User talk:Unbroken Chain/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

ARE request

Consider checking Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Hell in a Bucket Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

COI continued

I very much appreciate your input. I am new to this. My only goal is that if I see an error is to correct it with source material. Please advise if I'm on the right track. I would assume it's proper to add the accurate I very much appreciate your input. I am new to this. My only goal is that if I see an error is to correct it with source material. Please advise if I'm on the right track. I would assume it's proper to add the accurate information with accompanying source material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by STravelli (talk • contribs) 20:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand and I want that article to be as accurate as possible too. I understand and agree with the edit as being accurate we just need to show it with WP:RS. I myself try and refrain from adding to that article as I have a strong COI myself (raised as a witness, no longer active. Not DF'd though if you are one and worried I was ) there are quite a few good editors on that article that can help get what you want corrected in there or explain when it's been discussed and why. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I do have another question if I may. If a statement is made in reference material for example .. Materials such as The Watchtower are almost as significant to the Witnesses as the Bible, since the information is presented as the inspired work of theologians, and they are, therefore, believed... This is completely inaccurate. Is it appropriate to put something by that reference explaining the in accuracy? Or is it just best left alone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by STravelli (talk • contribs) 20:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I'd like to give you one link real quick WP:CHEAT this will help you a lot in formatting your responses and coding your additions. Well a lot of that is up to you. I wold like the article to reflect your view personally. I think the issue being we need to find a source that is separate,and reliable we can use to improve the article. The nice thing about this place is ideally there can be a discussion on this that involves everyone. I'm going to transplant to [[1]], you will get a lot of better assistance there and if not let me know and I'll go buug a few editors that are far superior to me in this subject! Feel free if you have querstions tro come back. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I really appreciate your input and help. I truly want to follow the rules. And I'm trying to be objective. It just seems logical that if someone posts something saying that 1+1 = 5 and posts references it should be appropriate to post 1+1= 2 and post a reference accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by STravelli (talk • contribs) 22:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia it doesn't make sense that often. I've seen a little of what's going on with the other article. I'd suggest talking it to the talk page and discussing it with the other editors. They will explain their side and you can explain yours and the consensus of what emerges ends up in the article. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments on Workshop about outing

Did you read my comment on the talk page and in Mike V's section. I hadn't noticed that Gaijin had raised it. 18:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No i'm not sure if I am on the same page? Do I need to change or remove something? I'm sorry if I crossed the line I'm trying to be above board on all of this. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It was your question to Gaijin on the Workshop page. I don't think it's appropriate or helpful at this stage to discuss these allegations. Doug Weller (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok I will refrain from any further references to that in anyway. I refactored it I hope that will help I certainly don't want to assist in revicimtization of any editor. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Clear

So, now you know why I was unhappy. I hope its clear and the fact that i dont own the article. I know that. My case was different. Anything you want to tell/ask mw?—Prashant 03:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Prashant! yes I do appreciate your clarifications and subsequent explanations. If I was to tell you I was a blameless editor I'd be full of shit so now that you are in better headspace I think we can move past it. Small stuff in the grand scheme. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

How that nomination page helps? There was a discussion but not for the sake of improvement of that nomination. Its very upsetting that you guys are trying to undelete that page. It was an unfortunate incident that someone nominated it, who was not even aware about the criteria. And, there is nothing in that page which helps improve the topic. Its very upsetting.—Prashant 15:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked you for a period of 24 hours for this edit, which is in violation of your interaction ban with Lightbreather. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:GorrillaWarfare. I made it clear that this was a revert under the block evasion [|For the sake of transperency please log into your account. reverting DUCK evasion] which is allowed when reverting vandalism or OR IN THIS CASE Sockpupptery seen here WP:BANEX and when it became questionable specifically "When in doubt, do not take the action" I stated [if it's a questionable revert it's safest for me to completely avoid it so that's the path I plan to take.] Tell me again how this was inappropriate or prevents disruption since I clearly stayed to the letter of that policy? Been waiting a long time to do that haven't ya? It's only 24 hours and in the next 48 I sure hope I get an apology from ya once ya take your finger off the trigger. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

