User talk:AlanM1/Archive 8

= Archived at 2014-07-31T23:59Z =

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Delta (letter), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Current (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) 08:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:John R. Phillips (Washington, D.C. attorney).jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:John R. Phillips (Washington, D.C. attorney).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks. OK to delete it. It was replaced by an official US government photo in the three articles named in the fair use rationales. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 21:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyperion (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) 08:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Left a note
Hi. I left a note on the Casey Kassem talk page in the ongoing discussion. Randy Kryn 11:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of incomplete message
Hi AlanM1,

There is a incomplete message in the section of the article which says "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it". The list or table has been completed. Since i am only a auto-confirmed user, so i would request you to remove this message not only from the section, but also from the "Category:Incomplete lists from April 2014".

Thanking you for your co-operation. Work2win (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There was more to it than that. One of the sources was just partial (and apparently preliminary anyway). I compared the official source with the data, corrected a few discrepancies, and removed the duplicative language and bad source. Note that the article is not protected – you should be able to edit it. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 10:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi AlanM1,

Thanks a lot for your timely help. Work2win (talk)

Everly Brothers
Number one, the "born" and "died" fields are only for solo artists, according to Template:Infobox musical artist. Number two, show me a duo that does not put the members names in the present_members or past_members fields. Those fields are supposed to be used for acts consisting of more than one person. Compare Simon & Garfunkel, Hall & Oates, Brooks & Dunn — all acts that have only ever had two people in them, yet do use the "members" fields. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe you've misunderstood our objection, which is to listing Phil as a past member because he's deceased. Would you mind re-posting your comments in a new section at Talk:Everly Brothers so we can keep it centralized? —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 00:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, scratch that. After looking at some other articles, reading the doc for the template and some archived previous discussions at the talk page, it seems that the policy is, indeed, to move people from current_members to past_members when they die or leave the group, even if everyone leaves the group (i.e. it disbands).
 * So, the article is almost correct as it stands now; however, why did you (TenPoundHammer) revert my edit to years_active? The last time they were active as "The Everly Brothers" was 2005 according to the article.
 * Lastly, any ideas why they are categorized as Category:American Christian musical groups? There's no statement at the category page about the criteria for inclusion, but it doesn't seem correct. I've asked at the talk page and noted it at WT:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 11:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=614939150 your edit] to Vuyyuru may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * |title=Census of India Sub District Details |accessdate=29 June 2014} |publisher=Census of India}

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.


 * Hindu temple
 * added a link pointing to Aurangabad


 * List of human stampedes in Hindu temples
 * added a link pointing to PTI

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Sabur Khan
Thanks for your edits here. We have an editor with a coi at this article and Daffodil International University. I've given him a COI notice. I'm pretty sure that editing these articles is part of his job (as opposed to him being a paid PR editor or something like that). Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've been here before and it's kind of a tough spot. There are so many that attempt to advertise their non-notable accomplishments and widget companies, particularly in south/central Asia, it's hard not to paint them all with the same brush. This case, though, seems like a guy and company that might be genuinely notable in a developing economy, but they are going about it in the wrong way and the articles look just like the others. Daffodil Group (the holding company) was even deleted (and I was probably involved in doing so) because it was so bad and clearly being edited only by SPAs. Those other related users included, , , and now the latest one, . It seems to me that it all belongs under that one article (Daffodil Group), perhaps with DIU having enough to have its own article if it's reasonable to list all the departments, etc. (there seems to be some precedent in other school articles). —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 09:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Our guidelines at College and university article guidelines don't cover department lists, maybe they should. I just amended them to include something about no mission statements - I know you added something about objectives but I see that's gone now - they are basically just promotional in most cases. Lists of every department certainly don't seem encyclopedic and take up a disproportionate amount of the article. There doesn't seem much independent coverage in English at least. Dougweller (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Informal note
Hey, I notice that you have HighBeam access and you seem to have a few topicons. That being said, if you are interested, I've created. No reply to this message is necessary (and I won't see it unless you ping me), just wanted to let you know it was available. Happy editing! — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 00:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Where do you see I have HighBeam access? The account expired over a year ago and I didn't renew it. I don't see it anywhere in my user page. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 07:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * takes you out of Category:Wikipedians who have access to HighBeam, and you can just revert that change if you ever reapply for HighBeam access. Sorry about the confusion. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 13:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's apparently a copy of the HighBeam userbox that I made when I originally got access, probably to change something I didn't like about the main one. However, it's not linked to or transcluded anywhere, having been removed from my userpage at, so it shouldn't matter what its nocat parameter was set to. The template page itself (correctly) is not in the category. Or did you just see the template in my userspace and assume it was being transcluded somewhere? —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 19:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Before I added the nocat the userbox itself was in the category. Since it qas in your userspqce, I assumed since you had made a userbox and it was still in the category tgat you had access. Me adding the nocat took the userbox out of the category so the nexr person won't cone across it and thibk the same thing.  No harm done and its fixef up.  Sorry about my poor spelling and punxt, I'm on Mobil and in a hurry.   — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 19:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I just figured you decided to use your cat as a spell-checker . As far as the issue at hand, the key is the part I highlighted above, which is incorrect. As you may have seen, I've questioned it's purpose/wisdom at Template talk:Userbox. Despite your original section name, I try not to miss an opportunity to learn something. If nothing else, I can document the behavior. —&#91;   Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 06:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andhra State, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alampur. 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) 08:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

