User talk:Bamler2

I will try harder. I am handicapped and cannot type normally. This iswhy I leave out tildes if I think thebot will add it. Sorry

Okay, thanks for promising to try. I'll be more patient and make a reasonable effort to help. The bigger issue is when edits compromise legibility and page formatting. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pork soup scandal

The article Pork soup scandal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTNEWS

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2013 Huangpu River dead pigs incident for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2013 Huangpu River dead pigs incident is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Huangpu River dead pigs incident until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Randykitty (talk) 08:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for telling me even though I did not edit this article, just a related one.[reply]

I am mentioning you in ani but you told me not to write on your page so this is notice to you.

Come on over

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you....William 12:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.palais.mc/monaco/palais-princier/english/h.s.h.-prince-albert-ii/news/2009/january/hsh-prince-albert-ii-of-monaco-reached-the.1385.html

Withdraw your complaint and say sorry for falsely accusing me of inserting a wrong fact. See citation above. Thanks

your user page

Hi, you may note I have reverted the draft article on your userpage. I'm sorry, but I ignored your demands that it not be read. Neither you nor anybody else has the authority to make such a demand here, as indicated by the notice you see every single time you edit any page on Wikipedia. The reason for the reversion is that it is probably not appropriate to have such content just sitting in userspace due to it containing WP:BLP material. If you were planning on submitting this as an actual article it can be restored and moved to article space, but per WP:STALEDRAFT articles, BLP articles in particular, should not be indefinitely hosted in user space. There's no hurry, I have simply reverted, not deleted or nominated it for deletion, so feel free to deal with your current situation and/or sit out your block before considering what you intend to do with this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Bamler2's user page was deleted here[1]. Bamler2, who took part in the AFD, must have made himself a copy before the debate ended. Another User[2] did the same thing. BLP issues don't apply. It was about a murder....William 21:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by saying BLP issues don't apply. BLP also applies to the recently deceased, and to the still living person accused of the crime. However, thanks for the additional information, I had searched the victim's name and come up empty so I thought it was a draft. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

update

Since you chose to restore that material again I have used revision deletion to remove it, per the results of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gravelocator, which concerned the page you copied the material from, and the original AFD noted above, both of which determined that we should not have this content. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Legislative Assembly of British Columbia may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Rawleigh Warner

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Rawleigh Warner requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. reddogsix (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rawleigh Warner article

Thank you but putting it in user space is useless. People will attack me and try to disrupt WP by deleting it. I can give the benefit of the doubtand say that people who delete the Warner article are ignorant, but those that delete my user space are simply mean and disruptive. Even WP officials are that way. ....and then they wonder why there are vandals, or I might add, vandals other than themselves. I presume that there are wonderful WP officials, but some are evil as described. Bamler2 (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You probably didn't have a chance to read my comments on the Raleigh Warner talk page before it was deleted, so I'll try and summarize them here. I agree Raleigh Warner is notable, but however, the article as you created it didn't really indicate why he was notable, nor did it include any sources which really are essential when you create a new article. I made the suggestion that it might be better to create the article in your own user space as a draft before bringing it into article space. There are plenty of sources out there that would have been enough for you to draft a decent stub article. For example, the obituary articles at the Washington Post, the New York Times and Business Week would have easily shown notabilty. (As an aside, I would have mentioned the fact that he was the Chairman and President of Mobil Oil in the first sentence; granted I'm not American, but I would have thought that would have been more recognizable as an entity than the Socony-Vacuum Oil Company) It's better to plan an outline and develop a working draft elsewhere, for example in your user space, instead of creating the article as a one-line stub and then working on it in article space. I'll just say that as someone who patrols new pages, while I do my best to check the notabilty of a subject and add improvements to a new article if I can, many new page patrollers will only work with what is offered because of time constraints. There are a lot of new articles flowing in here. The onus is really on the article creator to do most of the heavy-lifting as regards references. If you want any help regarding the article, you can give me a shout on my talk page as I should be around on Wikipedia over the next few days. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Bamler2. You have new messages at Reddogsix's talk page.
Message added 15:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

reddogsix (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

NOTE TO ADMINS: YOU APPLIED TO SERVE AND WAS ELECTED TO SERVE. PLEASE SERVE BY FORWARDING THIS REQUEST TO THE ARBITRATION COMMITTEE. THANK YOU

I believe that based on WP:BASC the onus is on the banned editor to submit the request to the committee. reddogsix (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please assist me in filing it. I am handicapped and need assistance. Please do not deny this request. I even think that US laws allow for accommodation and help. (do not be silly and say this is a legal threat....it is merely a plea for help). Especially if you are am admin, did you seek adminship only to block and laugh and for the title, or did you portray your desire to help others. I don't seek your judgement, only plea for your help with filing. Thank you.

