Jump to content

User talk:Bart Versieck/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

List of people with the longest marriages

Slow down! There's nothing wrong with adding so much, but wait until you've accumulated it, then add it. If you really want to renovate an article, start it on a subpage of your user account, then transfer it to the main article once it's complete. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 21:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's finished now though. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
But you reverted several edits of mine, including additions, corrections, link fixes, surnames, ... in the process as well. Extremely sexy (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Why won't you add your corrections again, since now you can, Questioning Man? Extremely sexy (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"External links" v. "references"

Hi Bart! I did some reading to get to the bottom of whether to use "External links" or "References" for links like those found on the Lucy Hannah page, and this is what I came up with -- the style guideline on "external links" says in part:

Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not be placed in an external links section.

The style guideline on citing sources says contrasts "general references ... that support a significant amount of material in the article" with "inline citations ... that provide source information for specific statements".

If I read these guidelines correctly, the Hannah article is aptly tagged for cleanup for lacking inline citations -- but the links which are provided do serve as general references, and therefore do not belong in the external links section. Does that make sense? -- Shunpiker (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, understood: I agree with you. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Lazare Ponticelli

Even though I did most of the work, I couldn't help some of your edits to Lazare Ponticelli. I have requested a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Lazare Ponticelli/archive1, in case you wish to comment. Hopefully we can improve it to GA status. Editorofthewiki 23:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Continued WP:BLP disruption on Ruby Muhammad despite massive warnings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

After a long series of warnings about your disruption, I finally warned you earlier in January that if you continued to insert your personal bias on the Ruby Muhammad page and violating the consensus discussed in the Request for Comment you would be blocked for one week. Then you continued, but still I and others tried to discuss it with you on your talk page and you were warned by myself and others to stop being disruptive on that page. I thought the message had finally gotten through, since you seemed to be greatly improving in your edits and I was very happy. But then, for no reason whatsoever, you do this in complete disregard for the fact that the consensus on the talk page is not to reference her possible age fib due to a lack of its publication in third-party, reliable sources.

I said that "I'm fine with changing her to longevity claim, if we apply the standard to EVERYONE who turns 110 until they are verified by an international body." Well, you didn't put her in one category or the other, just accused her of not being 111 (true or not is irrelevant thanks to WP:BLP) and you didn't do the same for Yakup Satar, whom you edited three minutes before. Therefore, because you have received a dozen warnings and yet continue to be disruptive and ignore consensus on the page, I am blocking you for 72 hours. I brought it down from my original warning of a week because I think you've done a lot of constructive work over the past week or so and you've been very respectful. But nothing excuses constant disruption after this many warnings from this many users. Cheers, CP 15:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bart Versieck (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

just the word "alleged" is not forbidden, is it, and, by the way, for all I know she could be dead: someone first changed the sentence mentioned into "she turned 111", but that isn't proven either, meaning her current status of living

Decline reason:

you were ignoring consensus, and thereby disruptive. In future, establish consensus on the talk page, and then make the article changes. — PhilKnight (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bart Versieck (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

what consensus, for there is none?

Decline reason:

That question is not a reason why your block violated blocking policy and should be overturned. — Sandstein (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bart Versieck (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked by an administrator who is definitely already too much involved in the matter itself to have the right to block me

Decline reason:

You have offered no excuse for your behaviour. — Yamla (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment from NealIRC

Not sure if non-admins can make comments, but here goes:

Bart, you're making too many fallacies. Italicizing your text.

just the word "alleged" is not forbidden, is it,

No of course not. For example, you could have used another word that means the same thing as "alleged." Do you think that would have made a difference?

and, by the way, for all I know she could be dead:

Wow, what does that have to do with her being born in 1897 or 1907? Or opposing consensus.

someone first changed the sentence mentioned into "she turned 111", but that isn't proven either, meaning her current status of living

Wow, always someone else's fault. The problem with your reasoning is someone else's mistakes don't justify yours. That's the thing. Two wrongs don't make a right. Neal (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
But it's honestly only just because that person changed it into a fact of mentioning her alleged 111th birthday that I added it in the first place though. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Which is the problem. It is another example of following the wrong. The problem with your argument is you're trying to blame your stupidity of following someone else in the wrong to justify your act. The problem with this argument is, it's wholly invalid. Your argument could at least make sense if it was following someone in doing the right. Neal (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Bart, as for your editing of my text, I understand English is not your fluent language, so you follow it in a very computer-like sense. When I say the number 2 (and not two), I did it on purpose. I type out numbers, then spell them for a very courtesy reason: which is more easier for you to read, three hundred fourty-seven or 347? And, as for my usage of commas, my intent in that wasn't to try to be grammatically correct, but to let the readers know when to pause. Anyways, this is your talk page, so...

This is the difference between editing someone's text where they "accidentally" made a mistake, or when it was their intent. I understand you do not feel the word "accidentally" deserves to have quotes around it, but removing it would be redundant (assuming I did it on purpose). Neal (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand, but the whole point is in fact that I wanted to point out that his edit hadn't been reverted and her claimed age isn't validated at all either though. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Disruption already?

Consider this another in a long string of warnings about editing other people's talk page comments, which I believe you have been blocked for several times in the past, even beyond the dozens of warnings you've received from others. Also, in this case, you didn't even edit it properly since correct English would never say that he has "the Italian nationality". You've already done it twice in the hour that you have been back. Please, be respectful of the talk page guidelines from now on. Cheers, CP 16:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Here you are, a third time, this time changing the context of the individual's comments. I'll be charitable enough to attach this warning to the one above, but keep in mind you've been asked not to do this by many other people in the past. Cheers, CP 16:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay then, but he wrote about "the Italian nationality" himself, you know. Extremely sexy (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Consider this your final warning on editing other people's talk page comments. How many warnings do you need? Do not, under any circumstances, touch other people's comments unless it is required for the page to be readable or on your own talk page. Cheers, CP 00:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems like Bart has made no real changes to the comments, only fixing them so it looks better to him in his understanding of English. Editorofthewiki 19:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's talk page guidelines clearly state that no one's comments should be edited unless required for the page to display properly. Bart has not only been warned about this policy in the past, but has been blocked several times in the past for disruptively violating it. He does not have an excuse to act this way. Cheers, CP 04:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Got it, man. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, you haven't gotten it. How many times do you have to be warned and blocked regarding talk page guidelines? You've been asked not be disruptive in this fashion innumerable times. This disruption is too much.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of One week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent editing of other editors' talk-page comments, despite many, many requests to stop and five earlier blocks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Cheers, CP 16:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Katherine Plunket

Bart, grow a brain. The Katherine Plunket is a European case. When BrownHairedGirl worked hard on un-stubbing it, she changed the Month N, Year format to N Month Year format. I accidentally made a mistake of putting it in the U.S. format, and fixed it. Matter fact, everywhere in the article did it use the N Month Year format, not Month N, Year. I see you already reverted to my edits twice without providing any explanation. If you revert back to the U.S. format again, I'll be sure to let BrownHairedGirl know, and I betcha you won't want her on your case.

Matter fact, the article itself also belongs to WikiProject: Ireland, and looking at several of her articles (preferably her grandfather), they all follow the N Month Year format. I don't think WikiProject: Ireland would approve of your U.S edits either.

By the way, you're not from the U.S. either, so why use the U.S. format? I know the Gerontology Research Group says "December 15" for the day Delina Filkins died, so I don't think it violates a policy for changing it to 15 December, eh? Neal (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well: just plain logic since everywhere else in the very same article all dates are written starting with the number too. Extremely sexy (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
What number? Everywhere in her article uses the N Month Year format. Everywhere except where you previously reverted to. Neal (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
All dates should be written exactly the same way, and just one date, just like it is right now, my friend. Extremely sexy (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Not that this has anything to do with the year issue, but I do find it odd that BrownHairedGirl, who usually does a lot of work at Ireland related articles, did some work here instead of nominating for deletion or merging. Interesting... I think this inherant bias should be noted at the mass AfDs. For example, she tagged Lazare Ponticelli as non-notable and merged it into the list of French supercentenarians. Now, several months later, his article contains 13,000+ bytes and is currently awaiting promotion to Good article status. Editorofthewiki 17:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the bottom of her talk posted by Carcharoth, called supercentenarians. She agreed that the Lazare Ponticelli article is no longer a stub, and has no problem with it being unmerged from the list of French supercentenarians. Neal (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Sigh... she agreed it was a stub at the time of merging it. Not anymore. So that contradicts your view of her merging it. And the mass AfDs are over now, so you can't exactly note that now. Neal (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, just for the sake of argument, she found out about the Katherine Plunket article when I posted it on the WikiProject: Ireland talk, asking if it could be unstubbable or not. Several days later, she replied "definitely unstubbable" (after Googleing her of course). She found out that Katherine Plunket was a descendant of some of the famous Irish aristocracy, an artist, somehow a relative of hers, etc. And she worked on the article (November 22). Looking at the history page, she didn't touch that article before that. Whether or not it's unusual, I don't consider it, since Katherine Plunket is part of the Irish aristocracy. Her lifespan isn't a reason to be against it. Neal (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Neal is right. I have AFDed or merged lots of articles where notability is not established, and as part of a major exercise of assessing Irish Irish articles over the last week or two I have AFDed several, prodded a dozen or more, and tagged many hundreds as unreferenced or non-notable.
One of the things that most damages wikipedia's reliability as an encyclopedia is editors who are so fond of a subject that they argue until the cows come home that everything to do with it must be notable, even where there are not enough reliable references to allow the creation of anything except a miserable little stub article which often gets padded with unsourced material or original research.
If the Katherine Plunket article hadn't been capable of expansion, I would have merged it too. The reason that I put my own time into expanding it was that a bit of research threw up a family connection (she's not a relative, but only three or four degrees of separation from me), but anyone else could have expanded it, because all my sources were found online. And, of course, if it had been merged, then it could have been unmerged if and when sources were found, just as happened with Lazare Ponticelli. Look at the article history: all the references in the current version are from after the article was merged. Ponticelli was not notable last year, but became notable after his death.
The only reason that there were mass AFDs was because a very small group of editors who didn't find any evidence of notability per WP:BIO decided to revert the mergers. The concept of notability is not that complicated, and it's a pity that some editors still prefer making snide accusations rather than maintaining the encyclopedia's standards. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I was the one doing most of the edits to the article, and I'm simply noting that Plunkett was Irish, you do a lot of edits at Ireland-related articles, and you nominated quite a few articles for deletion a while before I registered. I'm not arguing that Ponticelli wasn't notable before his death, I personally think he was, only that the majority of sources are obituaries. However, in my reasearch on that person, I was able to dig up two sources that were before his death. I hold nothing against you and I do hold Katherine Plunket as notable, I'm stating some observations I have made. I've got to get out of supercentenarians right now--too much drama!--and back to the long haul of expanding French commune articles. Editorofthewiki 01:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Good luck to you if you can improve some of the supercentenarian articles; actually going out and finding sources which establish notability is a breath of fresh air in the midst of the crowd who don't read WP:N and argue that being old is itself evidence of notability, even if there is no substantial coverage.
However, you didn't just "state some observations", you alleged an "inherent bias". It's a pity that you didn't either check your facts or assume good faith, and that you still haven;t withdrawn the comment. C'est la vie :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Just thought you want to know

About this WikiProject. Editorofthewiki 19:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I do indeed: thanks for telling me. Extremely sexy (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Item of interest

See this. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you, please, undo your honestly inappropriate deletion of my own image, since I took it myself? Extremely sexy (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok hi I replied to you in my talk page. Neal (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC).

