User talk:Blackmane/Archives/1

Typhoon Megi (2010)‎
Good work! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * even i was thinking about that, marvelous work dude. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, i am Anikingos, not someone else, Anikingos is my nickname and Anirudh Emani is my real name. Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, im happy there is someone who would like to work on my stuff. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * well, the only problem is, the news never comes out the right way from china. The government there blocks everything, so it will take a long time for reports to come in, you can search on Google News for more sources. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, tropical cyclone related stuff is generally covered, but it takes time to fins the most important news like the fatalities and the damages. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and as the system started weakening, it would only hit china as a weak tropical storm and quickly dissipate. But who knows what the remnants could do. Remember Typhoon Fanapi? It only hit china as a weak category one typhoon and dissipated very quickly, but the remnants caused flooding and killed hundreds of people. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Warm Waters!!!!! Is the south china sea STILL warm??? You know, winter is setting in fast in the eastern parts of the globe, La nina is making its effect. The eastern part of the planet is cooling down. It is snowing in parts of India from three weeks. I am shocked to hear that the south china sea is still warm. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it must be different there, even here in the bay of Bengal a tropical storm has formed suddenly, but it is weakening fast. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW don't bother too much with hunting for sources for Hong Kong's warning signals since it has a signals database which we can cite once its updated in a couple of days time at the end of Megis life.Jason Rees (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dont get to impatient with it - things will start to calm down now that Megi has left PAGASAs AOR. I think if you chuck some of the so called impact like political reactions to an aftermath section, and using some of the NDCC reports you will find things a little bit easier. Just be glad that megi didnt do much damage compared to Ketsana/Parma of last year. Keep up the good work :)Jason Rees (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair dos - shout if you need any help.Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned that you submitted to SPIE. Did you see any of Richard Hoover's presentations? BrigKlyce (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't, but i submitted in a different conference. The field I submitted in is fibre optics. -Blackmane (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Point taken
Point taken.

Will not happen again.

Kind regards Swe41 (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Timing of the contributions
Hi Blackmane. Regarding your comment on Swe41's talkpage: ...16:40 while the attack occurred at 16:41; if you use popups on the IP contributions as well as the main account's, you will see that the respective times are: 16:40:05 and 16:41:43, so the actual elapsed time is 1:38 not just 1 minute. As another reference point compare this also:. Not to mention that by using two different browsers one can be logged in in one while being logged out in the other at the same time. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yah, I saw the note Boing left on Swe41's page about how to do it. It never really occured to me about doing it that way, since I tend to use Chrome as Firefox tends to be a bit grind-y and somewhat a memory hog when running Flash and I don't use IE anymore. But thanks for dropping by :D --Blackmane (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally, the timing of the contributions is important in this case as well. Boing replied after I had replied here. Otherwise I would have spared you the duplicate explanation, not to mention the annoying bright orange message bar. :) But I do apologise for the new one. Dr.K. λogosπraxis  13:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I have a rather bad habit of trawling ANI more than is healthy, so I ended up at Swe's talk page before I came to my own. I really need to wean myself of the drama page :p --Blackmane (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you.....
Hi! I was wondering, if when you have the time, could you copyedit Never Let Me Go (2010 film) and List of awards and nominations received by Kid Cudi? I was planning to get the former up to GA status and nominate the latter for FL. Regards! Crystal Clear x3 20:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi! I'll try to get to it. I'm still working on the Irresistible article (which is giving me all sorts of prose nightmare :p). --Blackmane (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * lol thanks! Also, when you get the time, could you also leave some comments about the FLC List of accolades received by Winter's Bone? =) Crystal Clear x3 21:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ;P I'll try to get round that as I can --Blackmane (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"Irresistible"
Thanks for taking up the article. Don't hesitate to remove any unneeded information from it. Thanks again. Novice7 (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm slowly working my way through it. Rather than rush through it I'm only working on a section a night. I've just finished going over the second section and pared it down a lot since several references were being cited over and over. Feel free to drop by and let me know if you have any issues with it. --Blackmane (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was wondering if you could keep the quotes... Thank you for helping me out. Novice7 (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll look at working the quote from the interview back in but I'll leave out the quotes referring to the mic. I felt that it didn't add much to the section. --Blackmane (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was thinking of removing the mic quote too. Thanks. Novice7 (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the So So Def remix the same as what Cameron Casey did on the remix video? I can't check the refs because the video on the MTV site is unavailable in the UK --Blackmane (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Casey directed the video for So So Def remix. <b style="font-family:Arial; color:CornflowerBlue;">Novice7</b> (<b style="font-family:Arial; color:DodgerBlue;">talk</b>) 03:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. <b style="font-family:Arial; color:CornflowerBlue;">Novice7</b> (<b style="font-family:Arial; color:DodgerBlue;">talk</b>) 04:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Arilang1234.
Arilang1234 has been doing Canvassing, deliberately asking editors whom I have had disputes with- User:John Smith's and User:Smallchief

False Accusations by Arilang1234 against me, check it out and confirm it at ANI
I counted at least 2 false accusations by Arilang1234 against me which you can easily take a look at (meaning its not muddled up or confused with random edits). #1 Arilang1234 claims I did not respond to Smallchief- I did #2 Arilang1234 claims I did not respond to John smith's concern about neutrality- I did

This is not just an ordinary mistake, or slip up by Arilang1234. My response to Smallchief and John Smith's was right there in plain english- and Arilang1234 deliberately went into the edit history to select and post specific edits I made before I responded, to make sure users were unable to see that I did respond to their concerns later. If he had posted a direct link to the section as it is now, all the users would have been able to seen my responsesΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Arilang1234 attempts to link Chinese high schools text books, black panthers, marxists, and vietnam war protestors to the Boxers
"The lead section now reads like a straight copy from standard Chinese high school text book, all these anti-imperialism rant" marxists, black panthers, vietnam era war protestors are apparently behind the insertion of "anti imperialism" into the article....

This is a direct ripoff of when he claimed that "chinese communist propaganda" was inserted into the article-

'''I did not use a single chinese communist, marxist, or "Black panther" source in the article. All of the authors of the works cited in the boxer article had degrees from western universities.'''ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

New resolution proposal
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit
Thanks for the copyedit at Mobile Suit Gundam SEED. Any doubt, just ask me. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem, please feel free to drop by if you have any questions or requests relating to the copy edit. I've removed a few bits here and there when they didn't seem to add much to the context. I saw the tense change that you put into the article. I'm a little dubious. Although the series is still in existence but as it's not being broadcast anymore, I felt that past tense made more sense. If it had said "anime series" present tense makes sense. --Blackmane (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The only doubt I have is that if the second paragraph from the plot section should be split up. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * To be entirely honest, as I was working on it I was thinking if I could cut it down a bit more to shorten it. The trouble is, is the length of the series. I've largely done my first run through of the article, mainly reworking grammar and flow. It flows a lot better than before, but there'll be room for improvement. I'll give it another once over later on. --Blackmane (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As I take another look, I don't think the plot section is very long. Both reception and the lead are much longer than the plot section, and possibly other sections from media. Because of this, I don't think there is anything to worry, considering the series is fifty-episode long and too many things happen in one episode. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE requests
Hi

Are you still actively editing Design management? You have it assigned to you in the requests list but as yet no action seems to have been taken and it is now being edited by another GOCE editor who appears to have not informed us that he was doing so.

If you intend to continue can you please confirm :¬)

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeh, been a bit busy IRL lately, I'll try to get some time on it tomorrow. --Blackmane (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, I know that feeling well :¬) I just had conjunctivitis for a week and a half so was more ¦¬( and unable to even look at my PC monitor...
 * There is no real hurry to be honest, it is not listed as a GA, FA or DYK candidate. I was just trying to work out if someone was going to look at it before I chose my next article from the GOCE requests list when I noticed the other GOCE member User_talk:Subtractive had started on it. There seemed little point in both of you doing it. My biggest concern was to make sure you weren't editing it offline, otherwise you might have completed it and found there had already been some edits.
 * Good luck with it :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that. I'm trying to make the most of the bit of sunshine that has somehow snuck into the UK weather. It's only been cloudy and rainy for the last 2 weeks. I tend to spend a lot of time reading the section I'm going to edit before actually doing anything on it. Saves having to preview it over and over --Blackmane (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a pain, but the article needs to be edited as it is has been on the list for almost 4 weeks. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I'll be able to work on it some today. Finally have some time. --Blackmane (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks for being so understanding. Have you added your name to the GOCE drive page? Editing it now would count towards the drive, as well as getting an extra 50% credit towards the awards :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Blackname, you have posted on my talkpage. Go ahead in deleting redundant text and improving the article. I started the GA review in order to start a discussion and further improve it. Somehow it passed without major discussion. If you feel that it is far from GA level you can start a reassessment. However I would prefer to see it further improved till it is on GA level. Would be great if you are part of it. I am on holiday the next weeks, so do not expect any activity from my side this month. all the best Wiki4des (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is now over a month since the article was put onto the requests page. It has to be made clear that this is not reflecting well on the Guild, and I must urge you to complete the copyedit PDQ soon or pass it back to the pool by removing your tag.
 * I am sorry to have to push you again, but this is the third time I have prompted you for action. I realise that you did do a little work on it last night, but please either concentrate on it or give it up. If you have not significantly edited it by tomorrow evening I will have to return it to the pool. I realise that you are busy in real life, and that the article is not an easy one, but it has gone a little too far for comfort now. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Sincerest thanks Blackmane, for reaching out from your mobile phone to help, that can't be easy. I shall take a break, and come back better and stronger for it. Those twits have lost. They lost before they began. I know why they are there and what attracts them. They already actually know they have lost, they couldn't find a single fault with my FA+ work or the lead they were trying to own. I found plenty. Anyhow, rubbing noses is not a victory on the same scale as I can see ahead. Doesn't matter one Iota that they are following me and reading this as you are, because I lay out my plans for all to see and they still can't stop me as the edit summary shows.

Well, good lord, after channeling Dame Edna Everage, and all this stuff, I'll be better off for the break. You can see I'm still wound up eh ? thanks for the help and being a good friend to a newbie. newbies need friends. Penyulap  talk 12:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the good advice on my tp, and I'll take it all and follow it too. Thank you, sincerely. Penyulap  talk 13:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard
I have raised the issues of the article Nation of Gods and Earths on this noticeboard:. Paul B (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Months ago, I requested a GOCE member to copy-edit the article Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song), and you did me the favor to clean-up one of its sub-sections. I nominated it again to FAC, but again, it was commented that it still needing copy-editing. If you are able to make another rewrite, could you please help me again? If you cannot please notify me. Thank you again. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  19:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply and thank you for your earlier suggestion
Hi Blackmane. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2004. 3RR reports and SPI/RCU have always been my weakest link. If you look at the evidence it's pretty clear that something is afoot between all those IPs + the 2 accounts that have hounded the same pages. I used to have many admin friends who would even bother with an SPI they would just say WP:DUCK... and do a full range block. But those admins have long since left Wikipedia out of frustration, boredom, etc. And I have always held a tight grip on WP:AGF that those IP/genre trolls would simply get bored themsleves and leave. But, as you can see from last night... some stick like glue. I appreciate the suggestion Blackmane. And if the trolling persists then I will follow your suggestion and leap into an SPI request for those IPs and accounts. For now AGF is the WIkipedia mantra I want to believe. in. Thank you again for your suggestion. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Wall Street
No, just passed by the article (saw the film yesterday) and decided to fix the plot with a maintenance warning... who knows if that isn't enough to quickfail the GA nom? igordebraga ≠ 23:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Help please
Hi. I am Jivesh. I edit strictly Beyonce-related articles on Wikipedia. I was wondering if you could do a copy-edit of Get Me Bodied for me? Please reply on my talk-page. Waiting in anticipation. Jivesh   •  Talk2Me  10:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Everything. I wan someone to fix any grammatical errors and improve the prose if possible. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  19:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it necessary to do that? Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  04:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't worry. I assure you no one will edit. Actually, this is not a very popular song of Knowles. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  06:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Making diffs
Thank you for the tip, I appreciate it! OttawaAC (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 00:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

User Papaursa
Do you think Papaursa should be reported to the ANI? He clearly shows no interest in working along side fellow Wikiepidians, refusing to listen to any open suggestions, clearly this user values his own opinion over to those who have fresh ideas from what he says. I was offering some very useful suggestions at the WP:MMANOT's discussion page, as with the criteria as it is right now only whatever is considered a 'top tier' promotion is safe, whereas any other promotion, such as BAMMA and EliteXC are put on shaky grounds. He refuses to even acknowledge what I'm saying, going as far as saying that it is me who isn't open for suggestion. Now I've always had the best interests of all pages on Wikipedia, and I am a team player so I cannot see how he came up with that theory, just because I questions the criteria on WP:MMANOT, a page I should point out that HE created. I noticed that many of the users who offer suggestions always ask him, as if he owns the page, which is a direct violation of WP:OWN. No-one should have to ask for permission from him to edit the page, especially as it seems that he is the one with the final say everytime. Here is the last comment he put on that page -

'Actually, the reason I haven't bothered to respond to all your statements is because it would be a waste of my time. It's clear you have a viewpoint (which you repeat/repost over and over) and that no facts will dissuade you from your beliefs. Since you've made it clear you value no opinions but your own, why should I bother? Answer--I shouldn't.'

Now again it is like I said I've never had a problem with taking in other people's opinions, so this is insulting for me to read. I will, however, try to reason with a bit, if he refuses to listen and take in what I say, I may go a head and report him to ANI. (BigzMMA 10:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 05:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
archivebottom

Typhoon Megi (2010)‎
done Good work! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * even i was thinking about that, marvelous work dude. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, i am Anikingos, not someone else, Anikingos is my nickname and Anirudh Emani is my real name. Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, im happy there is someone who would like to work on my stuff. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * well, the only problem is, the news never comes out the right way from china. The government there blocks everything, so it will take a long time for reports to come in, you can search on Google News for more sources. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, tropical cyclone related stuff is generally covered, but it takes time to fins the most important news like the fatalities and the damages. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and as the system started weakening, it would only hit china as a weak tropical storm and quickly dissipate. But who knows what the remnants could do. Remember Typhoon Fanapi? It only hit china as a weak category one typhoon and dissipated very quickly, but the remnants caused flooding and killed hundreds of people. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Warm Waters!!!!! Is the south china sea STILL warm??? You know, winter is setting in fast in the eastern parts of the globe, La nina is making its effect. The eastern part of the planet is cooling down. It is snowing in parts of India from three weeks. I am shocked to hear that the south china sea is still warm. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it must be different there, even here in the bay of Bengal a tropical storm has formed suddenly, but it is weakening fast. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW don't bother too much with hunting for sources for Hong Kong's warning signals since it has a signals database which we can cite once its updated in a couple of days time at the end of Megis life.Jason Rees (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dont get to impatient with it - things will start to calm down now that Megi has left PAGASAs AOR. I think if you chuck some of the so called impact like political reactions to an aftermath section, and using some of the NDCC reports you will find things a little bit easier. Just be glad that megi didnt do much damage compared to Ketsana/Parma of last year. Keep up the good work :)Jason Rees (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair dos - shout if you need any help.Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned that you submitted to SPIE. Did you see any of Richard Hoover's presentations? BrigKlyce (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't, but i submitted in a different conference. The field I submitted in is fibre optics. -Blackmane (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Point taken
done Point taken.

Will not happen again.