This revert does not fall under WP:BANEX. As for your comment above, you do not get free reign to violate bans by just following them up with a comment saying you're done. As a side note, my username only has one "r", so I don't receive pings from you when you use two. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Okie doke as long as it makes you feel better. You seem to be the only one that had an issue with it but as I say it's a 24 hour block so have fun with your pound of flesh talk to you in 48 hours. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:GorillaWarfare, I'm sorry I just have a problem with incompetence so I'm going to have to tell you that if you are enforcing policies it helps to know them and if you aren't and just intend on ignoring them that's abuse of a different level. As I recall this is the second time I've had to help educate you on policy with sockpuppetry what's your excuse this time? Per banex one of the exemptions is vandalism, when you look at WP:Vandalism Look for the big headline that says [| Gaming the system] it's in bold if that helps and if you read that gaming the system or evasion of scrutiny is by definition gaming the system is indeed vandalism and would have still been allowed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 05:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I can see that you are trying to get me to rise to the bait with the four insulting comments, but I have no interest in playing ball. If you truly feel that that edit was not in breach of your interaction ban, you know how to appeal the block. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:GorillaWarfare, if that's all you're capable of seeing you are missing a whole forest. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2015 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

There has been cases in this and the last arbcom showing that inappropriate evasion of scrutiny has been happening. I reverted an IP (not LB) who posted on LB page [[2]]. I clearly gave the reason in my edit summary what I thought was possible evasion of scrutiny and requested them to log into their account. I followed up with a request for semi protection [sure we have some evasion of scrutiny and blocks/ban. I don't think this was LB to be clear] right after. Now in this case this was the VERY first IP edit made with this IP [[3]]. This usually is not a good sign and means someone refreshed or logged out to do the edit. The Ip came to my page gave an explanation that I didn't have the technical knowledge to refute and I made the statement [it's a questionable revert it's safest for me to completely avoid it so that's the path I plan to take]. Per WP:BANEX vandalism is an allowed exemption if it's obvious as an exemption, if there is doubt stop and use dispute resolution. So I reverted what I thought at the time was obvious [vandalism] which specifically cites sockpuppetry under gaming the system., reported it to a admin board asking for protection ie something that can be considered dispute resolution then refrained from further action when this was questioned. That is exactly the path advocated under banex. Blocks are preventive not punitive. I stated why I thought the ban didn't apply then stated I would go no further. What did I harm or disrupt? The only person at all to express issue with my actions is an administrator that has previously called me sexist and therefore obviously has strong feelings about me. I appreciate if this needs elevated to a discussion of consensus as it involves an arb but I think this block is overkill.

Decline reason:

Reading all that you have written about this block (both in this unblock request and above) it is difficult to know where to start in pointing out all the numerous ways in which you have managed to miss the point and misinterpret or misrepresent things. However, I shall focus on what seems to be the central point, namely that you are trying to plug the idea that what you did comes under the exemption for "obvious vandalism". It is not by any reasonable stretch of the imagination obvious vandalism. It does not even look to me as though it is vandalism at all: it looks to me like at the worst someone either forgetting to log in or not bothering to, and quite possibly not even that. However, in any case it is certainly not obvious vandalism. (And please note that WP:BANEX, which you cite in your defence, puts special emphasis on the need for it to be "obvious", which it describes as "the key word".) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2015 (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.

User:JamesBWatson given the choice of reverting WP:EVASION of scrutiny then letting things sit there longer I'd do it again and take the block again if I had to but thanks for the review. It's over in a few hours so I'll see you guys the next go around apparently. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quackers

I don't have an account. I'm at work now but I normally edit from home. My home ISP is Axtel. I have dynamic IPs in the 201.156.231 /24 range there. 169.57.6.147 (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I saw the message but not the header lol. Well I'm on thin ice with that page anyways and if it's a questionable revert it's safest for me to completely avoid it so that's the path I plan to take. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:169.57.6.147 that's not your fault in the slightest. I certainly don't blame you for my block. She's wanted to do that a long while and I gave her the flimiest of excuses to do it so she decided to pull that trigger. You never know what the future holds so if you are indeed just curious please restore the comment, it's not the first time she's been wrong and certainly won't be the last. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Special:Diff/666178584