And I reacted already. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Juran edits

Just two comments:

  • Per Template:Citation, for accessdate, "Unlinked ISO 8601 format is preferred."
  • Though the WP:MOS appears silent on the subject, in practice more people omit whitespace where it does not affect rendering, e.g., 
    *list item
    vs. 
    * list item
-- DanielPenfield (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, dear Daniel. Extremely sexy (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I assume from your response and facetious signature that you consider comments about your edits personal criticism, but that is not my intention. Here's a third comment, however:
  • One should be cautious in editing subjects with which one has not familiarized himself. In particular, your lumping of half of "contribution to management" with his death makes it sound like he merely "faded away" when his autobiography makes it clear he was very active into his late eighties and really didn't fully retire until his mid nineties.
-- DanielPenfield (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
No, not at all really, but don't you think just one line for a separate paragraph entitled "Death" is too little, Daniel? Extremely sexy (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • While a separate section for "death" was indeed too little, combining it the way you did was in fact worse, because it conveys misinformation and, more importantly, because it was obviously contrary to the original writer's intent in writing "contribution to management". I had considered deleting it entirely because it's redundant with both the first sentence of the article and the infobox, but stopped short because that approach tends to be too radical for most peoples' tastes. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Right: I do understand what you mean. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah!

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lazare Ponticelli. Editorofthewiki 01:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I voted in favour. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

EMDT

You may be interested in what I wrote here. 125.162.163.120 (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting, but not very useful. Neal (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I reacted over there. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Bart, in just 5 more days, Edna Parker may reach 115! Wow! We haven't had a verified 115 year-old since January 2007. This will be exciting! Neal (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC).

I definitely agree with you, of course. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't jinx it you guys... I just looked at the talk page of Emiliano Mercado del Toro, and what did HisSpaceResearch do. :( However, I think that this would be usefull on the wikiproject. Editorofthewiki 20:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes: so fingers crossed, my friend. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing other people's comments

How do you justify this edit or this one when you have been blocked and warned countless times for editing others comments and being warned how disruptive it is? Cheers, CP 17:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

First answer this question of mine: why are you stalking me all the time? Extremely sexy (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speciaal%3ALogboeken&type=block&user=&page=Gebruiker%3ABart+Versieck&year=&month=-1
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ABart+Versieck&year=&month=-1
Maybe that's why? Aleichem (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The Dutch Wikipedia is something else and from more than one year ago, you know. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Versieck, what is your response to the countless talk page violations you've committed over the years? Please respond. Postoak (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
It won't happen again. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would note that I'm not "stalking" you. WP:STALK has a full definition but, most importantly, "stalking" refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption and proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy. As a user with an extensive history of disruption on talk pages, it is reasonable to keep an eye on your edits, particularly the ones on talk pages. I am not attempting to continue disruption, but stop it. Cheers, CP 19:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, dear Paul. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

You have been warned plenty of times and been blocked for a week just last month for exactly the same thing, even though you said then you'd got it and immediately went back on your word. Above you say it won't happen again, but why would I believe you now when you've made the same promise at least twice before and forgotten it. Your promises now carry no weight and you need to have some time off to reflect on our policies. Spend the time reading WP:TPG for a start. Your block logs here and at the Dutch Wikipedia are a disgrace and its time you started to show some respect to the rest of the community by following our policies rather than thumbing your nose at us.

You do not change other peoples edits. Minor spelling and grammatical errors should be left as you find them. —Moondyne click! 01:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Bart, you really got to stop doing this. Soon this will result in an indef block if you don't stop. I will talk to Moondyne about this one, but next time you make small changes to talk pages, I"ll not be doing this anymore. Editorofthewiki 01:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Moondyne did Versieck a favor by only blocking him for a week. He deserves to be permanently blocked since he has been repeating the same violation for over a year with the same "I promise not to do it again" response. Postoak (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou for that link Postoak - I hadn't read all of that until now and it only causes me more consternation and I do wonder if Bart has a obsessive/compulsive disorder over which he has limited control. I'm not sure what to do about this issue so have left a note at WP:AN/I#Bart Versieck for more input. —Moondyne click! 06:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I was going to let him go with just a warning this time, since I didn't want to be seen as having a vendetta against him, blocking him at every opportunity, but I do hope that he sees that it's a serious concern we have and not just a personal conspiracy. I'm not sure if it can be attributed to a disorder, since one of the edits that I commented on last round was not even a proper correction but, then again, I don't know enough to make that call. Cheers, CP 14:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's the deal Bart. Once this current block expires, you may return to normal editing, However, the very next time you revert another persons talk page edits you will be immediately blocked for 3 months. No warnings will be given. This condition will stand for 12 months. If this is not clear then please let me know. Your behaviour just takes too much time and energy away from people who respect this project and it is my belief that your absence won't be a large loss. I hope that you can start to play by the rules. Moondyne 06:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am, Moondyne. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on list of the verified oldest people

A request for comment has been initiated at Talk:List of the verified oldest people. As you have been involved in the issue, you may wish to comment there. Cheers, CP 00:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks: I will. Extremely sexy (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Emiliano Mercado del Toro

I know you didn't write this. I would've asked Young, since he wrote it, but since he is blocked and his talk page is protected, I'll ask you. How do you know that if 128 males live to 115, it is certain that one of them will beat Jeanne Calment? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 06:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Bart, this is what I said:

The odds of Emiliano catching Jeanne Calment are about 1 in 

128...meaning given 128 115-year-old males, there would be an even chance of one
making it to 122.45 years old. → R Young {yakłtalk} 12:53, 19 January
2007 (UTC)

It says one needs 128 115-year-old males to get EVEN odds of catching 

Jeanne Calment...NOT that someone WOULD catch Jeanne Calment.

Also, Inflict Action Expert (or whatever) should set up a Wiki e-mail 

system. I can still receive e-mails.

Sincerely Robert Young

Something else

Bart, you have done so much on Wikipedia, you should nominate yourself for adminship. WP:Rfa is the page to go to do so. Just start your adminship with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bart Versieck, add to the top of the RfA page, and see how well your request goes. You should also tell Young to do exactly this once he gets unblocked. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 06:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I would truly doubt that such a RFA would pass, based solely on the block log. And that is if Young get's unblocked; many people strongly dislike him and want him banned forever (myself not included). Editorofthewikireview my edits here! 00:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Well: I do have to agree with you concerning Robert Young, unfortunately so, and my own block log doesn't favour my own attempt either, but I will try regardless of the outcome, so fingers crossed for my, "Expert". Extremely sexy (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You were warned

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for talk page disruption. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Cheers, CP 00:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well Bart, you were warned after your last block that any more editing of people's comments on talk pages and you would be blocked for three months without a warning, something you stated that you clearly understood. This and especially this are unacceptable. I will now be instituting the block that Moondyne recommended.

I have reduced your block to three weeks, as I and several other admins feel three months was too harsh. However, I have reviewed your contributions, and what I see is a user who thus far has made no effort whatsoever to change his behavior despite numerous warnings and blocks. Consider this your final administrative warning. If there's a next time for such behavior, the next block will be much, much longer--and possibly indefinite. Blueboy96 18:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Roy Henderson and two similar articles

Hi. Thank you for your message but I'm a bit confused by receiving a message from 'Extremely sexy'. Are you now editing under the name Bart Versieck? I tried to find your edits under 'Extremely sexy' . . . . Which articles were you referring to? Opera singer categorization is explained here. About 1400 articles are categorized this way. Thanks. --Kleinzach 03:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That's my nickname, but the subcategory (if there happens to be one that is) should always be the only one added. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hence, those three persons (you know whom) should only be categorized over here. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Army personnel by nationality

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Army personnel by nationality, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Army personnel by nationality has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Army personnel by nationality, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know

You can appeal the block by adding {{unblock|your reason here}} below. And the reason you are blocked is because of editing others' comments. Please stop doing so - I don't want to see you blocked indefinitely. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 11:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I will pay attention. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
And yet, why do you continue? I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I honestly even don't remember at all editing talkpages the last time, and I'm surprised to be able to edit again this time. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
But, please, try to appeal the block. 07:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IntfictExpert (talk • contribs)
Apparently, I can only edit this page (i.e. my own user talkpage), but my appeal will never be granted. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it will, if you use a good enough reason. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 09:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Being what exactly: none at all? Extremely sexy (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Stop being modest. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 04:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but the person who changed my blocked period from three months into three weeks forgot to reinstate the original starting time, so it's close to 22 days now instead of "just" 21, and he won't answer my mail concerning this at all. Extremely sexy (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
So could someone of you, please, ask him again on his own talkpage (which I cannot do at all), since Sunday is nearing very rapidly now? Extremely sexy (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
You, Paul? Extremely sexy (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for asking him again on his talkpage. Extremely sexy (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
But no answer from him at all though, regrettably so, although I noticed he still edits over here. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the blocking admin should reinstate/extend the 3 month block because you blatantly edited another users comments on your last edit. Postoak (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
For your information: this is definitely allowed on your own user talkpage and he corrected my "wil" into "will" himself as well before. Extremely sexy (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but wrong. It makes no difference whether its on this talk page or someone else's. A common misconception is that you can do whatever you want on your talk page - the talk page is there to allow others to communicate with you. The point is you (and especially you, given past warnings and blocks) do not edit other people's edits. And what other people do is irrelevant. Moondyne 01:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Lots of people delete comments by others on their own talkpages, so that is therefore also forbidden officially? Extremely sexy (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
No, per the link Moondyne provide. Specifically, On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments, although archiving is generally preferred, so long as it isn't done to change the meaning of something they said (ie. they add an addendum to a comment they made, and you erase it). Cheers, CP 00:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Paul. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You're treading on thin ice

This and this put you on very shaky ground. While it can be argued that these were mere formatting changes (the only reason I didn't block you), you should really be more careful about how you edit talk pages. I say again--even one blatant violation of WP:TPG, and an indef is coming your way. Blueboy96 12:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it are indeed just formatting changes, but why didn't you respond to my request on my own talkpage and yours (by Paul) though, please? Extremely sexy (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
They're not entirely innocent. The first one erased an anon's comment. Cheers, CP 01:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Just look again: that's just a stupid question, which is considered to be vandalism. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories & George Nissen

