User talk:Screwball23

Image:Ambox warning_pn.svg Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{tl|hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ospalh (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Basically under the image use policy, we can only have images of living people that aren't copyrighted. The image you uploaded was one made by WWE themselves so we can't allow it as they hold the copyright. For getting free use WWE photos that we can use on articles, there are generally three reliable sources:

• US military websites, due to WWE's work with the troops. You can use [http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=wwe+site%3A.mil&gbv=2&aq=f&oq=&aqi= this google search page] as a guide.
• Flickr photos are also useful as long they have a compatible license attached (here are the list of compatible licenses). [http://www.flickr.com/search/?l=commderiv&mt=all&adv=1&w=all&q=wwe&m=text This Flickr search page] should help you for that.
• Also if you have personally taken any photos of her in real life, you can basically submit the photo here as you are the author and you have the right to do anything with it.

Sadly I can't seem to find any from these sites myself and all the other photos on the article have been taken down for copyright reasons (someone was telling fibs about the podium photo, it was taken off a YouTube video), so sometimes it's very hard to even obtain a free use photo. I hope this helps. --  Θakster   23:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

:No problem. I am a guy who first watched near the end of the Attitude era and quite a lot have changed since then and I suppose it's kinda mixed right now as clearly I'm not that much of a disillusioned fan to have stopped watching, yet I realised it's not the same as before. I actually don't mind the switch to TV-PG, but I do think that they have pushed the "kid-friendly" elements a little too far beyond the suspense of disbelief in areas (the recent "Little People's Court" being an example). --  Θakster   15:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have quite a few projects that I am currently working on, but I'll try and give it a look pretty soon. Nikki♥311 18:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Screwball23, Thanks for your kind words. I looked at the bio and see a lot of references missing in the wrestling section and the political section is really a mess, although it seems accurate as far as it goes. I'll take a crack at the political section and suggest where some of the references are missing in the wrestling section. I'm a bit busy this week but I should have some time next week. Angloguy (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there,

I can certainly help you out, though I must warn you that I haven't written a Featured Article in two years and therefore the criteria might have changed that I used to write to. I've got my exams on at the moment, but if you want to send me a message on the 25th about how far you got and whether you think you're meeting the criteria, I'll come take a look for you and see what we can do. Sound fair? Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 21:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

After considerable planning, {{tl|election}} has been created. Please take a look at it and leave feedback on the WikiProject talk page. @harej 02:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

25px Thanks for uploading :File:WWEclosingbell.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings {{PAGENAME}}, I see you're up for adoption, and I'm in the market. If ever you need advice or answers, just ask me -- any question, any time. I'd like to help however I can. Happy editing - Draeco (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

:I'd be careful with negative and/or unsubstantiated information per WP:BLP. WP has become very strict about that. Otherwise, include everything verifiable that you can integrate well. If it becomes too lengthy, break out sub-articles like "Linda McMahon in the 2010 Senate Race." Such depth is a credit to WP and to your efforts. Deletionists love to axe obscure articles, but rarely will large blocks of well-written, well-cited information be deleted within an article. - Draeco (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

::As for the particular image you mentioned, it is already deleted with no link to the deletion discussion, so I don't know enough to talk about the specifics. If it was in fact a non-free image from Flickr as Fut.Perf discusses below, then he's right. - Draeco (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning.svg

Thanks for uploading :File:Smackdownyourvote.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{tlx|di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Screwball23&namespace=6 this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning.svg

Thanks for uploading :File:WWEclosingbell.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{tlx|di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Screwball23&namespace=6 this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning.svg

Thanks for uploading :File:WWEClosing_Bell2.jpeg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{tlx|di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Screwball23&namespace=6 this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning.svg

Thanks for uploading :File:Todayshow.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{tlx|di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Screwball23&namespace=6 this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Copyright-problem.svg

Thanks for uploading :File:Verrazano.jpg. 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 {{NoSpamEmail|permissions-en|wikimedia.org}}, 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 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 {{NoSpamEmail|permissions-en|wikimedia.org}}.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{tlp|non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image 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 uploaded by following [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=upload&user=Screwball23 this link]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Screwball23, I saw your posting somewhere complaining about the tagging of your image uploads by User:Melesse. I've looked into it a bit and I'm afraid I find Melesse is generally right. The non-free content criteria are quite strict. In particular, when you are dealing with a public person such as a US politician, we always assume we could get enough free photographs of them; it is then not possible to upload non-free photos of them simply to illustrate they have appeared on such-and-such a type of occasion. Also, with regard to :File:Verrazano.jpg, you seem to have been under the misunderstanding that Flickr photographs are automatically free. In fact, most of them are not. You always need to check the licensing details on each Flickr page, which you'll find somewhere in the bottom right corner. Many Flickr photographs are "all rights reserved"; many others are "some rights reserved" with a "non-commercial use only" clause ("cc-by-nc"). Those are all off-limits for us. We can only use those that say "cc-by" or "cc-by-sa". Flickr images are virtually never "public domain", which is yet a different concept. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning.svg

Thanks for uploading :File:Linda-hi-rez-7-150x150.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{tlx|di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Screwball23&namespace=6 this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Image:Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading :File:McMahonmailers.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Example&editintro=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Intro&preloadtitle={{urlencode:File:McMahonmailers.JPG}}§ion=new&title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Current_requests&create=Request here] to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

He did nothing notable on the Texas indy scene. It's ridiculous to break up the TNA section only to get the text "Upon his departure from TNA, Hernandez worked on the Texas independent circuit throughout 2005" in there, when it can be perfectly well placed in the start of the LAX part. The first AAA section should come after LAX if you're going put it in chronological order, so that's the only thing you have on his time between Elite Guard and LAX.TheFBH (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you fully understand what is wrong with the edits. I also don't think you understand what's in the refs. First of all my main concern is with the term "PG Era" - a (as you put it) fan coined term - No where in the refs is the term used. You and I both know and cannot deny that the term is only used within the IWC. The use of the term as an official term for this "supposed" era - "supposed" is in quotation marks as I'll explain right now - is Original Research. Why? Because WWE hasn't acknowledge this as a "supposed" era. What it is to them as your reference cited is a simple change in programming. Finally TNA is irrelevant to the subject of the history of WWE and therefore deserves no mention in the article. You are not going to find heavily weighed notes of other subjects in a an article of a single subject unless it is relevant to both subjects. You can argue that the subject of WWE may be relevant to TNA but it certainly isn't the other way around. Even then, the TNA articles make no mention of WWE. If you still strongly disagree, why don't you take this up at WT:PW and let the project decide?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

:Oh the jealousy argument... Listen kid you're way in over your head. Fine you wanna go? lets go. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 21:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

:: And I will back Bullet up. Consensus has been established by the project already as Bullet has indicated. If he doesn't revert it I will. !! Justa Punk !! 04:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning pn.svgAn editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please limit your talk page comments to discussion of the content not the contributor. Derogatory comments like these are not appropriate:

• Kbob has no idea what he's talking about[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Schiff&diff=359532306&oldid=359510861]
• thank god this weirdo finally left the page[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Schiff&diff=357421665&oldid=357411122]

This has already been mentioned by another editor on the same page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Schiff&diff=357436443&oldid=357435644] and could be construed by an Administrator as personal attacks. I hope that you can correct this and that we can work together in a harmonious way. Thanks.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You left a message on my talk page a few days ago asking me to check out the Linda McMahon article. I've done so this afternoon, and I've got to say that the article seems quite thorough. It has tripled in bytes over the past six months, in large part due to your contributions. For the most part, I think the article is good, though perhaps some sections could be split into their own articles, especially the one on her run for Senate. Such an article would probably be justified already due to her prominent campaign, and ever more so if she should win the GOP nomination.