Who was blocked? This IP appears to have come from another wiki, so even if it was blocked on the Russian Wikipedia, that doesn't mean it is blocked here, so what are you referring to? I am not trying to be overly questioning or anything like that, but I was just hoping for an answer, so thanks. Dustin (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

there have been several here is one [[4]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Strange. You linked "37.144.109.50", but it shows that "37.144.109.0/24" has been blocked. What kind of IP address is that? Dustin (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

More then likely its a range block, there were a few out there so they were trying to salt the farm. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Feud

I have been working carefully and as clearly as I can to help both of these editors become aware of the extent to which they are immersed in their COIs (each has a financial COI, those financial COIs compete in the real world, and they are in realworld interpersonal and professional disputes beyond simple competition, so WP:BLPCOI applies as well) and are trampling on WP in the course of pursuing them. Whatever you can to help with that, would be great. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I doubt my opinion would help I just thought the warnings were overkill when they stated they would back away. hopefully nothing further will be required as you say. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding to edits in Shraddha Kapoor

Thanks for controlling the mess in the article.

There is a lot of confusion about her relatives and the citation link is dead. Please confirm the data and if you can add any working citation. Prymshbmg (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

No one including myself is "in control" you have as much as I do, if there are sources they should be added and then we will be in a better position to assess the accuracy. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

"here for the improvement of the project"
Thank you for articles on Colorado State parks and The Bunny Museum, for new article patrol, quality control, and for rescuing articles from deletion, for assisting new editors and encouraging others, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 514th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Gerda Arendt, you have to be one of my favorite editors here. I usually find your discourse interesting with some nice humor thrown in for good measure. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The notorious criminal appreciates that with pleasure ;) - but remember, when I said good faith is missing I was serious, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots

You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

• The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&rawcontinue=1>). No other code changes should be necessary.
• Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&continue=>), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Tahera Ahmad for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tahera Ahmad 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/Tahera Ahmad 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. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Guidance

Hi there, I am wanting to make some updates to the JLA (Company) Page. The intention is to simply make factual updates following changes to the company. For example, Black Box Intelligence is no longer offered. More Catering products are now available following a number of acquisitions and so on. The objective is not for promotion, just for factual accuracy.

How can update such things without being undone - most information is not necessarily cited other than on the JLA website? Also, old stats such as the 30% market share are out of date - can I simply remove such 'expired' info?

Thanks

(Apols - didnt realise this needed to be a new section and at the bottom - pls delet the earlier post :-)

Hi there, I am wanting to make some updates to the JLA (Company) Page. The intention is to simply make factual updates following changes to the company. For example, Black Box Intelligence is no longer offered. More Catering products are now available following a number of acquisitions and so on. The objective is not for promotion, just for factual accuracy.

How can update such things without being undone - most information is not necessarily cited other than on the JLA website? Also, old stats such as the 30% market share are out of date - can I simply remove such 'expired' info?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horsfield (talk • contribs) 16:55, 22 June 2015‎ UTC

Horsfield, if you are making factual changes to the page, you must have reliable sources to back up those claims. If information is out-of-date but has a valid reference (and there is no current reference to say otherwise) then that information should be left in (maybe with the preface "in 20XX the company had..."). Also if you work for the company, you'll need to disclose that fact on your userpage (using {{paid}} or otherwise). If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Inflammatory comments

this was not helpful. Inflaming the situation makes it hard for other uninvolved admins to understand the underlying perspective and issues with the block. Could you tone it down please? Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that is any less inflammatory then her telling me I was a sexist. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Try this on for size [[5]] That was started by people other then me that also recognized there is an issue. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any specific comment there (other than the general recusal question) and relitigating an arb's recusal or not seven weeks later is not something *I* am going to jump into without more specific context, thank you.