Hi Bart - intrigued to know why you removed Trampolining category from Nissen's entry. You reverted my addition without explanation and I feel it merits that since Nissen was (still is) clearly a major influence in the modern sport as we know it today. I'll watch this page for any response you have. DaveK@BTC (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Dave: "trampolinists" is a subcategory of "trampolining", hence. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Mmmm. I understand what you are saying there, but ought he be only in a sub-category when he effectively bestrides the entire category? DaveK@BTC (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Because all trampolinists are in that particular category and the general subjects in the other one. Extremely sexy (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
This suggests to me then that maybe there ought not be a subordination of the Trampolinists sub-category to the category of Trampolining and that they may be worthy of being equal ranked categories. As I mentioned before Nissen bestrides Trampolining in all respects and it could well be argued that his own skill as a trampolinist is subordinate to the impact of his invention and conviction to developing the sport both commercially and competitively through the formation of his company. DaveK@BTC (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but "trampolining" is about the subject itself and subdivided into "trampolinists", namely the people involved in it. Extremely sexy (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeatedly editing and deleting talk-page comments despite being warned. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Blueboy96 00:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This block is the matter of a discussion at WP:AN#Bart Versieck. You may wish to review the comments before posting an unblock request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bart Versieck (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have a very big problem indeed, because my computer's browser at home doesn't accept cookies anymore since a couple of days (hence my anonymous contributions yesterday evening, which have been deleted afterwards, and now I'm at my job's), but I honestly don't understand at all why I have been blocked this time around (no harm done): could you explain, please, for that so-called "violation" has just been a justified deletion, and one that has been restored by someone else, by the way, so I'm definitely going to appeal this block, plus, moreover, an eternal ban is absolutely out of proportion. Extremely sexy (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As long as a community ban is being considered, it would probably not be a good idea to unblock you and the consensus there is that some sort of long-term block is warranted. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As I see it the consensus is that blocking me this time around is unjustified though, let alone banning me forever, Daniel. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|Mr.Z-man has restored my own edit, which has been considered as being a justified one, so my ban is definitely utterly unjustified}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Per discussion below and by email. Editor has accepted that they may no longer edit another accounts contribution, no matter the reason, and they will seek a third party to act upon any potential vandal comments made by others.

Request handled by: LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN section

Partial transclusion of User talk:Bart Versieck

I have a very big problem indeed, because my computer's browser at home doesn't accept cookies anymore since a couple of days (hence my anonymous contributions yesterday evening, which have been deleted afterwards, and now I'm at my job's), but I honestly don't understand at all why I have been blocked this time around (no harm done): could you explain, please, for that so-called "violation" has just been a justified deletion, and one that has been restored by someone else, by the way, so I'm definitely going to appeal this block, plus, moreover, an eternal ban is absolutely out of proportion. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This edit is not "a violation of the talkpage consensus", it's just mentioning the fact that her claim is not proven, so it's a longevity claim: alternative date of birth and "ostensibly". Extremely sexy (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
But why would it be forbidden for me anyway to edit a talkpage at all, especially since the one concerned is justified? Extremely sexy (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of keeping this unarchived at WP:AN - since the block appears still to be in place, you may be glad of it - I would reply that it is very dangerous for you to remove (wholly or partly) any editors comments, be they vandalism or not. You have a record of doing this inappropriately, and (as can be seen on the AN thread) very few people are going to get into a debate of whether it was justified or not. I would suggest, should you be allowed to edit again, that the next time you see something that needs removing you report it to someone else to review and act. It might not seem "fair", but you do need to accept the consequences of your previous behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
That's the best solution. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
And I repeat, for "Postoak" and the like, that my so-called "violation" has turned out to be a legitimate edit, which was, moreover, restored only a couple of hours afterwards by another editor, so this ban is utterly unjustified. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
As noted, it is agreed that any removal in whole or part of any other accounts comments on a talkpage is inappropriate and prohibited, and you will seek the review of another editor (and I am willing to look at any such matter) in respect of any potential vandal comment. On this basis I have unblocked the account. Again, as I have commented, this is the very last of the last chances you have had and if this matter arises again I will be the admin proposing we first melt down the key, grind it into tiny pieces, and then fling random pieces among the high mountains, dry deserts and very deep oceans (or enact a community ban, if easier). LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Please, just get on with editing the encyclopedia and consign this episode to the past!
Thank you very much indeed, and I will stay of those talkpages (or ask you to approve of my edit, right, man?). Extremely sexy (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, right on Daddio - or whatever it is you hep kids are saying these days... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Good: I will be very careful indeed. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yukichi Chuganji

Wrong. If that's the day he may have become the OLP, then Grace Clawson, Christina Cock, Adelina Domingues, Germaine Haye, Mae Harrington, and Mary Parr are not validated. 124.180.35.187 (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed so, Robert Young (hehehe). Extremely sexy (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing

Bart, there is no need to pipe World War II into the Second World War when "World War II" is the title of the article. It's a complete waste. Furthermore, trying to sneak it back in without explanation after I reverted it is not good faith and certainly not conducive to the spirit of Wikipedia discussion and consensus. Finally, it is extremely misleading and disingenuous to provide an automatic edit summary of "reverting edit blah blah blah", then perform a whole bunch of editing that is completely unrelated within the same edit (unless you also add in the edit summary that you are doing it). Your entire editing behavior, not just your actions on talk pages, are being watched, and shenanigans such as these are not very conducive to promoting your good faith contributions to this encyclopedia after so many warnings. Cheers, CP 19:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I honestly didn't know you had done this before, and I didn't mean any harm at all, you know. Extremely sexy (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Catherine Hagel

Here is the link to the picture as you requested. I contacted Jeff Wheeler about it but I only asked for permission on Wikipedia. I decided not to contact him for free use. If you wish to contact him about the picture be my guest. --Npnunda (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I will do so, but have you got his personal e-mail address by any chance? Extremely sexy (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
You should be able to find it at www.startribune.com --Npnunda (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay then, and I will contact him. Extremely sexy (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
You may try again, since he fails to respond to my mail that Wheeler guy. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:INTRO

Bart, try reading some policies. WP:LEAD clearly states "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Seeing as how it went through a good article review that noted that the introduction was good, it should remain there. Also, you have already twice broken your promise not to touch other's talk page edits for any reason, and I have brought it up here with another administrator to discuss the appropriate course of action. Cheers, CP 19:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No: it's not forbidden for me to edit talk pages, especially not titles, since I'm not correcting their mistakes. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
You weren't to touch anyone else's edits on talk pages, period. Most other people have more leniency, because they do not have such a long history of disruption. Besides, if I had thought you were certainly in violation, I would have just blocked you instead of bringing it up with other admins first. Cheers, CP 19:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
So why bring it up at all? Extremely sexy (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Bart, the agreement was you would not edit any person's comment - for any reason. Is having proper capitalization worth your indefinite block being reapplied? –xenocidic (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
A title isn't part of the comment though. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
a title is another user's creation. you are editing it. you agreed not to edit other's talk page contributions. I ask again, is it worth being indefinitely blocked because of capitalization? on a talk page, capitalization isn't important. –xenocidic (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
No, of course it isn't, but I have seen others do it regardless, even for entire talkpages, and adding titles. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
...and others aren't under the very strict restrictions that you are. if capitalization bugs you that much, ask for it to be fixed as LessHeard vanU suggested. –xenocidic (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Meaning for everything? Extremely sexy (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Per my comments at my talkpage in response of the above, it is just easier if you didn't. Stay away from anything that looks like it may appear to be in violation of the terms of the unblock, and if you make a mistake and someone thinks that you are in violation - then don't argue with them, and don't do it again. If you still think you weren't doing anything wrong, then contact me and I will review and if I think you were right I will take it up with the other editor on your behalf. As Xenocidic says, "correcting" other people may be permitted for a contributor of good standing - and the best way of you becoming that contributor is to not do it at present. The best way of utilising your copy edit inclinations is to do it in article space, where it is beneficial and permissable - but PLEASE not in talk space. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I will ask you. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Great. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
You are the greatest. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And yet you didn't ask him about this. Should I tell LHvU or will you? Cheers, CP 19:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

  • You're really making me regret standing up for you, and you're doing a great job proving all those people who opposed your unblocking right. Yes it's confusing that he signed his post 4 days after the fact, but in the grand scheme of things, does it really matter? –xenocidic (talk)

Blocked for 3 hours

Well, of course I was going to be watching your talkpage. If you needed to have changed the time/date you should have asked the editor concerned to clarify it, or asked someone else to place a comment, such as <small> (original comment placed at XX:XX on YYY and later signed as here.) </small>, under it. Please just sit out this block, BV, so you will remember better what it is that you must not do. Try to ensure that there is no "next time" LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, man: next time I will just ask him to correct it himself. Extremely sexy (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Lucy, you've got some 'splainin' to do. Am I mistaken in thinking that the agreement was that you wouldn't touch anyone else's comments for any reason? Cheers, CP 18:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I'm also waiting. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Make that three, and at least one willing to support a return to the indef block without a very compelling explanation. –xeno (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Violation...warning...promise not to do it again...repeat cycle. Postoak (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
See next subject for my "explanation". Extremely sexy (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

You have not answered the concerns of 3 editors above, so I have blocked you from editing while you consider your response. You will note that this block is longer than the previous one, and the next one will be longer still. This cycle of "violation/block" will increase until either you stop editing other contributors comments, or you are blocked permanently from the encyclopedia. Had you responded to the above it is possible that there would have been no block, although I cannot guarantee this would have been the case, but since you responded to subsequent comments on your page I have assumed you are unwilling to reply to the concerns raised. It was on this basis that I decided to reblock you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I support the original indefinite block being reapplied without a good explanation for this. This was not a minor typo correction in a header, this was not updating the time on someone's sig - this was a summary removal of someone else's comment putting back someone's comment that they removed themselves. The last two transgressions I could overlook, but this is unacceptable. –xeno (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC) (clarified –xeno (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC))
I haven't been on Wikipedia for more than a day, so I couldn't respond at all, and moreover, this was only a reversion, since I put something back, which is quite the opposite. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The person obviously wanted it removed, and redacted it within 10 minutes before anyone responded to it. You should not have put it back. Since you don't seem to understand why editing other peoples comments is not acceptable, I support a re-application of the 20:49, June 21, 2008 indefinite block. –xeno (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I did not edit his comment at all since it wasn't there anymore: I just reinstated it, so exactly how foolish can you people be? Extremely sexy (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was mistaken above and clarified, nevertheless - you had no right to reinstate it. I also find it fairly disrespectful that you're insulting people who stood up for you and got you unblocked. –xeno (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not insulting anyone at all, whether they supported me or not, but just looking at the facts: this is a very minor thing indeed plus no vandalism, on the contrary really. Extremely sexy (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The person wanted their comment removed. You had no right to put it back. Telling people to get lost, calling them "blind", saying what someone wrote is daft, calling us foolish, you don't see how that is insulting and uncivil? To be completely frank: I deeply regret making a case to have you unblocked - especially because you feel your most recent transgression was "completely harmless" even though you've broken your promise not to edit others comments for any reason numerous times. –xeno (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I repeat that I didn't edit whoever's comment at all, and you were indeed blind, since you accused me of something I didn't do at all, plus I meant that I find this whole debate daft, not you, which is something completely different ("this is just daft" is definitely not the same thing as "you are daft", okay?), and I did not - repeat: "not" - violate any rule at all, moreover, it would be only fair to ask what the editor himself thinks about this: it's just an "edit" in good faith, as you know quite well: you are very much exaggerating things. Extremely sexy (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Additonal violation: [1]. Postoak (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Another one who is blind: that's my own edit I corrected. Extremely sexy (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


Unblock requests

Look again, please: there were no subsequent comments on my page, since the following headings already existed weeks ago and only this one is new, plus I wasn't online either. Extremely sexy (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bart Versieck (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See above

Decline reason:

After reading your talk page, it seems like you really don't understand what you did was wrong; besides, your unblock reason isn't very clear nor does it address the problem. — Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bart Versieck (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Well: "LessHeard vanU" should be dealing with this, and he specifically stated that he probably wouldn't have blocked me if I had responded to them, and furthermore he assumed that I was unwilling to answer them since he thought that I had responded to others on my talkpage at that time, which is incorrect, because I wasn't online and the subsequent headings are from weeks ago.

