User talk:WookieInHeat/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Your answer, and then we can put this to rest as we are truly done and thank you

I can answer that very easily. Brett Salisbury never modeled in the United States. He was with Elite in Atlanta georgia however didnt do a single job shown. He also worked the early to mid to late 90's. Pre www days and he did do a lot of GQ ads. You see them. I again will not be participating any longer nor will my family, however scandinavia and milan work if they are not national campaigns do not show up. Salisbury had GQ, Nexus and Nokia phone. Nokia is in Finland. If you write paparazzi and I would ask you to, contact who is on the vogue site, Leila snellman who is also quoted on the site. Write and ask for her to tell you about everything. The model management company sent him to milan. I know his story. Look at Michael Flinn number two model. Where are his pics? they if you look are brand new THANKS TO US as he went unknown but was the Hugo Boss model for years. Again, Where are all the pics of old of Hoyt Richards? Look at the list of the 25. They all are real and did what they did. However the bottom line is if you worked primarily in New York you are on an easy google site. If you were Mike Flinn in New York pre internet days? You wont find even a pic of him.. There is not even a wikipedia article on this guy. That is what we know. Again a simple email to paparazzi's laila snellman in helsinki will prove everything and more as she is the most powerful woman in scandinavia. Again there is an article of her in finnish on this site. Thank you again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.210.32 (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

As we said

We are done with the ridiculous uproar you have cause Wookie in Heat (nice name). Seriously, you win. You basically were able to override everything we proved. Let it go. We will not be contributing at all. You seem to stop at no end. Even overriding the last change by Esprqii (John). And we read you took it up and were shut down with the Puppet ordeal whatever the hell that is? Anyway, all the best. Go rest your head. We were going to start a page with our real hero Michael Flinn but knowing there is barely any evidence or pics as HE WAS A MALE SUPER MODEL but the internet wouldnt know, we decided against it. Heck Flinn never even wrote a book or played football, and with hardly any pics? He must be not notable. Ridiculous girlfriend. By the way, I am a woman. You are too. You need to chill out. Did you know that the inspiration to Brett Salisbury was because of Michael Flinn who he saw every month in GQ from 1986 to 1994. I know that must be untrue to. We googled Salisbury just now and it says he slept with over 2000 women. Is that notable? LOL as you would say ever so bogus and trust us, (my girl friend and I) CHEERS! As you mock what you don't understand. Goodluck and Goodbye. If we wrote about our real hero Michael Flinn would you delete him? Silly girl. Canadian too? K. Bye. and we didn't even correct your bogus changes again. You made more mistakes than the Bush Administration. Just remember to Breathhhhhhhh.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.210.32 (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Article Request

i need a page created for my band its a real band and im the leader of the band if so please email me at rammsteination@yahoo.com thnx Lacokalowell (talk) 05:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

do you have any references that might meet the criteria of WP:Reliable Source? cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

this is links to my last fm and my offical facebook http://www.last.fm/music/Shadow+System http://www.facebook.com/pages/Shadow-System/104354609617427 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacokalowell (talk • contribs) 05:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

i'm sorry but that is insufficient to create an article with and is likely why your previous attempt was deleted. is your band signed to a label and have you released any records? WookieInHeat (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

can u please email me and descuse what i may need to gather —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacokalowell (talk • contribs) 05:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

i would prefer to discuss it here, i don't see any reason why we must use email. and not that this really determines inclusion or not, but after viewing your facebook profile, i highly doubt your band meets the criteria for WP:BAND. WookieInHeat (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

i kno its not many likes but im trying atleast get the name out there and gain some renown —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacokalowell (talk • contribs) 05:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

i appreciate that, but you really do need to view the links i posted above. unfortunately it appears your band does not meet the criteria for inclusion on wikipedia. WookieInHeat (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

i've placed further links on your talk page for some info on the creation of articles. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