I have also noticed on the article's talk page that a photo of Linda on the campaign trail might be helpful. Too bad I didn't have my camera with me, because I briefly met her at a dinner in late March. If I happen to run into her again, however, I'll try to take such a photo. I can't make any promises, though. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to :meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

sigh... I explained it to you before. Then I told you to take it to PW if you still disagreed. PW decided it was barely notable. Then you continued to fight over. Finally, they told you to let it go. Once again, let it go. Consensus stands. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 17:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

:ROFLMAO @ how delusional you're acting...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

::Once again, I remind you that WT:PW deemed the subject barely notable. If you still disagree, I invite you to restate your case at WT:PW. However please note that your continued defiance of the consensus is disruptive, which is more than enough to warrant a block. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 21:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

25px Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on :World Wrestling Entertainment. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Curtis23's Usalions 20:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I started a new discussion about it at WT:PW#WWE Change in Programming so you can see that consensus is reached that the Change in Programming doesn't warrant it's own section.--Curtis23's Usalions 22:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you thank someone for a oppose comment?--Curtis23's Usalions 23:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Although you are not in violation of 3RR, your edits to this article definitely constitute edit warring. Discussion to reach consensus needs to take place; if problems continue after that, there are obviously other steps to take. Constant reverting violates Wikipedia policy, though. Keep it real, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

:I don't care who's right and who's wrong. If you checked, you would see that I left the same message on his page. You need to stop with the edit war, or this will be referred to the Administrator's Noticeboard. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Screwball, until you provide sources to prove notability you are outside WP rules with the edit you are pushing. At present what you are doing is nothing more than WP:OR. Prove what you say is true. Just saying "everyone knows it" is worth absolutely zero on Wikipedia. !! Justa Punk !! 04:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

: You provided no links that were reliable. Therefore it is not notable under Wikipedia rules. Individual opinion of whether or not it's notable is irrelevant. You have to prove that it's notable with reliable third party independent sources. You have failed to do that, and it's why the Project consensus is that it's not notable. You are trying to place your own opinion ahead of the rules of this encyclopedia. I also note that you are having issues with another article for similar reasons re sources AKA referencing. Get the hint - you are doing it wrong. !! Justa Punk !! 21:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

:: I listened. You didn't. Indeed - the conversation is over and it's not my fault but yours. !! Justa Punk !! 02:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Know what you are talking about before reverting - or ask and I'll help you.Victor9876 (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You are currently abusing the Wikipedia policy on citations. Cease and desist or you will receive administrator action.--Screwball23 talk 17:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Wrong answer. I am an administrator and I am responding to complaints from the subject by removing poorly cited or uncited contentious material. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

:Do you have the ticket for the complaint source? Silverseren^C 18:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, whatever. Hey, Screwball, [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Warrior%22+World+Wrestling+Federation&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&ned=us&scoring=a here]. Get to referencing! I'll be helping out. Silverseren^C 18:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

:I'd advise you to stop pushing him, he will block you. He really is in a good mood today, considering he hasn't already. He gave you the ticket complaint number, which means that there was a complaint, so there's nothing you can do. Just focus on referencing what is there and we'll see about the rest later. It'll always be in the history of the page, regardless, if you need it again. Silverseren^C 19:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I do work extremely hard on election articles. Thanks. Unless if an election article is very prominent and has a lot of information, only one or two lead paragraphs are necessary. In the case of this election, the primaries haven't even started yet. So the best thing to do is to have one paragraph, simply saying how the incumbent, Chris Dodd, isn't running and how McMahon/Blumenthal are the front runners.

On another note, I'm really confused...Do you understand how the nominating system works in Connecticut?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hey again. I just wanted to let you know that I'm tying to make the election article as less confusing as possible, which is why I seperated convention and primary candidates.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm getting a little frustrated with you. I don't care so much about whether or not Linda McMahon is the nominee. What I'm getting angry about is the candidate sections. How do people suppose to know who was on the convention ballot and who was on the primary ballot? You keep reverting what I do... and people including myself get confused about what's going on. For example, some candidates didn't get into the primary because they didn't perform well enough in the convention. I don't understand your way of thinking. Why in the world do you oppose seperating the candidates section between primary and convention?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• I understand that Blumenthal is the nominee.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

{{Talkback|Sgt. R.K. Blue|Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010|ts=08:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)}}

Please don't add all those people to the infobox. The infobox is only for the official party nominee. As of now, there is no official Republican nominee. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

:I think we've been talking about somewhat different things, which has made for some confusion. The article text can mention that McMahon has the party support. But that infobox at the top of the page is only for official party nominees. The party, simply, does not yet have a nominee as of yet. Maybe the best way, if you feel it's unfair to show Blumenthal in that box and no Republican, is just to take it down until the Republican primary happens. --Muboshgu (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

::I'm not a Schiff supporter. Quite the contrary, I've noticed that you are clearly a McMahon supporter adding bias into the article. The "rule" that you're referring to about only nominees going in the infobox should be clear in that the line you input on is labeled "nominee", which McMahon is not, unless she indeed wins the primary, which won't happen until August. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Catch [http://www.ctmirror.org/story/7014/simmons-debate-i-am-candidate this bit of news yet]? That is why Linda McMahon should not have been considered a "presumptive" nominee. As Yogi Berra once said, "it ain't over till it's over". --Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 24 hours for violation of the 3RR rule, reverting over three times in one 24 hour period. Attempts were made to discuss the issue with you, none of the other editors have breached 3RR - yet multiple users have reverted you and you continued to war with them. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I have and I have made comments on the talk page along with others.--Steam Iron 04:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

: Screwball, I strongly recommend that you drop this. You claim that you have been calmly discussing matters in effect, but your conduct is bordering of fixated and you are upsetting other editors with this. You have been asked to provide more sources given that you state that there are many articles and reports in your support and you have failed to do so. The sources you have provided are not enough. I can see you being banned again if you persist on your current line as it seems that you are refusing to listen. Your claim that there's a gang after you is only happening because you are the threat to the article and not them. Not because you are right or wrong, but because you insist that you are right and you won't listen when it is proven you are wrong.