Decline reason:

Declining unblock to remove you from the category and will leave a message on LHvU's talk page. –xeno (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wrong: it is forbidden for an administrator involved in the discussion itself to act like you do, especially when stating no "reasoning" at all. Extremely sexy (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
You asked for LessHeard vanU to review this block, so there's no need for the unblock template to remain open and have other administrators wasting their time by dropping in. It's a procedural decline, plain and simple. –xeno (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay then: I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. Extremely sexy (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've reviewed this and agree that I made a big mistake - I looked at times rather than dates and it appeared to me that Bart had edited after being written to when he hadn't. So my bad there. However, I'm not happy with Bart's attitude to the people who have been trying to explain the circumstances, and also trying to explain that "no editing other peoples talkpage contributions" means "no editing other peoples talkpage contributions even, or most importantly when, they have previously removed them" so under the circumstances I feel the block should stay. If another admin reviewing my comments feels, however, that the block is inappropriate then I have no objection to the lifting or varying of same.
  • Bart, for the sake of understanding I would advise you that next time you make a mistake in editing another editors talkpage contributions like this I will block you for a week without waiting for an explanation. If talking to you and explaining stuff isn't going to work then it will be increasing sanctions until either you stop violating the agreement or you are blocked permanently. If you don't like this arrangement I suggest you find another admin to try and keep you editing. I don't mind, but if you want my help this is all I am prepared to offer. I await your reply (in your own time, under the circumstances). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Snooker world rankings 2008/2009

Please stop undoing my edits on this article. All i'm doing is adding perfectly sensible internal links to snooker player articles. Thank you. Samasnookerfan (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but they are already linked above. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for the reasons below. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Cheers, CP 18:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Bart, I was coming here to get you to explain this, which I figured was pushing it given your circumstances. Then I saw your edit summary and figured that your incivility is reason enough to have you blocked. "I was angry" is not acceptable and is certainly not an excuse for incivility and a personal attack in the edit summary explaining your incivility. You've been a contributor here long enough to know that that behavior is not welcome here. I sat back merely pointed out the infractions when you were editing talk pages again, but I won't stand for this much incivility from an experienced editor. If LHVU or xeno want to discuss or modify the block, they're welcome to, but I believe that, given all the incivility and person attacks pointed out by xeno, this action is justified. Cheers, CP 18:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bart Versieck (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wasn't uncivil at all, and I have just returned to edit to have you blocking me as a MODERATOR WHO IS VERY MUCH INVOLVED, which is AGAINST ALL RULES: you are ABUSING YOUR OWN POWER

Decline reason:

I've had your talk page on my watchlist since I declined your last request. The only reason that I didn't block you was because CP beat me to it. — Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bart Versieck (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

And your so-called reason for blocking me is non existant, let alone that you state why you decline it: you are just a good mate of Paul's and also too much involved

Decline reason:

For the sake of actually following procedures: I was reviewing the original unblock request, but Jauerback beat me to the decline. I would decline the request as well. B.V.: you have been blocked a great many times and your incivility has been a continuing problem. After all this time I'm surprised you haven't actually served a longer block like this before now. When you get back, engage in actual civil behavior, do not modify the comments of others for any reason, and we can all let this drop. Mangojuicetalk 18:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bart Versieck (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

An "administrator" attacked me himself and then blocked me for so-called "personal attacks", while referring to another editor in an earlier dispute, for which I already had been blocked

Decline reason:

I won't unblock you, but I will give you some friendly advice. You seem to be on a path that I've seen before, and I know how your path often ends. Users who just cannot learn to talk politely to other people find themselves blocked for longer and longer periods of time. This is sad for those who just never learned good manners, and who don't understand why their way of talking to other people doesn't work on a project that depends on everyone working together peacefully. The ones who can't gracefully accept correction, who can't resist blaming other people when they are in the wrong or when they're blocked, they usually hang on for a little while, as the community hopes that they will learn better manners and be useful to the project. Eventually, though, the community loses patience with them, and they are indefinitely blocked. The reason is simple math: if the amount of trouble and unhappiness you cause is greater than the amount of improvement to the encyclopedia you create, then eventually, consensus decides that you are no longer worth the effort. This hasn't happened to you yet, but that's the direction you appear to be headed in. Whether you learn better manners and become a credit to the project, or whether you keep being mean to people and eventually get indefinitely blocked, is entirely up to you, and I don't care much either way- but your talk page is now on the watchlist of every admin who has declined your unblock request, so you can expect to get blocked a lot faster the next time there's a similar problem. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note to admin considering unblock: here is the diff where xeno laid out all of the incivility and personal attacks; I forgot to include it in my original justification. Cheers, CP 18:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
You are just trying to get me, which is a personal vendetta against me, just like you did with Robert Young: you are the king of personal attacks yourself. Extremely sexy (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to note for the record that the message I left at User talk:Jauerback was the first time I have ever contacted this user in any way, and my offer there is valid - I will not block Bart anymore (but I will bring violations to light) for anything, no matter how blatant, so long as this talk page has a few neutral admins watching it. I would also like to see some diffs that make me the "king of personal attacks" please, ones from after I became an admin since I admitted to any that I made prior to that during my RfA. Cheers, CP 18:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As Paul stated above, this is the first interaction I've ever had with him and only the 2nd I've had with you (now third). I'm about as uninvolved as it gets, but it doesn't take a whole lot to read through your edit history, block history, and talk pages to catch up. You can make all the accusations that you'd like, but it seems you should taking a harder look at your own actions rather than others. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I meant involved with me, but it's still a fact that he blocked me being very much involved from the very beginning, which isn't allowed at all in the first place, or is it? Extremely sexy (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

From a review of your circumstances and your talk page, it appears that you are under very specific (and relatively minor) restrictions on your conduct. You cannot edit talk pages in a manner that alters in any way the contributions of others. Seems simple. Yet I see repeated violations here, and I do not see an acknowledgement that your conduct is problematic. Accusing admins of bias does not address your conduct in any way, nor does it give a neutral admin any reason whatsoever to consider an unblock. I also note that several admins, despite your history, have gone to bat repeatedly for you, and I must assume that the number of people willing (and able) to defend your actions is dwindling. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Paul is just a pain in the ass, and Ryan Postlethwaite knows it: I haven't modified any comments of others at all and yet he dares to block me again, against all rules. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
No need to shorten the block to 3 days now, in fact, you're well on your way to an extension. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
What is this all about three days: no block at all is the only fair solution, and you know it, man. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I concur that you have not edited the comments of others since your previous block; however, calling another editor a "bore" is indeed a personal attack, as seen in this edit, and thus the block is justified. I add that calling CP a "pain in the ass" is equally a personal attack, and I must formally warn you that further personal attacks will result in this page being protected for the duration of your block. Stop now, please. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
But the main thing is -and I repeat - that he abused his own administrative powers or tools resulting in actions which are definitely too harsh indeed, so he just makes me hate him for all the right reasons, you know. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Adding to another editor's comment (even a timestamp) is still editing another editor's comment and a violation of your agreement. I'm surprised you still insist on pushing the envelope both in this regard and with respect to civility, and quite frankly, I still support a re-imposition of the original indef block. –xeno (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • And there we are again: first of all, he blocked me for so-called "incivility and personal attacks", not for editing other's comments, plus, for your information, the date had been omitted, so that's no violation of any rules at all, especially when others are doing just the same. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
      • At the risk of being repetitive: "...and others aren't under the very strict restrictions that you are." –xeno (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
        • You were rude in one edit and added the date in another edit, and the two together got you blocked. Didn't you think to yourself, "since I'm not allowed to edit other people's comments, I'd better let someone else add the date to that?" Didn't you think, "since I've been in trouble for personal attacks, I'd better resist the temptation to put an insult in this edit summary?" As far as I can see from this talk page, you're about one personal attack away from an indefinite block that isn't going to be lifted, even conditionally- if I were in that position, I'd be carefully thinking about my edits before I made them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Calling him a bore, which is - by the way - exactly what he is, is not rude at all (the truth hurts, you know, but it's still the truth) and I saw no harm at all really in just adding that date, because that's not a modification of one's comment. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
            • You just keep digging that hole. As for the date, the appropriate way to have added that is with the {{undated}} template. –xeno (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
              • Okay then: thank you for the information. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
                • Yes, I think I mentioned earlier how sad it is when a user just doesn't understand the difference between civility and rudeness; if you truly think that calling him a bore is not rude at all, then you aren't just being rude because you choose to, but don't even know how to be polite. That means that your indefinite block is almost certain unless you can find some outside teacher who can instruct you in manners. My personal suggestion is that you spend this week at the public library reading the books of Judith Martin, whose writings on etiquette are entertaining and useful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
                • I'd still advise doing it on a newline, since you're still under restriction not to edit/remove/add to other's comments. –xeno (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I mean to put it on a whole new line. So just say I left this undated. You would go on the next line down and put the template if it really bothered you. –xeno (talk)
  • —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC) <-- like that. on a new line. so it's not on the same line as the person's comment and you don't get accused of altering their comment. –xeno (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bart Versieck (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Request for my mentor to unblock me again

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only, will leave a message for LHvU to come over here when he gets on. –xeno (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

← Well, its best not to be uncivil, either way. Type it up, preview it, then if it seems uncivil, discard the changes - maybe that will help. –xeno (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...