LIKE LEGIT I SWEAR ILL SUE IF U EVER LET ANY FUTURE TRACES OF SHADOW SYSTEM (BAND)PAGE IS MADE WITH OUT MY APPROVAL -HNX SONNY LACOKA LOWELL OF SHADOW SYSTEM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacokalowell (talk • contribs) 06:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

please see WP:LEGAL, threatening legal action can get you blocked from editing wikipedia. WookieInHeat (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:1993 Ford Taurus (damaged).png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:1993 Ford Taurus (damaged).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

NPP backlog

Hi. I'm seriously glad to to know that you are working from the bottom of the list. We need all the help we can get there. Keep up the good work! --Kudpung (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, WookieInHeat. You have new messages at Jimmy Pitt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Brett Salisbury at ANI (yet again)

The issue is resolved now, but you should be aware of the thread on ANI that concerned the whois information you posted on the Talk:Brett Salisbury page which has now been removed by Esprqii and a legal threat from a newly registered user regarding that info. Admins at ANI suggested we should refrain from pasting whois records with physical contact information. Sometimes I wonder if this article will ever cease to create unnecessary drama.... Sailsbystars (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, yes, sorry, I meant to post a note to you as well when I deleted the info. Anyway, I see that you commented on the ANI page. You could probably restore the website creation time if you wanted to, though of course it is available in the article history. Or maybe it's best to let it lie for now. Note that someone on the ANI page mentioned listing the article for deletion again--hopefully a passing thought. I think it's stable as is, until our astroturfing anon finds another IP range to abuse. --Esprqii (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

ya, i saw your removal, no problem. thought about restoring the info sans personal data, but the issue appears resolved for the time being so i didn't bother. if the article continues causing problems maybe we should consider nominating it for deletion again, the guy is just hanging onto notability by his finger nails. but we'll fight that battle if/when we get to it, things are fine the way they are for now. WookieInHeat (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you were about to open a sockpuppet investigation. This edit shows that VentureCapitalistAthlete is the same as the old anon. --Esprqii (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

didn't have any plans to open a new sock investigation just yet, we seem to have the situation under control. if the anon persists any further then definetly, and your attentiveness to sailsbystars' talk page will provide ample evidence if it becomes necessary. WookieInHeat (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Mindlag Project

I see that you proposed deletion of Mindlag Project. The PROD was contested by the author of the article. You may like to consider taking it to AfD instead, if you still think it should be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not agree with the deletion of this article.i know, my first version of references was incorrect, but I've upgraded it, even if it's really difficult to find all the sources on the web. But since you doubt ;and I understand you; about the reliabilty of the source of these interviews, I've given as references the link to the official websites of this magazines, and an official news on the most reliable french metal webzine to proove it. These magazines really are famous in France, and Mindlag Project is an important band from French metal scene. The band has played abroad with some bands that are part of metal scene pillars, you can even verify it on wikipedia. They also appeared last month on the streetcult compilation in USA, with Fear Factory, Leaves eyes, or Tristania, which are really famous band too. In France, they have shared the scene with all the famous french bands you can find, just like Gojira, Dagoba or Eths (which also are on wikipedia), in front of thousands spectators. They even made a french tour as a Headliner, I was there! I'm a huge fan of the band, and according to the notability policy that I've read on this site, I think it is famous enough to have an article in here. Just ask me what proof I would have to give to you, and I'll find it, I'm confident in the reliability of this band82.235.168.105 (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks for contacting me on my talk page. what i would really like to see are the actual sources for the scanned news and magazine articles, where are they from? second, if the article is going to be kept, it is going to need a major rewrite to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:OR. there is far too much personal knowledge about the band in the current article, many things that couldn't possibly be supported by any of the references. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick answer. I've made an update, so you can see the sources of these articles (references number 16 and 19 show you where interviews are coming from, unfortunately I can't do better, because these magazines are printed ones). I understand that the style of this article sounds too subjective, but I listen to this band since a long time, and I had the chance to meet them, and I've written a lot of things that only a fan know, it's right. I'll rewrite it in a more objective way, and I hope it will be kept.82.235.168.105 (talk) 05:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

ok, i will try and help you work on this article to see if we can't justify its inclusion on wikipedia. i am just a little busy today so maybe tomorrow, but the deletion discussion won't be closed for another few days so don't worry about that. WookieInHeat (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello WookieInHeat, I've made some changes to give my article a more neutral tone, I don't know if it's good enough. And I've also made some research to find more reliable references. Thank you for you help Jon1057 (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Beachin' Award