: Please. Just drop it. Or answer Justa Punk's challenge and provide the two dozen sources. If there are as many articles and reports as you claim this should be a simple task. If you don't, you will never get your way and unless you want to suffer a long term ban you must drop this. Just some friendly advice. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 07:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop splitting the posts. There is one topic under discussion; does the tempering of the recent (in the last 18 months) WWE product constitute a new "era" (that is a distinct from the WWE Universe "era"). As all you are doing is arguing in circles and claiming that other editors are not listening whilst not listening yourself or providing any references to back up your assertion you may find the patience of other editors tested to the point of an ANI report and a topic ban. If you want to make progress offer references to back up your edit, otherwise move on. And don't [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Wrestling_Entertainment&action=historysubmit&diff=369382771&oldid=369378093 call me names in an edit summary], your attempt to split the section have been reverted twice. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

25px You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on :World Wrestling Entertainment. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. For the record [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Wrestling_Entertainment&oldid=369290328 4:24 21 June 2010 version reverted to], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Wrestling_Entertainment&oldid=369298995 5:36 21 June 2020 1RR], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Wrestling_Entertainment&oldid=369387216 17:55 21 June 2010 2RR]. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• And here is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Screwball23_reported_by_User:Darrenhusted_.28Result:_.29 3RR report]. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wasted_Time_R&curid=1907744&diff=370035150&oldid=369842248 Keep it up...] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Screwball23#Canvassing I mean you've done it before...] btw I don't know where or how you see this as a personal issue. Believe me when I personally say it's NOT a personal issue. It's a WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:RS issue. Also why you think Justa Punk has gone nuts is beyond me. Perhaps its your way of fluffing up the issue for the users you keep canvassing... Hmm. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

::A person who has to bolden his complaints, lose his temper, and give lectures on "how wikipedia works" while giving arbitrary commands on 24 refs is not completely healthy. His refusal to join mediation with an impartial moderator is another indication that something is up. --Screwball23 talk 21:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

:::A person who has to ask around for multiple admins and different forums is actually the leading indication that someone's panicking. Additionally, RFM is impossible for disputes with multiple parties involved - another indication the someone still doesn't know how wikipedia works... Happy canvassing! ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 22:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

::::Get real. You didn't have the balls to join the mediation and now you want to criticize me for getting third party opinions? I think you know how wikipedia works so well that you are afraid of losing. --Screwball23 talk 17:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::Watch yourself with the Personal Attacks (yet another indication that someone's panicking) or you might find yourself on the wrong end of another block. Finally, as I am sure you were told by another admin, RFM's are not for disputes involving multiple parties... and yet you still don't get it. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 18:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

:Stop forum shopping; 3O, editor assistance, RFC and mediation is three steps too far. No matter how many people you canvas it will not change the basic fact that the text you want to insert is not up to standards. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

::What standards? You keep mentioning the links to Bleacher report, but the others are perfectly legitimate. I know you are full of it, and your refusal to join mediation has made it clear that you don't want to solve this productively. I spoke with Wasted Time because he has undoubtedly dealt with some creepy and obsessive editors before.--Screwball23 talk 21:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the barnstar and the kind words. I hope that they are not premature and that we can all find a way forward together. — e. ripley\^talk 19:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The Request for mediation concerning World Wrestling Entertainment, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 17:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

You are editing against consensus. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

:What are you talking about ? The consensus was never established. The discussion has continued, and I am finally talking with an individual who read my references and is willing to talk about the material. The discussion before was just a bunch of emotionally unstable blabber that completely avoided the facts. Please read the talk page and join the discussion on the newest thread.--Screwball23 talk 04:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

::Again, STOP canvassing. Begging people to read, and re-read, and re-re-read your argument isn't going to help your case, neither is accusing others of biases simply because they don't agree with you. Stop edit warring. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 07:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. !! Justa Punk !! 12:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning.svg

Thanks for uploading :File:LindaMcMahon_web_ad.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{tlx|di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|target=Screwball23&namespace=6}} this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. [http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dEFtU01vLTJxRWFpeG1GV1V3LVFtYkE6MA Register for the Wiki-Conference] here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Copyright-problem.svg

Thank you for uploading :File:LindaMcMahon web ad.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=upload&user=Screwball23}} in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, generally the nominator does not cast an additional bolded !vote at AFD discussions. If you feel that there is more you need to say, you may preface it with a bold "comment", or just simply say it. Regards, Jujutacular ^talk 02:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Talk:Codex Vaticanus/GA2

Feel free to take over rest of review/promotion/etc as GA Reviewer. No worries, and thank you! Yours, -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Talk:Codex Vaticanus/GA2

I fixed your previous edits. You still need to do the rest of the "pass" steps, laid out at WP:GAN. -- Cirt (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are right it is not very important information for the lead. Number of leaves is mentioned in section "Description". Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

{{talkback|Talk:Codex Vaticanus/GA2|ts=13:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)}}

I don't think the Linda McMahon article is ready to be a good article nomination. I can give it a pre-review if you'd like. Nikki♥311 19:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

On a recent edit, you expressed regret at deleting someone's addition to the external links section, feeling it was likely his first edit. There's no need to feel sorry - that IP [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.127.179.85 has been doing a lot of edits], and what a coincidence - they all seem to be adding external links to commentaries by the same author! --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Literature you are listed as the reviewer for Codex Vaticanus. The review has been open for several weeks and it appears that work has stalled. Can this review be completed soon? Or is more time required? --maclean (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

:You are doing this review right? It's had three reviewers stall out on it already, please finish it... Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

:If you have abandoned tthis review, please have the courtesy to say so on the review page. Otherwise please finish it now. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Screwball, could you better help me understand your position on the McMahon article? I don't see the relevance of a pre-1993 (when she assumed control) trial of a company doctor, especially when the article is about Ms. McMahon herself, not the company. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, however. What do you feel this adds to our understanding of Linda herself? Thanks. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

: I must note you've made 3 reversions to this article within 24 hours. In case you're not familiar with the the Wikipedia three-revert rule, you may want to read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#The_three-revert_rule about it]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FellGleaming (talk • contribs) 23:47 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Just noticed the battle going on over this article. It's not my fight, but I thought I'd just mention to you it's my cursory impression that Fell Gleaming is beyond 3RR at this point on the article. You might want to be careful yourself, btw; I think - again from a very cursory look - that you might be at 2RR, at least. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

My experience engaging in and watching editorial disagreements has lead me to believe that accusing the opposition of improper motives only hurts your case, even when - no, especially when - the accusation is accurate. You're not telling the opponent anything they didn't know, and you're not looking to the undecided like you're working from a calm and reasoned position. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

:Ok, that makes a lot of sense. You're telling me my accusations are accurate, but you still want to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linda_McMahon&action=historysubmit&diff=382401072&oldid=382396891 revert me because I don't know how to play an editorial disagreement?] This is a very black day for wikipedia. :-(--Screwball23 talk 03:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

::No, I'm reverting your mass-reversion because in doing it, you reverted even things that you had agreed to, such as reintroducing much of the ringboy material. I didn't have time at the moment to sort out all of what should be restored and what should not. And no, I was not telling you that your accusations were accurate. I was saying that believing you're telling the truth - even telling the truth - does not make it an effective strategy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

:::Nat's right in his first assertion here, SB. And he wasn't attacking you, either. On the contrary, he was offering valuable and helpful advice. Telling your interlocuter he's biased isn't any kind of effective strategy at all, because no one really thinks of themselves as biased and they just take offense. It antagonizes the person, and regardless of whether the accusation has any truth to it or not, it doesn't generally impress onlookers, either, who always decide such things for themselves. I know you're very invested in this article, but he's right in saying that calm, reasoned disputation is much more likely to have the effect you want, both on the person you're disputing with, and with respect to observers, as well. None of this is meant as any reflection on reverts or on content, btw. I'm not familiar enough with the history here, or with who agreed to what, to offer any opinon on that.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR as you have now made 3 straight reverts on Linda McMahon and 8 in only four days. Consider this a warning about edit war behaviour on that article. Collect (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi your being reverted by multiple editors, perhaps more discussion is the answer. Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

25px You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on :Linda McMahon. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Example&editintro=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Intro&preloadtitle={{urlencode:File:Mcmahon ring.jpg}}§ion=new&title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Current_requests&create=Request here] to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI , you are edit warring on the

Linda McMahon article, please stop. Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

