User talk:Biscuittin/Archive9

Sorry.

Hello, Mr. Biscuittin.

I think you might have sent me a message inviting me to take part in a debate about a magneto. I don't really understand why, since I'm afraid I have no idea what a magneto is or what one does, except that I think it might be some sort of ice cream cone. I am not, therefore, in a position to help. Please accept my apologies. All I can say is that since your opponent is Andy Dingley, my sympathies are entirely with you, whatever the outcome, for reasons that I'm sure you understand.

Regards,

Hengistmate (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I must have sent you the message by mistake. You could be right about the ice cream. [1] [2] Biscuittin (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems I was thinking of Magnum and Cornetto. Not to worry. Good luck with you know who. Hengistmate (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Biscuittin (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead crystal battery listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lead crystal battery. Since you had some involvement with the Lead crystal battery redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Tavix |  Talk  04:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added a comment. Biscuittin (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Agriculture in Djibouti

A tag has been placed on Category:Agriculture in Djibouti requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for four days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

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. Geohakkeri (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

speedy

I nominated Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP for a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP instead of using speedy. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Biscuittin (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Preselector (disambiguation)

The article Preselector (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unnecessary disambiguation per WP:TWODABS

While all constructive 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. Tavix | Talk  20:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, no objection. Biscuittin (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Exceptional common years

A tag has been placed on Category:Exceptional common years requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for four days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

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. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, no objection. Biscuittin (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Teething troubles (figurative) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Teething troubles (figurative) 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/Teething troubles (figurative) 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sinpo Station

The article Sinpo Station has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I see no reason to keep a disambiguation page that doesn't have any links.

While all constructive 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. Compassionate727 (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Crochat

Hi there! Crochat is looking good, keep up the good work. Samuel Tarling (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Biscuittin (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Russian locomotive class E el-2

added a link pointing to Prime mover

Russian locomotive class shch-el-1

added a link pointing to Prime mover

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Biscuittin (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I've proposed Cabbage patch (Dance) for deletion. Tapered (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Cabbage patch dance. Biscuittin (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Griffith University Station

Hello Biscuittin,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Griffith University Station for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. LavaBaron (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Automotive engine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marine engine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Biscuittin (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Changing Reference Source

Biscuittin,

You keep on changing the reference of content that WE personally wrote in the "Dredging" page. You are citing another company as the owners of that content. We personally wrote that content. You will find the original article here:

http://www.dredgebrokers.com/HTML/Dredging/Dredging.html

Please let me know why you keep doing this.

Wvonmayer (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not make the changes you claim. There appears to be a WP:Conflict of interest dispute here but I am not involved in it. I suggest you take this up with User talk:Ponyo. Please see the message from Ponyo on your own talk page User talk:Wvonmayer. Biscuittin (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. I do see it was not you. It was just your version that it had reverted to. Sorry about that

Wvonmayer (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of ACoRP members

The article List of ACoRP members has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

If the association itself is only worth a paragraph in another article, then why would a list of its members be a notable enough subject for a list? We have a list of British heritage and private railways, so it's not as if the lines aren't listed if this article is deleted.

While all constructive 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. Fram (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:List of ACoRP members. Biscuittin (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of ACoRP members for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of ACoRP members 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/List of ACoRP members 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. Fram (talk) 06:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of British engineers and their patents

The article List of British engineers and their patents has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A list of railway engineers (other engineers seem to be suspiciously absent from this page) who have one or more patents, which is not a claim to notability. This page may be useful for a British train project (do we have such a thing), as a list of potential article subjects (some of them are probably notable), but is not a valid Wikipedia article in itself (people with patents but without Wikipedia article is way too self-referential)

While all constructive 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. Fram (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Fram. Biscuittin (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of British engineers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of British engineers 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/List of British engineers 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. Fram (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Peckett OQ Class

Hi! I saw this, well caught! However, I think you may not be aware that Trident13 is indeffed for copyright violations, and that there is a huge contributor copyright investigation open for him. That page will need to be rewritten from scratch at Talk:Peckett OQ Class/Temp. In case you are interested in doing that, I've copied the infobox and so on to the temp page. No text from the current version of the page should be re-used unless you're 100% sure it's "clean". Oh, and do change the reference format if you like. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Biscuittin (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I have expanded the page. Biscuittin (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

List of....