Where was the specific sexist comment diff? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Georgewilliamherbert, "@Hell in a Bucket: "Before you get too wound up," "Also the attempts to invoke my block log is cute," "Do you notice how she wails..." This doesn't seem sexist? The rest of the Committee can outvote me, if I am indeed an incompetent woman myself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)" You know what's ironic I've never once made a personal comment about GorillaWarfare. I've criticised her actions and that's it according to my recollections. SO if it seems personal it is but apparently on her side. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Added citations

A box at the top of this page [6] notes the need for additional citations - I have added citations to recent new articles citing this person and his relief organization - if this is not yet sufficient, please advise further! thanks Changchubdawa (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Asking an arb to recuse

You first ask them on their talk page. If they refuse, you send the committee a request. Posting to a closed case page is a not appropriate. Doug — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 11:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller, well if you look she was asked already in the lightbreather case it's on her talkpage. I also after posting that being unsure where the venue should be immediately requested clarification if it was appropriate here [[7]]. Unless you were answering my question on her behalf it might help before the here and there of things maybe you couldn't see I was trying to address it previous to your response. I am interested to note that it took less then 30 minutes for this arb response and the now two days this has been left sitting [[8]]. Is there a reason for that I wonder? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I see quite a difference between the two. Anyway, we are the next and only port of call after a refusal by an arbitrator to recuse. Doug Weller (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

OK so your primary beef is its in the wrong place but you have not said where the correct was? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

?. I told you in my first post. Their talk page, then us. Maybe I've misunderstood you as I thought I was clear. Doug Weller (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I've pointed out that a formal request was made on her talkpage which I participated in. Her response during is that I will keep on considering it over the course of the case. I could waste the time and ask her to recuse again but why? She will refuse again and I will request the motion. The only real issue here is the placement of that request to the committee. That page was previously used for a motion to ask Salvio to recuse and there was none of this wrong placement stuff mentioned then [[9]]. So where is the appropriate venue for the community and parties to discuss that. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Firstly the procedure had been followed (i.e. Salvio had been asked on his talk page first), secondly the workshop phase was open when that motion was requested. Arbitration policy is very clear that an arbitrator must be asked on their talk page first, regardless of what bad faith assumptions you make about their not considering it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Thryduulf, They have been. [[10]] it's the section "Formal Request". Next objection? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

That section refers to a previous request, not your current one. Indeed you explicitly said on my talk page you did not want to associate your request with Ched's previous one. Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

What I meant is his endorsement in asking the formal motion. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• FWIW, I have no objection to being mentioned in these discussions. My efforts on wiki are a matter of record. IMO - there is a super super-Mario issue in play here. When an Arb is asked to "recuse" from an issue, it is dependent upon the integrity of that individual Arb to evaluate and decide upon their own course of action. Our current policy dictates that Arbs "can", not only stand in judgement on a case, but also voice strong predisposed opinions; and yet remain "un-involved" per EN-WP policy. As far as "my" request - I felt that I had perused it as far as possible. I do thank you for both your efforts, and for the courtesy of the ping. I wish everyone the best in future endeavors. — Ched :  ?  15:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • If an arbitrator does not recuse when asked, the rest of the committee can be asked to rule on whether they should, so it does not depend entirely on their personal integrity. Thryduulf (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware of that, and stand corrected - thank you. — Ched :  ?  21:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
   1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
   2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

"Protection of the committee"

You've said more or less the same thing twice at the talk page. People shouldn't have to respond twice, so can you please fix it? Thanks. I'll add that you really don't know what you are talking about - not an insult, you don't know because you haven't seen our discussions. I certainly always saw this as an issue involving different interpretations of policy and thus haven't seen sanctioning anyone as relevant. This doesn't mean that I think that everyone acted in accordance with my interpretation of policy, just that I don't think that anything they did was something they need to be punished for (usually a bad idea anyway), desysopped or restricted. Doug Weller (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