25px Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. In [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Linda_McMahon_U.S._Senate_campaign,_2010&curid=27589366&diff=384611373&oldid=384573015 this edit], you restored material allegedly supported by a citation where the citation did not support that assertion. BLP material must be explicitly mentioned in the citation, and this is clearly not. Failure to exercise more caution in the future will result in your being blocked. Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a solution to the polling problems!!! Refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums to the polling, new compromise section.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

25px You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on :Linda McMahon. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Let me give you some advice, both as an Arbitration Committee clerk and an editor who has been around for a couple years. There is zero chance that ArbCom will accept this dispute as currently filed. There is no evidence of prior dispute resolution besides communication processes. Generally for this type of thing to progress to ArbCom, at the very least, Deletion Review and a User Request for Comment should have been tried. I suggest that you withdraw your request, speak with a more experienced Wikipedian that you trust to give you good advice, and then pursue Dispute Resolution as suggested on that page. NW (Talk) 01:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

:Hi there. I have removed your case request per the direction of the arbitrators. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. NW (Talk) 13:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, could you give me an overview and an update in regards to the dispute with FellGleaming? I'm trying to track the problem down and I'm looking for your opinion on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Screwball23 regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

please help me man im new to wikipedia and some guy is bullying me its about the goldberg article please refer to the talk page i know you are a goldberg lover and i know you hate to see him get dissed(especially not by some ip editor)

now some guy called Qwyrxian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qwyrxian keeps insisting im a racist just cause i called someone a malaysian im telling him im not but they keep saying its indisputable and...

as for the ip editor heres a link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:175.144.73.197

he called a xenophobic racist but i only called him ignorant coz he is not looking in the link you put on the talk page to PROVE that goldbergs streak is not KAYFABE i know its not fake coz wcw saturday and some hidden matches like goldberg vs sandman and matches like dark matches were on the down low matches but they still count right?

look up on youtube for the sandman match it was brutal and there was some blood but it was like superman vs singapore can wielding man you gotta see it

i hope you will help and also please request semi protection on the article and please teach me how to do "wikipedia stuff" please coach me TraviaNightmare (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Screwball. This is in reply to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOhiostandard&action=historysubmit&diff=385742509&oldid=385645756 your post] to my talk page. Normally I like to keep talk-page discussions on the page where they begin, but I infer from your talk page that you probably don't follow that convention and that you might not have "watchlisted" my talk page, to make sure of seeing my reply. Thus my reply here. If you choose to respond you can do so right here, on your own talk page; I'll keep this page watchlisted for a while to make sure I don't miss any reply.

I think you need to be very careful to avoid any appearance of canvassing. Your post to my talk page probably doesn't strictly qualify as such, since I've demonstrated some interest in the article, but it's very close. I really don't have a lot to say beyond this; the behavior on all sides has been pretty unfortunate, imo.

There was a non-WP matter that I thought you might appreciate having some info about, however, regarding one of your interests. I wanted to e-mail you about that, but I notice you don't have that function enabled. So if you're interested, feel free to e-mail a quick "ping" to my all-lowercase, all-one-word Wikipedia user name at gmail dawt youknowwhat. ( I'm trying to keep the the evil spam bots away, of course. ) If you have only a personally-identifying e-mail account, feel free to create a generic "throwaway" account at gmail or yahoo, or wherever; it's probably wisest not to disclose one's name or other personally-identifying information to a stranger online, even in e-mail.

I have been and continue to be on something of a wikibreak just now, btw, so I might not get back to you very promptly if you post here, fyi. Btw, you know you're allowed to delete or archive your talk page messages, just as you prefer, right? There's an awful lot of old stuff here that makes navigating the page a bit more cumbersome than necessary. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, your editing has been mentioned in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Screwball23_again a thread at ANI here], regards. Off2riorob (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Stop x nuvola.svg

I'm sorry, but your recent behavior, including both [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linda_McMahon_U.S._Senate_campaign,_2010&diff=386984446&oldid=385744036 personal attacks] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linda_McMahon_U.S._Senate_campaign,_2010&diff=prev&oldid=386983496 edit warring], is unacceptable. You have been blocked three times for edit warring and warned many, many times. Please use these two weeks to think about how to be more civil to others and how to achieve consensus through discussion with other users. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

i'm new, but just wanted to say you can't go around doing bad stuff on wikipedia. it's bad. so remove it or lose it (yo account). behave now, cuz you gotta Tanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Phone Man (talk • contribs) 21:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The Request for mediation concerning Linda McMahon, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 11:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Hi, Screwball. I've made it clear on other pages that I disapprove very strongly of the behavior that you were blocked for, so I won't comment further on that here. And although the ANI thread in which you were blocked has now rolled off to archives, I feel obligated to tell you that there is a related discussion ongoing on the talk page of the admin who blocked you, King of Hearts. Two admins and one user have asked me to provide diffs to support my opinion that you weren't the only one edit-warring over the McMahon articles. I've not taken the time and trouble to do so because I think it's very obvious from just the two articles' revision histories, and also (to speak frankly) because I'm very tired of dealing with the problem. But since you weren't able to respond at all at ANI before you were blocked, you can present any evidence you might like to present here. I'd be willing to inform King of Hearts if you post here, so he could evaluate whatever you might wish to say.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to :meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like [http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Ambassador_Program Wikipedia Ambassador Program] and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

{{clear}}

FYI - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Linda_McMahon BLPN thread - L McMahon] - Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edit warring the templates, please move to proper discussion and take this as a warning, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

:You are not listening to me. Communication here is a two-way street. The template was never justified. I am working 1,000 times harder than everyone else here. I not only researched and then built the section, I put the refs in, and now I'm being challenged because people don't want to read the refs. Instead, I have people claiming that the material is uncited. How does someone handle that? The fact of the matter is, the tipoff memo is factually accurate. Read about Wikipedia's policy on POV - no one has ever raised their so called "disputes" or "objections" to the section, so obviously there is nothing to discuss.--Screwball23 talk 02:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it, you are over 3RR and under the circumstances that is very disappointing indeed, a thread was opened for discussion and still you revert. You are well enough experienced not to need warning about it. I am minded to report you immediately.Off2riorob (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

:What discussion? I don't see anything. You should be ashamed of accusing uncited statements when I am offering clear references for you to read. That is closed-minded behavior.--Screwball23 talk 02:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

30px This is your only warning. If you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at :Linda McMahon, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have been edit warring against multiple editors to include poorly sourced BLP material. Even if such material were properly sourced, it would violate WP:UNDUE. You have repeatedly reverted other editors without cause, when those editors were attempting to improve the NPOV of the article's wording. You are now (as if you weren't already) formally on notice that any future edit to this article which has the net effect--intended or not, revert or new material, today or some point in the future--of a BLP violation, broadly construed will result in your being blocked for such action. The sole defense against such future blocking will be demonstrated evidence that you have reached consensus for the edits on the article talk page. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

:This is absolute bullying. You are a disgrace of a wikipedian, and I should report your garbage to an administrator. I put on well-researched info and that reference was there for the longest time. All of a sudden, editors who have misinterpretted the NPOV policies to remove anything that is factual just because it might not look good are taking aim at this page and want to delete like its going out of style...and instead of logical arguments, all I am encountering is a gang of people who have the worst bad faith of anything I've seen. How is it suddenly an issue that the Counterfeit Hero reference is used? It was always there, and the facts were always there. There is nothing wrong with the reference.

