User talk:Dwainwr123

Hmmm
Well, let's see--- Although there's a page for suggested mergers (or at least I think still is--there at least used to be, but it is visited by hardly anybody...), the only merger reviews I know of are on article talkpages. I've never even participated in a review of an AfD but I think in this case it might prevail simply due to the fact that the preponderance of the valid points within the AfD (and perhaps even an actual count of the !votes by participants in it) seem to weigh in against merger due to undue weight concerns, IMO.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The decision to merge appears to be a case of trying to split the baby, where possibly Merge is seen as a midway point between Keep and Delete. At least in my opinion, there was no consensus on the Seamus AfD page -- 7 votes to Keep, 6 votes to Merge, and 6 votes to Delete, with many in each group having varying opinions on why the article should be kept, merged, or deleted.Debbie W. 04:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They aren't going to let all that stay at Mitt's blp so--- Review discussion, here we come!--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Btw, there's now a discussion about it here, as well!...--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It'll b interesting to see how this eventually turns out! (Hey btw Im sure u kno to be careful not to go over the three reverts.. but just to make sure.. dont wanna see u with a userblock on your wikihistory..)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Seamus Romney.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Seamus Romney.jpg, which you've sourced to http://www.dogsagainstromney.com/. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 20:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Campaign for "romney" neologism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Campaign for "romney" neologism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Hi, sorry about this. Someone nominated the article for speedy deletion as "not having an assertion of significance or importance". I've declined that but am changing it to an AFD so that there will be a proper 7 day discussion rather than have one admin make a call.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Neologisms
Although I disagree with you as to whether the more recent campaign has achieved the same notability as the older campaign (note my comment on the AfD), it's always satisfying when sensible people can achieve reasonable compromise. DS (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Regarding Articles_for_deletion/Campaign_for_%22romney%22_neologism, I think you should discuss a proposed merger at Talk:Seamus_(dog), which I will start.  I think such a merge will not be contentious. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Alcohol laws of New Jersey
Actually, many article on alcohol laws don't have flags; Wisconsin, for example. And I'd advocate removal on all the ones that do on the same grounds of pointless decoration. The maps are a bit different, as they provide some context for international readers that might not know where a given state is located, but the flags don't add anything. oknazevad (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

standing up for Seamus
Good on ya! Don't let the others scare you aware from doing justice to this article. The debate will probably get more heated now that you went and posted on an administrative noticeboard but that should be a good thing. And the fact that Google search for "Seamus the dog" brings up the article as #1. Don't get discouraged if nothing comes from the admin board right now. Others have gotten very crafty at gaming the system, even to the point of seeing what they can get away with. But stay cool, keep civil and keep up the good work. 98.92.186.109 (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Seamus Romney.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Seamus Romney.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 20:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Seamus (dog) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Seamus (dog) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Seamus (dog) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion by the Vote of One

 * Thanks for the note on my talkpage. The % of such speedy deletes that are bad may not be high (I'm not sure), but even one bad deletion like that is unacceptable to me--we have PRODs and AFDs to deal with anything that's not total gobbledygook, to make sure these mistakes aren't made.  I do try to occasionally check out Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as importance or significance not asserted and decline anything questionable, we need more eyes there.--Milowent • hasspoken  03:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi Debbie,

This edit was incorrectly identified as vandalism in your edit summary when you reverted it. I'm sure it was just an oversight, but if not I wanted to let you know that WP has a very specific definition of vandalism and it is characterized by a deliberate attempt to harm the encyclopedia. Any edit made in good faith, even if it's a bad edit, is outside the realm of vandalism. In fact, neither disruptive editing nor personal attacks are considered to be vandalism. Check out WP:NOTVAND for some more info. Thanks. S Æ don talk 10:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well-deserved
Hey, it turns out that that chart with my user name featured at Mashable.com was borrowed from a series of ones at Yahoo News: LINK--showing users with the most frequent edits to ANY of the GOP candidates (which maybe is set up to automatically update as more additional edits are logged, you think? I dunno!... :~) '~). --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Seamus: I like the better infobox: thanks! --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Seamus incident dispute resolution
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Seamus incident". Thank you. HHIAdm (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked
You uploaded File:Robert Crandall.jpg as your "own work", but from [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:XB70Valyrie&diff=prev&oldid=492560715 this] exchange with, who had previously uploaded the same image as non-free, it is quite obvious that this is false. If lying about authorship is among the "tricks" that you are willing to use to win "battles over photos", then this project is not the right place for you. It seems you have used the same trick when re-uploading File:Nathaniel Raymond.jpg as free and own work on Commons, after first uploading it as somebody else's work and seeing it deleted.

I have blocked you indefinitely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblock

 * What is the relationship between you and User:HHIAdm? --jpgordon:==( o ) 02:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I worked at the same company as him until November, and I encouraged him to join Wikipedia. Debbie W. 02:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And yet you're still both editing the same subjects from the same IP. This is rather disturbing. --jpgordon:==( o ) 03:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We may share some of the same interests, but we don't edit together. I don't see what the issue is here. Debbie W. 03:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is that if you are currently both editing from the same IP, that suggests you are both editing from the same computer, or at least from the same network in the same building, which implies there's more than just a work connection that ended in November. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A look at Talk:Seamus incident shows the following edits...
 * 04:13, 14 May 2012‎ HHIAdm
 * 05:08, 14 May 2012‎ Dwainwr123
 * Editing within 1 hour of each other, but I don't know if they were from the same IP -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: just came here to say that as far as the image stuff is concerned I wouldn't object to an unblock under the conditions stated (no more image uploads), but now that a socking suspicion is also on the table, I'll hold off from an unblock until that is clarified. HHIAdm has obviously edited in direct support of Dwainwr123 on several occasions, including during this block , , so if socking should be substantiated, we have a serious issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

A few thoughts: (1) HHIAdm should not have the same IP address as me. Although we are still affiliated with the same campus (college-affiliated tech incubator), we haven't worked for the same company since November. (2) Although there are a few articles which both HHIAdm and I editted, there are a number of articles which I regularly edit that HHIAdm has nothing to do with -- Drew University, Alcohol laws of New Jersey, St. Padre Pio Shrine, We Can't Wait. (3) While you can find examples of where HHIAdm and I took similiar positions, there are plenty of other times when we did not agree. I take offense at the allegation that he is somehow my lackey or meat puppet. Here are some examples:
 * (a)During Talk:Seamus_incident, I was strongly opposed to changing the name of the article, while HHIAdm supported it.
 * (b) During Talk:Seamus_incident, I stated that the material in question should not be included because an AfD had formerly deleted it. HHIAdm stated that my argument was wrong. Debbie W. 12:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I was a political opponent of Debbie W. on the Seamus article. I don't think that she and HHIAdm are the same person. Their edits and styles are clearly different. William Jockusch (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, see this. Debbie was reporting me for edit warring, then HHI came in and said no violation, and she rapidly agreed. That is suggestive of two people who know each other fairly well but are still independent people.William Jockusch (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)