Okay, this is the deal; I will unblock you, Bart, because as the aggrieved party Canadian Paul should not have blocked you (and as far as that is concerned, that is the end of that matter). I will then reblock you for 1 week for editing CP's post in exactly the same manner which earned you a 3 hour block earlier this month, and then block you for a further week for the language and insults you handed out for what would have been a legit block other than the conflict of interest issue. That equals a 2 week block.
Or
You sit out this block. You contemplate what, "No altering (including adding to, or undeleting) of other peoples comments under any circumstances" means. You contemplate also that while I am stating here and now I shall block you for a month for the next transgression, there is growing consensus to block you indefinitely if there is a next time.
I'm an admin, Bart, and at the end of the day I enact the communities wishes (according to the rules and policies). You wish to remain editing and I have tried to help you, as a member of the community, to find a way to do that. If a larger percentage of the community want you not to edit and have good reasons for requesting that then I cannot and will not stop them, for I have no remit to do so.
I don't think you need 2 weeks to figure out your likely (non)future if you continue in this vein, so I suggest you complete the weeks block and stay the fuck out of fucking with other peoples comments - cos otherwise it is a long or indefinite block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

How ironic: using the "f" word is very uncivil indeed, especially twice. Extremely sexy (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, fresh off a week block and you're already back to touching other people's comments. Apparently, you didn't contemplate what "No altering (including adding to, or undeleting) of other people's comments under any circumstances" long enough - note that in that second one, it's not just moving the comment either. Cheers, CP 01:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Somewhat innocuous changes - moving new threads to the bottom of the pages and adding a newline in between the header and the text... nonetheless. –xeno (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
And editing/wikilinking the title, which he was expressly asked not to do. I don't really care if this counts as a blockable infraction or not, I just want to point out how ridiculous this is getting. Cheers, CP 01:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I didn't notice that because when I did my sandbox test to compare, I didn't copy the title. –xeno (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to think of a reason not to block him indefinitely. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
We should probably defer to LvHU. –xeno (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. I'm also fine with blocking him first and seeing if LvHU has any more compassion than I do. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I urge no block at all - Bart moved comments, that's all - no big deal. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I realize that I'm splitting hairs here, but he also wiki-linked the header of a comment. For anyone else, this is definitely no big deal. However, he has had previous warnings, blocks, and subsequent agreements to not alter comments in any way. He obviously failed, even if it's trivial. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I've followed this for a while now, but how were these edits disruptive? Ryan Postlethwaite 02:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, on the one hand, it could be seen as pushing the envelope and testing the boundaries of his topic ban, but I think that Bart really just likes things to be really precise as far as talk pages go. –xeno (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The point being, is where do we draw the line in what is abusive when editing other peoples comments? The easiest way to ensure that no line is crossed is to request and require the individual concerned not to edit other peoples comments at all. This editor has previously agreed to those conditions, yet continues to make "little" innocuous amendments. Given that previous such actions have been noted and have drawn sanctions, and that BV knows that his edits are being watched, it is apparent that this editor is either unable or unwilling to pursue a manner of contributing that will not give rise to complaints from some editors. If BV is unwilling to change their editing habits, then it appears all his previous declarations to cease were made in bad faith and a lengthy block may be appropriate. If BV is unable to change his editing habits then it appears that there is no possibility for improving the relationship between him and the encyclopedia so to prevent further disruption an indefinite block may be appropriate. If it were not for BV's useful and good faith edits in content space I think this account would have been indef blocked (and not reprieved) some time ago. It is time, again, to consider whether the potential for disruption outweighs the good contributions that are yet to be made. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
If you followed this for a while Ryan Postlethwaite you would have noticed that this isn't about how disruptive the edits are anymore. an agreement was reached that (in my opinion) says that bart should keep away from other peoples contributions on talk pages. and while he hasn't made any direct edits in other editors contributes he keeps making edits on talk pages that aren't just his own opinion, a question or such. he hasn't once used to option offered by LessHeard vanU to make changes for him or to agree on changes. how hard can it be to just add your own opinion on a talkpage and not make any other changes? apparently for bart too hard. i don't believe he understands what he agreed to at all, he fought every block and never acknowledged he made a mistake. add to that the fact he attacks other editors who comment his behavior under the disguise it is the truth, it is clear he can't follow the given rules. Boneyard (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, well, well: I really can't believe this, since both Ryan and Xeno are right, for I'm not trying to find out how far I can go, let alone that my edits have been disruptive at all, but new comments are to be put at the very end, and the wikification gives a clear reference to the article mentioned in a way that anyone who wants to can get to it immediately in order to read about all the gentlemen with exactly the same title c.q. Extremely sexy (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I am aware that editing this page is for admins only and this message may be construed as an abuse of power - if so, I welcome any administrator to remove this comment if they wish. I would, however, like to apologize for the conflict of interest that was created over this incident - I had only recused myself from blocks regarding the talk page editing when I should have recused myself from all blocks to Bart Versieck, something that I will do because I now feel that this page is being watched by enough neutral admins that I don't have to worry about his behavior going unnoticed. So I do apologize to Bart and the community for any misuse, either real or apparent, of the administrative tools. Cheers, CP 22:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I accept your apology. Extremely sexy (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
But still, why do you continue? --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 01:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not though. Extremely sexy (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
File:CokeLightDecaf.jpg
cheers. =) -x

Brentwood, Essex & Golf

Hi Bart - noting you have just tidied up this article, I'm interested in your thoughts on the merits of the inclusion of the Weald Park Golf Course (which was a small part of your tidy-up). This is only one of some 12 or more in the Borough of Brentwood and not necessarily the closest to the town (which would be the municipal one in King Georges Playing Fields) and so I was wondering if it is really worth mentioning specifically - it seemed a little bit spammy but I was unsure whether to remove it or not... DaveK@BTC (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well: I was thinking along the same lines in fact, but since I'm "talking" with you anyway, why did you revert this at the Ted Blake page, since the dates format should be the same for all articles, whether they are about British people or not, shouldn't it? Extremely sexy (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Re Golf Course - best option for action then? DaveK@BTC (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
If there are that many courses the best action would maybe be to delete it anyway. Extremely sexy (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Have changed entire section to make broader. DaveK@BTC (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
You have indeed: great job, man. Extremely sexy (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Re revert - I originated this article about a British person in UK (the original and best of course :-) ) English. In honesty when you changed it to US English (or whould that be Microsoft English), it caused my 'hackles' to rise somewhat but I first checked WP conventions and found this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) to be useful. It basically says that date formats can be either UK or whatever but that original format used in the original draft should be preferred absent good reason otherwise. The dates were an addition to the original article in UK format, actually added by the subject's son who also defaults to UK English. Since the original language convention is also nationality specific to the subject's nationality it seems the best approach to stick with UK English. DaveK@BTC (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the "th"'s were superfluous anyway. Extremely sexy (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Rather annoyingly I have to agree that "th"s do not fit in WP style - call that one a draw then shall we? :-) DaveK@BTC (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It's an eventful draw. Extremely sexy (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The guidance in the Manual of Style on what shouldn't be linked has recently been clarified. The relevant bits are at WP:CONTEXT#What generally should not be linked and WP:CONTEXT#Dates.



Wikilinking dates provides a small benefit to a small proportion of readers but is at best useless and at worst a distraction for the vast majority, so when I'm making some other change to an article, I'm also de-linking dates and also unlinking familiar concepts such as the major countries and cities of the world. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

But is this standard procedure at all? Extremely sexy (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I point out that large changes such as this to the status quo require consensus of some form - either stated or silent (ie. no one contests the edits). So Bart has every right to go and change them back to being Wikilinked - then a discussion should be started on the talk pages to determine what format is desired for the individual page. Cheers, CP 16:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The changes I made are in line with the MoS, but if the consensus on an article, after "Careful consideration of the disadvantages and advantages of the autoformatting mechanism"' is to keep the wikilinking, that's OK too. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I will go ahead and revert those changes. Extremely sexy (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Posting for blocked users

Unless the policy has changed, I'd like to note that indefinitely blocked and banned users are not allowed a voice or an opinion on this project, that's why they were blocked/banned. Giving them one, as you did for the indef. blocked Robert Young here, can land you in the same type of trouble, so a friendly recommendation (since I can't/won't do anything to you for it) is to not do it. Robert Young, as with all users in his position, have had their editing privileges revoked and, as such, do not get a say on Wikipedia. It's one of the reasons it takes so much to indef. block or ban users is because the consequences are so harsh. Cheers, CP 22:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, but he hasn't been banned forever though, so he can still come back. Extremely sexy (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Very true. But until he does, he's still indef. blocked. Particularly if he is coming back soon, no sense in getting yourself in trouble, right? Cheers, CP 16:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but do you know what happened to Neal at all: gone? Extremely sexy (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know... he was blocked for a month (rightly so, from my vantage point as mere observer) and then never returned. I have my theories... Cheers, CP 16:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
What did he do exactly to earn this block, Paul? Extremely sexy (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Something bad enough that if I explained it exactly, I'd probably get blocked to. Suffice to say that he posted something very inappropriate without any reasonable excuse at all. By the way, the "friendly recommendation" about proxy posting for indef. blocked/banned users is now a warning because of this edit. I can see the WOP Group, I know that was a post by Robert Young. That's twice now that you've posted for an indef. blocked/banned user, an especially silly move since he plans to contest his indef. block soon if I'm not mistaken. I expect not to see it a third time. Cheers, CP 19:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually this one's better, since you're refactoring other people's date stamps I see too. That's your third post for an indef. blocked user, and that's far more serious than refactoring other people's comments. Time to notify LHvU (yet again). Cheers, CP 20:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
You are not funny: that's just twice proof of the fact that Pierre Picault's claim is being investigated now. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's up to LHvU to decide now, I've left a message with him. Cheers, CP 20:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I have to give credit to Canada Jack. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Final warning

You might want to see the message I left for LHvU. Consider it very carefully before you reply. Cheers, CP 23:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You are exaggerating again. Extremely sexy (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the plaudits. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
It's my pleasure though. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well... while these might (and I emphasize "might") be legitimate edits for other users, can you explain how these four edits from today do not fall under the scope of your agreement not to edit anyone's posts for any reason? #1 is pointless at best, and a silly reason to test the water. #2 was blatant and pointless removal of content someone added in an (ill-formated) attempt to identify themselves, which is inexcusable as far as I'm concerned. #3 and #4 are steps in one edit to a remove a comment that, while pointless, is not really vandalism (and weren't you supposed to alert another editor if you wanted vandalism removed)? As I mentioned to LHvU, if there was another incident, no matter small, I would go an appropriate venue and make a full and detailed report of your behavior since you were last put before the community. Three incidents in one day, at least one of which is not a "borderline" case is more than enough for me to do that. I am, however, willing to hear a defense. Cheers, CP 03:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