:As far as your accusations of UNDUE weight, I know and you know that you are full of baloney. Her memo to Patterson was significant not only during the trial, but during her campaign. To say that it should be abbreviated is a disservice to readers, who will not be able to form an objective opinion of her actions simply because you decided you should take it upon yourself to "summarize" what happened instead of letting the quote stay. I had this argument with Collect and his gang before, and they never won the argument. You can't either, and since you're desperate, you are going to try and abuse wikipedia's blocking policy to scare me away. --Screwball23 talk 01:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

::You're free to rant all you want, but the next time you place BLP-violating material (either directly, or by reverting someone else's removal) into the article, you will be blocked from editing. You don't appear to be understanding the entire point of the WP:BLP policy. I'd encourage you to read through the noticeboard and see what other sorts of problems come up and how they're handled, to get a better perspective on the topic. If you don't want to do that, I don't see how you can contribute positively to Wikipedia articles involving living people. One thing you don't appear to be getting is the spectrum of viewpoints represented in the variety of editors who have reverted you and/or told you that you are proceeding in a manner against consensus. While it's certainly possible for everyone in this corner of Wikipedia to be ganging up on you, it's far more likely that you're simply not understanding consensus. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Brooklyn Museum June 2008 sunset jeh.JPG

Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome [http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/visit/first_saturdays.php First Saturdays] program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be '[http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/seductive_subversion/ Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968]', and the accompanying "[http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/seductive_subversion/wiki/ WikiPop]" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC){{clear}}

{{talkback|Sitush|}}

{{talkback|Sitush|}}

Of discussion at WP:WQA Collect (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

{{talkback|Skier Dude}}

Screwball23, Thank you for the Barnstar. Iss246 (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I copy edited the Malati Dasi entry today as part of the drive to work on the backlog. Of course, I would welcome your taking a look at the entry. Iss246 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm grateful for what you are doing with the lead of the above article at the moment. Right from the get-go I've had trouble with phrasing the thing - never done one before and even at the GA review neither I nor the reviewer were wonderfully happy with my attempts. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Watching remarks elsewhere, and assuming good faith can I suggest you start and work up an article on Craven Brothers- a defunct company specialising in machine tools, so we can better appreciate your ideas [http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/gafas/craven-brothers-manchester-limited.html this] will show you the sort of mills and planers they made- yes big, very big. There would be some interesting analysis on why they went down in 19070 in spite of a rumoured full order book. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

File:WikiNYC-picnic-ragesoss-ftw.jpg.]]

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape ([http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=214940327905495862192.0004a5c63b2a204447008&ie=UTF8&ll=40.786244,-73.967611&spn=0.005443,0.013078&z=17 directions]) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the [https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia_nyc mailing list] or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC){{clear}}

You have the concept of consensus all wrong - the dispute process is after something is reverted, discuss. In other words, if there is a dispute (as there clearly is), you need consensus to add it, not remove it.

:Also, the vandal tag was an accident; my apologies for that. :) Toa Nidhiki05 17:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

:What is your rationale for removing it? It is abusive to delete something without rationale, and then use the hazy excuse of "no consensus". And for you to claim that there is no consensus for an edit just seconds after I posted it is absolute nonsense. Consensus, by definition, requires more than one person.--Screwball23 talk 18:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

::Read up on dispute resolution, particularly this process - there is already consensus against that based on other rulings on the page. If you want to change that, cool, but do it the proper way rather than forcing it through. Toa Nidhiki05 18:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

:::If I have no rationale for your revert, what am I supposed to do? Come one, give me something to work with here. Is it something personal? Why are you so upset by my edits here?--Screwball23 talk 18:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

::::I have no issue and have not been involved on that page - but there is consensus against edits like that on the page, and thus I reverted it. What is so difficult about going to the talk page and discussing it with other editors? The page is not subservient to your will alone. Toa Nidhiki05 18:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

:::::"Edits like that?" Like what? For a person who "has not been involved on that page", you seem to know a lot about its consensus. Can you even tell me what consensus you are talking about? Seriously, if you have no issue, what am I discussing here? I'm supposed to discuss an edit issue with a person who doesn't have an issue?--Screwball23 talk 18:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

::::::Screwball, I am not involved - but that does not mean I have not been observing. The fact is, labels along the lines of 'absolute ruler' and 'absolute dictator' have been rejected many, many times by consensus - this also applies to future edits along the same lines. If you want to change consensus, start an RfC - otherwise, you need to follow the consensus that has been reached by your fellow editors.

:::::::You also appear to be taking this personally, when this is no personal issue - I reverted your edit that violates page consensus, and you seem quite angry and think I am out to get you or something.

I will reiterate - why can you not at least try and reach consensus with your fellow editors? You do not own the page. If you are not capable of doing something that simple, I honestly don't see why you are on a collaborative project. Toa Nidhiki05 18:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

::::::::That's not true and you know it. My edits regarding his Cult of personality were removed because of your claims of "consensus". Now, you are generalizing both that and his status as an absolute dictator, and trying to claim I'm forcing something against consensus without making it clear what you are talking about. I want you to see where I'm coming from - you are a person who claims to know consensus, and yet you have no issue, no reason to back up your reverts. I will tell you again to read Wikipedia: don't revert due to "no consensus" Check the talk page on Gaddafi, because I am discussing the facts there.--Screwball23 talk 18:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

:Screw, please assume good faith and stop the personal attacks. Accusing me of lying is not assuming good faith. Once again, what is the issue with holding an RfC on something that is clearly disputed? You still haven't answered that question. Toa Nidhiki05 18:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

::What is your dispute? Why can't you answer that question? You keep trying to point to some established consensus, saying that there's been a Wikipedia:PRIOR#Prior_discussion on this, and I have to tell you, I don't see any reason why a consistently-verified edit is being challenged by you.

:I don't see any reason why you can't take this to an RfC and discuss it other than that you don't want to collaborate with others. Toa Nidhiki05 19:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

::Assume good faith and stop the personal attacks--Screwball23 talk 20:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

HI

Just to let you know I have completed a copyedit on the Muammar Gaddafi article. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

{{talkback|Mr. Stradivarius|Linda McMahon|ts=07:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)}}

— Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've left a new reply for you on my talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 07:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I realise that you may have been a little upset, but removing my post is definitely against policy Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments. The post did not attack you in anyway shape or form, and its removal was definitely not covered by WP:NPA.

Changing the article against already agreed consensus needs to find new consensus before changes to it are made. As you seem to think that you can simply remove talk page comments that you disagree with, and quote a policy that does not apply, I think it best that you reconsider and revert your removal. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