RFA
Hold up, while I look over your work; it's been long enough since I interacted with you that I don't remember much of anything. I wish I could do a nomination statement of "he's been here for six years, never blocked, and never banned, so he should be an admin per WP:DEAL", but that kind of thing would be rejected quickly, as most people don't seem to agree with such an idea. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * OK. No problem. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 02:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, created. I hope the concluding statement sounds right!  I'm not accusing you of being disruptive; it's basically meant to say "anyone who's been around this long ought to be trusted".  Let me know if you'd like me to revise that statement before I transclude the nomination to the main RFA page.  Nyttend (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure "he probably won't go nuts and wreck the joint" is how I'd prefer to be though of, but if that's what you see, so be it. You're probably right [he whispers "probably right" to his shoulder, leaving one to wonder which side is the angel and which, the demon].
 * What would you suggest as its replacement? Just chop everything after "before now"?  I want to say something along those lines, simply to bolster my argument of why we should trust you, but of course I'll be happy to shorten it and move it to a different spot.  Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I should put words in your mouth. Seriously, whatever you decide is fine. From the looks of some of the RfAs I skimmed through, people are going to be looking at my history in detail, and hopefully make a decision based on the totality. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 03:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I reduced it a bit and moved it to a different place. I hope you can get through; it seems as if people are always picking on the tiniest little bits as a reason to oppose, so I hope yours goes differently.  Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems some attract a lot of attention and some, very little. I haven't been in too many beefs, and try to color between the lines, so hopefully that's enough. Thanks for your efforts. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 07:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Are you ready to go now?  If so, you should start answering the standard questions first, since we don't want to transclude it onto the RFA page until they're answered.  Nyttend (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I would note that the "Hamirpur district" move you noted was one of just three – not exactly a "pile". —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 16:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Template editor user right
Per BrownHairedGirl's question; I've looked over your contributions and I'd be OK giving you the user right if you wanted it. Your work on the protected Template:Time was implemented, so you know what you are doing on templates.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  00:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It would save a step occasionally. I would tend to get input anyway for changes to widely-used templates, but at least I could do the work myself afterwards. After the grilling I'm getting, I appreciate the confidence. Now, I'm off to blank &#123;&#123;Convert&#125;&#125;... —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 00:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's done. Enjoy.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  00:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding the RfA
An RfA can be quite stressful, especially when it goes off the rails. It happened to me on my first RfA, and it has happened to many other admins (it's quite often that admins don't pass their first RfA). Rather than subject yourself to more of the same, and also to show to the community that you are able to assess which way consensus is going, and are able to make judgements which save the community time, I suggest you withdraw now. Those opposing are saying they would be willing to support you in 6 months time. There are no concerns in your editing or behaviour, though you are (understandable, given the circumstances) starting to sound tetchy and defensive, which unfortunately doesn't look good. I suspect that a period of working in areas that are typical of admins, such as AfD (even if it's not something you will continue to do, it will demonstrate to the community your judgement in admin areas, and that is useful), you will be able to try again and should pass. I'd be quite happy to look over your contributions in six months time, and all being well nominate you then. There are several ways you can withdraw. You can mention it here, and either myself or someone else will close for you. You can say on the RfA page that you withdraw. Or you can do it yourself by following the instructions on the page (seen when you click on Edit) - if unsure, look at past RfAs to see how they are closed. You may wish to leave a statement, such as "Withdrawn. I can see the community are concerned by my lack of experience at AfD - I will spend the next six months gaining experience in that area, and try again then. Thanks to everyone for their helpful comments." Or whatever you wish to say. Regards  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Alan
 * I hope you will excuse me for jumping in to second SilkTork's suggestion. Your RFA is unusual in that even the opposes are dominated by praise for you, and I hope that in the cacophony of "not now"s, you take heart from that.
 * You are under no obligation to withdraw, and I hope you feel no pressure to do so ... but for what it's worth I do believe that Silktork's suggestion is wise, for all the stated reasons.