{

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).

Bamler2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

please unblock or forward request to Arbitration Committee, do not deny request. I request block for 30 days ending August 3. I apologize to ArbCom and do not ask for immediate unblock. I also will seek an admin to review edits in August. My request to ArbCom is because the block is overly harsh ( longer than the prison sentence for stabbing or car theft, it is a life sentence without parole) and because two admin made errors (Beetle. claims my article was bad I didn't know it is prohibited from mentioning Wikipedia in articles even and also has a history of being mean to me telling me, in essence, to fuck off; admin Johnson falsely accused me of changing others comments when I was merely housekeeping my user talk page). I have many good editing ideas, even better than the Warner article ( who headed Exxon ) that I created. Lease find room in your heart to unblock me...I ask not immediate unblock but shortened from greater than 1000 years to 30 days. Thank you.

Decline reason:

If you would like to appeal to the ban appeals commission, you will going to have to mail them yourself. The procedure is not complicated and found here: Wikipedia:BASC#Procedure, it is hard to believe that because of your handicap that would be far more difficult to overcome than editing Wikipedia would be. If you do choose to appeal to the commision, I would advice you not to compare not being able to edit Wikipedia to a prison sentence, as that is a little silly. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on User_talk:Reddogsix. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please refrain from leaving uncivil comments on my talk page. I again suggest you read WP:UNCIVIL, WP:AGF, and the independent comments left on your talk page by other editors. reddogsix (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Bamler2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

please unblock me effective August 3 which is 30 days from now. I admit that I should have done things differently. I also admit that I helped WP by being persistent to create the Rawleigh Warner article twice and that community consensus, in the end, vindicated me by showing it was a worthy bio. I point out that Beetlebrox is not objective because when I asked him to restore my user page, he told me to fuck off by saying TLDR, which an admin should never do. Yet I do not say that he is the only evil person. Instead, I admit that I am bad and that I be blocked but for only 30 days. Even robbery has a sentence of some years and not the life sentence that has been given to me. After 30 days, I promise to seek out an admin to present some great editing ideas for their review, even better than the Warner article. Please find it in your heart to help me.

Decline reason:

Since April 1 you've now been blocked by three different admins. It's time to agree that your experiment at contributing to Wikipedia has not worked out for you. Please try to find an outlet for your talents elsewhere. Even on July 5 you managed to change the text of another editor's comment on your own talk page, which essentially falsifies his comment, and pretends that he said something that he did not say. You are oblivious to our policies and our standards of behavior. Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to be abundantly clear with you that whether or not Mr. Warner was notable is not in the mix as far as the reasons for this block. When you were unblocked last time it was to give you a final opportunity to prove you could edit without being disruptive. When you recreated the article in this pointy manner you crossed the line, and your recent talk page edits are not acceptable either, and I was easily able to find other disruptive edits in your recent history as well. I don't think you have the right attitude to work in a collaborative environment such as this and I don't see much chance of that changing anytime soon, but you are free to appeal the block if you believe otherwise. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to any reviewing admin You can see the discussion Bamler refers to in his unblock request at User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 29#please. I leave it to you to see if what happened there bears even a vague resemblance to his account of it, and if that discussion somehow made me too WP:INVOLVED to issue a block, or if it reflects how "evil" I am. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

handicapped

I am handicapped and find it very hard to type. It is even hard to backspace and delete. Some have falsely accused me of changing comments but careful examination will show that I only was midway backspacing and had to save prelim work before either an edit conflict or somehow losing unintended stuff. It is heartbreaking to be mocked, even unwittingly, or worse yet, sent to wikipedia prison for being handicapped. Bamler2 (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that we shouldn't assume bad faith if you are just having technical difficulties. But if you find yourself unable to work successfully with Wikipedia talk pages, you probably shouldn't participate in Wikipedia. Your efforts will just lead to the frustration of all parties. Your edit at User talk:Reddogsix#why not delete President James Buchanan suggests more than just technical problems, but a lack of patience that may prevent you from collaborating with others. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Competence is required of editors, too. That includes being able to divorce oneself of bias, being able to edit constructively, and to be part of the collaborative social structure. If the majority of edits you make has to be reverted for one reason or another, and if you're consistently being hit with warnings and getting into arguments, it's probably a sign that you are incompetent in one of these other core areas, physical handicap or not. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bamler2, you have begun to delete comments by admins from your talk page. Since you are no longer using this page for good-faith discussion of an unblock, I have disabled your talk page access. If you still wish to be unblocked, see WP:BASC for how to ask for review of your case by the Arbitration committee. EdJohnston (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Background data for unblock request