All changes are allowed. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Bart: What part of "don't do it" do you not understand? Ryoung122 04:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Got it, man. Extremely sexy (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Clearly, you've stopped caring about the fact that you're not supposed to touch other people's talk page edits and your response to the above is unacceptable. I will leave a message on LHvU's talk page asking him where he suggests that I post the report I have prepared on your behavior since your "second chance" and once I post it in the appropriate location, I will notify you. Cheers, CP 01:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, that's an edit by someone else. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, link fixed. Cheers, CP 01:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
But allowed anyway though. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Report here. Cheers, CP 17:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Not to be seen. Extremely sexy (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It has been archived here. I see one advocate for an indef block, and one for a 3 month block. Personally, I would go for an indef block - with a minimum of 3 months. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
You can't be serious. Extremely sexy (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
That's only an archived discussion for future reference. Extremely sexy (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, totally serious. Your discussion didn't get much attention, but what attention it got was to a consensus of you being blocked. I am suggesting the middle ground, you are indef blocked which is reviewed in 3 months time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I missed the thread at AN/I before it was archived (its a place I mostly manage to avoid) and have just seen this discussion. I wish to add my name into supporting a 3 month block on Bart's account. Bart, you've wasted too much time of too many good people who apparently need to look over your shoulder constantly. Your smug remarks and wikilawyering here just reinforce my opinion that you will continue to disrupt the project and that a block is the only means we have left of stopping that. If LHVU or any other admin wishes to apply the block, it has my support. Moondyne 15:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how he still doesn't seem to care (note that not is information moved, but he also capitalized the title), I agree with the consensus and LHvU for an indef. block of no less than 3 months. Cheers, CP 16:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment. You missed the word "only"...was that a test to see if Bart would try to "correct" it? A moot point now that Bart is on "wiki-vacation."Ryoung122 09:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
"Moondyne" is referring to an already ARCHIVED DISCUSSION and he is too late anyway, plus if "Canadian Paul" cared to read the EDIT EXPLANATION, he would never call this illegitimate, since I only moved a new comment from the beginning of the page to the end of it, and, again contrary to what he claims, it's allowed to capitalize the first word of a title. Extremely sexy (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I missed the opportunity to comment on the discussion as well. I would support an indefinite block of no less than... indefinite. This is beyond ridiculous. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
No reason or whatsoever. Extremely sexy (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Bart is plainly skirting his agreement not to edit others comments whatsoever, he's been told time and again that he should ask someone else to do it, or just leave well-enough alone - talk pages are not articles, perfect grammar, spelling and capitalization is not required. Even though these are minor changes, he's still violating the terms nonetheless. That it is allowed by users in good standing doesn't change the fact that his restrictions have not been lifted. That being said, if a block is indeed being issued, the escalating scale would put us at 1 month, not 3. –xeno (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Bart, Xeno never said it was forbidden for you not edit talk pages, but rather to edit other's talk page comments, which you continue to do -- even if minor. Regardless of whether it's a one month or a three month block, I feel that will solve the problem, but only for that duration. Once his block is over, we'll be right back here discussing a longer block. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec re to bart) I know, but you've edited that comment there to correct the capitalization. Quite frankly, I think moving it in chrono order is fine, but you should not be modifying the comments whatsoever. –xeno (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that then. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you able to stop? Note my comment above that the block length should be 1 month isn't necessarily a suggestion for a block - all your recent transgressions have all been very minor and haven't changed the meaning of the comments. (though, they are unacceptable, nonetheless. i don't even think users without restrictions should change other users capitalization, spelling, or grammar) –xeno (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
If you say so, but I have seen people adding and changing (including decapitalization) talkpage heading titles. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I would be annoyed if someone amended my capitalization on a talk page: I often type in small case when not in a formal setting. I find it easier on the eyes. –xeno (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Bart, you act like you've never been told this before. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm Back

Behave now, Bart! No talk-page editing! Ryoung122 01:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean of other people's comments, Robert. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 3 months as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Block is applied per consensus at AN/I and this talk page. Moondyne 00:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, a block from an ARCHIVED DISCUSSION. Extremely sexy (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bart Versieck. Per WP:BLOCK, I could reset your block from today for block evasion. I won't, but be assured that any more attempts at avoiding this will result in an extension. Moondyne 08:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not know this wasn't allowed though. Extremely sexy (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Note

Bart, we know that you want to be a rebel, but that is not going to take you anywhere on Wikipedia. Creating the user Flemishboy (talk · contribs) is invading your current block or ban, and that is not tolerated here on Wikipedia according to WP:Sock. Also removing other peoples comments on talk pages is not allowed too as you did here and saying that you don't as you did here is a lie. Since you have been editing Wikipedia since July 2005 you know darn well what you are doing. You are a hard working Wikipedian by looking at your contributions. But like every game there is rules, and we all must follow them. Here on Wikipedia we have rules and every user including administrators must follow those rules. It is nothing personal Bart. Rules are there for a reason. Have a nice day. Regards. 209.129.33.248 (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

For your information, anonymous one (why don't you start your own account, huh?), it is not a lie, since I transferred all of it from his talkpage to his userpage, and rightly so. Extremely sexy (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
By the way, has "The Clown" left Wikipedia? Extremely sexy (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure, but he has not edit [2] in quite a while. Maybe he went on a Wiki break. 209.129.35.87 (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
He hasn't anymore since the first of April, and it's now getting on to the first of October (six months or half a year), and this without any notice, so he's definitely left the project, which is a shame really. Extremely sexy (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you show any prove that you transferred all of it from his talkpage to his userpage? (I am talking about a link to that change.) Also if you are worried about the clown's absence you can E-mail him. He might answer there. 209.129.34.86 (talk) 03:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Clicking the link to e-mail him does not work. He probably chose for other users not to be able to e-mail him. Neptune5000 (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Your absolutely right! Didn't even noticed that. Well you can always try looking at his userpage. Because he put his E-mail address there. As Bart would say: Thanks for the notification, my dear friend :) 209.129.34.252 (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed so, and I will try to prove it in due course, dear mates. Extremely sexy (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. Remember, be a wise editor Bart. 209.129.37.37 (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I certainly will, but you just have to take my word for it. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I will. 209.129.34.113 (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and did you notice I didn't correct your spelling errors over here anymore? Extremely sexy (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Few days left…

Your time is almost expired Bart. Be a good editor. Ok? 209.129.34.11 (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I promise that. Extremely sexy (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

FAR listing

I have nominated Lazare Ponticelli for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tony (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I will soon. Extremely sexy (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

Bart, your account is now unblocked to allow you to rejoin the project and participate in the above FAR should you wish to. Good luck. –Moondyne 13:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, man. Extremely sexy (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

After more than a year gone, it's nice to see you back on the battlefield.Ryoung122 08:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ruby Muhammad

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ruby Muhammad. 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/Ruby Muhammad. 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) 01:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of centenarians

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of centenarians. 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/List of centenarians (3rd 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) 01:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom

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

Thanks, JJB 23:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Elsa Moberg

The article Elsa Moberg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources. Unencyclopedic. Relied exclusively on two putative "references" that were not obviously about Elsa Moberg and that are raw data maintained by gerontology researchers and longevity hobbyists. Neither is a reliable source. What's left is a name, birthday, a guesstimate for date of death and unsourced statements about where the subject lived. I deleted unnecessary, and unencyclopedic info, and focus on, another "record-holder". The focus in many longevity bios, on "record-holding" by nationality, occupation, blood type or what-have-you is unencyclopedic. The WP:WALLEDGARDEN needs pruning.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David in DC (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Timestamp: 20110121233043

Arbitration enforcement

This is to let you know that I have asked for the Wikipedia: Arbitration Enforcement case relating to User: NickOrnstein to be extended to cover off-wiki canvassing through the 110 Club internet forum. Please comment there. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bart Versieck

Do you have an interest in Gerald Ford?

Then maybe you might have an interest in joining WikiProject Gerald Ford! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the life, career, and presidency of Gerald Ford.

We're very much a new project, so you have the opportunity to help form the design and structure of the WikiProject itself in addition to creating and improving content about Ford. You are more than welcome to join us by adding your username under the "Participants" section of our WikiProject page. Everyone is welcome, and you are free to contribute where and when you like.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask a member, and we'll be happy to help you. Hopefully we'll see you around the WikiProject!
You received this invitation in view of your significant contributions to the Gerald Ford article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You may be interested

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (2nd nomination) EEng (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 27 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Last surviving Confederate veterans