Kind regards Swe41 (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Timing of the contributions
done Hi Blackmane. Regarding your comment on Swe41's talkpage: ...16:40 while the attack occurred at 16:41; if you use popups on the IP contributions as well as the main account's, you will see that the respective times are: 16:40:05 and 16:41:43, so the actual elapsed time is 1:38 not just 1 minute. As another reference point compare this also:. Not to mention that by using two different browsers one can be logged in in one while being logged out in the other at the same time. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 04:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yah, I saw the note Boing left on Swe41's page about how to do it. It never really occured to me about doing it that way, since I tend to use Chrome as Firefox tends to be a bit grind-y and somewhat a memory hog when running Flash and I don't use IE anymore. But thanks for dropping by :D --Blackmane (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally, the timing of the contributions is important in this case as well. Boing replied after I had replied here. Otherwise I would have spared you the duplicate explanation, not to mention the annoying bright orange message bar. :) But I do apologise for the new one. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis  13:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I have a rather bad habit of trawling ANI more than is healthy, so I ended up at Swe's talk page before I came to my own. I really need to wean myself of the drama page :p --Blackmane (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
done Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you.....
done Hi! I was wondering, if when you have the time, could you copyedit Never Let Me Go (2010 film) and List of awards and nominations received by Kid Cudi? I was planning to get the former up to GA status and nominate the latter for FL. Regards! Crystal Clear x3 20:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi! I'll try to get to it. I'm still working on the Irresistible article (which is giving me all sorts of prose nightmare :p). --Blackmane (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * lol thanks! Also, when you get the time, could you also leave some comments about the FLC List of accolades received by Winter's Bone? =) Crystal Clear x3 21:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ;P I'll try to get round that as I can --Blackmane (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Arilang1234.
done Arilang1234 has been doing Canvassing, deliberately asking editors whom I have had disputes with- User:John Smith's and User:Smallchief

False Accusations by Arilang1234 against me, check it out and confirm it at ANI
done I counted at least 2 false accusations by Arilang1234 against me which you can easily take a look at (meaning its not muddled up or confused with random edits). #1 Arilang1234 claims I did not respond to Smallchief- I did #2 Arilang1234 claims I did not respond to John smith's concern about neutrality- I did

This is not just an ordinary mistake, or slip up by Arilang1234. My response to Smallchief and John Smith's was right there in plain english- and Arilang1234 deliberately went into the edit history to select and post specific edits I made before I responded, to make sure users were unable to see that I did respond to their concerns later. If he had posted a direct link to the section as it is now, all the users would have been able to seen my responsesΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Arilang1234 attempts to link Chinese high schools text books, black panthers, marxists, and vietnam war protestors to the Boxers
done "The lead section now reads like a straight copy from standard Chinese high school text book, all these anti-imperialism rant" marxists, black panthers, vietnam era war protestors are apparently behind the insertion of "anti imperialism" into the article....

This is a direct ripoff of when he claimed that "chinese communist propaganda" was inserted into the article-

'''I did not use a single chinese communist, marxist, or "Black panther" source in the article. All of the authors of the works cited in the boxer article had degrees from western universities.'''ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

New resolution proposal
done Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit
done Thanks for the copyedit at Mobile Suit Gundam SEED. Any doubt, just ask me. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem, please feel free to drop by if you have any questions or requests relating to the copy edit. I've removed a few bits here and there when they didn't seem to add much to the context. I saw the tense change that you put into the article. I'm a little dubious. Although the series is still in existence but as it's not being broadcast anymore, I felt that past tense made more sense. If it had said "anime series" present tense makes sense. --Blackmane (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The only doubt I have is that if the second paragraph from the plot section should be split up. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * To be entirely honest, as I was working on it I was thinking if I could cut it down a bit more to shorten it. The trouble is, is the length of the series. I've largely done my first run through of the article, mainly reworking grammar and flow. It flows a lot better than before, but there'll be room for improvement. I'll give it another once over later on. --Blackmane (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As I take another look, I don't think the plot section is very long. Both reception and the lead are much longer than the plot section, and possibly other sections from media. Because of this, I don't think there is anything to worry, considering the series is fifty-episode long and too many things happen in one episode. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE requests
done Hi

Are you still actively editing Design management? You have it assigned to you in the requests list but as yet no action seems to have been taken and it is now being edited by another GOCE editor who appears to have not informed us that he was doing so.

If you intend to continue can you please confirm :¬)

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeh, been a bit busy IRL lately, I'll try to get some time on it tomorrow. --Blackmane (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, I know that feeling well :¬) I just had conjunctivitis for a week and a half so was more ¦¬( and unable to even look at my PC monitor...
 * There is no real hurry to be honest, it is not listed as a GA, FA or DYK candidate. I was just trying to work out if someone was going to look at it before I chose my next article from the GOCE requests list when I noticed the other GOCE member User_talk:Subtractive had started on it. There seemed little point in both of you doing it. My biggest concern was to make sure you weren't editing it offline, otherwise you might have completed it and found there had already been some edits.
 * Good luck with it :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that. I'm trying to make the most of the bit of sunshine that has somehow snuck into the UK weather. It's only been cloudy and rainy for the last 2 weeks. I tend to spend a lot of time reading the section I'm going to edit before actually doing anything on it. Saves having to preview it over and over --Blackmane (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a pain, but the article needs to be edited as it is has been on the list for almost 4 weeks. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I'll be able to work on it some today. Finally have some time. --Blackmane (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks for being so understanding. Have you added your name to the GOCE drive page? Editing it now would count towards the drive, as well as getting an extra 50% credit towards the awards :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Blackname, you have posted on my talkpage. Go ahead in deleting redundant text and improving the article. I started the GA review in order to start a discussion and further improve it. Somehow it passed without major discussion. If you feel that it is far from GA level you can start a reassessment. However I would prefer to see it further improved till it is on GA level. Would be great if you are part of it. I am on holiday the next weeks, so do not expect any activity from my side this month. all the best Wiki4des (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is now over a month since the article was put onto the requests page. It has to be made clear that this is not reflecting well on the Guild, and I must urge you to complete the copyedit PDQ soon or pass it back to the pool by removing your tag.
 * I am sorry to have to push you again, but this is the third time I have prompted you for action. I realise that you did do a little work on it last night, but please either concentrate on it or give it up. If you have not significantly edited it by tomorrow evening I will have to return it to the pool. I realise that you are busy in real life, and that the article is not an easy one, but it has gone a little too far for comfort now. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
done Sincerest thanks Blackmane, for reaching out from your mobile phone to help, that can't be easy. I shall take a break, and come back better and stronger for it. Those twits have lost. They lost before they began. I know why they are there and what attracts them. They already actually know they have lost, they couldn't find a single fault with my FA+ work or the lead they were trying to own. I found plenty. Anyhow, rubbing noses is not a victory on the same scale as I can see ahead. Doesn't matter one Iota that they are following me and reading this as you are, because I lay out my plans for all to see and they still can't stop me as the edit summary shows.

Well, good lord, after channeling Dame Edna Everage, and all this stuff, I'll be better off for the break. You can see I'm still wound up eh ? thanks for the help and being a good friend to a newbie. newbies need friends. Penyulap  talk 12:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the good advice on my tp, and I'll take it all and follow it too. Thank you, sincerely. Penyulap  talk 13:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard
done I have raised the issues of the article Nation of Gods and Earths on this noticeboard:. Paul B (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello
done Months ago, I requested a GOCE member to copy-edit the article Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song), and you did me the favor to clean-up one of its sub-sections. I nominated it again to FAC, but again, it was commented that it still needing copy-editing. If you are able to make another rewrite, could you please help me again? If you cannot please notify me. Thank you again. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  19:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
done Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply and thank you for your earlier suggestion
done Hi Blackmane. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2004. 3RR reports and SPI/RCU have always been my weakest link. If you look at the evidence it's pretty clear that something is afoot between all those IPs + the 2 accounts that have hounded the same pages. I used to have many admin friends who would even bother with an SPI they would just say WP:DUCK... and do a full range block. But those admins have long since left Wikipedia out of frustration, boredom, etc. And I have always held a tight grip on WP:AGF that those IP/genre trolls would simply get bored themsleves and leave. But, as you can see from last night... some stick like glue. I appreciate the suggestion Blackmane. And if the trolling persists then I will follow your suggestion and leap into an SPI request for those IPs and accounts. For now AGF is the WIkipedia mantra I want to believe. in. Thank you again for your suggestion. 198.164.211.80 (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Wall Street
done No, just passed by the article (saw the film yesterday) and decided to fix the plot with a maintenance warning... who knows if that isn't enough to quickfail the GA nom? igordebraga ≠ 23:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Help please
done Hi. I am Jivesh. I edit strictly Beyonce-related articles on Wikipedia. I was wondering if you could do a copy-edit of Get Me Bodied for me? Please reply on my talk-page. Waiting in anticipation. Jivesh   •  Talk2Me  10:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Everything. I wan someone to fix any grammatical errors and improve the prose if possible. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  19:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it necessary to do that? Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  04:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't worry. I assure you no one will edit. Actually, this is not a very popular song of Knowles. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  06:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Making diffs
done Thank you for the tip, I appreciate it! OttawaAC (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
done Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 00:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

User Papaursa
done Do you think Papaursa should be reported to the ANI? He clearly shows no interest in working along side fellow Wikiepidians, refusing to listen to any open suggestions, clearly this user values his own opinion over to those who have fresh ideas from what he says. I was offering some very useful suggestions at the WP:MMANOT's discussion page, as with the criteria as it is right now only whatever is considered a 'top tier' promotion is safe, whereas any other promotion, such as BAMMA and EliteXC are put on shaky grounds. He refuses to even acknowledge what I'm saying, going as far as saying that it is me who isn't open for suggestion. Now I've always had the best interests of all pages on Wikipedia, and I am a team player so I cannot see how he came up with that theory, just because I questions the criteria on WP:MMANOT, a page I should point out that HE created. I noticed that many of the users who offer suggestions always ask him, as if he owns the page, which is a direct violation of WP:OWN. No-one should have to ask for permission from him to edit the page, especially as it seems that he is the one with the final say everytime. Here is the last comment he put on that page -

'Actually, the reason I haven't bothered to respond to all your statements is because it would be a waste of my time. It's clear you have a viewpoint (which you repeat/repost over and over) and that no facts will dissuade you from your beliefs. Since you've made it clear you value no opinions but your own, why should I bother? Answer--I shouldn't.'

Now again it is like I said I've never had a problem with taking in other people's opinions, so this is insulting for me to read. I will, however, try to reason with a bit, if he refuses to listen and take in what I say, I may go a head and report him to ANI. (BigzMMA 10:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)

GOCE drive newsletter
done Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"Irresistible"
Thanks for taking up the article. Don't hesitate to remove any unneeded information from it. Thanks again. <b style="font-family:Arial; color:CornflowerBlue;">Novice7</b> (<b style="font-family:Arial; color:DodgerBlue;">talk</b>) 14:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm slowly working my way through it. Rather than rush through it I'm only working on a section a night. I've just finished going over the second section and pared it down a lot since several references were being cited over and over. Feel free to drop by and let me know if you have any issues with it. --Blackmane (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was wondering if you could keep the quotes... Thank you for helping me out. <b style="font-family:Arial; color:CornflowerBlue;">Novice7</b> (<b style="font-family:Arial; color:DodgerBlue;">talk</b>) 04:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll look at working the quote from the interview back in but I'll leave out the quotes referring to the mic. I felt that it didn't add much to the section. --Blackmane (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was thinking of removing the mic quote too. Thanks. <b style="font-family:Arial; color:CornflowerBlue;">Novice7</b> (<b style="font-family:Arial; color:DodgerBlue;">talk</b>) 09:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the So So Def remix the same as what Cameron Casey did on the remix video? I can't check the refs because the video on the MTV site is unavailable in the UK --Blackmane (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Casey directed the video for So So Def remix. <b style="font-family:Arial; color:CornflowerBlue;">Novice7</b> (<b style="font-family:Arial; color:DodgerBlue;">talk</b>) 03:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. <b style="font-family:Arial; color:CornflowerBlue;">Novice7</b> (<b style="font-family:Arial; color:DodgerBlue;">talk</b>) 04:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 05:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Translation verification request
Hi, at the ANI boards you indicated that you know Korean.

Can you verify if this source can be used to verify this claim "FC Seoul is one of the most successful and the most popular club in the K-League, with financial backing from the  GS Group." as a statment/analysis coming from the third party of the newspaper rather than from the president of the club. If the newspaper is just quoting someone directly involved with the club saying "Our club is popular and doing well financially", then the inherrent conflict of interest means we should not be using that in our article and stating the claim in Wikipedia's voice. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't exactly know Korean, but am a little familiar with the language. As far as I can read it, the report says nothing about them being popular or doing well financially. It only talks about Shinhan Card (presumably a subsidiary of Shinhan Bank) forming an official partnership with FC Seoul, or at least signing another partnership. There are quotes from the chairman of Shinhan card that say that the club is an elite club. That's about all there is. The peacock terms are, as far as I can understand, not in the article. If anything, I'm not entirely sure what you could use that source for beyond talking about outside sponsorship, or something similar. However, I would recommend a second opinion on the translation. Blackmane (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! that was my general impression too.-- The Red Pen of Doom  01:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess there isn't enough to go on with regards to Footwiks. I don't think they're aiming to do the wrong thing nor would I say they're incompetent. It might be worthwhile refering Footwiks to WP:KOREA for help. Blackmane (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

RE: Era of Stagnation
Thanks for copyediting the article; I'll take a look at the changes. Bye --TIAYN (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good work... The article is waiting further expansion (but that may take a while)... Again, good work! :) --TIAYN (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll close the request at GOCE until those sections have been filled out enough to warrant a copy edit. I've got the article watchlisted or feel free to drop me a line and I'll got back and work on it some more. Blackmane (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Note from ANI
Just wanted to mention that removal of any userpage expectations is something of a perennial proposal. I can respect people disagreeing with that, but then, as you say, a trip to Village Pump would be the way to go, rather than attempting to push things on one's own userpage.  Equazcion  ( talk )  21:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Lately there's been a lot of policy and guideline discussion on ANI which just ends up going in circles because nothing can be done on ANI re those sorts of discussions. Some things need to be headed off and sent to the appropriate venue before they spiral out of control. Blackmane (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

RE: GOCE request for Joe Danger
A thousand thank yous in advance! Very much appreciated. — foxj 16:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that you're editing the article here and there. Since I want to do a thorough copy-edit section by section, without messing up in between, would you mind letting me know when you reckon you're ok with the section you've added stuff to and I can proceed with a CE? Blackmane (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I just saw one of the paragraphs could be improved before you got to it. I'll ping you when I've suffienciently meddled with it. :) — foxj 11:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's ok, I'll make a note at the GOCE requests page that I'm putting it on hold for the time being. Let me know whenever you're ready for a full going over. Blackmane (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

