I sound too mean, and this that and the other...", so I'm glad to hear that. Also, should I remove the information, wait for 74.207 to verify sources, or what? (My guess is the second option, but I just want to verify.) SmallCheez (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The policy says "anything that is likely to be challenged" can be either tagged as unsourced, or removed. It's a judgment call based on how far from the truth you think the material is. Hence if you feel something is VERY questionable, then by all means remove it. If the material can be sourced then it is easy enough to reinstate it. Manning (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urgh, it's very far. For instance, in one episode, something scares them (Martin and Aviva), and in trying to run away in different directions, smack into each other, and that's supposed to be proof. Yet, there are multiple episodes where she's hugged another man named Jimmy, but that's not proof that those two are in love. (Yet she's never hugged Martin just to hug him!) Ergo, I'm going to remove it. Like I said, it doesn't let WK newbies decide for themselves. SmallCheez (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine. As I said at AN/I, drop me a line if you need any assistance. Manning (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They did it again, 90 minutes after you left the talk page message.[6] I reverted and left a level-2 unsourced template on their talk page, and am informing you. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. A block will be next, all attempts at negotiation seem to be failing. Manning (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Manning Bartlett.

09:06, 27 January 2012 Manning Bartlett (talk | contribs) deleted "New Art Form" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, identical OR content, different article name)

Your references to deletion policy and XfD are not very helpful. Can you please tell me which specific deletion discussion relates to the content of the delted page New Art Form. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is perfectly valid, and I should have provided more info in the edit summary. However, as a matter of personal policy, I ignore all questions that are not phrased in a kind and friendly manner. Wikipedia needs to become a more friendly and enjoyable place, and treating each other with such acidity is damaging. Thank you, Manning (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Manning Bartlett,

You seem to have performed a delete last week or so, as indicated by the following log entry.

09:06, 27 January 2012 Manning Bartlett (talk | contribs) deleted "New Art Form" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, identical OR content, different article name)

New Art Form is listed as a CSD notification at [[User talk:Writism1]. I am reviewing the now deleted article Writism with respect to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Writism1. Was New Art Form written by User:Writism? Was it identical to Writism. I'm wondering, because it is not entirely obvious to me that Writism was non-notable, it may have just been written very poorly and with no attention to providing third party references. New Art Form may have been different attempt at covering the same subject but from a different angle. Your deletion tag indicates a previous deletion discussion. Could you please point me to that discussion? Was it Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Writism? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the text was word for word identical to the Writism article. I did an online check for references and could find none outside of the author's own website. Since there there may have been coverage (see discussion above) in a major Indian newspaper but I've been unable to find it. Regards, Manning (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I expected so, but was hoping otherwise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. With all the complaining about the edits on and off Wikipedia (people were complaining on the bands/singer's facebook page as well) I was starting to feel like the bad guy, even though I was in the right as far as Wikipedia goes. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let it get to you. I have no doubt the information they're trying to add is correct, however if we set a precedent of "Facebook is a reliable source" then we will basically open the floodgates to hell. They don't see it that way, obviously, but we can't help that. Keep up the good work, and shout out if I can ever be of assistance. Cheers Manning (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 06:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to the post you made at AN - and then went back and read through the discussions. Are you thinking about a page where it's maybe fully protected so only admins. can edit there? Sort of a "gather around the water-cooler and discuss the flow and mood of things every Friday afternoon and Monday morning" type of thing? If so, I just very well may be open to such a thing. I'd think it would have to be viewable by all, and even an open talk page - but I think it could be very workable. Welcome back by the way - I really like what you're adding to things .. I hope you and your experience can help pull us back from the brink. — Ched :  ?  19:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ched - I'm at work and while I've made a few attempts to reply to you, I just haven't yet found the time to make the measured response your post deserves. My apologies, and I will respond properly at first opportunity. Manning (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you sir. Absolutely no rush, we all live in different places, with different responsibilities - I'll be out this evening to throw darts, and if I end up having any adult refreshments, I won't get on WP until the next day, but I will be back. Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  23:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC) .. perspective: I'm east coast USA. — Ched :  ?  23:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm east coast Oz - 14 or 15 hours ahead. Throwing darts is a very worthwhile activity, I was unaware that Americans engaged in such refined pursuits. I doff my hat to you, sir. Manning (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