Slakr's Beachin' Award For having an awesome username, user boxes, keeping a cool head in the face of stuff like this, and still being readily able to admit it if you've made mistakes, I hereby award you this award for being overall beachin' *bad pun included for free. :P Keep up the great work. =) Cheers, --slakr\ talk / 07:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Hi WookieInHeat. I’m about to provide detailed citations to this article soon, they are all within the Website of Lassalle-Institute. Imho the notability of the Jerusalem-Project sources in following facts: It’s a project of renowned individuals/enterprises with a functioning network (no government functionaries) from all three monotheistic beliefs, planned over the last 10 years and initiated 2008 for a time period of 20 years. All discussions are held in English. Could you give me advice? --Spartanbu (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

hi, unfortunately primary sources (i.e. sources associated with the subject of an aritcle) are not sufficient to establish notability, only reliable third party sources do so. if you have any further questions please feel free to ask me. WookieInHeat (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Please check now and give me feedback, Thanks --Spartanbu (talk) 07:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

i took a look at the references you've added, they all appear to be hosted on one website. i just took a quick glance at them, but i am not 100% sure the single source qualifies as a WP:RS. WookieInHeat (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

i will contact the initiators of this project for more qualified, sources in English (e.g. from Israel or US) and will add them OK? --Spartanbu (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

sure, sounds good. WookieInHeat (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Who says the well respected Strong's Concordance is NOT a realiable Source?

I know the Catholic Church would say so. Why did you revert the edit from the Samuel article? 99.56.174.63 (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

please see your talk page. WookieInHeat (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Vector Marketing/Great Job!

Hey! Thanks for fixing up the Vector Marketing article. It's looks much better then it did previously. Phearson (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page

nableezy - 19:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

assume good faith and be civil and i will have no reason to visit your talk page. everyone involved in the discussion is being quite polite, except yourself. WookieInHeat (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you dont seem to get the point, I dont care what you think. If you have a problem with something I wrote you can tell somebody who might care. Im not one of those people. Also, read WP:DTTR. Now, one more time, stay of my talk page. Any edit you make there will be reverted sight unseen as vandalism. nableezy - 20:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

not a problem, wasn't giving the warnings to you for your viewing pleasure, i was simply generating a catalog of the various edits in your talk page history; i knew you would blank them. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

also, from WP:DTTR: 'Having said this, those who receive a template message should not assume bad faith regarding the user of said template." WookieInHeat (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy is entitled to blank the warning per WP:BLANKING. If he continues to be uncivil th next step would be to bring it up at AE.Cptnono (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

i didn't revert his blanking, i gave him two seperate warnings for different edits. WookieInHeat (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't realize. LOL. I think that makes at least 4 inappropriate comments in 24hrs? Happy editing to you Wookie.Cptnono (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

ARBPIA notice

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary. nableezy - 21:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

i'm quite aware of that thanks. WookieInHeat (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The ARBPIA notices aren't properly effective unless issued by an uninvolved administrator. I have reviewed this situation and while I am not going to take any further actions, I am re-issuing the above notification / certifying it.

