User talk:Edison/Archive 5

hello thank you edison user talk josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshmel (talk • contribs) 01:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I understood your nod and have made a slight change to my signature, I would love to hear your comment to improve my signature furthur if needed, as it does not feels good to me find people unable to read my name. I am aware of wp:SIGN Thanks for your opinion. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• have incorporated all your suggestions into this one -> --DℬigXray 05:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've copied the following from User talk:My76Strat/Archive 7 to ensure your best opportunity to review. I was quick archiving the page and didn't want the wrong impression to prevail. The reply shown here is also the last from My76Strat. I began using the piped signature thereafter. With esteem - StringdaBrokeda (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Please clarify your term "extenuation of mis-charactorizions ." You are esteemed. Thanks! Edison (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you for inquiring this of me. Before I do what you've asked I want you to know I was determined upon logging in to message your talk page to extend clarification to you. Simply because it was so roundly decided that I was out of line in my remarks when they were designed as a complement. My word "choice" was: "good faith mis-charactorizions" of which the "good faith" portion seems to have been immediately lost. For some reason, and it does get by me, there was outcry and specific mention of my choosing to include a form of the word "extenuation" I could link the other two but frankly I'm going to stop trying as hard as I have in the past and start valuing my time more than I have. Don't get me wrong here, please! I am simply going to try and give my last good answer, because you deserve it. And I emphatically promise this site my prose will evaporate to become no more. I would probably be done answering your question already if you hadn't realigned my words into a quote that itself misrepresents what I was saying to begin with. Here again I truly believe there was nothing nefarious in your design, but that doesn't mean it is inconsequential. The "extenuation" I described was attributed to "your manner" which I did say I "love" and "applaud". I described a "measure of clarity" that would be "irrefutable" (for its congruent flow) provided the premise itself was also irrefutably "true". So the direct answer begins here. Your premise that my style relates to "entertainment" and "comedic value" is unfortunately wrong and from that foundation you reached the only possible conclusion: that I apparently "play games with words", a "temptation" I apparently can not "resist". Betwixt the premise and conclusion were statements of "habitual obfuscation seen in this candidate's writing" which I would like to have investigated further; for it led to the interim concern that I might "issuing warnings or explanations to other users with intentional malapropisms or obfuscations", even though there are thousands of examples where the opportunity existed where I did not, ever! It would be different if you could show one example where I had. Over 700 accounts created where I am the very first person from Wikipedia that communicates to the new account and not one example. 700 email addresses that I have access to and not 1 improper communication. 100's of questions and answers on talk pages with zero example. In fact It was my hope that we could look at some of these to at least see if you would reconsider if I was "habitually obfuscatory" or perhaps: Too often obfuscatory, which I would have better accepted. The whole notion that I included a statement for an intrinsic need to be esteemed is flat wrong, you were not the first to suggest it, and it was pretty clear that no one was concerned that I stated I had been shown something that made it clear. The fact is from the moment I emerged my first RFA I have been declined for every advance permission subsequently requested. If I hadn't already been an ambassador or account creator prior to the RfA I wouldn't be one today (I did withdraw my ambassadorship yesterday). And the thing I was shown made that abundantly clear. So now I know why I could never advance to regional ambassador, even though I enjoyed my role, and felt qualified to do more. I was there from day 1, made the first edit to the discussion, gave the best of my allocation, produced some of these 100's and 1000"s of edits I wished would amount to something, but found that when the doors closed, other matters superseded all else. Anyway forget all of that, The path through RfA to clear the stifling effect of RfA did not work. I'm no worse for it as I was already blackballed. I should just stop. If you have other questions I'll touch the surface with an answer. I appreciate above all else that you chose to esteem your regards here! That did not get by me and I see no harm done in uplifting a brother who is down. My76Strat (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This is obviously a blog or something similar to Wiki. Please do not cite. http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1207042 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slushy9 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help here. I wish you'd warned him also, particularly it would have been a good idea to give him a COI welcome or warning. As it is, someone gave him a chocolate chip cookie warning after his last edit. Dougweller (talk) 06:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Camera on a timer in 1850?, I fixed your formatting. However, it's still a bit confusing because of the old signature and the separate paragraphs... You don't really need to change anything, but I wanted to bring it to your intention in case you were unhappy with my change. BigNate37_(T) 20:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The article was not deleted and the redirect can be reverted by any editor. I believe that in the AfD context it is important to distinguish between deletion which hides the history from view and redirection which preserved the history for later merging or restoration. As I explicitly noted in my AfD close, my decision to redirect the article was made in my editorial not administrative capacity and as such should not be construed as the official result of the AfD and you, or anyone, is free to revert it. Given my own reading of the discussion, in which a strong argument was made that the only "significant" coverage he has received is in the context of his relationship with his father I think that further discussion is likely to endorse a redirect, but I do not claim that there was consensus in the AfD for that view or that my redirection is other than an ordinary editorial decision subject to ordinary WP:BRD. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Edison,