East coast OZ, eh? Me too! Where abouts? 203.35.135.133 (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you're in Sydney. Bummer. (In melbourne) Steve Public (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve, sorry for not replying sooner (was putting out fires elsewhere). Yes, I live in rain-soaked, summer-free Sydney. Cheers Manning (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean now you've unretired you'll make it to one of these? (says me who makes it to about one a year or less....) (chuckle) there is an impromptu meetup tonight but I am stuck and couldn't make it (dessert's probably been eaten now anyway...)Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last one I went to ('09 sometime) you didn't attend. Ya schmuck! :-) Good to see you, cheers Manning (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Ched - AFAICT there is no way under policy to create a page only accessible to admins. However, there might be a way to create a watercooler without violating policy. Create a userpage, eg: User:Manning_Bartlett/Admin Water Cooler and invite all admins to participate there. Because this is covered by WP:NOBAN, I would be within my rights to request all non-admins to refrain from editing the page. However there will be a section within the community which will vehemently oppose this idea, no matter what. Manning (talk) 08:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey if you are serious about reforming things I think newyorkbrad's post was more an "enough is enough" post and leaving it up to everyone else to decide what to do so I wish you the best of luck, reading it from the outside, it doesn't look like anyone really is going to do anything, but I thought I should comment to you in case it helps you out, delete if too spammy:

When I was blocked I came up with an idea of having a decentralised way of people reporting incidents, like the new WikiLove bar thing or the MoodBar for new editors (e.g. those that don't "do forums" which is most people! in shouty, forum-like environments you hear the minority because the environment drives away the more meek people and a lot of women are not as thick skinned as me and I was accused of being too thin skinned... seriously most people just do not want to go into a shouting match with a load of guys constantly... wikipedia has a hyperaggressive culture overall from the whole culture of reverting people without requiring to talk to them first, most people don't fight back... it turns into the loudest win which is just sad)

that might be the best way, also kinda similar to how people report stuff on a forum, e.g. stuff is reported to the people that can action it and someone chooses to do something about it, but without making a thread for drama. but yeah, it should probably have an extra step put to it where it where the user is also notified and sees the report and can file a counter report if they want - it should all be public for transparency but a more formalised log trather than a thread to be piled in by anyone who wants a say, if people have formal objections to raise they would file them to the log. I dunno, anything along those lines, it'd have to be made very carefully to avoid cliqueism, but it seems like something along those lines would be a step forward from how it seems at the moment

... good luck with anything you try (other than well, giving the people that abuse others the worst powers...), that stuff is of course probably pipedreams at least for quite a while since it needs developery people and more consensus on "yes, we need to change this" probably... in the meantime I think you could improve Wikipedia by a whole lot suddenly if the No personal attacks and Remove personal attack rules were actually enforced, maybe it would take rewording the policies I don't know, but it seems like no one cares about them, removing stuff like this which can't be taken any other way than goading/trolling needs to become the norm rather than something to shout at people for, and anyone actually going out of their way to another user's talk page to harass them there should be blocked immediately... this is the kind of stuff you need to do if you want an atmosphere where professional people and more female editors feel comfortable in editing in, not a battleground but an encyclopaedia like it says on the cover page --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops sorry for deleting a load of stuff when I put that in the first time, thanks Acalamari (talk · contribs)! I didn't even notice thought I was just editing a section or something, I suspect when I crashed Firefox earlier while in the middle of writing this and it restored it maybe only the stuff I had typed, or got section and main page cnfused or something when I was trying to salvage things, I'm not sure. Woops, sorry MB --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am remembered of an event circa. 2009, where an administrator used the phrase "little shit" (Bishonen). Jimbo jumped in and blocked Bish, and brought forth the phrase "toxic" (environment, or personality? I don't recall the exact quote). The incident created quite a dust-up, which culminated in a request at AC. Anyway .. a page was created in user-space and fully protected. Both Bishonen (as an administrator), and Jimbo (founder) had the technical abilities to edit the page. (it was clearly stated that this page was for use by only those two - so while any administrator had the ability to edit - I doubt anyone would be foolish enough too). The point: We have the technical ability to create, and fully protect the page so that only admins can edit it. You're point about how well it would be accepted however, is an entirely different matter. Bottom line: If you set something in motion, I am more than willing to try to help, contribute, and follow along.