 * Best wishes. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your support and wisdom. As you might expect, though, from what I've written, I don't agree with some of it, and I won't be withdrawing. More to follow... —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 22:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently, I'm not even entitled to choose not to withdraw without criticism, despite the fact that I still have a significant block (a majority) of support votes (assuming the counter is correct, despite there being 6 people who have committed a heinous syntax error similar to that which has earned me loads of abuse). And now we've got a personal attack in the mix too. Apparently, I'm not entitled to defend myself, so I've barred myself from further rebuttals, despite continuing mis-statements being made, since all they seem to do is attract more fire. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 07:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your RFA has served its purpose. All you're doing at this point is showing you're pugnacious. That will not be to your benefit should you choose to run again. This is non-sugar-coated advice that I assume you'll ignore, but don't blame a guy for trying. Townlake (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I have huge regard for the way that Dennis conducts himself as an admin; in fact I would say that he is one of the best I have ever seen. Seriously: Dennis knows his policies and guidelines; he is calm, reflective, open to criticism, rarely acts hastily, and seeks amicable resolutions, but is firm when needed. That's not just flattery; I wrote much the same in an email earlier today. So I went back to review my vote, expecting to conclude that it was something I would revise. To my surprise I find that I wouldn't change my vote. I think that I was right about all the good qualities I saw in Dennis, as time on the job has only enhanced my respect for all that I praised at his RFA. But given the problems I saw with CSD tagging, I would have preferred him to come back again having addressed that. The community decided overwhelmingly to give Dennis the mop regardless of those issues, and their choice has worked out brilliantly; Dennis has taken on board the concerns about CSD, so it hasn't been an issue again. But given the job-for-life nature of adminship, if I had my vote again I would still prefer a second RFA. At this point, there are many more gaps in Alan's CV than there were in Dennis's ... but if Alan wants to use the RFA as a guide to where to build skills, they are all fixable. The only thing which would really be seen to count against Alan would be a perception that he did not welcome critical feedback. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are always entitled to withdraw, even against your own words. Having come to realization it is best isn't a sign of weakness or of dishonesty.  I agree with SilkTork, and with the feedback that BrownHairedGirl has given you here and on her talk page.  The problem isn't what you do, it is what you haven't yet done. By the nature of the toolkit, admin must have general experience and familiarity in most things.  The UAA report that BHG pointed to at the RFA  is a good example.  Innocent enough, but it does show that you are going to run into things that need attention and you have need to have a general idea where to go or what to do.  There are so many places for reports, I can easily overlook this one mistake, but the larger issues of deletion policy and dealing with disruption have to be addressed.  As for taking a bludgeoning at your own RFA, yes, I know something about that.  (Yes, BHG opposed me, but it hasn't stopped us from getting along.  You can't take that stuff personal.)  If you are serious about adminship, a program can be designed to get you the experience you need via a little mentoring.  Either way, don't take RFA comments too seriously.  When you put yourself on public display, some are going to throw rocks.  Most, however, have been very kind in just pointing out the reasons you aren't ready.  It might be heartbreaking, but it isn't a dramafest nor hatefilled.    Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  17:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten that I had opposed Dennis Brown's RFA, and I am glad that he brought it up, because I think it's relevant here. Here's my oppose of Dennis.
 * Thank you, that is kind of you to say, and I completely understand and respect the hesitancy. I will also point Alan to this: User talk:Dennis Brown/CSD.  I passed because of a singular hole in my experience.  At that time, I had over 1400 AFDs behind me and 18k edits, with an exceptional record of being with consensus.  My weakness was just CSD policy, I was around 90-92% right, which isn't bad but was deemed insufficient for an admin. I did 3 months of mentoring without using my tools in that area, after becoming an admin because it was clear that is what the community wanted.  I wasn't obligated, but if I were to keep the respect of the community, I knew I had to do this willingly and completely.  The same could be said about, who just became an admin but I'm AFD mentoring at User:StringTheory11/AfD.  Again, because of a singular hole in experience. He and I are the only ones that have agreed to mentoring during RFA.  As BHG points out, there is more than a single hole in experience, but it can be overcome nonetheless.  If you decide to get mentoring and take a "crash course" in those areas, you could be ready in 6 months, as then you would have a place you could point to that shows you addressed those issues, and how you progressed in those efforts. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  18:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * AlanM1 it seems that your RfA might fail. But, never mind failures, they are quite natual, they are the beauty of life, these failures. What would life be without them? I never heard a cow tell a lie, but it is only a cow- never a man. So, never mind these failures, these little backslidings; hold the ideal a thousand times, make the attempt once more. The ideal of man is to see the success.  Jim Carter (from public cyber)  13:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