That's precisely the issue, we don't know. The committee has chosen to be secretive at a time when transparency should rule. This case involves a sitting member of the committee, it should not be discussed in private unless there are personal details not needing to be shared. It reeks of cover-up. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't peeve Arbcom. If you've any doubts? Check my block-log. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

User:GoodDay, I don't doubt it is a very bad idea. I think that I'm on my way out soon anyways. I find that more and more my views on what should happen and the communities differ greatly and that kind of disconnect is not a constructive thing here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The 'pedia can certaintly be a frustrating place. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Some people wouldn't be satisfied if we published our discussions, they'd insist there were secret discussions. There was no cover-up here, no attempt to protect an Arb. I can understand why people might feel there was, but they're wrong. Doug Weller (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I can understand, if it was truly a move to improve the atmosphere good on ya. I'm sorry sometimes I get irritated by things and pop off at the mouth its a very bad habit. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

PhilWiki Community User Group

May we invite you to join the Community. Please sign up if you would like to be part of this new User Group. Thank you. --Filipinayzd (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Good job reverting those IP edits that changed date formats. I only noticed one yesterday, but you got them all. JOJ Hutton 15:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It was from a LTA account apparently, thank god for rollback and multitab :P thanks a bunch Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Jazz Stewart

Hi. Could you please take a look at these edits on Kapoor's page? The editor refuses to engage in any discussion. Pretty sure he/she is a sock, but not sure of whom. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to say it's a sock, mainly because at least for me right now there isn't an obvious sock master. I did however ping you and start a 3rr posting for the repeated behaviors. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Another editor has opened a sock investigation on him. Cheers! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted

Hi Hell in a Bucket, in the open Lightbreather arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Longest article?

I didn't get your reason for you NPOV issue on Mary Kom saying "Longest article". NPOV was put there for lack of neutral reviews, which was properly resolved. I dont think there is any problem in a long article. Is it? Please elaborate.

What I stated is there are some NPOV issues and possibly WP:UNDUE as well. The comment about length is part of the undue part. When I did an admittedly quick scan this article suffers from some of the faults in the area that it offers what appears to be everything said about the movie ever. It is my beliefs though and others may differ. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't you think it's a good thing that the article is higly detailed? I made sure that it covers everything. I f you can tell me which part is unwanted, then i might remove it. This is not all, the themes and analysis and Box-office section are also required for GA/FA.—Prashant 14:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

So this user has reverted three different editors within 12 hours. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm on the way out for work. Prashant yes detail is good but the sourcing has to be equally so. I understand some is required and there is a fine line there and many think the way you think I'm the less is more type. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

And you have reverted me countless times without aproper reason. Justr because you didnt like a film or doesnt like abn actress. You are very good manipulator. Poor soul.—Prashant 14:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather arbitration case closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy relates to you:

6A) All interactions bans affecting Lightbreather are taken over by the Arbitration Committee and placed under the committee's direct jurisdiction. The default i-ban exceptions remain in place but improper use of them by Lightbreather is sanctionable as an i-ban evasion. For consistency and ease of administration, the i-bans may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action but any resultant appeals may be made only to the committee and only by email. For the avoidance of doubt, this paragraph applies to the following interaction bans:

1. Mike Searson (one-way)
2. Hell in a Bucket (two-way)
3. Eric Corbett (two-way)
4. Sitush (one-way)
5. Scalhotrod (two-way)

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather closed

Exit from a cult

Hi, in reply to your email, this is probably sufficient explanation. As you can probably understand, my exit was a decision made over a long period and was triggered by a whole range of issues and incidents. It was a growing disaffection, a growing awareness that it was all wrong. I stayed as a guest at the Sydney Bethel for two or three nights and that experience alone —an up-close encounter with the people who run the organisation at middle management level — left me quite disturbed and seriously wondering about whether I should remain. I certainly vowed I would never again contribute a cent to their finances. The one final trigger was when I sent away for, and began to read, Raymond Franz's Crisis of Conscience, which provided a behind-the-scenes look at an organisation that was very clearly 100% human. By then I'd decided that I'd probably attend very few meetings, but still believed there was some golden thread that ran through the Watch Tower organisation to God. That book convinced me that no such thread existed. Later research, particularly on the origins of their chronological system, confirmed I had made the right decision. BlackCab (TALK) 09:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