I was introduced to throwing darts 2 years ago - and thoroughly enjoy it. Not only for the competitive aspects (which I'm not particularly good at yet :)) - but the people I've met are the most wonderful folks as well. Much more friendly than the pool (pocket billiards) groups of people that I had known for years. — Ched :  ?  14:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the Jimbo-Bishonen stoush, I was an arbcom clerk at the time - see here. MBizanz handled the clerking, I remember doing something on it, no idea what though.

Yes we could create a user page and page protect it so only admins could edit it. But that would violate WP:UPROT, and we would be met with a howl of protest from 'Group b' (see below).

IMO our own policies are being hijacked to disable the admin corps. We are unable to move except by the will of the "community", but the "community" is really just whoever wants to discuss admin-related matters, which largely consists of (a) the remaining admins who haven't yet given up in despair and (b) those with an axe to grind against the admins (or against WP in general). As group (b) is now considerably larger than group (a), we cannot achieve a consensus to do anything positive. (I already noted on the Bugs ban discussion the huge discrepancy between the admin and non-admin vote.)

The answer is... hell, I don't know. I'll keep thinking. More when I get time. If you ever get the chance to watch "World Series Darts" on TV (British) it's well worth it - quite hilarious at how intense it all gets. Cheers Manning (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me as someone who has returned after a while it seems like the atmosphere has changed a lot, it used to be that people were always complaining about administrators abusing their power to block people they didn't like on whims etc, these days because there are so many more administrators and they are generally level-headed people that have been subjected to a kind of maturity test it seems like things have evened out a lot and the generally good nature of people is really starting to win through on Wikipedia and it is really, really, lovely to see. These days the problem seems to be less administrators now but more a complete reverse, it seems the more mature administrators agree everything needs cleaning up whilst the people who haven't been maturity-tested are fighting against it... I don't think anyone could have predicted this years ago, I think Jimmy Wales would be proud I just wish I could do more but all I'm going to say is you should be proud --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the "what's going on" post of NYB. I have never been able to capture his attention. I fully appreciate that he is a very busy man, so that's not a "he won't talk to me" comment - just an observation. Perhaps if you wanted to mention to him several examples as of late. You are familiar with the Risker/Bugs (block/unblock) situation. (example 1). We now have this situation which you may or may not be aware of. (example 2). Not long ago I noticed a block issue, and due to the mentoring I received in my early days, I thought this was considered the proper procedure. (example 3)

Now everyone is always eager to assist those that they consider good and valuable editors. I am wondering however if some sort of motion by the Arbitration Committee and broadly displayed can help reduce this inconsistency across the admin. community - perhaps it's worth consideration. My understanding has always been:

1. User blocked. (if an administrator feels this is in error ...)
2. approach the blocking admin and discuss. If the blocking admin is unavailable or unresponsive ...
3. post to AN/I a request for consensus to unblock.
4. I'm not sure where I have this concept, but I always believed that it took a minimum of 24 hours to establish consensus.

Now one issue I'm not fully confident in is when the blocked editor actually does post the unblock request - to that, I'll need to do some further reading of current standards.