Please (both sides) keep assume good faith in mind and try to avoid heated conflicts here. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks george, i was aware of that, wasn't too concerned about who the notice was given by. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Silwan

Aleph naught, the smallest infinite cardinal number

You are POV-pushing there, that is very clear. You should know that WP:NPOV is a responsibility on every editor. Have you even tried to find a source, a single source, that does not match your obvious political position? Not only that but you are repeatedly presenting the claims of interested parties as if they are objective facts. You aren't allowed to do that, you have to present them as opinions. I'm writing you this message to give you a chance to change your behavior before you are recommended for sanctions as noted above. Zero^talk 10:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

am I pushing a non-neutral political POV or is it that fact disagrees with your politcal POV? i have no political POV regarding the issue, the content was orginally added by another editor and removed by nableezy. i am making sure those with a blatant political purpose on wikipedia are not allowed to suppress information they disagree with; i would take exactly the same stance with people trying to suppress negative content about israelis. everytime the content has been removed i have readded it with additional references (currently a total of six refs to support one sentence), obviously the subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. any way, nableezy and yourself have both made vauge threats of punitive action against me. seeing as neither of you has alluded to a specific violation of any rule which would warrant such action, this appears to be an attempt at scaring me off. with that said, lets continue focusing on the content rather than the editors, shall we. WookieInHeat (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It is nice to meet you personally, Wookie, on your talk page. I'd like to remind Zero, he was wrong about me, analyzing my behaver/misbehaver, I guess he is wrong about WookieInHeat as well. It does appear like a pattern to me, though I might be wrong. Stay well, everybody. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

(Silwan was a Jewish area founded and built by the first wave of Yemenite Jews who immigrated to Israel in the 1880s. They fled during the Arab riots of the 1930s, and Arab squatters have kept the village judenrein ever since then.) Jerusalem diaries:in tense times page 74- Judy Lash Balint. KantElope (talk) 06:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hrs for a personal attack

Suggesting that editors are terrorist supporters is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. Your diff here which did so was an ARBPIA and WP:NPA violation.

You are blocked from editing for 48 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2010 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

i made no such suggestion; ironically though, the blocking admin has. not really bothered about the block, but i feel the need to defend myself. i made no suggestion nableezy was a "terrorist supporter", please show the diff where i did so. suggesting nableezy's views align with those of hamas, thus indicating a possible COI, is not the same as suggesting he supports murder and destruction. meanwhile, i was blocked for 48 hours for a supposed personal attack while the other user was only blocked for three hours for a direct personal attack here. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This an ArbCom block, so follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Arbitration enforcement blocks. PhilKnight (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2010 (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.

{{unblock|revised unblock request as per Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Arbitration enforcement blocks, please see template below unblock request}}

I have moved the appeal to WP:AE. You will be unblocked if it succeeds. Once you believe that the discussion has resulted in a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" for your unblock, you may also make another unblock request to ask that this be acted upon.  Sandstein  20:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

thank you WookieInHeat (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

i woul d gladly respond to the questions being raised about my appeal, but i am currently unable to edit the page at WP:AE WookieInHeat (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

PhilKnight's comments

the administrator PhilKnight is dancing around the point. was it a personal attack that justifies a 48 hour block or not? WookieInHeat (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, a 48 hour block was proportionate. I don't consider the question of whether it was a personal attack or not to be relevant - under WP:ARBPIA admins can take measures which are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. PhilKnight (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

so to sum up: blocking a user who made no personal attacks, with no prior blocks or major violations, for 48 hours for personal attacks; without so much as saying boo to them before doing so. meanwhile giving another user, who made a direct personal attack, with a long history of incivility, violations and blocks only a three hour ban. then arguing to maintain the 48 hour ban despite pretty much every other editor saying it is unreasonable, particularly considering the length of the other ban. this is reasonable to you? you give the impression you are just trying to save face here, everytime another editor has questioned you or pointed out a flaw in your reasoning, you just switch tunes. if my comment was not a personal attack, how was it disruptive to the "smooth functioning of the project"? WookieInHeat (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