RE: GOCE request for Joe Danger
I think I'm done for the time-being, yeah. Sorry to derail your efforts so rudely. — foxj 14:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's perfect though, thanks very much for your help! :) — foxj 08:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC/U notice
As you have worked with User:Agent00f, I wanted to make you aware of Requests for comment/Agent00f. I know it's moving backwards, but I'd like to have all previous attempts at least tried before going for the final solution. Hasteur (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Mladen Lorković
Everything seams to be fine. Thx alot for your hard work. -- Wusten  fuchs  17:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Nablus
Thank you very much for copy editing this article. Your time and effort are very much appreciated. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Apology for personal attack
Hi Blackmane. At ANI I made a personal attack against you. Perhaps I should have cited WP:BITE or WP:YOUNG, but the fact remains that I did not. Whatever the merits of the comment, my personal attack on you was inexcusable, and I should have known better. I sincerely apologise. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Apology most happily accepted. I wasn't offended personally; ANI can cause tensions to run up a bit so one generally has to be even more thick skinned in that arena than anywhere else. My comment was more of a "tsk tsk tsk" pointer rather than a "omg you insulted me, you're in so much trouble" sort of retort. Regards Blackmane (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you've now closed the hissy fit thrown by Shirt "always nice to everyone" 58 here. It may possibly be an issue for Space tourism, as the handle I flew off is quite possibly still in sub-orbital space.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The handle will probably be lost amongst the thousands of bits of space junk mankind sent into orbit. The astronauts up there might be confused though... Blackmane (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN
Thanks for making an effort with George. It was nice to see "someone" who actually took more than a moment to thoughtfully respond. - jc37 15:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * He's earnest and wants to learn, he just needs a bit of patience and help. If I knew more about the stuff he works on, I'd have been happy to help. Blackmane (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nod. I understand the feeling. I've explained to him the difference between "assistance" and "mentorship". So - if you have time : ) - you can be like me (and a couple others) and just watch his pages and offer assistance when you feel you can? : ) - jc37 17:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure can try. I tend not to head around Xfd's as they can be rather hot blooded places. I'll drop a note on his talk page that he can come round if he needs someone else to bounce ideas off. Blackmane (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice of you to do.
 * I know helping others here can be thankless tasks, but it's so good when we do : ) - jc37 17:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why we WP:DGAF, waiting around for someone to pat you on the head for a job well done is too often the mentality. Blackmane (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply: Did she actually sing "happy birthday to you"?
Well, she sang a Chinese version of "Happy Birthday to You" of course.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I figured as much. HOwever, I don't think there is much point overloading an episode summary with wikilinks. Blackmane (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Beans, beans, good for the heart. The more you eat...
Hey Blackmane. In future, can you consider WP:BEANS when you make comments like this? We don't exactly want to tip people off on how to find them, do we? <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> Worm TT( talk ) 11:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, good point, hadn't thought about that. Blackmane (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing NLT ANI posting
Why remove it? Arcandam (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooops my bad. I floated over the link and saw the GraceSaunders SPI archive, I made a strange logical jump that you and her were the same person. I've reverted myself. Blackmane (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh lol. I wish all problem users would report themselves on WP:ANI, that would save the rest of us a lot of time. Arcandam (talk) 09:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Last week, there was a rather amusing scene of someone who created a sock and reported that sock to ANI then proceed to have a fight with their sock on ANI for all and sundry to see. It was actually worth a chuckle, although it did waste a bit of time. Blackmane (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a weird planet. Arcandam (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And Wiki attracts them like honey is to bees....Blackmane (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The block
At the ANI I noticed that you weren't aware of the IP being blocked. My comments will probably help clarify the situation. BTW, Thanks for your intial investigation efforts:
 * WP:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents (unable to get the link to work properly) Steve Quinn (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and here is a gallery of peanuts for you
Thanks for your kind words at ANI, yet again. I do instantly like the term, although I can't recall hearing it but a few times in my life and I don't know where it comes from. Penyulap  ☏  06:29, 20 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * So that is where the term comes from, well I'll never forget it that is for sure. I do hope though, it doesn't ruin peanuts forever for me. Have a look at the page of the banned vet, it's an interesting comment I left there (well, I think so). Penyulap  ☏  14:04, 20 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * and I don't think I like the term any more Penyulap  ☏  14:06, 20 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * I realise now that I have re-read your comments at ANI with an understanding of your terminology, that you were unfairly criticising me, however, I recall your past kindness, so it cancels out, and leaves us with nothing. Penyulap  ☏  14:12, 20 Jul 2012 (UTC)

AN/I - Shrike
Hi

Since you were discussing at AN/I, I thought you might be interested in this: User Crystalfile joined Wikipedia on June 7, and has only 15 edits to date. Now, he wants to ban Altetendekrabbe. There are now 4 votes for banning Alt. on AN/I, 2 of them from very recent editors with low-edit counts, and one with an account registered in March. I think this is highly suspicious. benjamil talk/edits 15:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

GOCE Mladen Lorković
Thank you for your work there. I appriciate that. -- Wüstenfuchs  12:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Vlachs
"Vlasi u Hrvatskoj nijesu bili nipošto slobodni ljudi, već su stajali prama raznoj vlasteli u podaničkom odnošaju." This is from Mužić's book (p. 20). It says that Vlachs of Croatia weren't free people, but they served to various nobel families as serfs. Podanik can be translated also as vasal, subject etc. -- Wüstenfuchs  13:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Also p. 19 of the same books says: "...a da su kmetovi i u obće seoski žitelji (ratari i stočari) u hrvatskoj državi bili ponajviše samo Vlasi." In translation: serfs and village population (farmers and ranchers) in Croatia were mostly only the Vlachs." -- Wüstenfuchs  13:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.
Thank you for your c/e. -- Wüstenfuchs  18:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Unblock page
Yes, I saw that you had self reverted; I went back two edits and reverted to them, but the loop is still present. I thought I would leave it to an expert, which I do not claim to be; meantime, no harm is being done. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony Bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 20:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Nosey? Not at all.
This edit was very good. You took the trouble to explain clearly what the problem was in a way that perhaps I could have done but didn't. Whether the editor will benefit from your attempt to help is another matter. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think sometimes we make assumptions that most people will see things that we view them, but sometimes a plain explanation laying out the facts makes all the difference. Copyright is a complex thing that most people only have the vaguest understanding of and only because of its exposure in the media, but for those of us who have gone through a western education, particularly postgraduate, it's something that is ingrained. Blackmane (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Tagremover disputes
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Tagremover (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration case request closed as withdrawn
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that an, named Tagremover disputes, in which you were named as a party has been withdrawn by the filing party. The commenting arbitrators felt that the community was able to handle this issue at the current time and it was withdrawn by the filing party.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Xuan-Yuan Sword: Scar Of Sky
Hi, can you translate the plot summary of this television series from this website to Xuan-Yuan Sword: Scar Of Sky? Thanks.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

All your Klaatu barada nikto are belong to us
Hi Blackmane! Given the context, shouldn't your comment here have been "for great justice" instead? --Shirt58 (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * well, since he hadn't been blocked yet, but once blocked then yes it would be appropriate :P Blackmane (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed closing of Morriswa RFC
Hi, Blackmane. As a person who has commented in the above RFC, your input on a possible closure of the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Morriswa would be appreciated. Thank you. --Rschen7754 05:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hyderabad, India
Hi, thanks for choosing the article for c/e. Please let us know how we can help during copy editing. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. Blackmane (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 Detroit Tigers season
Thanks for your help, input, assistance with ways to get resolution, etc. However, using words like "childish" is never constructive, and is not a good way to conduct yourself in what should be a professional dispute. Nonetheless, I have moved on. Just a word of advice, it gives a bad impression, especially to "newbies" (which I'm not) and IP users who are already frustrated with other editors who get away with behaving however they want, and no one comes to their defense in a mature way... Take care! :) P.S. Four agreed with me, against just one. What is or has been a norm, is not my fault just because one "bad apple" wants to create drama, throw a fit, curse, call names, etc. What upsets me the most is that nothing is done about that, and those who are supposed to act on their behalf, do not behave much better (just in general from past experiences and observations is all). Ugh! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hyderabad ref
✅, Thanks for your concern, actually Hyd-Pearls article is in my to do list, after hyderabadi cuisine. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hyderabad, India
Dear Blackmane, Thanks for your efforts to copy edit the article Hyderabad, India, plz let us know if copy editing is completed. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hyderabad-Transport
Thanks for your return :), Replaced 2001 with 2007. Please let us know if any more modifications are required. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Replaced dead link. Your c/e of Transport section had made it perfect, and gives good flow while reading. Thanks :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Would like to update; as mention in the lead of "transport" auto-rickshaw are operated by the government, I think we need to correct it because those are operated by private/individual owners. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wish you happy holidays :) and hope you will be back soon. Mean while I will verify all the remaining citations, Please let us know if any more things to do until you return. Thanks and Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hyderabad, India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Telugu (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) 22:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

COCE Copy-edit of Hyderabad, India
Hi Blackmane, I've removed your acceptance of the copy-edit request for above article on the GOCE Request page because you haven't edited it since the 17th of May. I've asked that you are credited for your work in the GOCE archive. If you wish to continue working on the article, feel free to re-accept the request at the GOCE request page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Blackmane, very thanks for your prompt response. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Blackmane, I've un-hid your original acceptance of the copy-edit request on the Request page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, first of all I appriciate your adherance to c/e work you did even in your holidays/voccation mood, very very Thanks for your detail review, and no problem if it took long time but it was one of detailed review the article received, in which you even noted very minor issues. Shall we move for FAC ? and lets seek Dwaipyanc and Stfg advices too, they had guided the article since initial nominations. Thanks once again.
 * Well I hope its right to move for FAC now, any advices please. :)---Omer123hussain (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Same here, it is my first first article which i want to be FA, no worry's your hard work will rock at FAC. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Confused
Can you please explain why my ANI filing was closed as a content dispute when, IMO, I did everything possible to make it clear that my concerns were regarding an editor's conduct (i.e. their personal attacks directed towards me) rather than the underlying issues regarding the article? I would be happy to open a WP:DRN case per your recommendation, but I don't see how I have the grounds to do so since the content-related issues at Talk:American Dad! appear to be being handled okay; the issue, as I noted at ANI, is User:AmericanDad86's blatant failures to AGF and incivility despite having been blocked for exactly this type of conduct previously. Their conduct towards me is, IMO, disruptive and inappropriate for that page, and is making it very difficult for me to engage in the discussion. Thank you for clarifying this for me. Doniago (talk) 05:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I closed it based on the lack of admin input over the several days that your ANI filing was open, the only one being Kudpung who made a recommendation that the dispute be taken to DRN. Generally, ANI posts that last for more than 3 days with little admin input are usually just left to flounder until it is archived, or the behaviour of the participants in the ANI causes the admins to step in.


 * That being said, yes, the discussion got heated on the talk page and there was some ABF and incivility, but rather than fight the symptoms of the heated debate I made the move to close the ANI and direct you to DRN with the aim of dealing with the cause, I hope I read Kudpung's intention correctly there. If DRN can provide a compromise, then perhaps it can be resolved to the satisfaction of both yourself and AmericanDad86. Admins tend to be very leary of civility blocks where there is no obvious pattern or history of chronic misbehaviour and the heated debate on the talk page definitely did not rise to the level of disruption that would normally lead to a block. You've been around WP as an editor much longer than I have so I won't patronise you on how the politics tend to work here. I hope that clarified things for you, but please feel free to drop another message if you have anything else. Blackmane (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose I view the level of ABF and incivility there as being rather more severe than you seem to think it is, but I conceed that I'm biased as well, given that I've been the principal target. I wish you had noted in your closure that the lack of input was a factor, as AD86 has now used the closure in their continuing attacks towards me on the Talk page. They have additionally ignored the advice of one of the participants in the ANI filing to settle down. At this point I don't feel I can even participate in the discussion because all I seem to do is invite more vitriol from them, and I don't feel anyone should be exposed to that, whether or not it's directed at them.
 * Given that AD86 was blocked previously for this sort of behavior, I don't really understand your claim that there isn't a history of misbehavior.
 * I hope you can understand my frustration and disappointment here. If you really believe that going through DRN is the best course I can undertake at this point, I'm willing to go there, but I have to say I feel the ANI filing was mishandled, and it's more frustrating for me because this is the second time that I've gone to ANI with a conduct concern and it was "brushed aside" as a content dispute. As I noted at the time, it was my belief that a failure to act with regards to AD86 would merely encourage them, and that seems to have been exactly what's occurred.
 * Anyway, thanks for your time and advice, and I welcome any further guidance you can offer. Oh, and FWIW I've got this page on my watchlist, so no need to let me know if/when you reply, though I do appreciate that you informed me! Doniago (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Not at all, I should have been more explicit in my NAC and I totalyl understand your frustration. One of the problems with ANI is that the sheer volume of postings there (approaching 800 archives!) mean that the admins who do frequent it (and there are quite a few) really would like very specific examples of the behaviour. Linking to just a talk page discussion requires an admin to plow through the entire discussion and when it gets as wordy as AD86 became, it really is a case of TLDR.


 * I really recommend DRN and not just for show. ANI really is the last place to go rather than the first and if you've proactively engaged in dispute resolution, whether it be through DRN, 3O, Wikiproject assistance, etc and nothing changes then you can't be faulted for going to ANI. If throughout all this, AD86 consistently maintains their intransigence the admins can and will act decisively, but they must have evidence. The only counsel I can suggest is patience, maintain your cool, stick to the point on discussion and if they're emboldened to act out more, then eventually they'll be dealt with. Blackmane (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If you would be willing to do so, I would greatly appreciate it if you would chime in at Talk:American Dad! to clarify your reasons for closing the ANI filing, as that would at least defang some of the claims AD86 has been making specifically with regards to that.
 * I guess I didn't feel it was a case of TLDR as I thought their behavior was readily observable and clear-cut, but...not without some effort...I can see how others might view it differently.
 * I'll look into DRN, though I'm already half-expecting them to, ironically, recommend ANI. Thank you for your willingness to discuss this and acknowledging that it may not have been handled as well as it could have been to this point. Doniago (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm a mere non-admin gnome so what I say is not binding on any other editor, but if it will clarify things and hopefully defuse the situation I'd be happy to drop a comment on the talk page. Blackmane (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound snarky, but I don't think AD86 would care if what you said was binding. There was a time when I thought they could be encouraged to WP:CHILLOUT, but after the battering I've been taking, AGF for me has kind of flown out the window.

Anyhow, DRN case opened here. I didn't list you as an involved user, but would welcome your feedback if/when it becomes pertinent. Thanks again for your help to this point, and for clarifying your decision to close the ANI filing. Doniago (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Matter regarding Doniago

 * You posted this in this discussion at the American Dad! talk page. By your own edit, you admitted that Doniago never did what he has been repeatedly told to do by numerous editors. And he hasn't. He was initially told to treat this matter as a content dispute by numerous individuals and never did. The edit you replied to in which I describe his behavior as "whining" and "bickering" with everyone because he isn't getting his way comes only after aaaaaaaaaall of the disobedience and harassment he has engaged in. Beyond different admins dismissing him at the Administrative noticeboards and that going nowhere, he's been on the talk pages of NUMEROUS editors asking them to defend him. You are just among one of many editors who Doniago has asked to defend him, such as shown here, here , here  , etc., etc., etc., etc. Several editors have ignored and/or dismissed him, but I see that you've appeased his nagging requests, which are shown on your talk page above:  here , here , here , and here.


 * By Doniago's own admission above, he has engaged in this type of behavior with other editors where he blows content disputes out of proportion and tries to use the Administrative Noticeboards to his advantage. This is shown here where he states the following at your user talk page: "I hope you can understand my frustration and disappointment here. If you really believe that going through DRN is the best course I can undertake at this point, I'm willing to go there, but I have to say I feel the ANI filing was mishandled, and it's more frustrating for me because this is the second time that I've gone to ANI with a conduct concern and it was "brushed aside" as a content dispute. As I noted at the time, it was my belief that a failure to act with regards to AD86 would merely encourage them, and that seems to have been exactly what's occurred (as shown here ).


 * Thusly, I am not the only person Doniago has pulled these antics with in which he misuses the Administrative Noticeboards during a content disputes. Moreover, in the user's harassing behavior of going from person to person, trying to create strife between myself and them and bellyaching of how his feelings got hurt from "incivility," he has hypocritically been making a series of obnoxious comments and lies, such as the following on your user talk page: I don't mean to sound snarky, but I don't think AD86 would care if what you said was binding (as shown here ); and They have additionally ignored the advice of one of the participants in the ANI filing to settle down (as shown here ). This last comment he made was a lie because as you will see in the following link, I was never even apart of the discussion at the Administrative Noticeboards: . Again, I've largely ignored this user's antics. It's mainly been other editors reprimanding him to stop making it more than a content dispute and dismissing him as he tries to get them to defend him. I've actually had little involvement with Doniago as far as this content dispute goes. It has mainly been him bouncing around from person to person and venue to venue in an effort to get me blocked or get support in getting me blocked. In the process, he has been repeatedly ordered to stop treating the matter as anything more than a content dispute, but has been persistently disobeying these orders from several editors. As shown in the above, he's also going around lying now to accomplish his aims, claiming that I've had more involvement than I have and that I've been told to calm down on Administrative Noticeboards in discussions I wasn't even involved in. The user is a liar and a troublemaker and is upset that he isn't getting his way. I've handled him best by ignoring his shenanigans.