RFA closed
Hi, AlanM1, I'm afraid that I've just closed your RfA as unsuccessful. Sorry that it didn't work out, and I know that it sucks, but of course one doesn't need to pass RfA to be a valuable editor, so don't let it get to you too much. :) Thanks, and happy editing! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop stalking me
Who do you think you are? Get off my case. I've been holding it in for a while now by taking your gibberish messages off my talk page but YOU'VE REALLY CROSSED THE LINE NOW. Your warnings are bogus; almost none of your accusations are of any relevance; the only one that makes sense is the one about last names. I understand that I was violating against a certain guideline or whatsoever regarding it, so I stopped bothering about it. I'm willing to let that go regardless of how ridiculous I think it is.

But seriously? You're THREATENING me just because I 'blanked' stuff? Have you any idea that a lot of stuff I've removed are fake, inaccurate information? Or at a certain extent, repeated and unnecessary info? Do I HAVE to write a summary every time I do so? I have other things to attend to, you know. I've been on Wikipedia for like, 2 years and nobody has ever bothered me about it. If you don't like the changes I've made, then UNDO it and provide an agreeable explanation regarding it instead of posting pointless garbage on my talk page. I don't think you're doing any good to this encyclopedia; instead I think you're just some loser troublesome stalker who doesn't have a life and trying to pick a fight.