WookieInHeat, your comment was very obviously disruptive to the smooth functioning of the project, and the fact you still don't get that is disappointing. If you make further such comments, you're going to receive longer blocks. My advice is that you should restrict your talk page posts to commenting on the content, not on the contributor. PhilKnight (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Saying that another editor is pro-Palestine, and therefore supports Hamas is unacceptable." - PhilKnight
i don't understand why this is unacceptable. it is not a personal attack, as has been reasonably established over on the AE page. what about it exactly do you find objectionable? WookieInHeat (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

all you have said so far is that you find my comment to have been "unecessary", you have yet to elaborate beyond this. and i apologize for my terse comment above, i am just getting frustrated with this process and the seeming inability of people who support the block to address the actual reason for why i was blocked. regardless of what you think of my comment, 48 hours doesn't seem unreasonable for a first offense to you? WookieInHeat (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

also, i would like to point out that the administrator PhilKnight is not uninvolved in this topic. he has been quite heavily involved in this topic area and even in the discussion of my block; hence his comments should not belong in a section that clearly says "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators." WookieInHeat (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The definition of uninvolved admin is given at WP:UNINVOLVED - the relevant phrase being 'One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article purely in an administrative role' which applies here. PhilKnight (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov's comments

@ VsevolodKrolikov, you tried to narrowly define what constitutes a COI in the discussion that prompted this block, WP:COI goes into greater detail about the specific areas you suggested is all that it covers, it by no means limits itself to your interpretation. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wookie, several editors have called your version of COI incorrect. WP:COI is clear that "interest" means personal promotion, promotion of one's employer or one's organisation, of clients or of close friends and family. If you had taken a step back when I warned you you were making personal attacks rather than ploughing on and repeating them, you wouldn't be in this situation. If another editor takes offence - even if it's someone you hold in contempt, as appears to be the case with nableezy, it's always good to apologise for offence caused. Not even doing that gives the strong impression of having no interest in maintaining civil discussion. Personally, I think it's unfair only you were blocked, as other editors made the same allegations in your defence. And for Heaven's sake, learn something about Palestininan politics before you hold forth like that. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

i disagree with your interpretation of WP:COI. but regardless, this appeal is not about that issue, it is about whether i made a personal attack or not. that nableezy may have been offended by my comments is irrelevant to WP:NPA, besides, other users could just as easily take offense to nableezy's assertions that they are "right wing nationalists" and other such labels; has he ever been blocked for those kind of comments? WookieInHeat (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh. To point to another user's behaviour as an excuse for your own is kind of childish simply an attempt to avoid dealing with your own behaviour which has resulted in a block. If you're interested, I think it's worth a warning (and block if it's part of several events), but it's not as bad as implying with no evidence, that someone is Islamist, anti-semitic, and violent, which is what an association with Hamas does. What made it a clear and actionable personal attack is that you claimed his affinity with Hamas clouded his judgement, an which WP:NPA makes clear is an attack. Your unwillingness to see anything wrong aggravates the situation. Surely this isn't difficult to understand.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

i've never made such implications, you are confusing your interpretation of what i've said with what i've actually said. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

and did you miss the irony of making a personal attack by calling me childish while aruging that my comments constituted a personal attack, thus justifying the block? WookieInHeat (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

anyway, we are getting distracted from the point of our conversation. where in the statement "nableezy displays his affinity for the palestinian cause, and by association hamas" do you see a personal attack on nableezy? WookieInHeat (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

and please, just quote what i've actually said and show where it is a violation of WP:NPA, don't offer your opinion of what you believe i intended by what i said. WookieInHeat (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You've now deleted my response to this question. Look for it in the edit history. I did not make a personal attack in characterising your editing pattern (not you) as childish. NPA is quite clear on this. But as you consider the comment offensive, I have refactored it, again, as per suggestion on NPA. I had also replied to cptnono's post explaining to him my reading of NPA, (I had originally missed his message), but given that you've deleted most of the conversation, that's pointless now.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

i deleted our past conversation because it was pointless banter that wasn't addressing the issue. as i said before, please simply quote my statement and show where it violates WP:NPA. don't offer your opinion on it, don't quote one word and try to convey what you think i actually meant. just quote my statement and show where it is a violation of WP:NPA. WookieInHeat (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