User:BlackCab, I appreciate that. My own upbringing and background still goes off in my head at times and I get to see the effects on families from the religion. Hard to explain the type of guilt it leaves in people for those who don't know. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It does leave an awful hangover. Just reading my old user page essay again, I noticed the link at the bottom to an earlier, rather more forceful version. I found it fascinating to read after all this time. I try to restrain myself a bit more these days! BlackCab (TALK) 12:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Request

Hello,

I would like to have the Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP page restored. I tried to create it in a neutral tone as much as possible. If you could point out which areas need correcting, I will gladly rewrite it. Regarding copyright infringement, I did not copy text from another site. However I can rewrite that as well. Thank you. Douglasfirtree (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Replied with info on your talkpage. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Very kind of you. [11] — Ched :  ?  13:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the edit to the Doppler Studios page

I think that if world-class clientele choose to record at a particular recording studio, that it does add to the notability of that studio. Just like one of the things that some restaurants use to advertise their notability, is pictures of famous people that have chosen to dine there. It sets such a place apart from the other restaurants where people who can eat anywhere they want, choose NOT to settle for. If Doppler Studios was a public restroom, and that was the service they provided to the community...then I think a list of famous people that chose to use that restroom would absolutely add to the notability of that restroom. What a recording studio provides to the community is recording services; if the best and brightest stars in the fields that depend on recording services choose to utilize a particular recording studio instead of another facility, how could that possibly not add to the notability of the studio that was chosen? I have only listed a few of the most notable artists that chose to record at Doppler, not anyone that has ever recorded there; just a small sampling from a variety of genres. The fact that Aretha Franklin and the legendary Clive Davis chose Doppler Studios as one of the places to record Aretha's most recent album is a huge indicator of notability, and it is one of the things that sets Doppler Studios very much apart from the many other recording studios that would never even be considered for such a session. I feel it necessary to point out that about half of the article that I referenced about the Aretha Franklin session is devoted to where and who was involved in the recording of the album; Mix Magazine Online isn't trying to advertise for all those people and facilities in that article, they just know details like that are important to the type of people that read Mix Magazine Online...the type of people that will look for info online about recording studios. In the article I referenced from cinematlmagazine.com, the author mentions almost right off the bat how she was struck by Doppler's notability immediately upon entering their building, because of the gold and platinum records on the wall from some of the high profile artists that had recorded there. Please check out some other Wikipedia pages for recording studios; I picked a few studios at random from the "Recording Studios in the US" page (Cherokee Studios, Milkboy, Kingsize Soundlabs, Henson Recording Studios, Fort Apache Studios, Rancho De La Luna, SugarHill Recording Studios, Sonic Ranch, Atlantic Studios, and American Sound Studio), and every single one of them had long lists of artists that had recorded there, almost all of them much longer than the list I had for Doppler...and for a couple of them, artists that have recorded there was basically the only info they had about the facility. If you check out entries about recording studios in lots of different physical encyclopedias, you will see that many, if not most, include prominent artists that have recorded there as a substantial part of the article. So based on real-world encyclopedia examples, including several from Wikipedia, it seems like a list of several well-known artists that have recorded at a given studio, is a perfectly appropriate thing to have in an encyclopedia article about that recording studio. Drgonzo 1972 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

That would be ideal from a marketing viewpoint. Reviewing your contributions it appears that you only have one area of editing and that's making sure that Doppler studio is documented here. Are you connected to the subject, part of their marketing team? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Unbroken Chain. You have new messages at 78.26's talk page.
Message added 03:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Doppler