Note that I'm trying my very best to be civil here. Nutcases such as yourself DESERVE to have curses called down upon you. And yeah, BAN me if you wish. I do not wish to be part of this community if I have to deal with annoying fools like you. -Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have collapsed the message. It looks to me a WP:Personal attack rather than a message. Feel free to revert my changes. Cheers,   Jim Carter (from public cyber)  14:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear AlanM1 and Sk8erPrince: I happened to see this when I came to Alan's talk page about another matter, and I hope that you don't mind if I comment about it.  It seems to me that both of you are valuable editors who have managed to irritate each other because of personality differences.  AlanM1 is a detail man who prides himself on creating content that follows the manual of style. Sk8erPrince is a bold editor who improves articles by making the information more accurate.  Perhaps you can meet in the middle?  AlanM1, you may get a better response to your talk page messages if you WP:Assume good faith and ask for an explanation of controversial edits in a friendlier way.  Sk8erPrince, leaving out edit summaries  is disrespectful, especially when making non-trivial changes such as content removal, since the few seconds spent writing them could save many minutes of another editor's time figuring out what you left unsaid.  I hope that you both have many happy collaborative editing experiences in the future.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, good to see you again after quite sometime. AlanM1, Sk8erPrince has came to my talk page and said what happened between you both. I have also tried to explain Sk8erPrince the same way Anne deed here. Alan you're a quite experienced editor and Sk8erPrince is still new and have many things to learn. Always stay civil and AGF when talking with new bies. If they ask something don't be rude and answer them in a polite way. Anne already said what I was thinking. You both are good and we hope that you both will have good collaborative editing experiences in future. Regards,   Jim Carter (from public cyber)  16:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see the history of User talk:Sk8erPrince? He has been repeatedly warned, with slowly escalating levels, per policy AFAICT. He then removes the warning and keeps right on going, ignoring it. In the latest (level 4) warning, even the boilerplate language in the template was harsher than my addition to it, and was not littered with personal attacks, as was his comment above. To wit:
 * "You've been repeatedly asked to stop making these controversial edits without explanation, yet you still insist on leaving edit summaries blank. Please be more careful in what you do, and explain it in the edit summary, or you will be blocked from editing."
 * Also note that Sk8erPrince accused another of harassing him simply because the user clicked the "thank" link on all four edits he made to a page (one of which was a WP:SURNAME violation again, BTW).Further evidence of his attitude is when, in response to several DPLBot messages about incorrect links, instead of fixing the links, he opted out of any further bot messages.<P>In the edit that provoked this last note from me, he again removed the hatnote that I replaced after he removed it, apparently still not believing it should be there, instead of bothering to follow the link and see, right there in the first paragraph, that the book is also named "Case Closed".<P>I believe that his intent might be to edit in good faith, but, just like the other warnings I left, this was not "a false accusation", and his refusal to accept facts based on policy is a problem that shows bad faith. It is not harassment to leave a talk page message giving more detail about a reversion – on the contrary, it takes more time, and shows that the reverter cares about getting the editor to see the reversion and the reason. I have no desire to "hound" him, cleaning up his edits, despite what he may think. When I see a pattern of behavior, though, and a refusal to learn to stop it, what else am I to do?<P>Next stop, WP:ANI, though I wish someone else would do so, as I want it to be clear that it is not personal. BTW, though he's "been here for two years", he made a total of 8 edits prior to July 2014 – there's no long history of constructive contribution that I can see.
 * (BTW, anyone have a clue why the collapsebox is appearing at the end of the section?) —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 21:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Alan, I can understand and I said, he is new. Per WP:OWNTALK he can remove warnings, though archive is prefered. Now, see it was a small issue and it's still a small issue. It's not expected from an experienced user like you to complain "he did this, he did that". I have adviced him on my talk page not to use inflammatory words towards other and to provide edit summary. And I suppose he might have understood. I repeat, he is new and it takes sometime to understand how Wikipedia works. I will keep a watch on his contributions and also ask to do so. Now close this matter. I hate WP:AIN (Although I have never been dragged there), for me AIN is just a necessary evil and I always advice others not to go there, it is always better to solve the problem without a community drama. Now let's close this case, continuation may worsen the situation. Happy editing!    Jim Carter (from public cyber)  22:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. I don't know why the collapse box is at the bottom. You're a technical expert, you might know this.  Jim Carter (from public cyber)  22:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Removing warnings is fine – ignoring them is not. Their language and appearance is (primarily) not mine – it is from templates that reflect what the community has decided is appropriate. It is not a single small issue, but several, repeated issues (please do see the diffs I provided and the content to which they refer). I am doing nothing more than replying to what the three of you brought to my talk page. I do believe that the next edit showing ignorance of the repeated warnings, and now discussion by multiple editors, should be dealt with more strongly, per policy. His attitude has shown very little indication that he would accept mentoring, but it is good of you to attempt it. I wish you luck. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 22:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem was that the ending template is supposed to be Colbot, not Colend. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 06:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will keep a watch on his contributions. If he continues, I will ask another non-involved admin to intervene (I don't prefer AIN). I asked him to get adopted, if he ignores it is absolutely ok. Every person is different and attitude vary from person to person. So, I just assumed that he understood, but if he continues, I will ask another non-involved admin. So, don't worry. And using warning templates is perfectly okay, It was not your fault. Cheers,  Jim Carter (from public cyber)  06:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. I totally forgot about Colbot. Sorry,   Jim Carter (from public cyber)  06:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)