You are no doubt amused. An scsBot has run, doing the day's Ref Desk archiving. It deleted our discussion under heading Please explain consumer earthing, along with other questions for 3 August as would be expected, but did not copy it into the the archive page.

Best regards, Keit120.145.62.36 (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Archiving now seems to have been partially reversed and the question has re-apeared! Keit120.145.72.208 (talk) 09:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be "grounds" for a complaint about the Bot. Please consider creating an account rather than a constantly changing IP, so that others can send you communications. Edison (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I am saddened beyond words by the passing of this hero of space exploration. Edison (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Edison. I am contacting you because you recently left a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky. I have just created another AfD, which also looks at articles with lists of channels. If you are interested, you can leave a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking prompt action regarding IP 107.198.61.36 who was abusing Gardiner, Maine. The IP editor was not only adding an individual who does not meet reliable source criteria, but also deleted large swaths from the article out of frustration. It also does not appear that the individual trying to be added would actually be considered a notable person. It is common to see small town stories picked up by international news outlets with the nature of the internet today. Foggynotion (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I do agree with the inclusion of Rita Crundwell in the notable section of Dixon, Illinois. First, the amount embezzled was $53 million, which is substantial and extremely unusual. Second, she was first known as "considered one of the best known breeders of American Quarter Horse in the United States" (and possibly the world), before she was charged with the embezzlement crime. Whereas, I know of at least 3 other small-town-employee embezzlement in the Gardiner, Maine area alone that have happened over the past few years (some with much more press coverage). Google "Carole Swan Chelsea Maine" for an example. Chelsea being located only 8 miles from Gardiner. Again, thank you tons for your prompt action here. Foggynotion (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Edison. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 United States network television schedule (3rd nomination).
Message added 03:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm not sure if you watched this, but I posted a kind of (sorry) lengthy reply there to you. I'd appreciate a reply when you get a chance. Thanks :) gwickwire | Leave a message 03:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainiak Records's talk page. Message added 00:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for cleaning up after me. LadyofShalott 03:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

A question for people who commented in the RfC at "Probationary Period" and "Not Unless". (Or feel free to reply on my talk page, if you prefer.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about deleting the credible source earlier-- I did not see the pdf that was attached. However, the reason why I added so many ^{[citation needed]} tags was because I looked through some of the books to determine their credibility, and I discovered that some were conspiracy books. For example, one cited book kept on supporting the existence of the illuminati, and another cited book was for x-rays, but nowhere did it make those claims when I utilized the Ctrl-F function. In addition, there was this uncited statement-- "Wardenclyffe Tower was demolished by Boldt to make the land a more viable real estate asset"-- which is dubious, for a cited statement a few paragraphs before it states that it was blown up " due to fears that German spies were using it and that it could be used as a landmark for German submarines". However, I probably did make a few mistakes with the ^{[citation needed]} tags, so I will delete some unnecessary ones later. I will even attempt to find the sources later on for some that dont have. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slushy9 (talk • contribs) 15:24, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

IP 72.224.205.43 is vandalizing Craig Hickman. I outlined the issue on the IP user's talk page. Is this something you could help with? Summability (talk) 3:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Edison. I question your deletion of RS-supported text. It is RS-supported. It is highly relevant. Most of the article consists of material that is not "official". That is not our test. Our test is RS coverage.