If you want to cut the Gordian knot, you can cut-and-paste the article to your user-space, and nominate it for speedy with {{G7}}. Just a suggestion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC).

(talk page stalker)But you could only do that if no other editor had contributed to it; otherwise, as Rich Farmbrough surely knows and you probably do too, it would be a copyright violation. Attribution is required under the terms of our licence. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

To be accurate, {{G7}} relies on you being substantively the only editor, as far as a cut-and-paste is concerned, you should attribute substantive authors, in this case, if you want to be safe, Andrew Davidson, if you retain the Further reading section.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:06, 23 November 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) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Defeat device hatnote

You added a hatnote to Defeat device claiming potential confusion with Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization.

I don't see how the confusion is that plausible. Hypothetically, if there were an article titled "Device defeat," then that would create reasonable confusion. As it stands, the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization article does not state any reason that confusion with "defeat device" would be plausible, nor is such confusion discussed on either article's talk page.

Is there some reason I haven't envisioned for the necessity of the hatnote? Was the confusion discussed somewhere I haven't seen? Or is it okay for me to remove the hatnote? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I was not "claiming" potential confusion, I was just allowing for the possibility of confusion. You can remove it if you like. Biscuittin (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the sloppy wording. I was not genuinely implying any "claim" in any logically rigorous sense. I probably meant to say "citing potential confusion," but that would have been just as misleading considering the special meaning of the word "cite" within Wikipedia. Anyway, proceeding with the removal now. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You now have 4R at global cooling. Please seeWP:3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

And you've now reverted again [3], despite being warned. And you're no newbie. Please self-revert William M. Connolley (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

No. Biscuittin (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah well, in that case: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Biscuittin reported by User:William M. Connolley .28Result:_.29 William M. Connolley (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Global cooling

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Biscuittin reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: Blocked). I'm also notifying you (below) of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBCC. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Global cooling is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBCC

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive ANI notices

Methinks it's harrassment and dispruptive to spam editors with an ANI notice before you have posted the ANI complaint. Your notice says "there is" (present tense) when in fact, as of the time of the notice, there is not. No ed is obligated to sit on ANI twiddling thumbs while you put together your issues. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It takes time to notify four editors. If I had put up the ANI notice first, you could have accused me of failing to notify you. Biscuittin (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You've failed to accept any of my other good faith advice as good faith advice, but hope springs eternal.... After years and so many edits how do you not know this? You generally post the complaint first, and then use a diff to the posting in your notice on the user's talk pages. I then go one more step and add diffs to the notices in the complaint filing. But hey, I'm probably just slurring you again. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

What is a diff? Biscuittin (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

First, I have a hard time accepting this newbie question from someone with just under 70,000 edits since 2007 as genuine, but since the odds you really don't know are only slightly less than my winning the Powerball but still more than zero I'll answer it this way..... Anytime you have such a question, first attempt self education by typing WP:(whatever) in the search box thingie, in this case, type WP:DIFF and see what you get. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Since I am mentally handicapped, you could show me a bit more consideration. Biscuittin (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I think it's important to continue to assume good faith with Biscuittin. You'll notice most of his editing has been in the uncontroversial topic of trains. I think he's genuinely confused and frustrated in this new area.