I have undone your additions to this article for the reasons stated in my edit summary. I have not done this on the basis of vandalism but due to original research and synthesis and because the changes are questionable (common names in register of soldiers do not prove that a later claimant was the same person; no birth dates or other connecting information). Also, they are contrary to the sources shown in the references which are based on research and investigation. One instance shows how unlikely these changes are. If Walter Washington was born on the date he claimed, he would have been older than the oldest man ever verified to have lived. If I had not left this special message, you would have received no notification unless you were watching the article. I think that would have been unfair to you. I do not want to engage in any sort of edit war over this so if you wish to carry this on, we can refer it to the Military History Committee or some other previously uninvolved editor or editors. Donner60 (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback in fact, and maybe it's a good idea to do just that actually. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I will prepare a question to them soon and let you know when I am posting it. If you prefer to proceed differently, let me know. Donner60 (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I thought I should step back and again read the Wikipedia guideline pages on dispute resolution, which I have not reviewed recently. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Discuss with the other party suggests that we would be proceeding too quickly under the guidelines to refer this to a third party, committee or noticeboard immediately. This section of the dispute resolution page requires negotiation between the parties to a dispute and then "Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution." I think we should proceed as indicated and in a manner that will convince third parties that they should become involved in settling any disagreement that we may have. We should not proceed to ask for opinions for a Wikiproject or noticeboard before taking these preliminary steps.
Please note that considerable discussion on this is already on the talk page due to previous efforts to insert similar material.
I think it is unlikely that our previous communications will convince others that we have gone through the preliminary procedures. Rather than just refer you to the talk page - although I may do that in part rather than repeat all the detail - I propose to write a summary of the reasons why I think the additions or changes should not be made to the page and place it here on your talk page. You can respond as you believe fit. If we reject each other's positions, and if we do not in turn suggest some sort of compromise language, then we should place the matter on the article's talk page for possible resolution before moving on to the next step.
I will check back tomorrow to see if you agree to this proposal or wish to proceed differently. I will finish by saying that I do not think we need to limit ourselves to one set of exchanges of views if further comment might seem productive. Donner60 (talk) 06:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you, but it's obvious that it will be difficult to be 100 % sure in some cases anyway, you know! Extremely sexy (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, a few of these might be arguable or indefinite in view of any persuasive new or recent evidence. Those are the ones in which we may have to look for some language which would include them as possible, neither credibly debunked nor verified, in order to have the best outcome or best presentation to a third party. These cases would depend on more recent information reviving or partially reviving claims which Mr. Marvel, in particular, rejected.
I hope you will understand if it takes me a few days to review the Wikipedia policies and the citations carefully and write a well considered statement with a good introduction. As I said before, I do not was to simply incorporate previous talk page entries by reference. One of the Wikipedia pages I looked at mentioned that there are no deadlines in Wikipedia, which I take to mean that one should not go about such things as attempting to settle any disagreements so quickly that the effort is not done well.
I will have some time over the next few days to devote to this but I don't want to set a very close deadline and find that real life issues require putting it off for a brief period of time or that it takes longer to write than I expect. I assure you I am not trying to stretch this out, just trying to be careful about not promising to finish almost immediately and then not doing so. I could restate the past position quickly, but I think we would both prefer a fresh examination and statement even if it takes a few days. I will let you know the status if it takes more than a few days to give you a substantive reply. Donner60 (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Awesome, and thanks for all your efforts. Extremely sexy (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I have created a new user subpage entitled User:Donner60/sandbox2. I will develop the presentation there rather than offline so you can check on progress if you wish. So far I have put large excerpts from two Wikipedia policy pages on this page. It seems to me that the expression of Wikipedia principles to be used in the evaluation would be a good opening for a "paper" on this topic. As it stands, this is far too much on these principles and I will try to cut it back while preserving the original meaning, probably by preserving direct quotes if I can. I hope to make more progress over the weekend. Donner60 (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep up the good work, my friend. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I see that you were not willing to wait and restored flawed, or at least quite questionable, edits to the article. I assume you did not refer to the principles on my draft page or on the Wikipedia policy pages before you did so, but it so, you can state why you think the edits are in line with them. If you are not willing to wait for a full exposition of this, perhaps I should not waste my time and we should present it immediately to third parties as unresolvable between us. I do feel that your additions have some serious problems. Connecting names in the Census with names on a list of soldiers without a sure connection of the same birth date is speculative as it was not uncommon for several people in extended families who were born around the same date to have the same name. Speculative comments such as "so far" imply a forthcoming conclusion that is not supported by any sources and has no place in what is supposed to be a statement of facts based on reliable sources. Historians such as William Marvel, a reliable third-party source (in line with Wikipedia guidelines), have rejected these arguments and other sources in the footnotes support his conclusions. Where is the reliable and verifiable secondary source that accepts that some of the claimants that died later were confirmed as Confederate veterans? If you do not want to accept a careful and detailed explanation for consideration and possible presentation to others, including a fair explanation of your position which you would be free to revise, then it seems we will not get very far in resolving this without calling in third parties. I will wait to hear from you. If you do not wish to proceed on a cooperative or combined basis, then I suppose we must say that we have been unable to proceed on the slower path set out above and I should prepare my own separate and detailed statement along the lines already started in this paragraph and existing on the article talk page. I do think it is counterproductive to insert material or for changes to be made to a previously well supported article based on original research and synthesis - unless you can show why it is not - until the matter is fully debated, or if necessary resolved by currently uninvolved editors. I will await your answer and look at the page over the next few days before I write much, if any, more. Donner60 (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
But I only added some second names and I also corrected a broken reference, plus what's wrong with another Census link, since there are others in it as well, and more possible candidates? Extremely sexy (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
OK. I must apologize. Your more recent changes are minor and do not include the content that I reverted on January 25. The content stating that some of the later claimants were verified was most objectionable in my view although I saw a few other problems with some language in that earlier version. I do not object to the most recent changes which do not include that content about verified claimants. So I think we still need to decide whether the more extensive and substantive changes must be written up, debated and referred to others if they are still under consideration. In that regard, are you satisfied with the changes you just made or do you want more extensive changes to the article?
Let me point out that I wrote the footnote which reads: "Marvel's statements are unambiguous. Yet, some of the claims of these claimants may not be confirmed due to lack of conclusive evidence rather than due to debunking. In 'Last Surviving Veterans', Genealogy Trails, a volunteer-run web site, retrieved October 14, 2014, the author (Kim Torp is the name at the bottom of the page; also shown as the person who maintains the main page) states that "Marvel did not present his research on several other Confederate claims from the 1950's, some of which appear to be genuine." The page cites an earlier version of this article as one of its sources." So I left the door open for contrary opinions or new evidence. I also would expect those to be based on reliable, verifiable sources, of course, and that went without saying. The possible lack of sourcing is in part why I also point out that Mr. Torp seems to have relied at least in part (perhaps entirely) on a prior version of the article. This in turn had the same problems of insufficient sourcing, original research and speculation to conclude that certain claims were verified when they had not been. So although my current determination is that we must stick with Mr. Marvel's (and Mr. Hoar's and Mr. Serrano's) conclusions, I have not tried to rule out some new source could still emerge to prove otherwise. I do not think Mr. Torp is that source, nor does he specifically point out whether he has any facts to verify any of the claims he may consider still open. I think that only so much weight can be given to claims based on incomplete sourcing. Mr. Torp provided no further details but I was not opposed to mentioning this altogether in the event someone could come up with a reliable source - or tried to use Mr. Torp as a source in a sort of circular reasoning.
If you will let me know what, if anything, you may still wish to add to the article or to be considered in a written presentation, I will proceed as stated before. You might refer to a previous version of the article (with further noted changes if needed) if that would be easier. I do not want to proceed with more on this topic if you are content with the current version. Donner60 (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Apologies excepted, but what about the three women I added before and Mr. Magee (not very probable, I know, but regardless of that)? Extremely sexy (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Magee is impossible. He would have been 130 at death, 14 years older than the oldest many ever verified to have lived, even 8 years older than the oldest woman. He would have been greatly celebrated as well as recognized as the oldest man to have ever lived. I know of no evidence of any of that. What is the source of these names and their claims? I have never heard of them and no source was cited when they were last mentioned. As far as I know, nurses were not considered veterans; and I have no information about them. I have read that a few women have been recognized as soldiers in at least one recent book but I do not have the book not do I have information that these three have been recognized as veterans, much less confirmation that they were the same persons and lived that long. I will do a little research because my curiosity is raised but I doubt I will find anything. I won't make much progress for a couple days because I have a meeting that I need to prepare for tomorrow night but I will advise you whether I find anything. Let me know if you have some source to review as well. Donner60 (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you on Magee, of course, but isn't it a list of claims (genuine/validated, or not) which has been posted over there, and so concerning the American Civil War this is unlike First or Second World War veterans f.e., where all nurses and other personnel were recognized as being/having been true veterans? Extremely sexy (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I am starting a new indentation since we are moving close to the middle of the page. I think the list is intended to be veterans as they would have been considered at the time of war and aftermath. I have not seen nurses included because, unlike most doctors, they were considered civilian volunteers. This would be unlike their status in later wars. I am not sure about whether claims were accepted from them but I don't think that would make them considered army veterans. I will look more into this in the next few days to see if I can find a reliable source which makes definite statements about their status. I still am curious about the source for these names. Donner60 (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Well: see http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=35508001 and http://www.garryvictorhill.com.au => save the link entitled "America's Last Civil War Veterans and Participants: An Investigation". Extremely sexy (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry just to be getting back to you. I have investigated further but I have been sick for several days and not working very fast. I will look at your most recent citation before commenting. I ask that you give Mr. Johnson a little slack. He is in good faith and has monitored the article for quite some time. I had the same response when I thought you had restored an earlier more questionable version when in fact you had made a much smaller change to which I could not object. While he was unavailable, I looked at your last change more closely and saw that it was not as extensive or questionable, which is why I said I was sorry for the message I had left and did not change it further. I think he has been unavailable to see these developments.
The latest version of the article still has your last two changes. I will say, preliminarily, that if I recall correctly, Garry Victor Hill cannot be considered a reliable source. If I remember correctly, he is an amateur researcher and uses speculation and coincidences rather than definite, connected sources that historians and researchers have not accepted in reliable secondary sources. I say this only to give you my recollection quickly. I do this because I have some confidence I will find this to be the case and I have been delayed in replying due to my limited time and energy in the past week. I will try to be more definite with a prompt follow-up reply. Donner60 (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm so sorry to hear that you have not been well lately, but I saw you had done some edits anyway, hence, and he also debunked some cases with good reasons regardless. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes. I was only totally out of it for two days (vertigo mainly, but with some accompanying headache and nausea). I have had energy to do some vandalism revert edits after that, but was slowed down and not able to do much in the way of research or thinking. Unless interrupted, I will get to this tonight. Donner60 (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, man. Extremely sexy (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Sarah Frances "Fannie" Pearce Rockwell was born in Virginia and died in Connecticut but it is not obvious to me that she was living in the South and served as a Confederate nurse at the time of the Civil War. She is described by the Find-a-Grave entry as a "Civil War nurse". That does not mean she was considered a soldier in or veteran of either army, only that she served as a volunteer or contract nurse. In fact, nurses for the Union and Confederacy were civilians, whether volunteers or hired under contract. Much detail can be found in Schultz, Jane E. Women at the Front: Hospital Workers in Civil War America. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2004. At page 145, Ms. Schultz identifies the hospital staff, which included the nurses, as civilians (the medical corps were the doctors) "For most civilians, the Civil War ended with Robert E. Lee's surrender to Ulysses S. Grant on April 9, 1865. For medical corps and hospital staff, however, the war was far from over." Find-a-grave is not considered a reliable source in any event because it is user-generated and cites no sources. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper). In 1892 and 1895, the U.S. Congress granted pensions to Northern nurses and hospital staff respectively, on the basis of their service, not because they were army veterans. If they had been, they would have been covered by earlier laws. Schultz's book is a source for the pension history but there are others. I have spent quite a long time reading through much of the Schultz book today/tonight and copying some excerpts so I can not yet comment in more detail on Hill but I will consider that within the next day or two. Donner60 (talk) 06:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I thought I would quickly look at the Hill work. I now see that Hill has recently done much more work and has some preliminary writings online as well as a more lengthy paper. In the introduction, he is claiming that three men, at least, lived longer than Crump. He has made such claims before and only backed them up with tenuous connections, original arguments and speculation. His original work was not only eclipsed by Serrano's volume but he acknowledges that he never even knew about Professor Hoar's work until recently. Marvel, Serrano and other reliable sources credit Professor Hoar. It will take me some time to go through this lengthy amount of material which I did not expect to see. I have an hour long presentation to give in a few weeks and other things to concentrate on. Nonetheless, I will be interested to see if Hill has any credible argument, probably within about the next month - not to overpromise. Frankly, he did not have any good argument before for the reasons I mentioned and even now he says: "Even so the verdict on the last surviving veterans is not set in stone, I’m looking forward to evidence that will verify them. While realising that continual hedging with “probably” “possibly” “uncertain” “likely” “seems” and “dubious” are wearying...." Yes, they are wearying when the author is "looking forward to verifying them" and is not even willing to call his own work more than preliminary. He notes all the adjectives applied to these claims which shows they are not verified or encyclopedic. So I am willing to work more on this topic, but I am not willing to drop everything that I have to do or want to do to immediately investigate the writing of an author whose reliability on this topic has been and remains questionable, who was not even aware of a scholar who worked on this for many years until just recently and who is not even willing to stand by his own work as anything more than preliminary. Yet, I assume he has put it online because he either wants feedback or wants to convince people concerning some of his preliminary conclusions so he either has something new or is still standing by his dubious claims. His mention of a possible 130-year old veteran who died in 1971, an impossibility as noted above, does not help his credibility. I'll get back to you after I have had time to examine this, but I stand by the reliable, verifiable sources used in the article. That does not mean that ultimately Hill's work can not be mentioned in the article. It would mean that if it turns out as I think it will (as it did before), it can only be mentioned as an alternate theory by an "independent researcher" and given due weight - including any criticisms that would be obvious. I hope you will be able to continue your patience and will not wish to insert these dubious claims as verified into the article until I can write a full evaluation of them. I think it is important for Wikipedia's credibility that we be careful with this. If we need to take it forward sooner, we can but one of the dispute resolution pages points out there is "no deadline" on Wikipedia. Since we all have "real life" and other Wikipedia interests, I ask that if you are not satisfied as the article now stands, that we pursue this carefully as we have been doing. Donner60 (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Got it! Extremely sexy (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I take that to mean you agree with my proposed proceeding with this as described, for which I thank you. Donner60 (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
And so it is. Extremely sexy (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Mark Matthews

Hi Bart. Are we really going to go down this road again after almost a decade? You know exactly where it leads. You know from previous discussions that there's a very specific meaning to the term reliable sources and that it has nothing to do with primary sources. In fact, census results constitute original research because they need to be interpreted within a broader context, and census takers are just as (if not more) likely to make mistakes than published sources. Even if census results were acceptable, you would still have to integrate the findings into the prose of the article - a question mark tells an uninformed reader absolutely nothing.