Your edit summary was "(cur | prev) 21:01, April 15, 2013‎ Edison (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,630 bytes) (-438)‎ . . (→‎Investigation: Remove statement about a ":Saudi national" that one civilian thought looked suspicious. Wait for any official announcement he is a suspect.)"

He is the one person detained in police custody, as RS reported. I would urge you rethink and revert. If we have editors -- even more, sysops -- deleting any information they don't like on the "for that information I will assert that an official announcement is required" basis, we will go down a bad road.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you have your personal analysis of events. And of course your analysis may very well be completely correct.

But we follow the RSs. That's how we keep our (myriad, among the editors at the project) personal analyses out. The way we avoid the POV fights where one editor says "lets avoid a mob mentality" and another says "but that is what the RSs say ... why would you censor it to push your pov by not reflecting it?" is we reflect RSs. Accurately. Certainly, CBS is an RS.

That also prevent other editors from deleting RS-supported text you add, that they don't like, for similar reasons.

Otherwise, anytime anyone disagrees with Edison's point of view, all they have to do is...based on their personal viewpoint...label your point of view a "mob mentality." And then delete RS-supported text. And delete the RS refs. Saying "Edison is reflecting mob-mentality RS-reported material".

Certainly, the CBS-reported material you deleted was sufficiently RS. We don't await government official pronouncements for material that we don't like -- and then include RS info that is not reflected in government official announcements when it comes to material we do like.

At the same time, it is of course perfectly fine to say "CBS reports ..." -- Epeefleche (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It may be easier to follow the conversation if it stays where it started, rather than hops around. As to your comments and question, you say we are discouraged from labeling someone as in custody when it is not verified to be true. But here it was verified to be true. By a high-level RS. The text -- without raising the blp issue raised when a person is identified by name -- reflected the CBS news articles that stated that an individual was in custody. If a second RS article says that nobody is in custody, and the first RS was incorrect, we report both RS statements. We don't choose the one we like, and delete the other RS.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to discuss this on the article's talk page. Edison (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand. And as you may have seen, I had already made shorter mention there. There, it is relatively moot, as there is reference in the article now to the fellow's house being searched (a further development, along the same lines). I just thought it important to mention to you, as I think we need an extraordinary steeped-in-guidelines reason to delete RS supported text, from a high-level RS such as CBS, that does not identify any individual. It's a slippery slope, and this is one area I think we have to be on guard against the floodgates of POV editing such deletions would open up.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that you have a right to include anything in any article, as long as it came from a reporter at CBS. We can consider more than one source and evaluate the appropriateness of including any one news story. Not every thing that a reporter writes on a CBS site is justified in being included in a high interest, breaking news article such as this, especially when it is contrary to the official statement of the police department, as to whether the Saudi man was or was not in custody, and especially when there are BLP concerns. Many breaking crime and terrorism stories are rife with false leads which get appropriately removed from articles. We do not have to rush out with an update everytime some reporter rushes to print with the "hot scoop" leaked to him anonymously by some alleged law enforcement source. We are not on deadline, and now the police are saying he was likely not involved. I'm not sure why you find it necessary to go on and on here about my edit. You can also edit the article, if you disagree, and especially if there is a consensus on the talk page as to what should appear in the article which is inconsistent with my view. Get a consensus on the talk page and make the article reflect it. Edison (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Moot here, now, as essentially already reflected. Though the issue is coming up again, in instances where half a dozen top-level RSs are reporting the same material, but some editors are seeking to delete it.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Your endorse comments were excellent. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Séralini affair may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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) 19:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. You are one of 6 or 7 Admins who has supported including DOB info in the Duckworth article: Talk:Tammy Duckworth#RfC on providing full date of birth. Yesterday I proposed moving the discussion to the BLPN so that we could get a policy determination on this and thereby avoid such prolonged and repeated discussions on article talk pages. In the last few comments I haven't seen a positive to my proposal. Would you care to opine on moving the discussion? (I am posting this message to each of the admins.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC) 02:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Your statement is true, but one of your premises is false. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I give up. What premise is false? Edison (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That it was inadvertent; it was meant as a friendly tribute to someone who finds the error a bugaboo. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL! It was a surprise, since your grammar and spelling had never before raised an eyebrow. Edison (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and delete it. I just feel that seeing some content is better than a useless blank page. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Blondell Reynolds Brown may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• in a timely way on finance disclosure forms and numerous donations were over legal limits.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20130413020541/http://www.phila.gov/ethicsboard/pdfs/Settlement%

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Reverting my edit without even warning me first, thanks a lot. The shock and outrage I simultaneously felt made me spill my orange juice all over my desk so now my keyboard is ruined and my legs are all sticky.