for your convenience, here is the diff where you addressed NPA, feel free to copy and paste. WookieInHeat (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll repeat my position one last time. I think you meant to tell nableezy that he could not edit with NPOV because of his political views, which you claim aligned with (you invoked COI and an affinity) an organisation that happens to be fundamentalist, theocratic, antisemitic and violent, and listed as a terrorist organisation in his own country, and you did so with no evidence. I have no idea whether you knew Hamas was like this. You also showed no signs of caring that it might cause offence when other editors warned you of a personal attack. As for affinity/affiliation: Political affiliation does not mean and has never meant exclusively membership of an organisation, for example (as if it's needed) here and here. There is a word for trying to squeeze past policies like this. I see no point in continuing this conversation, as it has turned into you asking me the same question over and over again without heeding my reply.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

no again, that is your personal opinion of what you think i meant with my statement. please just quote MY statement and show where it violates WP:NPA. offering your opinion of what you think i intended by my statement is not the same as quoting my statement and clearly displaying where it is a direct violation of WP:NPA WookieInHeat (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"an organisation that happens to be fundamentalist, theocratic, antisemitic and violent, and listed as a terrorist organisation... did i call nableezy any of those things, or did i say that his political views align with hamas? my observation on nableezy's political views is not the same as saying he supports terrorism (what i was blocked for) or any of the other things you mentioned; you are making those associations yourself and claiming i said that about nableezy. WookieInHeat (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

George's comments

Hi Wookie, I was wondering if you could answer the questions I posed at AE here. Thanks. ← George ^talk 22:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

hi george, thanks for informing the other users that i am unable to comment on the AE page. as to your specific questions: my opinion of hamas and whether it is a terrorist organization or not seems irrelevant. while being designated a terrorist organization by various governments, it is also a government and thus a user trying to supress negative information about it could be viewed as a COI. and no i have never edited under any other account. search "wookieinheat" on google, you will find this name everywhere; i have been using it for probably about a decade if not more. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear that - we've had problems in the past with banned users returning and pretending to be new users. Regarding your point, I don't know whether or not Nableezy was "suppressing negative information", but it should have been obvious that your comment would come across as insulting. There are plenty of valid reasons to remove negative information (usually related to unreliable sources, undue weight, original research and the synthesis of material) which do not make one a sympathizer for a group the negative information was discussing. If a blogger wrote that Hitler was a homosexual, I would remove the information because a blog is generally not a reliable source, not because I am a Nazi or because I have any affinity for Hitler. Does that make sense? ← George ^talk 22:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

fair enough, this whole episode has been somewhat of a lesson to me. to be honest i didn't think anyone would take such great offense to me throwing a little sarcasm at nableezy, considering his history of personal attacks and such. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you can understand why it was problematic, and more so that you're willing to learn from it. I'm all for sarcasm off-Wiki, but this topic gets so heated on Wikipedia that even a little sarcasm can lead to really big fights and personal attacks being thrown about. That's why we try to nip these problems in the bud as quickly as possible. I'm voting to overturn your block. ← George ^talk 22:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks george WookieInHeat (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

btw, the word you were looking for in that phrase was "bud", not "butt" :D WookieInHeat (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct you are. I'll have to leave nipping butts for my lady friends. ;) ← George ^talk 23:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono's comments

I made a quick inquiry to Sandstein on what the protocol is for getting your comments over at AE. It probably would have been better to use the need help template but it is obvious that you were not trying to mess around with the unblock template in a bad way.Cptnono (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Follow up:looks like you just removed it. Sorry about that.Cptnono (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

yes i only thought of the needhelp template after george had already informed you guys. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|aside from my disagreement with VsevolodKrolikov about WP:COI, i think the discussion at Wikipedia:AE#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_WookieInHeat has reached a reasonable conclusion.}}

Malik Shabazz's comments

• I really want to overturn this because 48 hours for a first offense seems excessive, but WookieInHeat's Talk page messages indicate that she/he still doesn't understand why saying that another editor has a COI with respect to Hamas is a personal attack. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

hi malik, no i don't understand how it is a personal attack, along with many of the other admins and editors. please elaborate so that i may understand, no one has done so for me in a concise manner as of yet. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

you are also the first person to suggest that stating another users COI with the political ideology of a government is a personal attack. how does making such an observation equate to claiming nableezy "supports terrorism" (the reason given for my block)? WookieInHeat (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

After all this discussion, have you not read WP:COI? Or do you just not understand it?