 * Also, Doniago, made this request of you on your user talk page: "Thank you. If you would be willing to do so, I would greatly appreciate it if you would chime in at Talk:American Dad! to clarify your reasons for closing the ANI filing, as that would at least defang some of the claims AD86 has been making specifically with regards to that." (as shown here )


 * Quite frankly, such a request to violate the use of an article talk page is entirely out of line. Article talk pages are intended to discuss edits to the article, not to explain ANI filings or make Doniago look good. The only reason it has gotten off track as far as it has is because Doniago changed the subject and started making threats that he was going to Administrative Noticeboards during the middle of a content dispute (as shown here ) Since then, there has been little discussion relating to the actual editing dispute he started. (Mind you, the editing dispute is based upon Doniago's wrongful reversion, even as told to him by an administrator here ). The discussion has been off topic ever since his threats to go to the Admin Noticeboards and deliberated attempts to get others to defend him.


 * Moreover, the editor has opened this matter up in multiple forums now, including here at the Family Guy talk page, here at the Wikipedia Manual of Style talk page , the Administrative Noticeboards as shown above, Wikipedia Dispute Resolution here , the existing discussion over at the American Dad talk page, Help page individuals, etc. Despite this, he's actually participated very little in actual talking out the content dispute. In fact, he's had no involvement in the debate over at that HE opened up. Rather, he's just been bouncing around from venue to venue opening up the matter and whining that he's been viciously attacked by myself. As Kww told him from the get go, he was wrong and had no business removing a stable edit.


 * Moreover, if the editor is so antagonized, aggressed, and threatened by myself, why is he shown at my talk page earlier today making this edit following a compliment I received from User:Willondon (as shown here ). Doniago comes to my talk page and writes that I'm plenty active to the user who sent me the compliment. Mind you, this is the same remark Doniago made in his failed attempt to try to get me blocked at the Administrative Noticeboards as shown here where he writes the following at the Admin Noticeboards: "Additionally AD86's Talk page indicates that they're a retired editor, which to me seems to be clearly belied by their activity level. While this may not be against policy, it does not seem to me to be good faith either"


 * If Doniago feels so antagonized and threatened by myself, tell him to stay off my talk page with the instigating after I receive compliments from other editors. His behavior is nothing more than belligerent, disobedient, and harassing and I have every right to label it as such.


 * Up to this point, I've done little to actually resist or even acknowledge this user as far as this matter goes. Other than the few comments I've made at the American Dad! talk page, I've not had any dealings with this user. I'd hardly call it a dispute because I'm not paying attention to the user beyond my comments at the American Dad! talk page. It's mainly been him off at numerous pages of editors asking them to defend him and whining and bickering with them if they don't. He's done it at the Administrative Noticeboards, the help page, different admins, different editors, etc., etc., etc., etc. AmericanDad86 (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The personal issues between the two of you are not something I am going to get into. As I stated before, Doniago asked me to clarify my close of the ANI. As you had made references to that ANI on the article talk page, it was a suitable place to explain my close and to direct the two of you to DRN. I have no views on the article content or your personal dispute and would like to keep it that way to maintain impartiality. If the two of you cannot sort this out between yourselves then I suggest you seek mediation, but first I sincerely hope that the two of you can put your personal disagreement aside and work this out atWP:DRN. Neither of you are entirely blameless here but rather than pointing fingers and scolding it would be more beneficial for the article and the project if you both could agree to disagree, allow others to chime in at the DRN and accept the consensus that develops there. Blackmane (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

AN thread
Hey man. You didn't seem partial either way, but since you at least looked at Requests for comment/Baboon43 and are fairly familiar with the issue, I just wanted to let you know that the thread has been started at WP:AN. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI interjection
Hi, Blackmane. I hope it doesn't offend you, but I removed an edit of yours on ANI per privacy concerns. You say you won't speculate, but speculation is implicit in and encouraged by your edit, especially connected with some other information right in the same thread. Sorry, but the age of underage users just shouldn't be discussed at all, not in any way. Regards, Bishonen &#124; talk 11:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC).
 * I have no objection. Unfortunately, anyone going to their user page, as I did, will be able to connect the dots and make the same conclusion. You might consider having a word about their userpage and the information contained therein. Blackmane (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if they've got a few more dots, yes. I took care of it. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC).

SonofSetanta discussion on WP:ANI
Hello, Blackmane. My apologies if I misinterpreted your comment upthread about the nature of the sanctions you were seeking. I'd be happy with any other action which would have the same preventative effect, but given, as we both agree, that competence issues are involved, I don't see what else would work. (Incidentally, my proposal doesn't arise solely from the latest textual copyvio, but also from around ten image-related ones since the previous ANI report, several of which I already linked to earlier in that discussion.) —Psychonaut (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all, my upthread comment was quite brief and left it quite open to interpretation. You'll see that I reverted my oppose to the ban as after posting it and rethinking it, I felt that I didn't frame my thought very well. I re-read the previous ANI as well. I have no doubts about SoS's good faith in contributing but as my interactions with him are limited to ANI, of which I am unhealthy stalker, I am also lacking in experience with his works. Nonetheless, I do feel that there is a lack of, if not competence, then at least something that I can't quite put my finger on. I think I would still oppose an outright block but as for a restriction that would serve a useful purpose, I'm at a loss. Blackmane (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Formalising the status of WP:FALKLANDSUNITS
The page WP:FALKLANDSUNITS has not yet been formally adopted as an offical guideline. I have created a proposal to regularise the position. Please feel free to comment Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units. If the proposal is accepted, then the page will indeed be part of Wikipedia policy, otherwise it will be tagged a "failed proposal". Either way the uncertainty that has dogged this page for the last three years will be resolved. This message is being sent to every editor of good standing who has contributed here or here. Martinvl (talk) 04:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hiding of my request for closure comments
I do wish you hadn't hid my comments along with Joe's. My comments are accurate and civil. I also wish you'd left message on mine and Joe's talk page explaining why our comments were wrong or why you did what you did. I hope you'd also note that Joe's comment is evidence of a) his continual use of profanity (one of a number of behaviors that the RfC was supposed to stop in the first place), and b) his HOUNDing of people who've been critical of his behavior (me, GabeMc, TParis) p  b  p  15:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * More bullshit, I see. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was saying something about HOUNDing...and here's some more p  b  p  15:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's true. Multiple users have asked you to stop hounding me. Yet like a bad case of genital warts, you just keep coming back. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Request for closure is not a place for continuing your dispute. If you have a problem with the the request for closure, you could have removed it from the WP:ANRFC. It is certainly not the place for further commentary. As it states, "Please ensure that your request here for a close is neutrally worded, and do not use this board to continue the discussion in question (my emphasis). If there is disagreement with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. You can start discussion at the original page or request a Closure review at Administrators' noticeboard with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned." You are a certifier of the RFC/U and your comment is most definitely not "neutrally worded". Hatting off your comments is nipping it in the bud. Blackmane (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Interaction Bans
Saw your comments to Lucia Black. One correction though, folks in an interaction ban can participate in the same discussion as long as they are not making comments to each other, about each other, or in response to anything the other has said.--v/r - TP 13:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I had thought about that, but I felt that in this case it would be safer and wiser to prohibit them from doing so, since that's just lighting a fuse and waiting for the explosion. Blackmane (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Your response to my comments earlier today
Blackmane, first, if it were me, I would tell Lukeono94 to mind his own business and stop reverting comments on my talkpage. Secondly, "including an Arbcom member who assured you that the privacy of your previous account would be maintained." What good would that have done me? He offered me *nothing*. His "consideration?" Give me 50 dollars and I'll consider giving you my bicycle. Plus, one needs a basis of trust for anything like that. Why should I trust Worm? He doesn't even tell the truth about his real name at his talkpage. Worm's real name is not "Dave Craven." Thirdly, "Your initial block, though somewhat troublesome to me, was ultimately upheld by a number of administrators." You will have to live with that position. If I saw someone non-policy treated, I would stand up and say something. My block wasn't "upheld" by anyone. The most that mob of administrative participants at WP:AN/ANI was able to muster was a "decline to unblock." Last, you said at my page you would raise my case at WP:AN/ANI. You are now reneging on that. This is Colt on Co5mic. 22:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Blackmane, well, you may read the history of your talkpage, but I believe a lot of people might miss a quickly-deleted comment for one reason or another. Consider doing what Liz did and telling Lukeno94 you're capable of managing your own talkpage. "Within the remit of reverting block evasion?" WP:EVADE does not insist block evasion must be reverted, it leaves it a matter of discretion. He's not even an administrator is he? He's a busybody following me around and talking rubbish (recently "can't be trusted") about me. You said: "Should you wish such a review, I could open up an entry on WP:AN to see whether a consensus can be obtained." I do not believe my asking you to instead contact your favorite administrator was a "demand." Anyhow circumstances have critically changed now since I was without warning blocked at my talkpage by Kww on purported basis WP:CANVASSING that I didn't violate in the slightest if you actually read it and compare its criteria to my use of the ping function.


 * Given that my situation has once more become so dire (i.e. no means to communicate at all with fellow editors short of block evasion) I thought you would be happily willing to raise the question at WP:AN/ANI. It was your suggestion in the first place after all. The crowd that has gathered at my RFC/U talkpage is not representative of Wikipedians in general. These are people that have been criticizing me and arguing for my block for ages. They didn't come to my RFC/U because they frequent RFC/Us, they tracked me there from my talkpage. It's Nomo. and Lukeno94 and soon enough my talkpage blocker Kww himself no doubt. For goodness sake, you expect *them* to support my being unblocked for purposes of the RFC/U?! These are people who can only win a debate when their opponent is gagged and bound. What else? Contrary to what you said at the RFC/U talkpage I promise not to jump in via block evasion at any Wp:AN/ANI discussion you start on my behalf. If you've read me fairly, you'll have noticed that I never block-evaded if even merely my talkpage were open to me. It is when that was taken away that I block evaded. However, since you evidently have become uncomfortable with the prospect, I take no offense and release you from any obligation you may now feel to bring up my case at WP:AN/ANI. You never actually owed me that anyway. This is Colt on Co5mic. 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Blackmane, it's just as I said. The editors that responded to you at my RFC/U talkpage on the "raise his participation at WP:AN/ANI?" question are a roll-call of those that have followed me for many months saying "block him, block him, block him." You came to the RFC/U organically as you said because you follow RFC/Us. These are people that follow only me, and not because they like me. It must be strange to focus one's Wikipedia activity that way, to extend a long-term effort to see to it that another editor stays blocked. Did I really earn this from them? No. I think it's personality-type related. You've seen the "evidence" some of them, like Worm, bring, and seen them switch with barely a blink to "he seemed like" and "he appeared to be" when their purported facts are debunked. Anyhow, the RFC/U is not going to run forever so I'd appreciate you making a decision, yes or no, so I can either address the criticisms against me at the talk now, or try to get somebody else to make the "he should be able to participate in his RFC/U" case for me. Here were my positions again, for your reference . This is Colt on Co5mic.


 * Thank you for opening up the section at WP:AN/ANI. Thank you for recognizing that "consensus" goes both ways. If the group of newcomers to my case opine "unblock" for the RFC/U as they are, but then my long-time fan club who've attached to me like suckerfish opine "do not unblock" as they then it's consensus neither way. At least some new people have become aware of my situation, much as you did a couple weeks ago. This is Colt on Co5mic. 14:13, 28 February 2014

GOCE March drive wrapup
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Ross Parker
If you haven't already, you might want to read over the comments at Featured article candidates/Murder of Ross Parker/archive1. You may be able to address some of those issues while copyediting. Thanks. Nigel Pap (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I did had a look at the FAC review to see what needed to be covered and found a few content related issues. Our remit as copyeditors is to help improve the presentation of the content rather than the meat of the content itself. As such, any content related issues need to be taken back to the article talk page and hashed out by the main contributors there. I will be marking the copy edit as done at the Guild request page. Blackmane (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs copy editing
Hey Mane, how's it going? I'm hoping that you can help me with the Sleeping Dogs FAC. The article has been widely criticized by reviewers at the nomination oage because of its prose, and many recommended that the article got a copy edited. Unfortunately, I'm not so good at writing proses yet, and the other nominators don't have time to work on the article. Is there anyway that you can copy edit the article? At least some sections like gameplay and dlc would be massively appreciated. Thank you. URDNEXT (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, I could have a run through it. Blackmane (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! URDNEXT (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please raise a request at WP:GOCE with an extra comment that I will be taking it up. Ping me and I'll put in a request accepted confirmation. Blackmane (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. URDNEXT (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to mention that User:John will be taking a look at the article as well, and handling the copy edit for developent and design. URDNEXT (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC) Hi Blackmane, has finished working on the article until Tuesday so your c/e can continue if you wish. I'll remove the on hold from the request. Sorry for any confusion I've caused. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's not a big deal really, I just felt that the text was unstable given the streams of new text that was arriving. I was getting involved with general editing rather than copy editing as it was. Blackmane (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood; if you don't want to carry on, you can either strike your acceptance or mark it abandoned so everyone knows what's happening. Thanks for your work and patience. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sleeping Dogs (video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Theft Auto. 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) 09:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Fucking thanks...
For hatting the Fuck count thread at Ani. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That fucking thing was right fucking ridiculous. Blackmane (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

December 2014 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE 2014 report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Understood
Those allegations are a bit dated. When I am collaborating on important subjects I do write proper tildes. If your interested in assisting in my projects than I'd be happy to elaborate on them. If not, hope your endeavors go well. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:35 February 22, 2015

User:MovieMax Media
Thanks for removing the spam. Is there any chance you can revoke his talk page access? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I'm not an admin so that's beyond the scope of my magical powers. Blackmane (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh well. Hopefully someone will pick it up at AN/I. Thanks again. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Typo
Hallo, you've left a word ("much" or "well"?) out of "your reply to my !vote pretty reinforces my conviction" in this edit - wouldn't normally mention it but it's likely to confuse MN who can't understand even accurate English! He's likely to think "pretty" refers to good looks or something (got very confused by the word "Romanisation" a few days back...). Pam D  10:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My goodness, isn't that just ironic! Telling someone off for poor English, and I screw up. Just typical! Thanks for spotting that!. Blackmane (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

proposed iban, please comment
given your involvement, pleas see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Suggested_Limited_Interaction_Ban_between_Users_Alansohn_and_Magnolia677. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible new sock of SSB
Hello Blackmane. A new account, User:Vvvaggot, appears to be a new sock of SSB, whose work you know pretty well. No abusive edit summaries yet, but similar style of English, and similarly disruptive NPP with random accusations of vandalism on new editors. What do you think? Worth opening an SPI? Thanks, Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless there are some edits to deleted pages, I only see 3 edits in their contribs. Not a whole lot to go on from there. Blackmane (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's some weirdness going on. Vvvaggot was redirected to Vgenapl. They've done a lot of edits in the past few days. It'll take a bit to trawl through them. Blackmane (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see an admin has renamed the account, although I don't see a request for the name change in the user's previous contributions. I also see that those 3 edits you noted above were made after the move. No edits have been made yet under either name, so perhaps this was an honest mistake, but it's troubling that two of those edits were to blank the redirects from old name to new on the old user page and user talk page. Dai Pritchard (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't really see anything that stood out in Vgenapl/Vvvaggot's edits that suggested SSB. They don't use edit summaries at all and for the most part they seem to be just doing a lot of anti-vandal stuff with the occasional PROD/CSD/AFD nom. Blackmane (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the abusive edit summaries have indeed disappeared. It's the responses at the user talk page that reminded me of SSB: the stilted English, the protests of innocence, the frequent caps and exclamations, the use of *** to bowdlerize profanity, and the fact that VV/VG has already set up a user talk page section for declined speedies, and moved posts on declined speedies there, as if anticipating more of these. I could be wrong: just a hunch. Dai Pritchard (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiki labels edit quality campaign kickoff.
We're officially kicking off the Labels campaign for edit quality. You should be able to load the interface by going to Labels and clicking "Install the gadget". Once you've installed the gadget, the "Install the gadget" button will be replaced by the "campaigns" listing where you can request worksets from "Edit quality (20k random sample, 2015)". The software is still a little rough around the edges. We'll be on the look-out for your bug reports & feature requests throughout the week. I'll post progress reports on the campaign talk page. Thanks for your help and let me know if you have any questions. --<span style="display:inline-block;padding:0 .25em;border:1px solid #999;box-shadow:.1em .1em .1em rgba(0,0,0,.5);border-radius:3px;">EpochFail (talk • contribs) 05:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey!
Hey!