I bet you aren't even really Thomas Edison. According to his Wikipedia page he died a long time ago of a boner overdose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oh no, it's me again. (talk • contribs) 02:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

O no, is it Jamie? Edison (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who that is, I'm afraid. Is he one of the other people you so cavalierly hurt the feelings of on this webpage? I would yell at you a lot more right now, but my cat got stuck to my leg because of the spilled juice and I don't want people who see me today out in town to get the wrong idea like I stuck my cat to my inner thigh on purpose. But, geez, man: who do you think you are? Some sort of God who can just cover up the truth? I bet you're one of those ignorant sheeple who always just believes the official story. Man, open your eyes and see the light.

P.S, since you dodged my questions about Edison, I'll assume your just a false heir to his estate trying to make a quick buck on his good name. You probably haven't submitted a patent in your life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oh no, it's me again. (talk • contribs) 02:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannock_Chase_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=569484747 Kiko4564 (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the edit history of the talk page of the editor who vandalized the article you finally provided a link to. You will notice that I placed a warning on his talk page following my revert, but you had already placed a higher level warning there, making mine redundant. I then removed my redundant (lower level) warning, with an edit comment that explained the incident and noted it was an edit conflict. It is usually a good idea to look at the history of a vandal's talk page before placing a warning, because they often delete warnings, leading the next vandal whacker to be unaware of previous warnings. In this case your warning was there first, but it was not there when I started adding my own warning (edit conflict). Edison (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		On behalf of the whole Wiki Communitee I present you this award for defending Wikipedia!--Mishae (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

225 banned and counting...--Mishae (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you do not understand the difference between blocking vandals after suitable warnings and banning. I would be happy to explain. But thank you very much for the Barn Star. There have been very few of them.. Edison (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Normally, people say thanks and that's it. Its called a good etiquette. From my understanding a ban is when you block a user indefinitely, a block is when you block him once or twice. Am I correct? Either way, this discussion is closed, I am happy that you liked my award and will hopefully apologize for an accusation which in part is actually a misunderstanding. :)--Mishae (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The distinction between "bans" and "blocks" is explained at Wikipedia:Banning policy. Regards. Edison (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Bvn2010. Thank you. Don't tell other editors that they are doing the encyclopedia no good, as you also did at user talk:Mishae. Please reference WP:ETIQ. MrScorch6200 (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanking a vandal for a BLP violation in which he called someone a "porn star" without providing any reference literally "does the encyclopedia no good," so I must stand by that comment. See WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS. Edison (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That probably happened because when using Twinkle, if you go to a user talkpage from an article (by going to the history and clicking the username) and click welcome the user (in Twinkle), it automatically enters the article name into "linked article". This results into the welcome message welcoming the vandal for their contributions to said article. This discussion is all just a big misunderstanding. MrScorch6200 (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Certainly mistakes happen, even by good-faith editors. But it pays to take at least a brief look at what edit someone made, and to note that a robotic filter labelled it as a possible BLP violation, before rushing off to lavishly thank the person for making the edit.Saying "But I used Twinkle!" is not an acceptable excuse. Edison (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You are going to have to take that up with user:Mishae. Also, I did not say, "But I used Twinkle!", I clearly said on my talkpage twice, "That's a result of using Twinkle, it automatically does that, but it's still my fault and thank you for bringing it to my attention. MrScorch6200 (talk) 12:17 am, Today (UTC−4)," Please stop making these false accusations. MrScorch6200 (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I know that I take full responsibility for edits made using Twinkle. MrScorch6200 (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Listen! My Welcome and your warning is 3 seconds, yes seconds apart. How did I knew about him being a vandal, plus I only do greeting for 3, 3 days! I seek an apology for an accusation! Now, I will invite Justin and he will talk to both of us. This is ridiculous.--Mishae (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't understand where you get "3 seconds." The BLP vio was done in the same minute you posted the w"welcome and thanks." I reverted it a minute later, and I posted a warning on the BLP violator's page a minute after that. The edit summaries give hours and minutes, not seconds. For some reason, it seems to show my local time on the article page and UTC on the other editor's page. No apology by me is needed forcomplaining about your haste to welcome the BLP violator without looking at the evidence of a BLP violation robotically posted in the initial edit summary, let alone looking at the nature of the new editor's contribution. Slow down and make sure your post on a new editor's page is an appropriate one, rather than attacking anyone who criticizes your editing. Edison (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