Now, if a request of some sort must first be presented to AC before they are able to act on it - then I am willing to present that. I would however greatly appreciate any assistance in the proper format, venue, and structure etc. It is NOT my desire to get anyone blocked, banned, stripped of tools, or sanctioned in any fashion what-so-ever; but rather an attempt to stem this tide of reckless behavior. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you Manning - I'm getting the very strong impression I'm going to be very glad I approached you. (sorry for the tl;dr, but there's been much on my mind as of late) — Ched :  ?  14:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support everything you've said above. However AFAIK Arbcom won't even consider the matter unless it involves a "party a" vs "party b" situation. They do not have the remit to set policy (although in practice, many policy changes have occurred as a result of their decisions.) Again, there's a lot more to discuss here than I can do this very moment... An admin water-cooler is looking better and better by the day. It already exists (or at least existed, I haven't been there in 2 years or more) in the IRC channel, but that is inherently exclusive. We just have to figure out how we can go about establishing it. Manning (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added your talk page to my watchlist - but I often miss things too. Feel free to ping me anytime (on any topic). Thank you again for your time. A real pleasure. — Ched :  ?  00:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, drop me an email when you get the chance. I've got some other various comments & ideas but I'd prefer to discuss them OW (I'd email you but I say your note about emails). Cheers Manning (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ... sorry about that - just better to step away from a few conflicts. Feel free to pass my email along to any of the older (or perhaps I should say trusted) editors as well. Look forward to hearing from you. — Ched :  ?  02:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that; it's a good move. But you can't always be around. Such removals should occur regularly and should only be done by more trusted people, which means admins (anyone can consider themselves an "experienced editor". /more/ chaos that way). I had an idea and offer it for your consideration. Have a bot full-protect ANI for 10 minutes every half hour, say at 00–10 and 30–40. During this time admins would be able to clean up with out endless edit conflicts. It would also serve as brief cool-downs for all others. Such culling and breaks would take the heat out of things at regular intervals, which would be beneficial to all. Alarbus (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a VERY intriguing idea. Thanks for sharing. Manning (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Run with it ;-) Alarbus (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You participated in a related discussion before. The current one is here. Japinderum (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously consider bringing a Civility Enforcement 2 to ArbCom just so they can pass WP:Discretionary sanctions for ANI (participation), i.e. giving to any admin the power to topic ban an editor from ANI, if just temporarily. A less tortuous alternative would be to request the community equivalent, WP:General sanctions, which I see are now being discussed for the Indian caste topic area. Presumably, I should propose this at WP:AN. Thoughts? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ASCII posted the diff of this on my talk page and asked for comments. ArbCom and its ways is not something I have any knowledge or experience of so I can't give an opinion on whether they'd go for it. Personally I'd prefer something lower key, less formal as a starter at AN/I. For example, only today admins have been more assertive in calling time on discussions, with no big guns like a topic ban up their sleeves and it seems to have been working. Could we see if informal processes do the job first? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm not entirely certain why this discussion is on my talk page, but no problem :-) Regardless, I can certainly see where Ascii is coming from. I'm not at this point convinced that Arbcom is the answer, mainly because they will probably seek to avoid it from the outset.

Kim, you and I (and others) have already made efforts to get AN/I back on track, and I think there are signs of progress there. We haven't yet got full traction on the reform process, but as you noted, there are already signs of improvement. Of course there was Anthonyhcole's sincere (but misguided) attempt to enforce civility on AN/I. This came about by the lack of clearly defined standards of behaviour.

Ascii's idea about Topic Bans has definite merit, although the parameters would need to be clearly defined. It would definitely be a tool of last resort, and would need (say) 3-4 admins to approve, we don't need any more chaos from cowboy admins. Alarbus raised an interesting notion (see above) about fully-protecting the page for short periods.

Anyway, I think we need to open a full "AN & ANI Reform" discussion at RFC, as all of this is just too wide in scope for AN. We need to look at standards of conduct, proper usage of collapse, striking and redacting, making the place less intimidating for newcomers, and dealing with drama-mongers (to name but some of the issues). We can arrange to get it covered in the Signpost for next week to increase the participation.