I saw you commented here about this issue some time ago. Well, I was 100% sure it was some nonsense as I couldn't believe mrs.Malek-Yonan would come all the way to Wiki to fight off this ridiculous thing, namely that those categories need to be removed from her page. Well my concerns were right; I opened an SPI and it turned out that User:RMY, User:3BluePenguins, and User:Zayya (they all participated in that discussion as well, are sockpuppets. A what we can describe as a sneaky sockpuppet scenario where the same person tried to make us believe some nonsense by using two socks.

Anyway, that was it, they're all blocked now, just wanted to let you know! :)

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice catch! There's never harm in a little AGF, socks will eventually catch themselves out. At least we can't say we didn't give them a chance, but they hung themselves out to dry. Blackmane (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Exactly ;) - LouisAragon (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

GOCE June 2015 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Taffe316
So this user gets off without even a warning? I mean what is this? Do admins not even want to do their jobs anymore? Just take a look at old versions of their talk page. It's full of warnings about edit warring and remaining civil. You know maybe a permanent ban would be overboard probably but this user needs to understand he can't stay here behaving the way he has. My message shouldn't have just been written off so quickly as "childish".--Yankees10 17:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I made a judgement call and made a non-admin close. I always make allowances that anyone who disputes my call to revert my close. If you so request it, I'll revert my close, or you are most welcome to do so.


 * A point of advice Admins expect editors to present sufficient evidence to convince them of a history without them having to dig through the histories themselves. This is not out of apathy or laziness, admins are volunteers, the same as everyone else and their time is no less valuable than yours.


 * I just went through their talk page history starting from the link you provided which dated back to Sept 2014 when Taffe316 received a 1 week block. In general, when an editor has been sanctioned for previous misdemeanours it is usually not considered for a future sanction. The only exception to this is when the editor in question has received multiple blocks for the same reason. Since that time, there has been no further warnings or blocks as recorded in the history of their talk page. If you have evidence on other pages they have contributed where that behaviour is repeated, revert my close, link those diffs and ask for action. Blackmane (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

 * sent by via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

COI work
Hi -- You have gotten involved in the ANI thread about Elvey. I am unhappy to have had to come to ANI at all, and it is sad to watch Elvey self-destruct there. But in any case, you wrote that you had reviewed everything. I have been looking for feedback on my COI work. I know I have made some mistakes and can come across too stridently at times, but what concerns me the most are the things I don't know that I don't know. If you have any impressions or feedback you would like to give me on my COI work, I would be open to hearing them. If not, that is of course fine too. (I'm asking a few other people who have gotten involved in that thread as well) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Jytdog, I'd be happy to give an outside view. Were there any particular incidents that you wanted feedback as a start? Blackmane (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That is very kind of you. I wasn't intending to cause you any extra work; I did want to give you the opportunity to tell me about anything that raised your eyebrows while you were reviewing everything.  I know which ones went awry - dealing with COI is a little bomb-squad work; little margin for error and explosive results when you make mistakes -  and I have (what I think is) a pretty solid understanding of I did wrong in those.  So that first.  If you have the patience after that is done, there is a general form of COI that I have been wrestling with in principle, and I have some examples of how I have attempted to address instances of it and what happened, that I would really love feedback on. Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll do the best I can with the little time I have at the moment. I'll be flying out of the country tomorrow evening and will be away for a couple weeks. Feel free to post on my talk page, but please understand if you don't get a reply quickly as I am uncertain as to whether I'll have access to a terminal. Blackmane (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I completely understand - was hoping for your impressions and not to take too much of your time - anything more (anything at all) is pure gift. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

My original request is pretty stale by now - you may not remember much from your review of things by now. So I'll jump to the second set of stuff. If you have time, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the section of the COI guideline Writing about yourself and your work. which meshes with the advice provided in our excellent essay on WP:EXPERTS, especially in the last bullet. I come across problems with new-ish experts overemphasizing their own views (thus throwing off NPOV) and citing their own publications in the course of doing that, more often than I ever thought I would before I started working on COI matters. I can point you to some interactions I've had with editors that went pretty well, and quite a few that have been rocky.... this is a key aspect of COI work that I am trying to figure out better. But maybe before digging into examples, you give me your take on the issue? Thx Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia, on average, does not have a good record of engaging effectively with subject experts. There is a tendency to just fling templates and links rather than really engage.

"here read this WP:LINK!" seems to be the usual response. On the other hand, some experts can be just as hard headed. The end result becomes two people drawing lines in the sand and refusing to budge, on one side a subject expert on the other a wiki expert. The end result is a lot of bad faith gets thrown around and Wikipedia loses. I feel that that is what many editors lose sight of; over zealous protection only leads to stagnation. The policies and guidelines have transformed from guidance into weaponry. This isn't to say that there aren't times when the deployment of our arsenal here is appropriate, but they should not be our first port of call except in cases of obvious and pernicious COI violations such as the recent Wiki-PR case or the cash for articles scam.

Often when an editor seeks to include their own publications as references, they're rapidly reverted as COI. Again, this puts the subject expert on the defensive. A better form of engagement is to seek corroborating sources from the expert. A good researcher will not only have their own publications as a source but a myriad of other sources that should back them up. Blackmane (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering! I hear that and I have seen that too.  In general I approach people respectfully and very much in dialogue - I don't just throw a template but instead write all kinds of things around it, asking for a response.  Dialogue.  I really do want experts to stick around  - at WP:MED they are so, so valuable to helping us keep articles NPOV (especially WEIGHT-wise - they are great at identifying gaps in articles) and at swiftly bringing great sources to bear - and i put real work into trying to teach new experts how this place works.   I am bummed when they turn out to be NOTHERE or they get all defensive.
 * In my view, guiding newbie experts who are following the natural human tendency to self-promote, toward the Wikipedia path, is really important and it seems to me that direct, respectful dialogue on their Talk page is the best way to do that. But part of what I am questioning is whether that is even true, and whether I should try.  I can show you (or not, as you like) some examples of discussions that went well and some that went badly....  I want to learn how to handle it better, and if I should back off altogether from that.... Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel the if one starts to engage one should go all the way. Engaging half heartedly is disrespectful and a waste of time. If you'd like an opinion of your examples please feel free to link them. Blackmane (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * that makes sense, yes. Thanks for being willing to look at some examples.  For me, a good outcome is when the user "gets it" and moves toward contributing more broadly.  A bad outcome is if they get mad and stop contributing.  I do not hold myself completely responsible for either outcome since the other editor will react however they react, but I want to optimize the chance of good outcomes and minimize bad ones.
 * this User_talk:Gjboyle has two posts from me - the first is when I came in after another editor overly-harshly warned that user to not edit about themselves; the second is after some time had gone by and a weird SPA editor appeared and started following them around which led to a posting at ANI.  I think my interactions there went well.  That editors is pretty self-reflective and I am hopeful they will start to edit more broadly.
 * this Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_82 is one that didn't go well. The editor was really NOTHERE.
 * this User_talk:Vinicruzat had a bad outcome. I think I did OK there.
 * this User_talk:Martijn.Berger did not go well. I was too harsh here - I don't just drop notices like this anymore.
 * this User_talk:Jay_W_Friedman did not go well in that editor never really talked back and went away. (this was an academic dentist (!) ) who would have been amazing to retain but just stopped talking to us.
 * that is probably enough for now. There is a complicated issue that I am working on now, related to this, and I have been pondering what the best way to deal with it is, so I am interested in your feedback.  Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi user:Jytdog I have a brief moment on the net so I thought I'd drop you a quick message to assure you that I haven't forgotten your request. I'm still traveling at the moment so cannot give you a detailed response. I feel it would not be reasonable or fair to give you a rushed response but as soon as I have a goodly amount of time I will give a considered opinion. Regards Blackmane (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * super nice of you. happy travels! Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi,, I had some time on my hands. Waiting on a wedding that starts in a while. I've created a section below with some comments and thoughts. It will make it easier to organise if you feel the urge to discuss any of them. Blackmane (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Gjboyle
I had a read over your interaction with Gjboyle and agree heartily that it went well. Personally, I would have been a bit averse to being too verbose when interacting with new editors. The other editor may feel you are lecturing them. But that is a personal preference and things worked out fine either way. Blackmane (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's helpful - with that comment in mind I can see the lecture-y tone. I'll take that on board. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Researcher83
Hmmm. I'm a bit of two minds about COI case with Researcher83. On the surface, it looks like they were obviously NOTHERE but when you step back you can see there was a dichotomy in how you interacted with them on their talk page and subsequently at COIN. When I read your posts in the COIN section, there was an accusatory tone but on their talk page it was more supportive. While I've not worked at dispute resolution or the COI noticeboard, I have done so in a number of workplace situations and one of the most important things to project is consistency of stance and tone else you give the impression of pandering to the audience. Whether you intend to is not salient, it's the resulting impression that is. I felt that DGG's comment was very accurate. Blackmane (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also really helpful and yes - I see that I wrote on COIN too argumentatively and that  made things go worse than they might have otherwise.  The struggle here was to get Researcher83 to see that writing an encyclopedia article is different from writing a review article.  The crux of that, is that while an expert's perspective is super valuable, what we call on experts to do, is to describe their field objectively, not just their perspective on their field. When the two are the same in the mind of the expert (and one can easily see how they could be) it is extra hard.  His conflation of them is really clear here where he wrote "You don’t seem to understand that if I talk about a topic like Degrowth, I can only repeat my earlier expressed criticism."   I let myself get too frustrated based on the principle and fell out of dialogue...
 * This one also brings out what is maybe the hardest issues in the whole "expert" thing for me - perhaps an expert commenting here bringing only his or her POV is better than not having that editor at all, and in general I should be more careful to avoid driving people away. In the case of Researcher83, the good thing there is that he wasn't rewriting entire articles to follow his POV.  For example, in the case of the Degrowth article that I quoted him mentioning above, this was his contribution -- adding a section with his critique.  This is what all his article editing was like.  We are not going to get that anymore.  So, I think I was looking a gift horse in the mouth with him. Hm. This one is similar to the case I am struggling with now. Jytdog (talk) 04:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Another way to have approached it should have been to work with them on their text on a chunk by chunk basis. Make it seem like you're making use of their knowledge, but in reality you're guiding their text into wikicompliance. This would be a truly artful skill to develop. By which I mean, question the text's meaning, draw out other supporting sources apart from the expert's own publications, that sort of thing. No researcher does their work in isolation. Their work will always be influenced by, or draw from, the work of others so there must be corroborating sources somewhere and the expert is the best one to know where to get them. Provided the expert is not just out for publicity, we get double the benefit. We retain an expert who has been guided in wiki norms but also double the amount of quality sourcing. It's a win win. This may be idealistic but by keeping this aspect foremost in mind we serve the pedia to the best of our ability. Blackmane (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Vinicruzat
There wasn't much you could do with vinicruzat. They were more obviously here with the impression that their financial contribution granted them publicity privileges.
 * OK...Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Jay W Friedman
It certainly is a shame to lose the doctor. But we cannot help those who get all huffy. There's no point beating yourself up about those who aren't willing to accept advice. Blackmane (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * really wish this would have gone differently...Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Martijn.Berger
I'm not a huge fan of using templates to talk to people aside from issuing warnings to those I believe need to be brought up short and sometimes a personalised message just doesn't fit the bill. That being said, Martijn wasn't willing to engage so it's neither here nor there. Blackmane (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks, i agree. I messed that one up. Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The current thing
Thank you so much for your review and comments above. So helpful! If you are still willing, I would love your thoughts on how to proceed with an ongoing issue. Would you be open to that? If so, as it is current, I would rather email with you about it. But I would do it here, if you prefer. Even if you are done, I really appreciate your time and thoughts. So kind of you. I will take them on board. Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's keep it on Wiki. It makes things easier to link if you provide diffs. Please feel free to drop by with anything you would like an outside opinion on. Also, bear in mind that any opinion I give will be merely one of many perspectives but I will aim to be as objective as possible and as such in some cases may be quite critical. Blackmane (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. I hear you, that you are giving me your perspectives. Besides actually wanting to get your thoughts on past cases, I wanted to hear you how think, before I gave you my difficult current one! :) OK, so here goes.  This is pretty messy.  The main thing I am looking for from you, is feedback on what I have done to date, and suggestions about what I should or should not do going forward.  My goals are to not lose a really special contributor, but also to protect the integrity of WP - of NPOV.   I am not asking you to get involved as an admin or anything like that and to be frank I hope you don't.   I just want to be clear that I am not admin shopping.

The editor is User:PraeceptorIP who is a professor of law (IP - patents copyrights) who has actually argued some important cases at the supreme court. So wow. Really wow. He was only semi-active for a few years, but over the past few months has become very active, rewriting articles and creating new ones. (so great, content creation!). However he is also doing pretty much all the mistakes a new expert editor makes. Writing content straight out of his head (so unsourced OR), adding lots of explanatory footnotes (unsourced OR), and when sources are cited, they tend to be primary sources he is using to illustrate his point, or his own law journal articles, to which he gives great weight   All of that is problematic enough, but he is a very good writer and clearly a strong legal mind, and his rewrites and new articles make arguments that follow the arguments he makes in his law journal articles. So the background section of court case articles are written so as to tee up whatever his view on the decision was. He has strong points of view on IP law, and he is remaking WP in the image of them. This is all stuff I can document. I'll provide a few diffs below.

Factors that complicate this one.
 * First, I first encountered him on article I worked on, Bowman v. Monsanto Co. where he worked started working it over as I described above here. (He is Stern, btw.  I don't know if you know anything about, or care about, IP law, so I won't go into the content discussion that ensued.  I do know patent law and I work on IP law articles).  But the key thing I want to emphasize here, is that I have found that dealing with COI issues is always much more dicey, when they start with content disputes in which I am involved.  I try to avoid those situations like the plague.   But it was only after we had talked a bit at the Bowman talk page, that I finally went and looked at his user page and saw that he is Stern.  (there is enough there now to make it clear who he is, but he used to have a link to his bibliography which he removed after I cited it in discussing COI/Expert with him.)   I did not handle the realization nearly gracefully enough, btw. That has poisoned the pot some.
 * second, GregJackP, who is a lawyer/litigator who works on law articles (but doesn't know much about IP) and who is in general very fierce, and who fiercely protects content creators, and with whom I had some difficult history a while ago that he has not forgotten, intervened in that discussion, and basically told PraeceptorIP that a) I am not a lawyer and so whatever I say doesn't matter and b) he should also ignore me because i am a bad actor and a GMO advocate (I have worked a lot on Monsanto, GMO, etc topics, and have held the NPOV line against anti-GMO advocates for a few years now) Hard.   GregJackP and I have mostly worked out things via the mediation of Tryptofish (who is wonderful, don't know if you him/her) but that remains... dicey. Importantly, he seems to give me respect on IP law matters now, which is a huge improvement.  But he remains very protective of PraeceptorIP.   More poisoning.
 * Third, while some of the issues are clear (the OR, VERIFY problems) the aspect where Praeceptor is remaking/creation of articles to make arguments - which is what concerns me the most - is a subtle thing. It needs space to open up and talk through - not sledgehammers or conflict.