PS I use the WikiChecker article count to see who are the main contributors to articles, perhaps it is innacurate?, nonetheless that is all we have to go on: Phase4 (36) Avanu (33) Jbower47 (31) AFarmer64 (22) Screwball23 (21) Chaosdruid (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi; I apologize for taking so long to reply to your comment on my talk page, and also for having said or done anything that might have caused offense or seemed to undermine the value of your contribution. Just so you know, I'm working on a thorough response to your comment (I'm planning to place it on article talk, if you wouldn't mind, because I feel that our concerns are relevant to the article and to its editors in general). My editing has been really sporadic lately, however, and I don't know exactly when I'll have a chance to post my reply (although I'll aim for sooner rather than later). So, in fairness to you, I will not even consider "re-reverting" (i.e., I will not deliberately again revert) any of your prior edits to the article until, at the very soonest, I have produced the rationale that you requested. Let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please review the DYK rules before nominating articles. Your nomination of Template talk:Did you know/Muammar Gaddafi was rejected because the article does not meet DYK's criteria. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Screwball23! Thanks for writing! Technically, I didn't make the John Paul II map, but I made the blank world map that it and most other maps on Wikipedia (at least the SVG versions) are based on. I don't have much free time to work on it, never mind to do your request, but there are instructions both on the talk page of the file on Commons, and in the first few lines of the SVG code itself (open the file with a text reader like Notepad). Thanks also for the barnstar offer, but I basically set out to improve an existing map with my very limited SVG knowledge and donate the end result to Wikipedia to let other turn it into what it's become on the site. So my reward is seeing it used rather than praise (besides, I always maintain that the SVG wizards who created the original (like User:Brianski) that I just improved deserve far more praise and barnstars than I. --Canuckguy (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello there. I am sorry to say, but that was not me who made the Libya map. I have no idea why my name was on it, but whatever. Besides that, I would be willing to do a quick map for you, I see nothing wrong with that. --NuclearVacuum (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the back-up. While I do a lot of polling edits, I'm not all against how you feel. But I suppose that a debate for another day. =) With that said, this is a encyclopedia, and as long as polls are included, they should at least be from a reliable source!! Thank you again! America69 (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading :File:Obamaarab_mccain2008.jpg. Unfortunately, I think that you have not provided a proper rationale for using this image under "fair use". Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. Note that the image description page must include the exact name or a link to each article the image is used in and a separate rationale for each one. (If a link is used, automated processes may improperly add the related tag to the image. Please change the fair use template to refer to the exact name, if you see this warning.)

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. {{You can request undeletion}} Thank you. Melesse (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on the recent modifications to the Gaddafi article. It seems like several editors are getting fairly zealous with the recent news, and I tried to revert a little, but your work was much more thorough. -- Avanu (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, :File:GaddafionTimemagazine.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, :File:Gaddafimoney.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on :Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

About [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linda_McMahon&diff=446415048&oldid=446345748 this edit] - do you see wrestler contracts in the reference? Do you have a different reference that says it? --GRuban (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Image:Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to :File:Saif al-Islam Gaddafi.jpg, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Melesse (talk) 06:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning.svg

Thanks for uploading :File:Obamaarab_mccain2008.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{tlx|di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|target=Screwball23&namespace=6}} this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg This is your last warning. The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at :File:Obamaarab mccain2008.jpg, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Melesse (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

:Friendly word of advice – please do not remove templates unless the problem has been fixed. Deletion templates must not be removed whilst the deletion is under consideration.

:Re the image of Saif Gadaffi, I think that there may be an argument for its retention in the article on its subject. I've mentioned this at ANI and started a discussion on the talk page of the image. I not that you have already disputed the deletion of the image. You are welcome to put forward your views at the talk page, where you have much more room to state your case. Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on :Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Off2riorob (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Image:Information.svg Please do not attack other editors, as you did at :Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2012. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There is currently [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_Conduct_of_User:Screwball23 a discussion] at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your conduct. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Conservatism invite|Signature=– Lionel ^(talk) 08:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)}}

Thanks for your contributions to conservatism. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Copyright-problem.svg

Thank you for uploading :File:Bob Turner9thcongressional.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, its as I understand the correct position of policy anf guidelines that living public figures require a commons compatible picture - because its just so easy t get one - adding a non commons picture to the infobox of such a person stops people looking for what we want, a commons licensed picture. You could try (I do this sometimes) emailing the subject and letting him know about the article, provide a link to it, and ask him if he would be willing to contribute a picture for the article under a commons license. Off2riorob (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Image:Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Housewatcher (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I am writing you because you used my name in an edit summary and because I truly do not understand why you re-added the pic of Bob Turner.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Turner_%28politician%29&diff=449932876&oldid=449906800] It could be that you are unaware of discussion on my talk page, and Off2riorob's where I indicated I did not plan on restoring the pic to the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKeptSouth&action=historysubmit&diff=449876454&oldid=449864597] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Off2riorob&diff=prev&oldid=449878349] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Off2riorob&diff=prev&oldid=449911184]. I believe you may be unaware of that discussion because I certainly did not know, at the time I did my single restoration of the pic, and at the time I asked Off2riorob about the policy, that you and Off2riorob had already discussed the removal of the pic on both your talk page and his.

Incivility aside, within his most recent remarks Off2riorob has now stated the not unreasonable view that "The fact that it has yet to be deleted is no excuse to keep it in the article". I am now thinking that perhaps the free use and deletion policies are unclear or silent on the matter of whether a tagged pic should be removed from articles pending a final determination--but that is another matter. I do believe, that for the moment, or at least in this instance, it is not unreasonable to think the answer is yes, challenged pic should be removed during that time period. So my suggestion is that you remove the pic, but you can do what you want, I have made only one reversion and I am not going to get involved at all in an edit war over an issue where essentially we all agree on the free use policy. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

:Hey Screw, as it stands the pic is going to be deleted because he's still alive and we need permission. Sometimes you can find free pics on Flickr. Have you considered asking him for permission? It's easy. Check this out WP:COPYREQ. If you don't get a response before they delete it, not to worry--you just upload it again when you have permission. – Lionel ^(talk) 13:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

::Hi Lionelt - Thanks for the advice. The odd thing is, both Screwball and I emailed the campaign for permission, and Screwball also said he would not be re-adding the pic-which is another reason why all of this should be a non-issue. See - User:Off2riorob#Bob Turner .28politician.29 It's not a bad picture either. Not too many people look that good at age 70. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I am currently very busy. I have a lot of school work at the moment. Please sent me the country list, but I can't promise I can get it done and I can't promise it will be quick. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I started a discussion about whether this should be in the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bob_Turner_(politician)#Office_cleaning.2C_new_chair.2C_etc], and though hilarious, I don't think so. Please weigh in if you want. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

:I have no strong feelings on this issue.--Screwball23 talk 18:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back from Wiki Project Terrorism! I'm Katarighe, a Wikipedian member since 2009. I'm currently the successor of Sherurcij in September because, he has not edited Wikipedia using this account for a considerable amount of time since May 2010. We are trying to renovate the new WP page this fall 2011 and we look forward this month whats next. If you are interested, start the renovation with us and new awards on contributing terrorism are coming soon. The WP terrorism newsletter begins January 2012. See you on October for the updates on WP terrorism. I will send this message next month about the updates. Good Luck.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Terrorism at 22:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Hi Screw! I just wanted to stop by and mention a few things. First, wondering what's going on with McMahon? That article is ready for WP:GAN. Don't you want a star on your userpage?

Second I've noticed you're having some difficulty with your uploads. I have a decent grasp of free/non-free and would be happy to give you some tips on preventing deletions. Also I just created the Commons branch of WikiProject Conservatism. It's just getting off the ground. Check it out here: [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:WikiProject_Conservatism].