Biscuittin, a "diff" is a permanent URL to an edit. You can link to one of your recent edits like this: Recent edit, but it will get lost over time. If you link to the same edit's diff, it will never get lost. Note that the letters "diff" appear in the URL. You can find diffs in page histories. That's very much a layman's explanation! I have misunderstood and been frustrated on controversial pages before, myself. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

If you are really mentally handicapped, a note on your user page would be in order. If you're being sarcastic, you could say so. YoPienso (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you YoPienso. I thought you were acting in good faith so I did not mention you in the bullying complaint. I have an Autism spectrum disorder. Biscuittin (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Goes both ways, and part of the price for this indulgence, or patience if you prefer, is a demonstration that B is receptive to feedback, and acts and incorporates it in subsequent interactions. We have a guideline/rule/essay thingie that includes the following, "Blocking an editor who has demonstrated that they cannot participate in Wikipedia is not discrimination on the basis of disability, even if that disability contributes to their failure to participate. Wikipedia is not therapy." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Even the mentally handicapped need to be civil, and "play by the rules". Biscuittin, you have been out of line. If you don't know where the "lines" are, well, your first clue should be when you start running into all kinds of resistance. Like multiple reversions. Being blocked (rather akin to getting whacked on the head) should also be considered as a definite communication, Characterizing all of these responses as bullying, well, you need to reconfigure your thinking on that. When you swerve across all lanes of traffic complaining about all the honking is not a good response. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)

I have found Biscuittin to be civil and also trying to follow the rules. S/he let 4 editors know s/he was making a complaint and was accused of spamming. Yes, s/he should have said the complaint wasn't posted yet, but if you look at the intent, it was good. Biscuittin IS a newbie in climate articles. We can be patient, yes? Continued failure to understand would indicate a problem. Biscuittin, I recommend you hold off any more editing in climate articles. Be like the wise old owl-- quietly observe. Watch the editing process. Go back through the talk page archives. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you YoPienso, you are a good person. I see you are a Christian and perhaps this is one of the reasons. Biscuittin (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Your user talk page comments are also subject to wiki etiquette rules, including WP:CANVASSING and WP:CTDAPE. You have already been advised by admin Kudpung (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to seek the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:Dispute resolution and WP:Third opinion) for any conflicts. Instead, after getting that constructive admin advice, you've been contacting people with whom you seem to think there might be some mutual feelings of sour grapes. To me, this is further evidence you are unable or unwilling to act constructively on the feedback from other editors. Blocks are not punishment. They are supposed to be instructional and preventative. The question is, are you willing to accept and act on polite feedback messages of this sort, or will further blocks be required before you get the message? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Please provide links to the edits you are complaining about. Biscuittin (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Busywork. Look at your own contributions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to tell me what you are complaining about, I shall regard your complaints as vexatious. Biscuittin (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

At 02:52, December 23, 2015 admin Kudpung advises you to seek constructive collaboration via 3O/DR etc. Instead your contribs show these edits (not counting your user and your talk pages).

1. 10:25, December 26, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+285)‎ . . User talk:HughD ‎ (→‎Welcome to the club: new section) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]
2. 22:59, December 25, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+389)‎ . . User talk:Diannaa ‎ (→‎Unexplained reversion: new section)
3. 21:09, December 24, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+296)‎ . . Talk:Scientific consensus ‎ (→‎The Elephant in the room: text)
4. 19:06, December 24, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+172)‎ . . Talk:Scientific consensus ‎ (→‎The Elephant in the room: text)

In these outdented subsections I'm mainly talking about CANVASSING and CTDAPE problems with the user page comments, but the article talk comments are also SOAP/FORUM. I've pretty much done all the leading to water I plan to do, so good luck going forward..... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

You still haven't provided links. Why should I do your work for you? Biscuittin (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 06:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Complaints from NewsAndEventsGuy

I'm in a good mood, so I'll humour you.

• User talk:HughD, I left a friendly message. What's wrong with that?
• User talk:Diannaa, my message was about User:William M. Connolley. He can complain to me if he wants to. Why are you complaining on his behalf? Are you a sockpuppet of his?
• Talk:Scientific_consensus#The_Elephant_in_the_room, This discussion is closed so why are you going on about it? Do you not accept the closure?

Biscuittin (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I quite agree. Biscuittin (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)