If nableezy wrote that your judgment was clouded because you have a COI with respect to the government of Israel, you don't think that would be a personal attack? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

to be honest? nope WookieInHeat (talk) 04:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

even if i did somehow have a conflict of interest with the israeli government, how would that be a personal attack. and where in that statment do you see "terrorism supporter"? WookieInHeat (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

from WP:COI:COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups... There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs. Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest... Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If your interests are so closely aligned with the government of Israel that it clouds your judgment and makes it impossible for you to put the aim of producing a neutral encyclopedia ahead of shilling for a foreign government, maybe you need a permanent vacation from editing.

And I didn't write "terrorism supporter", so please don't put words in my mouth. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

i didn't put words in your mouth, i was blocked for supposedly calling nableezy a "terrorism supporter". WookieInHeat (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Does it seem like a personal attack now? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

no, because i don't have a COI with the israeli government, so your assertion makes no difference to me. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

but i digress. the original reason for my block was that i supposedly called nableezy a "terrorism supporter". i never made such a claim and as such this block is unwarranted. your personal view on my use of the COI wikipolicy is irrelevant to the original reason for my block. the question is: did i call nableezy a "terrorism supporter" or not. the answer is no, thus i did not personally attack him under the definition of WP:NPA as given by the blocking admin. you can disagree with my application of WP:COI all you like, it doesn't change this. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

do you have any reasons you believe the block should be maintained that pertain to the actual reason i was blocked? or just smoke and mirrors? WookieInHeat (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Please lift this unfair block

The editor has been blocked for more than 24 hours. It is more than enough for this unfair block. Please somebody lift it. There's consensus between uninvolved administrators to overturn it here. Malik is very much involved with I/P articles and Nab. Phil was involved with supporting the block in a first place. Neither one of them should have been commenting in the section designated for uninvolved administrators. Courcelles and Mkativerata, the only two uninvolved admins are for overturning the block. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Madan : Telugu Film Director

Hello WookieInHeat. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Madan : Telugu Film Director, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 12:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

hi WereSpielChequers, thanks for letting me know. i figured because none of the films the article claims the person was involved with were referenced or blue linked, and i couldn't find credible (i.e. referenced) mention of them on WP, that the bio qualified for A7. it just seems like unnecessary work to have to go through the whole deletion process to get rid of all the poorly written articles and bios that pop up regarding often barely notable indian film related topics. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi WookieInHeat. I remember seeing this article nearly a month ago. I didn't tag it then because I thought I'd give it time to grow. When I saw it today, I saw you's already tagged it. The subject might well be notable but the references do noting to prove it. One is a blog, the other is a YouTube. Neither do anything IMHO to assert notabilty of the subject. Bollywood is so big probably far from everyone who has made a film is notable enough for the Wikipedia. I would think that even a CSD is declined, either a PROD or an AfD might enable someone to come up with some bettert sources that you or I don't have access to, or to have it deleted.--Kudpung (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

you're quite correct, i probably should have PRODed it instead of the CSD. WookieInHeat (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wookieinheat, not having any bluelinks is an opportunity to improve an article not a reason to delete it. I've linked it to one of the films and a couple of actors, though the film is barely a stub. Prod or AFD would be appropriate if you were unable to find it in the usual reliable sources for Indian film people, but BLPprod is only for unsourced BLPs, not for poorly sourced ones. ϢereSpielChequers 14:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

fine, we'll let wikipedia be flooded with low quality articles about barely notable people, makes no difference to me. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Until you've checked for sources you can't always tell whether someone is or is not notable, and if you want to change our criteria for deletion then feel free to make a proposal at the pump. But realistically wherever we set our minimum threshold for inclusion there are going to be a lot of subjects that barely meet that threshold, the trick is how to differentiate between them and the "not quite notable" ones. ϢereSpielChequers 01:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help desk is more for issues with the site itself...