If either of you agree and want to proceed with setting up the RFC, feel free to use User:Manning Bartlett/AN Reform prep as a sandbox. Or just dive on in. I'm at work for the next seven hours so my input will be minimal. Cheers to you both, Manning (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I think this might be a good idea, I think (a) we should fly it at the current discussion we're all having and (b) that it might be worth waiting a few days to see how the situation at AN/I pans out - whether it goes well or badly, we'd have more data to take to RfC. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I continued an existing discussion, I did not start a new one. We don't need to notify someone every time we add a subheading to a discussion. Also to my knowledge I've never had any contact with Jasper Deng, so I'm not even sure why you think I had contact with him weeks ago. I was adding newly discovered evidence to a very recent incident to show that this behaviour was not a one-off issue for him. It was to show that it was an on-going behavioural issue of which this was only the latest incident, despite his behaviour twice generating consensus that his editing had serious issues, including the issues he just displayed in this incident.--Crossmr (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, it was a misunderstanding on my part. I've added a comment at AN/I. Manning (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At m:Requests for comment/Meta-wiki requests for comment on users. Maybe you care to offer your own interpretation. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. The whimsical musings of crusty old-timers are hardly a rational basis for policy decisions. Manning (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I guess should mention too then that I linked your stuff on User_talk:Jimmy_Wales#Exodus_of_top_editors_from_Wikipedia RE your attempts at reform and the ongoing WT:AN stuff --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 06:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No prob MSK - referencing an on-wiki post is always fine as the context is preserved. The WR quote was presented somewhat out of context however, so I appreciated the heads-up from Ascii. Manning (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nodnod* I'm not involved in any of that stuff either just trying to help

I'm thinking about maybe we should encourage people to not use the same name on Wikipedia Review as Wikipedia, warn more loudly about possibly about talking openly maybe being used against people on here possibly open up an anonymous posting forum carefully if some way to stop sockpuppets (although it would be a shame because it would not make it as useful to social science researchers I think Wikipedia/the internet is very useful for them so I want to try keep that stuff in mind, as plenty of other smart people have said[7], the internet is simply human nature magnified) ...so you don't have this situation where people are having what they write on Wikipedia Review history treated as if it's their WP history as if it were a different namespace of Wikipedia rather than a totally unaffiliated random outside site that could well be someone's personal facebook/myspace/blog for how much right people on Wikipedia have to say what people can say elsewhere --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 06:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. As for me I just try to never say anything that I don't want quoted. Even with the WR quote mentioned above, nothing I said there was untrue. It's just been ten years since it was even vaguely relevant. Manning (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed that you edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMS Neve several times, and them deleted your comment altogether. Could you please restore it in order for other editors, who may further participate in this discussion could make a more informed decision on the topic? Thanks in advance! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No - why bother? You've nominated the single most important company in professional sound recording for deletion. If that is where WP is headed, then my contributions aren't worth anything. Manning (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May be I was wrong in nominating it. If so, I would like to find it out before this AfD is closed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you make judgment on whole Wikipedia's direction just because some editor nominated for deletion an article that you think should definitely stay? Really? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, this was just one of many, many issues about the current state of WP that is making me lose faith. I didn't intend any criticism of you personally - my apologies if you took it this way. Manning (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never take anything on-line too personally. Thanks for restoring your comment: as I see, the article will be definitely kept. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User:Manning Bartlett/Moni3 ANI analysis#Coding the first few items from ANI729. Hopefully this fits somehow into your project of ANI improvement through data analysis. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know anyone who you could recommend? I had an argument with mine about someone sockpuppeting and they posted they don't want to talk to me anymore kinda thing, I thought you might be a good person to ask? Thanks for any help --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:33, 1 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. The thread is Honorsteem again. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diff #13, Diff #15, and Diff #18 are your 26 January 2002 edits. Dru of Id (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, look like bad dates in the database, all of those edits are also in Nostalgia, which only goes up to Dec 2001. Manning (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting your close of the DS AN/I thread just now. As you no doubt observed, my comment came exactly one minute after your close. I hadn't been aware of your close as I was composing it, and I consider it especially worthy of some comment of admiration for you doing so, given that I'd opposed your opinion of the matter. With all possible regard, never mind our divergent opinions on this particular issue, I dare say some other admin will come along and re-close before long ( although I'd prefer to see it roll to archives by the default process, personally ) but I appreciate your obvious good will in reverting your close. I hadn't noticed your "Well a few hours have gone by" in-line, preliminary-to-close comment, of course, when I began my edit. I'm surprised, actually, that I didn't get an edit conflict. In any case, you have my sincere respect for your behaviour. It's representative of the best kind of collaborative good will among editors of opposing opinions. Thank you. --OhioStandard (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, no dramas. The issue had sat untouched for quite a few hours, and it smacks of block-shopping to me, which is why I closed it. Your comment caught me by surprise, but I was perfectly happy to unarchive. I don't think this issue is over, and I have a feeling admin action will eventually be necessary. However I want to see at least some attempt at standard content dispute resolution before we weigh in. Manning (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::Mard is anti indian? Darknesshines has created pov articles by the ton and has been blocked 20 times for it so how can you even call yourself an admin when you completely ignored Darknesshines history and attacked mard look at the comments by users who checked Darknesshines attempt at a DYK he was rightly referred to as a "bigot" and pov pusher Itemsplot45 (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC) — Itemsplot45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking comments by sock of banned User:Nangparbat[reply]