Hi HiaB, I've had a look at the article and the sources. What a mess. It is promotional, and if there were no further information available, I'd suggest you take it to AfD. The first two sources are offline, so it is difficult to analyze them. Discogs is the IMDB of music. Mostly accurate, fascinating, and very useful, but user generated/crowdsourced, therefore not a reliable source. Then a bunch of sources supposedly supporting the Backstreet Boys claims don't mention the subject at all. Prosound networks could be a reliable source, but that sure reads like a press release. The Georgia.gov site provides no in-depth coverage, just a drive-by mention. No mention of doppler at grammy.com, and imdb is imdb. No mention again at nodepression, and then cinemaatlmagazine is an obvious advertisement. However, an article about this subject could be built. Go to google books and search "Doppler Studios" and lots of reliable sources pop up, including some in-depth coverage. So I would suggest some WP:TNT be applied here, perhaps. The studio deserves an article, but not this one, it is promotional and not based on sources that hold up to scrutiny. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I started. If memory serves this was an article that started with marketing and then the username block and recreated. I will probably nick you justification of deletion honestly. I was unsure of the full extent but I know you were pretty good so much appreciated. HOnestly I'm not even sure how to show it's notability. It looks like a few famous people have used it but in the end if I write it that's atll it would be and I despise lists. What normally is featured? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

My interest is much more about record labels than recording studios. I would just take the information that is in the sources (mostly Billboard) and build a history, how it started as a small, single recording booth and expanded from there. I would mention some of the more significant recordings that took place there, trying to avoid recentism, but certainly not try to include everything, that would be unmanageable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please remember that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Shraddha Kapoor. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. JazzStewart ^{मला चर्चा?} 13:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

When you post BLP violations I or any other editor have carte blanche to remove those. Perhaps source the article correctly and you won't have that problem. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration

Unlinking my username does not modify the content of that comment. The guy is obviously referring to SlimVirgin, not me. I had absolutely nothing to do with that arbitration case and don't want it to appear that I did. Sarah 13:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ahhhh that makes sense, usually not a good idea to do it at any rate but d'oh. User:Capeo might agree to remove it because I think you have a point. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

What's up?

I read you post on Yash!'s talk page, where you wrote about NPOV. The mixed reviews were added and the discussion was closed, then how this is still making you feel unhappy? Be accurate.—Prashant 05:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You're still white washing the article. Cyphoidbomb had to revert you, so did Frankie same edits. You are ignoring everyone else and when you aren't you are attacking them. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

When Cyphoidbomb edited out some phrases, i was working on the article and didn't check the history (no one does while working) and saved it. I wasn't aware of his edits at that time. Then, Frank removed those things and the article again became the way Cyphoidbomb wanted it to be. So, i guess it's all clear and nobody's white washing anything.—Prashant 18:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Well We shall see how things pan out. I hope the issues are resolved. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Hiya,

Jazz posted a response at ANI saying that they would agree to mentorship. Would you be able to help them with that?--5 albert square (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

While I'm sure willing to dispense advice I may not be the best mentoring option if we are being honest. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I've referred them to the list of adopters.--5 albert square (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I want to help where I can but I also don't want to put them in a situation that may not be ideal either..catch 22. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me know if there's any further issues with them though I will also do my best to keep an eye on them :)--5 albert square (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dead & Company

A tag has been placed on Dead & Company requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Not notable. Sounds like a news release. Their "debut show" has not even taken place yet. No evidence of record sales, etc.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Zigzig20s (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for creating the new Dead & Company article, and for your kind greetings on my talk page. North America1000 10:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Jazz

Hiya,

I don't suppose Jazz Stewart has contacted you directly? From what I can see they're not following the ANI instruction.--5 albert square (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your help with that IP vandal - I've not seen the block evasion "advice" message before! Samuel Tarling (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No worried it's all too common really and thanks for the star. I'll add it to the collection 8). Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

my acting too fast

Perhaps going back and forth so fast has the same disadvantages as irc -- not having time to think. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No problems I understand we are both just trying to get this right. It's more important it's done right for both us and him. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jeffrey Allen Sinclair 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/Jeffrey Allen Sinclair 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. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Small favor