I received a request for some data that I'm guessing came through WP:BASC, so I'm filling in the story here, as best I can reconstruct. Here is the block log:

Block log

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

04:51, 7 July 2013 EdJohnston (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Bamler2 (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Disruptive editing) (unblock | change block)
17:50, 4 July 2013 Beeblebrox (talk | contribs | block) blocked Bamler2 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Disruptive editing) (unblock | change block)
16:58, 25 April 2013 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) unblocked Bamler2 (talk | contribs) (giving final opportunity. If disruption continues, indef should be next block)
16:56, 25 April 2013 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Bamler2 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Disruptive editing: long-term pattern of disruptive editing) (unblock | change block)
17:48, 7 April 2013 Sandstein (talk | contribs | block) blocked Bamler2 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Disruptive editing: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=WP:ANI&oldid=549187466#Bamler2_and_a_history_of_inappropriate_edits) (unblock | change block)
14:20, 1 April 2013 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Bamler2 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 60 hours (Disruptive editing) (unblock | change block)

I first edited this page on July 5 in response to an unblock request from User:Bamler2. At that time he had already been indef blocked by Beeblebrox for disruptive editing. After some back-and-forth on this page, it no longer appeared to me that Bamler2 was pursuing a serious unblock dialog, so I disabled his talk page on July 7. Any admin who is inclined to re-enable the talk page is welcome to do so.

Toddst1 blocked Bamler2 24 hours on April 1 for 'disruptive editing on User talk:JNW.'

The following was the exchange that happened at User talk:JNW. I assume that this was the reason for User:Toddst1's April 1 block:

On March 13, you wrote a very wise comment about putting better photos in the Prince Albert of Monaco article, possibly an official photo and not one that is so US-centric. I put a nice photo but some insist on a museum reception photo of Obama. This is bad judgment even if it has mob consensus. After all, Hitler was elected but reason and logic is more important than mob rule as 6 million dead Jews show. This issue is not as profound as Hitler but shows that mob rule is not the best.

Consider going to the talk page to clarify your opinion. Obama did not have any significant dealings with Monaco, no new treaty or similar. The US does not even have an embassy in that country. Bamler2 (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I also wrote that there's no problem with the Obama photo. This is so not worth edit warring about, and it's unclear why anyone would risk their editing privileges over the matter. The problem is you're upset because several other editors don't agree with you; invoking the Holocaust is a very poor analogy, and remarkably crass judgment. That's all here, thank you. JNW (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So bullies win? To avoid edit wars, let them win? Instead, we should search for a great photo demonstrating an important aspect of his reign. A museum reception where Obama went is not. Bamler2 (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may be asking yourself what edit war User:JNW was referring to; I don't know either.

In response to a report made at ANI by JNW, mentioning edit warring and 'trolling', User:Sandstein blocked for one week. (7 April 2013). JNW's report contains a lot of diffs that most likely explain the behavior problem in detail. Apparently the poor behavior continued after Toddst1's 24-hour block expired on April 2.

Beeblebrox rev-deleted two edits from User:Bamler2 that were dated 24 April 2013. I'm not sure of the significance of these edits, but they don't appear suitable for someone's user page. They are a murder confession by someone in Philadelphia, based on a copyrighted story from a TV channel [3].

I don't know the background for User:Beeblebrox's July 4 block, which was indefinite. When I showed up on Bamler2's talk page on July 5 to research the unblock request, I was willing to enter a dialog with Beeblebrox if I found there was an understandable reason for an unblock. That discussion made no progress, as you can see from the history since then. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:WilliamJE

Bamler2 didn't like a photo in the Albert II, Prince of Monaco article and kept removing it. Here[4], here[5], here[6], and [7]here, despite consensus being that the photo was proper....William 22:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bamler2's user page contained a copy of an article that was deleted here[8]....William 22:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first comment by WilliamJE answers the question of what edit war User:JNW was referring to in the post quoted above. EdJohnston (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mikhail Pakhomov for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mikhail Pakhomov is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikhail Pakhomov until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. XXN, 00:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]