My preference is always to work things out in one-on-one discussions with editors on their Talk pages and avoid the trauma/drama of bringing people to COIN, and do that only when it is clear that additional voices are needed to depersonalize it. That remains an option here but not one I think I will take, any time soon.

So I am not really sure how to proceed, or if I should just let the whole thing go. I have raised some issues slowly on talk pages of specific articles, and brought some issues to WP:LAW for that community to address. This is what I will probably keep doing, and try to do the teaching of how to be WP editor slowly......

Some examples:
 * Misappropriation doctrine article created by Praeceptor. While there are citations in it, they are almost all primary sources (actual court cases) that Pracaeptor  brings in as examples of what he is talking about.  The article is not guided by secondary sources; the secondary source is his mind.
 * Software patents under United States patent law. Starting in May of this year, he has worked this over in this series of diffs
 * In re Alappat is an article he created that looked like this when I came across it.  This is one I have tried to work with Praceptor on the Talk page, and where GregJackP initially climbed all over me (which he is not doing anymore) but also went to work fixing some of the problems.
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law where I started a community discussion on whether and how to use the "Bluebook" style of citation to try to get community feedback that using footnotes to provide unsourced commentary or make arguments is not what we do in WP -- an argument was made on the talk page of In re Alappat that what i was calling OR/SYN in a footnote was actually OK per Bluebook.  technical!

All that is pretty messy, right? The main thing I am looking for from you, is feedback on what I have done to date, and suggestions about what I should or should not do going forward. My goals are to not lose a really special contributor, but also not to have us end up with (for lack of a better term) "Sternopedia" for IP law. I am not asking you to get involved as an admin or anything like that and to be frank I hope you don't. My sense is that you wouldn't, but I just want to be clear that I am not admin shopping. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 09:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Response
As far as I can read of the disccusion at the Wikiproject, consensus was reached and all in all, the discussion while energetic was productive. While there were a few acrimonious comments, the discussion stayed on the ball and didn't degenerate as badly as others I have seen.
 * Thanks for reading and thinking! yes I was pretty OK with that discussion. (i just try to not respond to GregJackP as much as possible)   i focused that thread on how Bluebook citation style can be used in WP, and I got the outcome i wanted which is happy.  I didn't bring up the newbie expert/COI issues per se there.  And those are the issues i am kind of twirling my hair wondering about how/whether to move forward with addressing... Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can understand that it's difficult not to respond to people who question your competence or knowledge base. My usual approach is to write a very detailed rebuttal to every aspect of the ad hominem, hit preview then delete anything in the post that is a direct distraction from the discussion at hand. It's my focussing technique to bypass the "commenting on the editor rather than the edit". By hitting preview rather than save, in my mind it gives me the impression of having replied but without actually having to descend into a side show argument.
 * I need to spend some more time studying the other two posts you linked to. Blackmane (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I hear that. I usually just ignore that ad hom stuff :) Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Bowman vs Monsanto
This one is a bit tricky. I skimmed through the entire talk page, which is to say that I read through it without necessarily understanding the specifics. Praceptor's approach had a definitive consensus. GregJackP sometimes skirts the "comment on the content not the contributor" line with some of his comments. However, I do believe that is because he lays it out quite bluntly rather than rely on the facile tongue that lawyers are often accused of having. Using subtle language in a text based medium usually leads to misunderstandings after all. Although it might get your hackles up, you might look on the other side of things. At least, he's not being passive-aggressive or leaving things open to interpretation. Some of his comments certainly would have raise my hackles had I been on the receiving end, but that's only because I realise that my real life communication style can be much the same. We often dislike or even hate those who are most like ourselves.

COIN should be a last resort thing much like ANI. The administrator noticeboards are bad places to take people. They've developed an air of the imposing edifice of tyranny and anyone being dragged there are straight away in defense mode. Blackmane (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking yet more time. I see how you could come to that conclusion, but to be frank, GregJackP didn't know what he was talking about and Minor4h follows him around and agrees with him - it looks like consensus but is fake. GregJackP just agreed with Praeceptor then played the consensus card. great litigator talk page tactics but just.. bullshit.  he did that out of concern to protect Praeceptor but there was no substance to his arguments he didn't understand the 'replanting' thing.   i melted away in the face of that - not worth my time.
 * i agree with about COIN as a last resort. very much.
 * i am sorry to take up more of your time but if you look at the dif i provided above of PraeceptorIP's edits to the article itself, you can see clearly ( i think) the concern that led me to raise this - the EXPERT/COI thing, where he turned the article to reflect his perspective. That is the thing i am struggling with.  if this is too much hassle i totally understand. sorry. Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the diff that you linked me above and I certainly see your point about commentary being added into the article. I had a somewhat hard time catching that he was adding in the comments between ref tags. I don't think there could be much argument against it being anything other than OR. Blackmane (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking some time to read closely. I appreciate that a lot. So that is the kind of editing he is doing in many articles about IP law.   The focusing the article on his POV is intentional (and very skillful!), but I also think he is really trying to improve Wikipedia.  This is a hard thing to address at any time (as you can now really see clearly from looking at past interactions) but this one seems to me even more delicate and difficult due to the very high status of the editor and the GregJackP hovering/attacking thing... hence my asking for a head-check and advice. Jytdog (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed delicate as there is, strictly speaking, no content dispute so DRN is not appropriate. There is no COI either really so COIN isn't right either. The best thing I can think of is to continue to engage, diplomatically, with PraeceptorIP. One thing you might keep in mind is that anything he writes in between the tags won't actually show up on the article itself and it doesn't seem to show up in the ref list either. Blackmane (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, in my sleepiness last night, I misread you. You did just focus on the OR and not on the NPOV issues. (Yes, I agree that is the best way to address the OR stuff)  But back to the COI stuff.....  his edits in the first part of the article "turned" it, so that the stuff he added at the end was teed up; the stuff he brings out at the end is all based on his own RW publication.   This is something that is discussed in the COI guideline at WP:SELFCITE - editors are advised not to give UNDUE weight to their own perspectives on things, and to cite their own work only with care.  The last bullet point in the WP:EXPERT essay also talks about this.  The policy issues are NPOV and SOAPBOX (as it is with all conflicted editing).  The COI issue is not a financial one, but what I guess one could call "academic COI"  - where somebody has put an ideological or conceptual stake in the ground in the real world, as a scholar, and comes to WP to advocate for that.  In my view, this is the same thing that companies do when they edit WP to promote their products; both are abusing WP to gain "currency", which for companies is actually money, and for scholars, is acceptance of their ideas.  I run across this all the time.  Usually it is just someone thumping a citation into one spot and building a bit of content just around that. I have not seen anybody working over whole articles to achieve that, nor doing it across so many articles, nor creating articles that do that......  I really do appreciate your time and am leery of beating a dead horse.  I am sorry if this is getting tiresome!  I am looking for feedback specifically on this aspect of things, though. If you just don't see it, I am open to hearing that.  Jytdog (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (I might have some trouble being coherent, I'm writing this while somewhat tired and after a couple glasses of wine) While he certainly does aim to cite his own knowledge (by oddly wrapping his comments in ref tags), he also provides presumably decent supporting sources to back up his comments, the NY Times. From a wiki perspective it would seem that he's violated SELFCITE, a bit of SELFPROMO and certainly NPOV, however one could also consider his edits as a publication style. It's common for authors of reference books, particularly professors, to add footnotes after all and I find this to be a more plausible view. In my view, the way he is working over an entire article to achieve this is further evidence that, while it violates NPOV, he is not doing it maliciously as other self promoters do. His willingness to discuss puts him well above the bar of the usual self promoter. and he's not pushing his only publications as viable sources nor is he unwilling to seek consensus. From what I've seen of the usual self promoter there is usually a lot of histrionics, bluster, edit warring, ref spamming, talk page diatribes, etc I just don't see this here. Blackmane (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, a bit bleery or not. :) I agree very much that he is reasonable and I feel that the discussion had the potential of going well before it derailed.  I very much agree that he doesn't bring the trenchant attitude that others we have discussed brought.  I agree with all that.  I am glad to hear that you see, in this article, the NPOV/SELFCITE issues that I see.   I haven't brought the whole range of articles that he has worked on and done this to, and that is the aspect that makes me want to circle back around and work with him.  So hm.  I started a conversation with GregJackP to see if I can get him to work with me on helping Pracaetor..... but maybe I should back off this whole thing.  That is where I am scratching my head. Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Opening dialog with GregJackP may work as Praeceptor seems to hold Greg in some regard. I had a read over the talk page thread you have initiated with Greg and hope that a productive outcome will eventuate from it.Blackmane (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We'll see... thanks for all the time you put into this. Jytdog (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

KochTruth... again
This is the sock IP that was posting recently. They have attacked the Koch page. I would like to ask an admin to revert the change because I'm tired of this BS. [] Thanks Springee (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest raising a request for page protection here. Also, as Kochtruth is indefinitely blocked, reverting their edits are exempt from WP:3RR. Blackmane (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm not worried about the legitimacy of the revert, instead I really don't want to end up on the Daily Kos again. I will ask that the page gets protected.  Springee (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Make sure to link the diffs and to Kochtruth's original edit to show that it's them or a meat puppet edit warring the same stuff in repeatedly. Blackmane (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 4, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warrior
Hallo Blackmane The User which you warned is apparently continuing his disruptive behavior. He changed the long established collage at the top of the Rome article with another composition, without discussing it in advance. After that I reverted him and asked him to go to the talk page, he reverted again and then he blanked his talk page (with your warning) without responding. I think that the behavior of this new user is disruptive, and that he should be sanctioned. Alex2006 (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi,, given he's willing to edit war over it, I suggest opening a report at WP:AN3. Also, I would suggest opening a discussion on the article talk page to see if there is a consensus to keep the old collage or whether the new one is an improvement. Edit warring should never been an option. Regards Blackmane (talk) 06:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC).
 * I totally agree with you, Blackmane. Actually I wrote a message on his talk page encouraging to do that, but he deleted it without answering. Anyway, now I see that several users are reverting all his edits, so maybe I went too far... Alex2006 (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If others have begun reverting them then it's a sign that they are editing against consensus. If they continue then the one week block proposed by user:GoodDay maybe be the only option. Blackmane (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest...
...that you add WikiProject_World%27s_Oldest_People/Article_alerts to your watchlist? EEng (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I did so a while back. Blackmane (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Just wondering why you chose to manually archive a number of ANI threads:   when these are threads that are still active within the last 24 hours, nor have they been closed or hatted?

AIUI, ANI has automatic archiving in effect. There is no need to archive manually. Manual archiving of live threads like this will usually be seen as an attempt to stifle discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Another example of "do not edit while distracted", I'll self revert. A number of things happened all at once and I somehow kept clicking. Blackmane (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I restored a comment of yours that someone removed
I think someone accidentally removed at ANI. I reposted it and added a note to explain myself. But I also wanted to let you know. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Looks like it's one of those perennial glitches that plagues ANI. Blackmane (talk) 09:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to pursue it anymore
My Achilles' heel is WP:AN/ANI. I rather not pursue it anymore. I've said it a couple times now. And I feel like people are telling me "cheat the system and you'll be fine" rather than "be honest and tell the truth". I don't get it.

Some of these conditions are meant for WP:AN and ANI interaction-ban, not Japanese media. And i like to think i have changed. But how am i suppose to feel when i said that i change, and i express it, and people just rudely say otherwise without really thinking? When Tbans happen, theres that one place you can call your safe haven. Where is that? Lucia Black (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * AN/ANI is a difficult environment, to put it mildly. I watch ANI a lot largely because the trials and tribulations that editors put themselves and others through fascinates me. Two discussion types cause the greatest amount of tension, ban discussions and appeals. From my observations, the approach to appeals should be simple. Make your statement and whatever you do, do not engage the participants unless directly engaged and when you do, make your statement as short and as precise as possible. That was your main mistake, engaging everyone who made a statement that you disagreed with, trying to convince them that you've changed. At this point, you might consider some options.
 * Withdraw your appeal for the time being and consider whether you want to continue contributing to Wikipedia
 * Withdraw your appeal and accept that the topic ban will stand for now and see if you can find something else to edit to prove yourself
 * Put together a compromise package that would be palatable to all the participants. To be frank, the way the discussion is going, the most likely result is a "no consensus to lift topic ban".


 * As my final point, the one thing I've come to see is that there is no such thing as a safe place on Wikipedia. Invariably, at some point in your editing life, someone will find something of yours they disagree with and a dispute will happen. At that point, if you view things as a win-lose situation then even if you win, both parties lose. You'll have lost the sense of collaborative editing spirit and they'll hold a loser's grudge. The mark of a true Wikipedian, and a true life skill to develop, is coming up with a way to ensure both sides win. Blackmane (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Addendum to my previous message. I hadn't seen that the thread had been closed. At this point, I heartily applaud your decision. Fighting to your last breath on AN/ANI gains you nothing. In time, should you require assistance in drafting an appeal, feel free to drop by and bounce ideas off me. In the past, I have had some critical things to say about you but bear in mind that there has never been any malice just a desire to help you see what others see. Blackmane (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The truth is i dont ever want to go back to AN or ANI. even if it means going back to the subject i'm most productive in. I dont see it as a win-win. Everything here is a lose-lose. They gain nothing but satisfaction of curiosity. And its so easy to make things look black and white when they want to, and ignore the grey areas even they created. I want to know why people do that. But even if that was my mistake, i just don't believe they did that. I think they really do intend to push me towards my weaknesses, not my strengths. I mean look at the things they said.