I know that you have the potential to make positive contributions to longevity articles, which we would very much welcome. But in order to do that, you have to move beyond your behavior from the past, abide by Wikipedia's policies, and accept the fact that you can't always get your way, because verifiability trumps truth. You have already technically broke the one-revert rule on the Matthews article, but rather than take you to arbitration enforcement, I want to use this as an opportunity to extend a hand and encourage you to join us in collaboration to make longevity articles better. Work with the community. Discuss when matters are contentious rather than reverting. Collaborate on articles to make them better. I don't want this to read as a warning as a threat, I want you to read it as me welcoming you back after a long absence and hoping that we can work better together than we have in the past. Let me know what you think. Canadian Paul 16:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't argue with that at all, of course, but I thought it is called the three-revert rule, is it not (since you are allowed to revert three times, not just once!), and in this regard you can call all sourced articles unreliable, can't you, since journalists can also be mistaken (we are all just humans)? Extremely sexy (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

WOP Newsletter

Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Newsletter/Archives/1

Meanwhile deleted then? Extremely sexy (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

List of people with the longest marriages

I strongly encourage you to engage in constructive, policy-based discussion before making further changes to this list. As you know, this topic is subject to discretionary sanctions, and your recent edits were disruptive and contrary to policy. Pburka (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not true at all really: I just changed the article's title into List of people with the 100 longest marriages in the world ever known, since that's the subject and that's exactly what you proposed yourself as well, so I will make it 100 marriages again, my dear friend. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me, but can you give a diff in which Pburka proposed that name? EEng 17:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_people_with_the_100_longest_marriages_in_the_world_ever_known&type=revision&diff=700721503&oldid=700710770 => but not just "long marriages", since that doesn't exclude all those matrimonials already deleted by him, and, moreover, then there is no limit, or only arbitrarial, to the weddings included (40+, 50+, 60+ and 70+ ones are long too, mind you), hence. Extremely sexy (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
So, as it turns out, your statement that this ridiculous name is "exactly what [Pburka] proposed" is completely false. Either your rename was WP:POINTY, or this is yet another example of the severe WP:COMPETENCE problem which has been apparent for a long time, possibly exacerbated by limited ability to understand and write English. EEng 21:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
None of your stupid claims are correct, and he suggested himself to rename the article, so go and discuss this matter with him, not me, please. Extremely sexy (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Here's the entirety of Pburka's post which you linked above:
Long marriages, or longest marriages?
The title and the lead say that this is a list of people with the longest marriages and, indeed, a number of the longest ones are described by reliable sources as being either the longest in the world (of those still living at the time), or the longest in a particular region. But many of the others are simply long marriages, and we have no way of verifying that there aren't longer documented marriages which we're simply not aware of. This list should either be limited to marriages which are described as 'longest' by reliable sources, or we should rename it to List of long marriages. My preference is the former, but I'm comfortable with either resolution. Pburka (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
That you interpreted, and still interpret, that as suggesting that the article (any article!) should have a name like List of people with the 100 longest marriages in the world ever known is precisely the competence problem I referred to earlier. If you still don't understand that, see Dunning–Kruger effect. EEng 15:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
But an article name like list of long marriages means that you can add any long marriage to it that you want to, which is very arbitrarial indeed, whilst my title specifically limits the list to the longest 100 marriages with references in the media, or indeed known. Extremely sexy (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Everyone but you can see how absurd this is [3], and the fact remains it was your own idea -- not Pburka's or anyone else's, as you claim. I'll unwatch since there's no point in discussing this further with you, so please feel free to have the last word now -- after making sure you've read and understood Dunning-Kruger effect. (Also, you should remove your self-awarded en-4 evaluation from your userpage, as it certainly doesn't apply.) EEng 03:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I will do no such thing at all, since you are an imbecile, and, moreover, you are blind, since he literally wrote ", or we should rename it to List of long marriages"; therefore, I will just press forward and do so. Extremely sexy (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello, i noticed that you have thanked me on Supercar Megabuild page, I have also thanked you well. Thanks Ghazlan-airplanes (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for thanking me actually, my friend ;) Extremely sexy (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Emile Brichard

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Émile Brichard a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Emile Brichard. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Severo (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bart Versieck. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bart Versieck. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bart Versieck. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Camille Louiseau Chadal listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Camille Louiseau Chadal. Since you had some involvement with the Camille Louiseau Chadal redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — JFG talk 10:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Bart Versieck. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antiques Roadshow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Authenticity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

February 2020

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bart Versieck (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I erronously logged in with another account instead of this one, definitely not in order to evade a block, since I wasn't blocked at all before: this is a legitimate account over here, so please, unblock it!

Decline reason:

You were editing project space from an undisclosed sock puppet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@NinjaRobotPirate: Sorry, but I was doing nothing of the sort: this account is legitimate with only non-vandalistic edits, as you know quite well, and I suppose you are still reffering to User:Miljoenenlijntje, which didn't vandalize either and is not a sockpuppet at all, by the way (just another account, and moreover, it had just one edit!), plus what is going on in one Wiki has nothing to do with another (i.e. entirely different) one! Extremely sexy (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I don't understand how you can accidentally log into another account, but not be socking, or evading a block. Can you elaborate, please? Which account was it? SQLQuery me! 01:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Well: User:Miljoenenlijntje apparently, since that one has been bocked as well, but neither of them are being used to evade any block or whatsoever, since I haven't got any other account, let alone one that had already been blocked, making the allegation of block evasion and/or sockpuppetry absurd really! Extremely sexy (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid that your reply above is confusing. Which specific account are you saying you accidentally logged in to? Are you saying that that account isn't yours? I would imagine that if I accidentally logged into an account that wasn't mine (I believe that this is what you're indicating by using "apparently", and saying I haven't got any other account - correct me if I'm wrong), it would have to be something like "AQK", "SQLK" or "SWL", and not "CinnamonGuy1" for example. It would be a stretch for it to have the same password, but I suppose perhaps both accounts could have the most common password possible in common. Bbb23 - Are you able to elaborate on how the accounts were used abusively? SQLQuery me! 02:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Bbb23: @SQL: I wanted to log in, but used the wrong account: they both have the same password indeed and it is configured to log in automatically, hence the mistake! Extremely sexy (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@SQL: Forgive me, but this is a waste of time. Even BV doesn't have the chutzpah to claim that Miljoenenlijntje is not his account. He's apparently trying to convince us that he created the account and logged into the account and voted at the RfA, uh, "accidentally". You should look at the following things: (1) BV's block log. Even though his last block after a long string of blocks was back in 2008, his editing since that block has dropped off dramatically, at least on this wiki; (2) his status on other wikis. He's been indefinitely blocked at nl.wiki and at Commons for socking; (3) Miljoenenlijntje's status on other wikis. That account has also been indeffed at nl.wiki (on February 12) as a sock of BV, who is busy protesting there as here. I don't believe there are any other wikis besides this one where he hasn't been caught socking...until now. I'll leave this be in case you wish to comment further (I'm going off-wiki very shortly), but at some point BV's Talk page access should be revoked. I haven't time to look into it today, but I'm thinking that a global lock is in order.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Bbb23: @SQL: Please, just be reasonable, since I never stated that the other account mentioned wasn't mine (a legitimate one for that matter, so not a sock!), but it said on top of the userpage that I could vote in that steward election for a member, so I did, not knowing I was in the "wrong" account, and I was talking about this particular Wikipedia: the Dutch one has nothing to do with this or whatsoever (moreover, it is an entirely different matter as well), and fyi I am not a vandal at all, which you can see in my editing history over here (especially since 2008, that's some 12 years ago!), so just look at it, please! Extremely sexy (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Unblocked

Following your appeal to the Arbitration Committee, your account has been unblocked. –xenotalk 00:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks: I didn't know. Extremely sexy (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Flog It!

Thanks, Bart. ArchaicW (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It's my pleasure. Extremely sexy (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carl J. Shapiro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.) It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, and I just corrected it! Extremely sexy (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zapatoca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Floridablanca (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Likewise, and I also fixed another one in the process! Extremely sexy (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 European Championship (darts), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joe Cullen. (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed: thanks for notifying me of this small error, and I have just corrected it in fact! Extremely sexy (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of centenarians (authors, editors, poets and journalists), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Nouvelle République (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed so, and thanks for pointing this out, so I have just corrected it! Extremely sexy (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Clara Auteri moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Clara Auteri, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable and independent sources.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me this and I will do so, but it's also on several other international Wikipedias, mind you! Extremely sexy (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Raft, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Paramount, Variety and Arlington House. (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Well spotted, and solved (the first two by somebody else already and the last one by me)! Extremely sexy (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Clara Auteri (April 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by EDG 543 were:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 12:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Bart Versieck! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 12:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jakob Dylan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indie.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me of this, but someone else has already solved the problem apparently! Extremely sexy (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Blokkade

@Bart Versieck: bestaat er een reden voor waarom je deze pagina niet archiveert? Het is nogal verwarrend. Wat betreft die andere "blokkades", kan je daar ook een extendedconfirmed aanvragen? Ik bedoel maar, er zijn gebruikers en gebruikers... :-) Lotje (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Lotje: nee, maar misschien is dat inderdaad ook wel beter, ja, Lotje, en wat bedoel je juist met een "extendedconfirmed"? Extremely sexy (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Bart Versieck/List of oldest twins/Notes

Hello, Bart,

I found an orphaned talk subpage that was part of an article that was moved to your Sandbox years ago. I don't know what your plans are for this article so I just moved the Notes to your User page. I hope this was okay. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 04:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes: thank you! Extremely sexy (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Clara Auteri

Information icon Hello, Bart Versieck. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Clara Auteri, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jeanne-Calment-1997.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jeanne-Calment-1997.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

"Archive Article" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Archive Article and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 1#Archive Article until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Clara Auteri

Hello, Bart Versieck. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Clara Auteri".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of long marriages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pottstown.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bart_Versieck/Archive_2&oldid=1253141680"