...not users on it. HalfShadow 04:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

ok, just wanted a second opinion before i took it to AN/I; wasn't sure if admin intervention was really required. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Your userbox

Carl Sagan gets it

I noticed your "Politically incorrect" userbox and if you don't mind; I am using it on my userpage. If you would like me to not do so all you have to do is ask. Thanks anyway! :D Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 05:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

by all means, just my variation of another anti-PC userbox i saw. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks again... again! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 05:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

And I'm nominating it for deletion -- Holocaust jokes aren't funny just yet. As an unregistered user, I'll be requesting its deletion at Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion -- doesn't look like I'm able to get farther in the MfD process than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.198.130 (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh, that turned your user page into an ugly mess. Sorry about that. Seriously though, that userbox is going to make it impossible to collaborate with anyone Jewish, Roma, European, or over 40. 24.162.198.130 (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wookie - an Mfd discussion has started here regarding the userbox page mentioned above (User:WookieInHeat/Userboxes/Politically Incorrect). Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you consider voluntarily modifying the userbox by removing the swastika, to avoid a potentially very ugly and divisive argument within the community? Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

considering... WookieInHeat (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

How about a big middle finger salute? duffbeerforme (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

While this will be very funny; it will probably offend more people than the current image is. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 23:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

While I do not object this particulate image/userbox and agree political correctness is over rated generally, I personally would love to see your user page without it. Have a pint of two of cold Guinness (or whatever poison you favor better) and consider it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

may i ask you to elaborate? if you don't care about the userbox, why do you care if it is on my user page?WookieInHeat (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wookie. frankly I am worried about you. I hope you could take it easy generally and subscribe to Don't-give-a-fuckism more ;) Stay well. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

i appreciate your concern, but i it appears you seem to believe i take wikipedia far more seriously than i do. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Vector Marketing review in progress

Hello, there is a neutrality review in progress on the talk page of Vector Marketing. Your input is requested since you have recently/activly edited the article. Regards, Phearson (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, WookieInHeat. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

UOJComm (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello WookieInHeat! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Hezbollah Rally 2005.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Hezbollah Rally 2005.jpeg, which you've sourced to INSUFFICIENT OTRS OVER 1 MONTH OLD. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

:Category:Artificial Mutants

Hello, WookieInHeat. You have new messages at talk:Genetically modified organism.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New deal for page patrollers

Hi WookieInHeat,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:WikiAlerter Roundel.png

The file File:WikiAlerter Roundel.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Hello, let me note that the restriction at Template:Editnotices/Page//r/The_Donald regarding "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article" means you shouldn't have made this revert. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Please self-revert this edit per the above restriction - or else I'll have to file a report at WP:AE about these violations (of both WP:1RR and consensus-required) and you will probably be blocked. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

FYI, editing restrictions are in place for /r/The_Donald

Hello. Just so you know, there are some editing restrictions in place at /r/The Donald. I've included them below:

• You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article.
• You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article

Of note is the second bullet point - you reinstated an edit I challenged without obtaining consensus on the talk page. Would you please revert that? If you'd like not to, I'd have to take it to arbitration enforcement to have this solved, which would likely result in sanctions against one of us. That's a route I'd rather not take - it would be easier if you could self revert and start a section on talk about your proposed removal. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

FYI, Arbitration Enforcement

I've opened an arbitration enforcement request here regarding your edits to the /r/The Donald page. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Warning

I chose to go with a warning regarding this. But that means that a future violation would result not just in a block of a couple of days, but a week or mote. Thanks. El_C 19:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)