Hey, HIAB. I don't think you and I have ever substantively interacted. If we have, I certainly can't recall it. I've been following the Alakzi debacle for the last 24 hours or so, and had hoped to talk him down, but that was a complete failure on my part. That said, I know you and he have had significant negative interaction over the last several days over a RM of an essay, at least two ANI reports, as well as the inconclusive SPI. At this point, there are a lot of administrators and uninvolved third-party eyes on the case, and I fear that your continued involvement only serves to inflame the situation, making it worse, not better. Would you consider stepping back and permitting other folks to handle Alakzi-related issues for the foreseeable future? I think it's covered. Don't you? Or, you can just tell me to got to hell, and I'll understand . . . Regards. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

that's the funny part About this I don't normally do things like that. Fucks offs and fuck yous aren't my style. I've had a few users say this I will do so, this is by far one of the more reasonable requests thanks. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, HIAB. I am the "reasonable man," but like Cassandra, not everyone will listen to me! We all have certain persons who do a fine job of punching our buttons, and I'm no exception. I've said things on-wiki and elsewhere that seemed necessary at the time but I now regret, and I've come to the conclusion that very few of the non-substantive, non-content drama-fests hereabouts require my participation. I've done what I could to prevent what has now occurred, and that failed, but I do hold out the hope that after a week without wiki, there might be some possibility to get a talented template editor back on the path. Anything we can do to de-escalate the situation is all to the good, and the continued involvement on his talk page and elsewhere of persons with whom he has been in conflict is not going to reduce the inflamed emotions which are present. Thanks, once again, for taking the time to talk to me. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

"Unaccountable despots"

It's usually best to leave such vague aspersions, not directed at anyone in particular, as they are. Attempts to moderate them just inflame things, they're not really attacking anyone, they give a good "ground truth" assessment of the user's emotional state at the time, and users often self-moderate them later, or archive them away when they calm down. With a user like this, who seems to have trouble letting go of slights (real or imagined) and imagining more where there aren't any, it's probably counterproductive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, the attack itself was pretty mellow it was the block evasion I was reverting. I've given my word above that I was going to back off (un-needed in my opinion) so to placate and soothe the objectors I will. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop it

There are plenty of people watching Alakzi's talk page at this point. You've already done more than enough unnecessary poking, even after being asked to disengage. Stop. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Opabinia regalis thank you for refreshing in my mind how much good faith helps. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

General officer

But this guy is Army, rather than Navy, so he's a General rather than a flag officer. Secondly, fn 7, which references that sentence, in that article is a very general (no pun intended) guidance page from DOD. The next sentence after references fn 6, which is Title 10 of the U.S. Code and makes a clear distinction.

But more generally (ha ha, still no pun intended), both Powell's and others' autobiographies make it clear that each 'graduating' class of new generals are told of the great number of infractions that a general can commit, and that "everything I say will happen to somebody in this room". [12] Now why should we single out this one officer, who's unremarkable otherwise? Every year, a batch of new BGs are promoted that, one or two have sexual-assault issues, so said General Rogers in mid 1979. What makes this one individually notable? When does a page become an attack page? Anyway, my thoughts. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you see I updated that source to a government source? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a semantic, somewhat useless distinction, but should you be looking for my thoughts, you have given me a quote supporting your view from the Library of Congress, while I am quoting you the law: Title 10 of the U.S. Code. So, if I was excited about this, I would argue that Title 10 supercedes informational things from LOC. But really it doesn't matter all that much; it's just a different title between the Army (and Air Force) and Navy; they're intrinsically equal. That's why DOD issues 'General/Flag Officer announcements'. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

TBH I have to thank you because I had quite forgotten I linked that article in there on purpose because part of my research included what a Flag Officer/General Officer actually was thresholdwise. I sincerely appreciate the work you have done on the article in the interim. I don't know if there is much else I can add unless I find some plethora of coverage I have missed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

22:06:35, 16 August 2015 review of submission by Breton66

• Breton66 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Accredo Business Software Ltd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there. I have had another attempt and now the article has the correct referencing style and the footnotes seems to be working correctly. Hopefully, this is now somewhere near where it needs to be...:) Breton66 (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)