 * One of them finds my comments to lengthy (which forgive me for my choice of words) is a little on the hypocritical, and someone doesn't care what kind of edits i make so long as i edit. And then, there are some who do see edits, but need to see me be put in more questionable situations (which is what i really want to avoid). I always feel like i'm being baited. i don't want to go through it anymore. I remember a time when AN/ANI saw my requests, and they would take care of it, based on policy. It was until i ran into three specific editors that it all changed. just three. And now two of them are gone, but i'm still seen the same way. Lucia Black (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello
I'm still working out how this is all done, so thank you for your attention to the issue and the obvious help being done. Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarification
You left a message on my talk page regarding non-"ownership" of articles, reliable sources, and notability, directed to "new users," and I'm not entirely sure what I did to provoke it. Please advise further and I'll try to address your concerns. I'm not the oldest user on the block but I've been around for over a year with about 5000 edits; I'm not an article draftsperson so much as a copyeditor and reviewer. If your concern is that I may have been overaggressive in speedy-deletion tagging, please advise and I will take the criticism seriously. Thanks for your clarification! Julietdeltalima  (talk)  01:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I've managed to post on the wrong page. That was meant to be directed at John, the editor who was being so aggressive about the article that you brought up on ANI. Comes from having too many tabs open. Please feel free to revert and link to this edit. Many apologies Blackmane (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I had a feeling that was the case—I completely understand the over-tabbage problem, no worries! Thanks for the explanation; absolutely no hard feelings.  Take care.  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  01:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've self reverted and moved that section to John2135's page where it belonged. Again, please accept my apologies. Blackmane (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2016
 * And, again, no worries—as my mom used to say, "Pobody's nerfect"... Julietdeltalima   (talk)  01:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Diacritic Wars
Sorry, couldn't figure out which Barnstar to give you, but that was an awesome comment in the George Ho Jr./Sr. thread. I don't know if you noticed, but further up I had actually gotten into an argument with a Captain America-style soldier out of time who thinks we are still fighting the "Diacritic Wars". It's a very silly mess. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Emdash wars took the cake. Months of fighting over..the length of dash to be used...Blackmane (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Most articles I write are never touched by any other editors for years, and when I'm initially drafting them I just press the "minus" key twice -- that is, until I can find some other sample to copy-paste. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe there is a short cut by holding Alt then tapping the numerical code into the numpad to create the emdash. It's Alt+0151. Blackmane (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You got there..
..about 5 seconds before I did. (Redirects at AN) I was going to use 'Shazam!' though. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I realised that I should have used "begone!". Blackmane (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Blackmane. I am writing to you about the "stalker/troll" section in the "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" page since you were one of the admins who answered, I am the accused part. I do not know whether you have read my reply to Mai-Sachme's accusations or not, but I have done nothing of what he foresaw. That because it is not me the problematic user but him, as demonstrated by his Italian talk page where several sysops such as Melos and M7 have reproved him for causing problems in articles about South Tyrol. In fact I have reverted his edits once only, unlike his friend Bartleby08 from South Tyrol too who did the same to an Italian user I was accused to be but 3 times. Here you see Mai-Sachme's hypocrisy, supporting him when he was removing Italian IPAs only but immediately reporting me for stalking and trolling when I did the same for German IPAs only and pretending to be the good guy interested in the good of this encyclopedy instead than in personal quarrels related to his geographical origins. Also Bartleby08 is well known in the Italian project for his tendentious intentions about South Tyrol, having been blocked for a month because of source falsification which is a very severe behaviour here. Having said that, now I have added the Italian IPAs where they missed giving a positive contribution instead of insisting on removing the German IPAs like Bartleby08 did with the Italian IPAs. Mai-Sachme has found nothing more to accuse me of being the stalker troll he thinks I am or pretends to think I am and now the problem seems to be solved, unless he or Bartleby08 start again removing Italian IPAs. Everyone is free to control that German IPAs will not be removed a second time, I just would like the discussion and this whole story to be closed. Maybe it was not really useless, because of the links I have brought about these 2 "Südtiroler Volkspartei" supporters which showed off what kind of persons and users they really are. Thank you for reading, I hope this is really the end. 187.17.106.161 (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not an admin as ANI is not strictly limited to admin. I'm merely another busybody editor who stopped by to make a comment. This looks like a case that will take some reading over... Blackmane (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok. 187.17.106.151 (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI principles
Posting this here because it's kind of off-topic and Nishidani explicitly asked me not to help him fight his battles.

Typically only people who are already involved in disputes open ANI discussions, and if the OP does not propose any specific sanction the general assumption is usually that they are requesting a block of some length. Hell, at the top of the page there are interwiki-links to both zh.wiki and ja.wiki where the noticeboards considered equivalent to ANI have titles that literally translate to "block requests". Probably the majority of threads on ANI that I have seen involve users in conflict with other users proposing sanctions against them, and it seems pretty rare to oppose such sanctions on principle.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, when most editors post on ANI they are seeking admin intervention in one way or another, and admins who respond usually do so with a single action, whether it be a block or a warning. However, sanctions, such as community bans, topic bans, and editing restrictions, should never be proposed by involved parties as such parties would obviously see that it is in their interest to see the opposing party with a medium to long term, perhaps even an indefinite, restriction. An indefinite block levied by an individual admin can be overturned by another admin, however a community levied indefinite can only be appealed to the community, as you are no doubt familiar with.
 * Think of it this way.


 * A child runs to his mother and tattles on their sibling who has done something wrong and leaves it up to their mother to punish the sibling, this is the analogy of an editor reporting an incident and leaving it up to an admin to levy a block or warning.
 * A child runs to his mother and tattles on their sibling and tells his mother to take all of their siblings toys away and send them to their room. This is an analogy for an involved editor proposing sanctions. The tattler gets all the toys and the sibling is conveniently disposed of, figuratively speaking.


 * This may make my position clearer. Blackmane (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree that it is unbecoming; I just think it's too common to be rejected on principle. I also don't think admins are allowed unilaterally impose bans (as opposed to blocks) without some form of community consensus. If random ANI-closers who happen to have the mop were allowed impose sanctions like that, then "discretionary sanctions" would carry no extra weight. So it's up to random members of the community to propose and !vote on sanctions like those, and an OP with a dog in the fight is just as capable of doing so as anyone else, in my opinion. If it's not supported by the community then it's not supported by the community.
 * Also, if the community establishes a consensus to "indefinitely block" someone, any admin is at liberty to impose that consensus, but any other admin is at liberty to overrule them. I assume what you mean when you say "a community levied indefinite" is a "community ban" as opposed to a block.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, a community consensus indefinite block cannot be unilaterally overturned by a single admin. A community ban certainly cannot be unilaterally overturned and no admin may impose a ban. Any sanction that was imposed by community discussion must be reviewed by the community. There have been a number of discussions I've read over the years where proposals have been made to indefinite block editors only to have other editors raise their review. It's not as uncommon as you think. -Blackmane (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for advice
Hello - thank you for your useful response to my recent ANI questions and advice on another user's Talk page. Could I ask your advice please? As a result of your suggestions I am considering placing the following at WP:VPP, with advertising at WP:CENT, and a Please See on the Talk pages of a number of wikiprojects and article Talk pages.


 * Use of "Arabian Gulf" instead of "Persian Gulf" in articles about Arab entities


 * The name of the Persian Gulf is disputed (see Persian Gulf naming dispute and several WP noticeboards and Talk pages over many years). One particularly contentious aspect of the dispute is that "Arab states prefer the use of the term 'Arabian Gulf and "Using the term 'Persian Gulf' is impolite at least for GCC countries and nationals, whereas, Iran and many Iranians find the term 'Arabian Gulf' offensive" (sources for these quotes at Persian Gulf naming dispute). Wikipedia's position through consensus is that the widely accepted name is "Persian Gulf" (although this is not the case for the Gulf War where the widely accepted name is "Gulf"). This is English language Wikipedia and this consensus necessarily derives from English language sources; Arabic language analysis would be different. There is one user whose edits are almost exclusively to replace "Arabian Gulf" with "Persian Gulf" in accordance with this policy. The problem is that replacing "Arabian Gulf" with "Persian Gulf" in articles about Arab entities whilst strictly policy-compliant, is "impolite at least". "Arabian Gulf" is a policy-compliant alternative name. My proposed solution is: for articles about an Arab entity (e.g. place or person), the alternative name of "Arabian Gulf" is an acceptable alternative to the widely accepted name "Persian Gulf" and good-faith occurrences of the former should not be changed to the latter.

Is that a sensible thing to do? Of course I'd welcome your view on the content (if you have a view) but I'm really asking you about process. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello! After some thought, what might be the way to go is with a Request for Comment. Trying to come up with a new Policy is actually quite difficult and policies governing naming are especially contentious, particularly so when it involves the Middle East. Contentious areas will invariably see a lot of opinions, some rational, some emotional. A good example is the attempt to come up with a universally accepted name for the United Kingdom/British Isles. That dispute got no less than 3 editors sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee. The Macedonia naming dispute was even more messy.


 * To that end, I suggest focusing on the meat of the question, perhaps something like this.


 * The body of water bordered by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and Iraq is known variously as the Arabian Gulf, Persian Gulf or even Gulf. There are 2 questions posed here, the second of which is dependent on the outcome of the first.
 * Should the name of this body of water be determined by the article content? For example, an article about an Arab entity would use the term "Arabian Gulf", while an article on a Persian entity would use "Persian Gulf".
 * Should existing occurrences of the name in a non corresponding article, i.e. references to "Persian Gulf" in an article about an Arab entity and vice versa, be changed automatically as a result of this RFC or should any change be determined by local consensus?


 * You may wish to phrase it slightly differently but the important point is to go straight to the heart of the matter. The other editor who is on some sort of campaign to change the name to Persian Gulf should not be mentioned at all. Their stance is irrelevant to the matter. The RFC should be worded as neutrally possible and as succinct as possible. It should be made clear that you are not interested in leaning one way or another but that you are seeking a broader consensus. If the editor continues their campaign in the face of whatever consensus comes from the RFC, then you can post a new report at ANI pointing to the consensus that was reached at the RFC.


 * Now, the next thing you'll need to do is go to WP:VPR place the RFC there. Given that the RFC will have project wide impact my recommendation is to use this tag at the top of the RFC text as it relates to geography, style and naming, and policy and guidelines. I suggest VPR (Village pump proposals) rather than VPP (Village pump policy) as you'll probably want this to become a guideline rather than a policy to begin with. Over time if a guideline becomes established enough, there may be a discussion raised to promote it to policy but for something to become policy straight away is pretty much unheard of.


 * Another page that may help you is the MOS on geographical naming.
 * Wikiprojects that you may wish to advertise to could be
 * WP:WikiProject Iran
 * WP:WikiProject Geography
 * WP:WikiProject Iraq
 * WP:WikiProject Saudi Arabia
 * WP:WikiProject Bahrain
 * WP:WikiProject United Arab Emirates
 * WP:WikiProject Kuwait
 * WP:WikiProject Qatar
 * For each of these WikiProjects, a simple neutral notification is all that is required. Hope that helps. Let me know if you want to go over some more details. Alternatively, you could go to the Village Pump Idea Lab and see if other editors have other thoughts that you may want to consider before putting a fully fledged RFC together. Regards Blackmane (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You are very helpful, thank you so much for taking the time. I need to think about this for a bit.  One problem is (I think) that a random commentator who does not understand the context (that Arabs don't use "Persian Gulf" etc), would just say to Q1 - No, it's the Persian Gulf, and that's that.  I understand the advice about the other editor, and your list of Projects. I'm familiar with the MOS stuff (I linked to it in my original) but a penny has just dropped - MOS is guidance not policy - but I don't suppose it makes much difference.  Again, thank you, I need some time to think (and wonder generally if this is worth getting dragged in to) and my weekend starts about now, and I have other things to do!  Enjoy your weekend, whenever it starts.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If a RFC gets enough commentators who side one way or another, then the single dissenter will generally be overruled. The closing administrator will usually take such things into account. Blackmane (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC) (You may not have an opinion, but a sincere thank you, Blackmane, for helping me think this through. Any errors in content, format or procedure are now all mine!)

Not to beat a deadhorse, but...
Posting here as the thread it already closed.

I was reading over some ANI threads and noticed this. While you were definitely right that revoking that user's talk page access was appropriate and their edits to their own page post-block were not, I wonder about the wisdom of the wording "the only allowable use". While you did follow this with a list of several valid uses that ended with "and the like" and the like, but I wonder what your stance on, say, this edit would have been. My reasoning (someone else had posted to a noticeboard discussion I started and looked possibly set to make a BLP edit in my stead that I actually disapproved of, and I was blocked and unable to otherwise halt it) was obscure and rare enough that Ihighly doubt such exceptions are enshrined in the blocking policy. On the other hand, we have cases like this, where a user has been blocked specifically for abuse of their own talk page (using it as a forum to post personal attacks against other editors) and so their talk page access revoked off the bat and the reasons you acknowledged as acceptable uses for a talk page are not sufficient reason not to revoke talk page access.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned it's not really as black-and-white as we would sometimes like it to be.

Cheers!

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Unless it was a BLP violation, I would be of the view that John Carter is a big enough boy to deal with any fall out. In my mind, it is best to keep it simple. If one is blocked, sort out the block first then worry about anything else later. There'll usually be enough eyes on the blockee and the surrounding situation to go do something about any policy violations that arise. Blackmane (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Alice of Champagne
Thank you for your comprehensive copyedit. I highly appreciate your work. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I hope it passes muster. Blackmane (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks but
I had already notified him: Toddst1 (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. Just making sure the notification was nice and visible. Blackmane (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

OK
"However, you are more than welcome to attempt a new RFC at some point in the future because consensus certainly can change but be warned that repeatedly opening RFC's within a short space of time to try and get your POV across is disruptive and can lead to sanctions."

I will start another RfC in the future (compiling the rest of the RS and firmly asking people to actually participate and not just do drive-by posts), but how long would it have to wait? I want to let this subject rest for a while, and I also want to avoid sanctions.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no set period before a RFC can be rerun. Contentious topics, such as those concerning the Middle East, certainly should be given a good amount of time for the dust to settle. A month or two is probably best. Bear in mind that simply rehashing the same arguments used in the original RFC will not give you much traction. If you're worried about drive by comments, then a neutrally worded notification to relevant Wikiprojects and or a post to WP:CENT may bring in more participants. You might also consider using a straw poll to gauge editor sentiment towards another RFC. If you're not familiar with straw polls, it's basically saying: "I'm thinking of doing this and framing it this way. What do others think?" It's a helpful way of seeing whether other editors are 1) in agreement that a RFC is worthwhile and 2) able to help you frame the RFC question. there is risk of the straw poll descending into a pseudo-RFC so care must be taken when running one. Blackmane (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * What angered me was the drive-by comments and the overall refusal to engage with the arguments and sources presented by the "Asian" side Glib responses like "I disagree" are not enough and come off as evasive; if one can't answer the points raised by the other side, they should acknowledge that and concede their arguments instead of being recalcitrant. I will try to bring new arguments and sources to the table, and I do intend to make it clear that drive-by comments won't be accepted. If there is disagreement, they need to explain why, engage in conversation, and above all, show a willingness to revisit long-held presumptions. None of the above happened in the last RfC. I intend to ensure that doesn't happen again, and if there is a genuine consensus against my changes, I will accept that (although consensus in favor of including Jews as Middle Eastern have been achieved in the past).ChronoFrog (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It won't be up to you what is and isn't a drive by comment. That will for the closing admin to decide. When en editor starts debating with each and every editor they disagree with it bogs down the whole discussion. If you edge into badgering every editor that just puts you in a negative light. If you really must engage someone, do it either on the RFC talk page or in a dedicated section at the bottom of the RFC. As an outsider, all I can say is you have a fervent POV in one direction others may or may not agree with you. They'll see sources one way and the more you argue the more entrenched each side becomes. Make your case, frame your RFC and let the RFC runs its course. Blackmane (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Straw poll question
Hi Blackmane. In your post at WT:CANVAS you mentioned something about a straw poll you seen. I've been looking for an example of one of those to use as reference for a straw poll I'm thinking of starting at WT:NFCC. Could you provide me with a link to the one you're referring to in your post? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I had a delve and realised I'd remembered incorrectly. It was a discussion at the Village pump ideas lab. See |here . There should be a link to the rfc itself as well. Blackmane (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for taking the time to look that up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisting at ANI
You suggested that I could relist the discussion at ANI... any suggestions as to how? Or should I ask on that talk page? Andrewa (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Should you wish to, just move the discussion from the archive back on to the main ANI page and leave a comment that you have done so at the bottom of the posting. Blackmane (talk) 11:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks... decided not to after all. I may try to find some time for ANI myself, the workers seem a bit thin on the ground there.
 * I have greatly appreciated your efforts! Andrewa (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 15:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

SvG clean-up
In the recent discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941 you supported mass-deletion of all BLP articles created by SvG. The closing decision was that this should be done. I have started a page at User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up for discussion / coordination of the deletion job. Your comments or suggestions would be welcome. Also, we urgently need volunteers with the technical skills to create a useable list of articles to be deleted. Any suggestions would be welcome. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

