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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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

July 2013

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)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=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 = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=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. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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)

• 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)

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)

• Unsolicited response from non-admin editor. My contributions s Andre draining time from other editors than collaborating. From the difficulty Bamler has responding in proper talk Incidents&oldid=546187788#sock_alert._block_or_change_policy_to_allow_socks sockpuppetry] without evidence, to sniping admins, to making unconstructive edits such as this one.

Bamler, cooperation is crucial to collaboration, as is the ability to yield to the better idea, or even to acknowledge the possibility that you could be wrong. How did you get yourself into a situation where everybody is wrong but you? And how do you expect your experience to improve if you continue to engage in the types of behavior that keep getting you blocked?

Unsolicited advice: create your articles offline and get them up to snuff (establish notability, use encyclopedic tone, harvest citations, etc.,) before posting them. Or go through the WP:AFC process. Why continue the upsetting cycle of creating barebones articles live, having them speedily deleted, and getting mad at admins and the Wikipedia process? It all seems so avoidable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)