You seem to be a magnet for conflict (smile), if you feel like you're getting pushed around please drop a note on my talk. I'd be happy to act as a go-between. TTFN – Lionel ^(talk) 08:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

{{wb|User talk:Lionelt#thanks}}

Screwball, I would like your input on the discussions at Talk:Jonathon Sharkey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathon Sharkey (5th nomination). On the talk page there have been allegations of Sharkey lying about his military service and PHD. While it does seem pretty convincing. Sharkey not only vehemently denied it but asked Saturn to delete the page. I love to hear your input. Thanks! SOXROX (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on :Jonathon Sharkey. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Difluoroethene (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Image:Information.svg Please do not attack other editors, as you did at :User talk:Difluoroethene. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Several editors have chimed in to discuss your ANI addition, I'm sure we'd all appreciate it if you'd join in the discussion you started about William S. Saturn. Dayewalker (talk) 02:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

File:WIKILPA.jpg in NYC]]

You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dEpoZlBGeXVlTFl1ZGxjWjhKN3B6RWc6MQ&ndplr=1 here]!--Pharos (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Image:Information.svg Please do not attack other editors, as you did at the DRV on Bert Oliva. "he never reached full sanity after a battle we had" is an absolutely unacceptable comment on a fellow editor. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I see you have previous warnings; I hope this will be the last. JohnCD (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Screwball23,

I noticed you replied to some feedback from the new Feedback Dashboard feature – you might be interested in the task force Steven Walling and I just created for this purpose: Wikipedia:Feedback Dashboard. Thanks for diving in on your own and helping the newbies, and I hope you'll sign up! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

WT:New editor feedback#Proposed office hours. Thanks, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York%27s_9th_congressional_district_special_election,_2011&curid=32109175&diff=462693076&oldid=462545326 this edit] you haven't "removed editorializing" but restored it. Maybe you misclicked? Regards Hekerui (talk) 09:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Please be advised that your reverts at Rick Santorum may be construed at WP:AN/EW as edit war, and that you are currently already at the bright line limit of 3RR. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

:Reported {{diff|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring|462770465|462756201|here}}. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Screwball23,

Thanks for signing up for the Feedback Dashboard response team! I wanted to let you know that the tool just got an important update (see here for details). I also wanted to invite you to the IRC office hours session that Steven and I are going to hold this Sunday, December 4. Hope you can make it and share your experience/questions with us! Thanks again, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|reason=I have been editing a number of articles connected to the Republican presidential primaries. Most recently, I edited Rick Santorum and added information regarding his faith and connection to Catholicism. I was immediately fought by User:Collect who did not discuss the topic with me. He simply said it was against policy and gave me 1 warning before blocking it. He also disregarded the entire paragraph, which was absolutely fine, and used the 1 or 2 sentence portion about his possible connection to the Opus Dei Catholic organization as rationale for deleting an entire section. It is relevant to his biography that he is Catholic, shares sympathies for that organization ([http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30 see Fishers of Men, an Oped Santorum wrote]), as well as other traditionalist Catholic organizations. All I did was post the facts. I will admit that the section heading should focus more on his faith than on the possibility that he is an Opus Dei member, but at the time of my block, that was what I was posting. I was unfairly blocked because I had an entire section disregarded and deleted, when I clearly communicated the fact that it was 1 or 2 sentences that needed to be reworded, but that was it. I did not violate the 3RR and the block statement said I reposted it 5 times. That is absolutely untrue, and I want an impartial editor to review my edits because I did not do any sort of speedy reverts, or quick redoes of any sort. I clearly communicated with dissenting parties on the talk page and was coming very close to revising the paragraph to a form everyone would agree with. I understand the Opus Dei is controversial and his supposed membership in the group is completely speculative. However, it is a fact that he has attended an Opus Dei event in the past and received a speaking role at the event. It is also true that his campaign has repeatedly been asked and consistently denied that he is a member. Please unblock me and review my edits to the page. I want an unbiased judge to please review the edits in question. Thank you.Screwball23 talk 01:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)|decline=You were clearly edit warring; given that this is your fifth block for edit warring and/or disruption, one would think you'd have gained some understanding our policies. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)}}

:I wanted an unbiased judge to review this case and not use prejudice against me. Your knee-jerk reaction to say "you were clearly editwarring" is not a fair evaluation. I want to make it very clear that I follow the rules and I put researched information on the page. I did nothing wrong. User:Collect is very good at gaming the system; he gave me a warning and refused to respond to any constructive discussion that I wanted to have on the subject. I want to appeal but I don't know who to speak with. All I know is that User:Jpgordon did not do any due diligence in responding to my case. This is also the first time I have ever appealed a block, because I never knew how to before. It is not right to bite me immediately for doing the right thing.--Screwball23 talk 16:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg Your recent editing history at :Rick Santorum shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. And I'll give myself one too, just to be fair. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Disputed desired addition - hi - shall we WP:RFC or just discuss on the talkpage till we find consensus - clearly the issue is over six years old and as such there can be no hurry to add it to the WP:BLP - meet you there, regards, - Youreallycan (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Even when you disagree with other editors, please don't call them "losers".   Will Beback  talk  01:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

:Have you ever been blocked for no reason? By people who succeeded only because they knew how to abuse the system? I thought so. So don't come out and try to give me your advice.--Screwball23 talk 01:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

::It's not just advice. WP:CIVILITY is a policy, not just a suggestion. It's better to keep your opinions of other editors to yourself.   Will Beback  talk  01:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

:::Oh, thank you for defending the civility policy. I wish you were there when I was being attacked by those scumbags, when they violated WP:NOTCENSORED and wildly misinterpreted the WP:NOTRUMORS policy. Seriously man, it's not fair to enforce one set of rules on me and none on them, so don't even try to use your holier than thou attitude on me. You're not fooling anyone.--Screwball23 talk 14:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear "Mr. Screwball"?

Thank you for your honest feedback regarding the presidential republic polling graph. To be honest, I can't find the discussion page (with your arguments) you referring to. Could you point me in the right direction? Your request for a graph with polling figures on the y-axis, and time-frame on the x-axis-- this is exactly what my old graph does, only without the numbers, which I believe is key to fulfilling your layman purpose; after all numbers scare people, are confusing, are present in abundance and visually overwhelming. Anyway, I can email you the the original file should you wish to add your own spin on the graph. Please email my personal email at taylorluker1@gmail.com, as I don't check my Wikipedia page very often. To be honest, I find this to be the most frustrating part of Wikpedia: pouring my heart and energy into something valuable, even only marginally valuable only to have others delete it's value from the public sphere, simply because they don't like it-- not because it is factually inaccurate. Errr. But I respect ya'lls viewpoint.

Thank you!

On an unrelated note.....

As a Wikipedian you must be brilliant, therefore I thought you might have some value feedback to offer.....

I am applying for a few social entrepreneurship fellowships and was wondering if you’d be kind enough to review the application essays (~5 pages). My idea involves technology, organizations and non-profit stuff.

If yes, essays are here: http://db.tt/TTrUiVS1 and here: http://db.tt/WRTrqKTf. I welcome any/all feedback in any medium. Please tear it up alive, you can’t hurt my feelings. If possible, by a week from today.

Thank you so much for considering! This means the world to me. I thank you advance-- I am forever indebted.

Thank you,

Luke

taylorluker1@gmail.com

Taylorluker (talk) 05:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: your recent comment at Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012, see WP:RFPP. I haven't been paying a lot of attention to the Johnson issue, so I don't know if those involved are new users/anon IPs or experienced (i.e. auto-confirmed) editors, which would make a difference in whether to request semi-protection or full protection. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'd rather not be drawn into political BLPs if I can help it. We probably need a Presidential election BLP task force! Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading :File:384690 Newt-Gingrich-as-Uncle-Scrooge.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Double image (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

First, you should note that if any blocking was going to occur, it would be to block you for violating WP:CONSENSUS. You're having a content dispute - they happen all the time. Follow the processes, in WP:DR. If I were to have protected the page, it would have been at a version to include the candidate until such a time as new consensus was found. You can always open an WP:RFC to ask the community to comment on whether or not the candidate belongs. THAT is how Wikipedia works, not continually re-removing something that you don't think belongs. You are one of the authors of an edit-war - one that would not have occurred if you had followed dispute resolution. You were bold, someone reverted, you must discuss until new consensus is formed (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

: I have reverted your personal attack from my talkpage. You are to follow the processes in WP:DR - no if's, and's or but's. If another admin had felt my decision was in the wrong on AN3, then they would have acted differently - there are, after all, dozens of admins who monitor that page. There is no "appeal" when you can't even bother to follow the basic editing practices that are provided to you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

::Ok, so you want to BS me again with policies, while you yourself want to abuse your own privileges as an admin and completely ignore one side of the dispute? That's disgusting. Don't talk to me, because you clearly have no idea what a poor manager you are for this encyclopedia.--Screwball23 talk 02:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (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) 12:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg Your recent editing history at :Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.{{Break}}You seem to be very familiar with these, so I wont need to explain anything.