GOCEinuse tag
Hi, Blackmane, and thanks for your your efforts on Sarawak; however, since it seems to have bogged down due to the close-paraphrasing issue, and I think it should be declined and archived. If you'd prefer to continue the copyedit, please let me know; I've pinged, but they now seem to be semi-retired. The abovementioned tag goes at the top of the article rather than on the talk page. All the best,  Mini  apolis  22:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for the pointer on the tag. Although I am aware that it is outside the GOCE remit to delve into the content too much, but I'm already close to 60% done on the article so I may as well complete it. I'll leave the section which Jasphetamine identified as having close paraphrasing till last and work my way through it. This is one of the more difficult articles that I've copy edited but I think it will be worth while. Blackmane (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, Blackmane, and I don't blame you; no one wants their work wasted. I'll strike my suggestion at WP:GOCE/REQ. All the best,  Mini  apolis  23:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working on this article. I had used 2.5 months in Dec 2015 to rewrite the whole article from start to finish. It is always my dream to bring this article to featured article status and get it to the "Today's featured article" page. Without copyeditors like Blackmane and Jasphetamine, I would not be able to nominate the article for featured article status. Sorry for my poor English that caused you so much trouble in editing the article, regards. I wish I had done better for this. Cerevisae (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all, this is the service that the GOCE provides. At the end of the day, this is a collaborative effort and while you have provided the meat of the article, Jasphetamine and I are providing the garnishing. Blackmane (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2017_April_13#Laser_pointer_reflected_light_harmful_to_eyes_in_close_proximity.3F
Hello. Since I do some editing on the reference desks I noticed and read the discussion about problematic answers. From what you said, there is incorrect advice in this archive, and especially dangerous advice. I would like to edit the archive page to remove this advice, but I don't know anything on the topic and have no idea what to remove. Could you help? I think it would be important to remove this content because I've been told that archived reference desk answers can appear in google search results. Thanks. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello! It would probably be best to collapse it with a note that the comments within should not be taken at face value without consulting an expert or an accredited safety officer. I think I might do that with a comment to drop a message on my TP in the event an editor has questions. Blackmane (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thank you so much.70.67.222.124 (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Iveta Mukuchyan
Hello! Recently, I have nominated an article for copy editing and I have seen that you copy edit articles. If you have an interest in taking a look at the article, please do so. If possible, I would be so grateful. Harout (talk) 20:52 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello! I'd be happy to once I get through the article I'm working through at the moment. Alternatively, you could post a request on WP:GOCE/REQ. The article I'm working on is taking quite some time, so I may not get to it as soon as you would prefer. Otherwise, I'll definitely have a look at it once I finish my current one. Blackmane (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I can wait as much as it takes. Thanks, I really appreciate your answer. Harout (talk) 06:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:0.5em 0.5em 0 0.5em; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">Happy Holidays text.png Hello Blackmane: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 16:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-radius: 32px; border-color:#009600; background: #FFFBC4; border-width:8px; text-align:center; padding:7px; height:210px;" class="plainlinks"> Merry Christmas !!

Hi, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,

– Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Blackmane!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;height:173px;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Blackmane, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 23:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Pope Miltiades
First of all, I wish you all the best in the new year.

You done it well and correctly regarding the alleged apostasy of Pope Marcellinus. Augustine of Hippo repudiated the claim, not asserted it. All in all, the article looks very well and I thank you for it. :)

--Governor Sheng (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. Please let me know if you need any other help with the article. I have it watchlisted. Blackmane (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure will. Thanks --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Mudéjar revolt of 1264–66
Thanks for copyediting! I really appreciate it. HaEr48 (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome, . Blackmane (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

C/e request
Hey,, can you do a thorough copy edit of Indian Administrative Service? I have already made a request for a c/e on WP: GOCE, but as I have nominated it for WP:GA status, so the sooner someone copy edits it, the better. And as I have witnessed your work on Lucknow Metro, I decided to bother you. Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 13:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . Sure, I've just finished another copy edit so I could have a look at it for you. Blackmane (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 13:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , are you done copy editing for today? Because I have to add two/three references to the article. Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 11:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead. I've finished the CE on the lede and will start working on the main body soon. Blackmane (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Copy editing on David Meade (author)
I finished editing David Meade for now so feel free to copy edit the article. -- LovelyGirl7  talk  02:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi Blackmane, and thanks for your input at my ANI post. It raises another question that has been puzzling me: Occasionally I notice user pages that mention rollback rights (or have a cat indicating that?), which has made me wonder why my account doesn't indicate my having those rights. What is the difference between that and the functionality I have via links above the right-hand version of a diff ([rollback (AGF)] || [rollback] || [rollback (VANDAL)])? I can't remember at the moment, but I believe those links appeared when I enabled Twinkle in my preferences. Is this a case of two different functions having the same name? Eric talk 04:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have pop ups enabled on my account so when I hover over your username it shows that your have the reviewer right. Many users who have requested Rollback and had it granted will have Rollback show up when I hover over their name. I did not see it when I hovered over your username, hence my comment. If I've made an error, then feel free to correct me and I'll strike my comment at ANI. Rollback is granted by admins on request and is not a gadget like Twinkle is. Both have very similar functionality, just that Twinkle can be enabled through your preferences and both are often used in vandal fighting. Rollback is a tool that should only be used for vandal fighting because it does not leave edit summaries, hence any time a user is over zealous with its use, it can be revoked. Blackmane (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi- No, I don't think you're in error. I don't remember ever having requested Rollback rights. I'm just trying to understand why I have those "rollback" links available above a diff. If I'm right that those links are from Twinkle, it seems to me that Twinkle must use the term without it being the same functionality as the admin-granted right you're talking about. I'll try turning Twinkle off and on to test that. As for the edit summary aspect, when I use the "rollback" link, I do get a pop-up edit summary dialog, but I'm pretty sure that when I use "rollback (VANDAL)", it does not. Can't test that til I next run across vandalism, though. Thanks again for your comments. Eric talk 15:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad to be of help. Blackmane (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks for your excellent copyedit at Herman Ames. Chetsford (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not at all, the article was for the most part very well written already so there really wasn't a lot of copy editing needed. Glad to be of help. Blackmane (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

GOCE February 2018 news
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for copyediting
I have created and nominated an article on Gujarati writer Mafat Oza at DYK. As I am not native speaker of English, I tend to make mistakes. So can you copyedit the article? Regards,--Nizil (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've done a run through of the article and done some tidying of the English. Blackmane (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ASASSN-18fv, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CCD ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/ASASSN-18fv check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/ASASSN-18fv?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018
What do you mean by get edits up? 71.202.112.200 (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As in how to get your edits into the article. See the section on Making requests in this link WP:EDITREQUEST. Blackmane (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Alodia
Hey Blackmane, thank you for copy-editing my entry for Alodia. I would like to ask you if you could review the subchapter "Destruction" last, so I can rework it in the meantime, getting rid of the numbered paragraphs and making it one cohesive text instead. I have been told to do so during the FA nomination. Thank you, LeGabrie (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I tend to take a bit longer to copy edit articles largely due to time limitations, but also because I may got back over the same text a couple of times, so just let me know when you're ready. Blackmane (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, thank you again for your edits. However, I noticed that you actually change the content in some edits.

] You rewrote "Founded some time after the fall of the ancient kingdom of Kush, it is first attested by the year 569." into "Alodia was founded around 569 CE, following the fall of the ancient kingdom of Kush." The year 569 was when Alodia was first described as a kingdom, it would have been founded earlier. We don't know when exactly, so we have to go with "after the fall of Kush".

You rewrote "Nevertheless, it remains unclear if the el-Hobagi people were rulers, perhaps kings, on their own right, or if they were just local dignitaries ruling on someone else's, more powerful behalf." into "(...) but it is unclear whether the individuals were of the nobility or merely local dignitaries responsible for administering the region." That the individuals buried in el-Hobagi were noblemen is obvious, the question is if they were kings or governors.

You rewrote "The archaeologist Derek Welsby believes that since that time on Soba served as the capital of the kingdom of Alodia. It is also in the sixth century, more precisely around the year 569, when Alodia steps into the light of history as central Sudanese kingdom on the edge of Christianization." into "Archaeologist Derek Welsby believes that, in this period, Soba served as the capital of the kingdom." First, your "in this period" implies that Soba wasn't the capital of Alodia in later periods. It was, as attested by Arab historians from the 9th-12th centuries. The question is if it was already the capital in the sixth century. Second, why are you deleting the second sentence entirely without providing an alternative? That Alodia is first attested by 569 is information of top importance. LeGabrie (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I have no access to the source so I can only go by what I read in the text. If it's not clear then I'm copy editing based on my understanding of what is in the article at the time I'm editing. Here is the rationale for my edits


 * 1) The change in the first diff you reference was very difficult to interpret because the grammar doesn't make a lot of sense. It's basically a run on sentence which goes nowhere. "It is first attested by the year 569" is vague. Is there a corroborating source for that statement. I can reword it again so it is somewhat closer to the original text, but if I can see what a source states I will be able to provide a better copy edit.
 * 2) Can you provide the source text for me to read over so I can reword it better? The text I rewrote was not well constructed. I can re-edit it to be closer to the text before I copy edited it, but a link to the text would be helpful.
 * 3) I can re-edit the first part to be more explicit about Soba being the capital. The second sentence, as I read it, read like glorifying puffery. I can certainly go back and make the language more encyclopedic (and drier). Blackmane (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

1. The date 569 is based on an analysis of John of Ephesus, who described the Christianization of Nobatia and Alodia (http://www.medievalnubia.info/dev/index.php/John_of_Ephesus). The kingdom of Alodia converted to Christianity in 580, but already in 569 it had sent a delegation to Nobatia, asking to receive a bishop. Thus 569 is the terminus ante quem for Alodia's existence. The analysis is based on Siegfried Richter's "Studien zur Christianisierung Nubiens" ("Studies for the Christianization of Nubia"), briefly quoted in Werner 2013.

2. "The exact status of the el-Hobagi people is a matter of some debatte. Although their excavator, Patrice Lenoble, has convincingly argued that they were holders of imperium, it cannot be certain whether this was imperium delegated from some higher status indviduals, i.e. kings, or whether they exercised it in their own right."- Welsby 2002, p. 30

3. Ok, but make sure that you mention 569 and the fact that it was about to Christianize. LeGabrie (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

By the way: "With the fall of Kush came the rise of the Nubian kingdoms of Nobatia, in the early 5th century,[8], Makuria to the north, c. 500,[9] and Alodia." Both Nobatia and Makuria lay north of Alodia. LeGabrie (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyeditng help
I have created the Indian National Theatre and nominated it for DYK. As I am not native speaker of English, I make mistakes. So before it goes through review, can you copyedit it for me? Regards,--Nizil (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi ! Sure, I can do that for you. I'm working on another article at the moment, so if you don't mind waiting a bit, let me finish that one and I'll work on yours. Blackmane (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. No problem. Complete your current work first. Regards -Nizil (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Iase Tushi
Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

August GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Diwali, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mughal ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Diwali check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Diwali?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Diwali, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Melas ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Diwali check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Diwali?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to New AI-Labelling Campaign for Newcomer Sessions
Hello, I'm reaching out to you because I saw that you signed up as a labelling volunteer at Labels/Edit quality. I'm starting a new project that builds on Edit quality, to predict Newcomer quality. That is, to predict the damagingness and goodfaithness of "sessions" (multiple related edits) of users within 1 day of their registration. With this AI trained, we could help automatically distinguish betewen productive and unproductive new users. If you wouldn't mind taking a look at this new labelling campaign and label a few sessions I would be very grateful. In addition if you have any feedback or discover any bugs in the process I would appreciate that too. You can find the project page at Labels/Newcomer_session_quality or go directly to labels.wmflabs.org/ui/enwiki/ and look for the campaign titled "Newcomer Session quality (2018)". Thanks so much!

Maximilianklein (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyediting request
Hello, can you copyedit Draft:Vastupala? I am requesting CE here instead of GOCE because the article is a Draft. I am concerned about close paraphrasing and grammar in the article. I am sure that some sentences are very close to the sources and also the article follows the structure of the source. Sandesara source is a chief source used for the article which is accessible on the Internet Archive. I do not want it to publish it to mainspace until I am satisfied with resolution of the close paraphrasing. The article is bit long and detailed. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, I could take a look over it. --Blackmane (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Copy editing request
Hello. Can you copy edit Shekhar: Ek Jivani ? It is about an Indian novel written in Hindi language. I have nominated it for DYK. As I am not a native speaker of English, there are some problem with grammar, style and tone. Thanks. -Gazal world (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I can certainly have a look into it. I'm a little tied up with time lately and I'm also helping another editor do a copy edit on their draft, so I may not be as quick as you may like. If you'd like a faster turn around, then I would recommend dropping a request on the WP:GOCE request board. But otherwise, I'll certainly try and do a copy edit on your article. --Blackmane (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for your reply. I already requested on GOCC. I am not in hurry. As per your convenience. -Gazal world (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Vastupala
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

GOCE 2018 Annual Report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

March GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Buttermilk
Good morning, I wonder why you deleted the information about foods made with buttermilk? I put up the reference showing such foods. I did not do anything wrong. What went wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.161.7.128 (talk • contribs)
 * The list you added had already been covered in the text, so it was redundant. Blackmane (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed 2019 amendment to the Constitution of Malaysia
Hi Blackmane, thanks for your work on this article. I've noted your concerns and have placed the request on hold while discussion takes place at REQ talk. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  02:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Cantonese: Number of speakers
If you start a post on my talk page, I will reply underneath it so as to keep the discussion organised.

I gotta say though, you guys are a bunch of Cantonese haters. 75 Million is already too low and not correct but I found Ethnologue, which is completely legit and reliable and it says 75 Million. In all honesty, it should be around 150 million. There are over 80 million permanent residents in Guangdong province, about 40% of the 50 Million in Guanxi province speak Cantonese, then you got 7.5 million in HK, 600,000 in Macau and all the overseas Chinese. But whatever, I provided a real and reliable source and it says 75 Million so I'm going to go with that, it's still higher than 68. You clowns probably work for the CCP or just hating Cantonese and riding that Mandarin dong. It's still an official language in HK and Macau so you Mandarin lovers ain't gonna kill it just yet. You can block me all you want, I'm just going to keep coming. Oh yeah I speak Mandarin too BTW being from Taiwan and as you can tell my English it quite amazing, I can sling it and slang it all day, dui bu dui? I already spoke with UCLA and USC professors on this matter so I'm going to come quick with an even more reliable source with a number over 100 million where it should be but you monkeys won't let Cantonese be and you gotta clown around. okay Zaijian! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaywu2000 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * We guys (which probably includes me) are neither a bunch, nor clowns, nor monkeys, nor Cantonese haters. — It is my impression you are not interested in what en.WP actually is and how it works. Neither hate nor advocacy or promotion are covered by our policy. — See Talk:Cantonese for why the Ethologue figure is unsuitable for article Cantonese. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 08:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It's funny that you make such claims despite the fact that I stated on your talk page that I am a Cantonese speaker. In fact, I'm fluent in both Cantonese and English (as well as having some ability with Mandarin, and a passing familiarity with Korean and Japanese) so bandying about your "quite amazing" English doesn't impress me. My sole interest is ensuring that any statements are backed by reliable sources as per Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. So, I don't really care how many speakers of my ancestor's language there are, as long as a reliable source supports it.


 * Most of your edits have been reverted by others, which is sign that you are still not familiar with the editing policies here. A lot of leeway and good faith is given to new editors, but that expires quickly in the face of edit warring and lack of engagement. The fact that you are engaging, belligerently but nonetheless it is still engagement. As such, I'm willing to let the WP:NPA personal attacks slide, this time only. But be advised that any future attacks against other editors will result in escalating WP:BLOCK blocks and if you end up being indefinitely blocked, any editor may revert your edits without sanction. Many editors, including myself, have been trying there best in a respectful way to get you to engage, so as long as the respect flows both ways then things will work out. --Blackmane (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Protection of the Varieties of Chinese
Hello- I would like to invite your comments and edits on a new page, Protection of the Varieties of Chinese, which is based on a Chinese Wikipedia article. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)