(ec)Manning, just to let you know Itemsplot45 is probably a sock of User:Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Manning (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had an (edit conflict) with you at ANI, please check the reply--DBigXray 12:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RfA. I appreciate the sentiments expressed there and hope to better myself as a Wikipedian so that next time I run, it'll go better.

By the way, it's great to see you back. For a while I'd thought you left Wikipedia for good. It's always great to see editors from the "dark ages" of Wikipedia still active right up to today. =) Kurtis (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, read my user page - I've never been away from the site for more than a week in 11 years. But I'm not big on the "social" aspect of WP (or on "edit count obsession") so I keep a very low profile (usually as an IP). Good luck with your next RFA. Cheers Manning (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of this — your account has over 7,000 edits, yet I suspect your actual edit count is at least two or three times larger than that number based on how much IP editing you allegedly do. Kurtis (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me second the above, I was pleasantly surprised just now to see your name show up in a discussion! Good to know you're still about! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Manning,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Because every time I see this I laugh so hard I forget to give you a barnstar. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.

While I disagree with the change you made based on how I've seen the title written elsewhere, I would normally be 100% okay with you making the change. That said, I'm not sure if you were aware, but you made the edit through protection. Can you undo your edit until it can be discussed? If you feel it was appropriate to make through protection, I'm willing to discuss it with you here. If I'm unable to convince you that it was inappropriate, feel free to leave it in. I have no intention of taking it/you to any other noticeboards as it's a relatively minor issue. Ryan Vesey 01:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since another administrator got trigger happy as well, I sort of brought it up at a different venue, requesting that the protection be reduced [8]. Ryan Vesey 01:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan - yeah sorry for that, didn't pay enough attention to the banner and am thus guilty of (unintentional) abuse of privilege. I've posted an apology on the talk page. It's all moot now, thankfully. Cheers Manning (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, have a good day! Ryan Vesey 03:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Manning Bartlett. You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Manning. We met more than a year ago. I was blocked on 28 January 2012 by Salvio giuliano for "battleground mentality)" (see my block log) or this). That's an unfair description. I was blocked because I made this comment:[9] (you can see here). As you can see here and more precisely in here I did not talk with the person about whom I made the comment. I was actually ignoring her while she harassed me across Wikipedia. Thus, it cannot be described as "battleground mentality". I came here to ask you to change the description. You can name it "inappropriate tone", "inappropriate words", "inappropriate language" or anything alike, but "battleground mentality" has no relation with what occurred. --Lecen (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... There is no way for me to change a block description made in the past. I can block you very briefly now in order to put a note about the issue on your block log (as per this section in the policy). I'd need your explicit consent to do that. Manning (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That will probably bring me further troubles down the road... But let's try it out. You can do it. But please be clear that this "second" block is used to fix something and not because I deserved yet another block. --Lecen (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check your log. Also let me know that you able to edit - the dame time parameters are localised apparently (I entered the expiry as UTC, but it interpreted it in my local time). Manning (talk) 12:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's all okay. Hard to believe that I was blocked for an entire week because of a single comment. But I really appreciate what you did. I came for you because I remembered that back then you looked like a reasonable person. It's good to see that I was not wrong. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't say that, everyone knows that admins are all self-righteous power-abusing megalomaniacs. Stay groovy. Manning (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Lecen is currently in an ArbComm discussion which concerns, among other things, his behavior history. I find this request a highly inappropriate gaming of the system (given the context of the request); added that Salvio is the person who made the block. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the target of an ArbCom case. You and your friend Cambalachero have been caught pushing the political views of Anti-Semitic Fascists across several articles and now the Arbitrators will decide what to do with both of you. --Lecen (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MarshalN20 - I assessed Lecen's request and found it worthy. There was no gaming of the system, I was involved in this blocking matter from the very beginning. Salvio is an excellent admin, but in hindsight, that declaration was excessive, as I noted. Lecen was well out of line in that incident, but not engaging in "battleground mentality". Manning (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And to both of you - do not bring your interpersonal dispute to my page. Ever. I've been here way too long to ever be swayed by any statement that begins with "I find this request highly inappropriate...". Manning (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For Salvio to have used such an "excessive" tone, a good reason must have existed. In fact, the mere phrase "Do you believe she is capable of taking a flight to Brazil and try to kill me?" ([10]) justifies the battleground mentality block.

Anyhow, I still do not consider it proper to re-evaluate a block at a time such as this, when Lecen's behavior is again a subject of discussion. Lecen only bothered to seek a "fix" to the block only after being accused once again of inappropriate "battlefield mentality" behavior, and that action speaks much for itself.

I will not reply to your second paragraph. Just please don't take out your stress of being "here way too long" on me. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Regardless, you are clearly motivated by personal issues which I have no interest in. Hence I will not engage in further discussion with you on this matter. Manning (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite alright. It was an honor to just have gotten a message from you. All the best.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very good to see you active again in the admin. boards ... greatly appreciated. — Ched :  ?  06:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I come I go. Nothing to do with the project - it will always be close to my heart - but real life intervenes at times. Nice to see you again though. Manning (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		Your review and closure of the Charlize Theron nationality RfC was appreciated. NickCT (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a response to your inquiry. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of the article. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	This Barnstar is for your dedication to improve the Wikipedia and for defusing the conflicts. Keep it up! — Sourov0000 (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Amal Alamuddin. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - Pointillist (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Manning Bartlett: fyi you can find the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Amal Alamuddin. - Pointillist (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest German news agency dpa and biggest German News mag confirmed his death. No rumour anymore. VINCENZO1492 11:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Modern Drummer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per notability. Only depending on its own website.

While all constructive 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. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't step foot in the US until she was 18. There's many actors/actresses that have lived in the US for decades yet are still by and large considered "british, austrailian" etc. There's no consistency with the wikipedia if you were to list that. Saying she has obtained american citizenship is fine, but this whole ideology that she's both south african and american is not consistent. I know actors that started acting back in the 30s and 40s (golden era hollywood) that spent most of their lives int he US and had citizenship yet were never called "american actresses" in their wikis. I looked at the talk page and their was a lot of back and forth. There are many actresses in hollywoods goldren age (30s, 40s) that still remained "british actress, irish actress/etc while hacing duel citizenship and living inthe US for decades. It's inconsistent and makes no sense to just have Theron as some lone example. If she had by and large grown up in the US I would be even more tolerant towards this. But she didn't even move to the