--Metallurgist (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

:New evidence proves you have edit warred by violating 3RR.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to tell you that a user has reported you for Sockpupperty.... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Screwball23]

I suggest that you call him out on his bluff. And if possible make note of the way he failed to inform you.68.39.100.32 (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to :Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 can easily be misinterpreted. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Please do not use inflammatory language in edit summaries. Assume good faith when dealing with other editors Incitatus13 (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|This is not true. I never use any other account. This is absolute abuse of the system. How could wikipedia allow a group of editors who disagree with me to suddenly abuse the system like this and make up a false accusation? I want to talk with a real administrator about this please.|decline=Bwilkins is a real admin, and so am I. There is no abuse of the system, you've very clearly been tendentiously editing and edit warring in both letter and spirit, and you likely used sockpuppets as well. Continuing to scream "abuse!!!!" isn't going to get you anything except the disabling of your talkpage access for the duration and possible an extension to an indefinite block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)}}

: You're welcome to talk to me - I am, after all watching this talkpage. Note, you're not blocked for WP:SOCK ... indeed, I didn't even take that into account. You have edit-warred, pure and simple. I even advised you gently on at least one occasion. It's not that I wholly disagree with your POV, I disagree with your methods...and those behaviours are what have led to this. You totally ignore WP:CONSENSUS and the collegial atmosphere of this project. I am, however, quite willing to listen if you would like to go back to the 5 pillars of Wikipedia and stop being disruptive to this project (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

::I forgot to put a notice here to inform the user that I had reset and extended the block to 6 weeks at 01:15, January 31, 2012 per this SPI. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

::: If that's the case, then what an absolutely stupid thing for someone to have done. Socks and sockers don't deserve the effort in trying to help (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

::::I have no idea what Bwilkins is tryign to say. The sarcasm is not helpful and I don't even understand why he fee entitled to make the block and deny me, closing any discussion I could have with unbiased editors. I only edit wiht my account. This is untrue and I want to appeal to an unbiased admin. BWilkins is currently abusing his admin privileges by blocking me without reason. Please help me or inform me how I can get help to remove this block.--Screwball23 talk 02:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

::::: On Wikipedia we have a concept of escalating blocks. Your past pattern of blocks, and continued edit-warring led you to the original short block that I implemented. As it was your behaviour that led to it, it's pretty difficult for you to claim "admin abuse" and that I had "no reason". I was quite willing to hear what you had to say, and that's why I watch this page. However, while blocked, it appears that you evaded the block, using what's known as a WP:SOCK. Your block was amended by someone else because of this, not me. I see at least 3 independent admins, all who have agreed that the block is valid, fair, and required to protect the project. Socking is one of the lowest forms of action on Wikipedia, and the proof is pretty clear. As such, you're likely to find very little all-out attempts to help you. You may appeal to WP:ARBCOM, most likely via the ban appeals subcommittee. You may also e-mail your unblock request - but you should read and understand the guide to appealing blocks first. While visiting ArbCom, you may also wish to try and provide proof of my "admin abuse" to them - they may listen if you can present a case that actually proves it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Screwball, it is my absolute apologies for having this sock block over your head. I've just conferred with a functionary and have found where I slipped up. You were cleared of all such socking, and it is my apologies for this to be over your head. Your original block was restored and is still active. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

:: I, for one, am glad the sock accusation is gone too. It was disappointing/frustrating to think that someone who actually had some positive things to add to the project had gone that far off the map. EW and TE are bad enough; stooping to socking would have been pretty much the end (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}

Screwball, I noticed you're having some difficulty. Can I be of assistance? – Lionel ^(talk) 05:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

:Yes, I want the admin who abused his privileges and had me blocked to be punished. I also want to be unblocked to contribute to wikipedia.--Screwball23 talk 03:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

::Well, I can't help you with the first item, but getting unblocked may be within the realm of possibility. You may be able to get unblocked if you take care of 2 items. But first, you'll have to cease any and all commenting about the blocking admin. Ie until you get unblocked anyway. Can you hold your tongue about the admin? – Lionel ^(talk) 04:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

::: Lionelt, I've showed this editor The Guide to Appealing Blocks, but he chooses to not follow the steps. Unblock is pretty easy, especially now that everyone has apologized and moved on from the WP:SOCK concept. Take a look through this page: do you see any sign that they recognize why they were blocked, or a bunch of WP:NOTTHEM? Do you see any sign that the actions that led to the block will not recur? I unblock a lot of editors - it's not rocket science. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

::::@Bwilkins: "I unblock a lot of editors." I can't believe you just wrote that. TO ME of all people! (I'm being facetious. Well, maybe half-facetious, half-sarcastic.) Anyway, Screwball's page makes interesting reading. He definitely picked the right username! (Kidding) I love Will's request, almost pleading, "please don't call them "losers"". But seriously, Screw does good work. There's a FA out there somewhere with his name on it. You ask good questions about block recurrence. But I have a question: is there a mechanism we can put in place to intervene before something blockable happens? – Lionel ^(talk) 11:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

::::: The first block on June 17, 2010 was the first attempt at intervention. The four additional ones between then and when I had to protect the project from the exact same offence were all attempts at a mechanism for intervention. You edit-war, you get blocked ... you edit war again, you get blocked for longer. Pretty standard across the board. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

::::::Screw is good at editing. I'm good at not getting blocked. I can help Screw avoid blocks, and he can help get me FAs and GAs for WPConservatism. Getting Screw to agree to some ground rules would be a first step. E.g. only use foul language on his user talk. 1RR limit. Next we put an edit notice on his talk requesting that I be CC'ed for all warnings. If everything works according to plan, Screw will edit to his heart's content and if he gets into trouble I'll ride in and save the Wiki. You know I had a similar setup before. It was working great... that is until the editor got a badunlucky block, even though he was only at 1RR, and a certain admin wouldn't unblock. Boy, back then I wish I had had a "I unblock a lot of editors" admin instead of a "can, and will, make difficult blocks" admin (more facetiousness). – Lionel ^(talk) 13:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::::: If you're offerring to mentor Screwball, that's not a bad concept. Of course, cc'ing you on warnings is not likely, nor easy. As a mentor, it'd be your job to monitor your mentee's talkpage accordingly. Note: performing difficult blocks on difficult editors and being willing to unblock those who get simply caught up in the crap are two different things - and are indeed merely a part of the same mindset. The job is to protect: I don't hold grudges, and I look at every single case differently. Remember, my basic philosophy is that everyone has something to add to Wikipedia: many just don't know it yet. Difficult blocks are for those who don't know it. Unblocks are for those who we don't need to protect the project from because they're ready to add something. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)