O.K. My fault, minutes. Now can we just pass that line and start all over, I apologized to you for what I did, now I need you to do the same.--Mishae (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly sorry that my words were not differently chosen, Mishae, since my desire was to encourage your efforts in welcoming new editors, but to encourage distinguishing between new goodfaith editors and blatant vandals or ones with username violations such as these you had welcomed: "Eatmya55andshutthefuckup" which is a variation on "Eat my ass and shut the fuck up" or 5lut5v1ll3 which is a variation on "Slutsville", and who had just added "sluts" as "notable people" in a town article. It is not always obvious that someone has disguised an improper username by substituting numbers for their lookalike letters. But no worry, since the latter two were soon blocked by others as username violations and/or vandalism only accounts. If you wish to welcome all, that is fine, and others can do the vandalism and username patrol. Edison (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm MrScorch6200. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Marko Mamić, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. MrScorch6200 (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Re -- well, your message really had a crappy tone. As I told M on his talk page, welcoming a vandal is essentially harmless -- sure, it's arguable that would encourage the vandal to try again but that's really a thin argument. And of course it would be good if we had more editors noting and reverting vandalism -- but the essential nature of Wikipedia volunteerism is, as long as editors aren't violating policy they can do whatever work they want -- with very few exceptions, no one is required to do anything. So if M would rather personally welcome new editors than revert vandalism, that's a legit choice. NE Ent 01:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And your message is such a wonderful exemplar of politeness. Well done! Edison (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Eh ... I beg to disagree NE. I thought it was even-tempered and fine. I've seen crappy tone at the project. This doesn't seem to me to qualify. Though I laud you for looking out for instances of it, and mentioning it when you think a line has been crossed. I just don't think this is an example of the problem.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I have replied on the Worm That Turned talkpage and excepted your apology with suggestions applied there as well. But I am not here for that, I found a user who wasn't blocked for an apparent provocative username and vandalism:

• User talk:OBloodyHell

Now, this user wasn't welcomed by me since it was way before I became a greeter. However, don't go to greeters talkpage and accuse them of welcoming a vandal. I hope this will give a clear message that I do report vandals and not welcome them!:) Currently though, he is doing just fine, just like the rest of us, but his username is something that I am concerned about.--Mishae (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The editor in question has edited for 5 years without getting a block for vandalism, or even a vandalism warning that i could find, although there were a few complaints about civility. He's done lots of productive edits to a variety of articles. So I would not expect anyone to have complained to the editor who greeted him years ago for having welcomed a vandal. Having "bloody" as part of a username might be more offensive to a Brit than to an American. Bloody says the word is not considered vulgar in Australia or the US, and was formerly in Britain, but not so much presently that it couldn't be used several time by a child character in the Harry Potter stories. I have not seen that anyone complained about the name in 5 years, so it doesn't seem to be an issue. Regards. Edison (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

O.K. This case closed. What about those:

• User talk:Sexyglo
• User talk:Kingsmarketinginc
• User talk:AlsufyaniOsama--Mishae (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I left a notice on the page of Kingsmarketinginc that a name implying it represents a commercial organization (such a company exists), or that it is a role account" and not an individual account, is a problem. With regard to the other two you mentioned, the first one could relate to a company or could just represent the image the user wishes to have on Wikipedia. Google shows that people apparently unrelated to a company are using it on various forums other than Wikipedia. the third one could be someone's name or could imply a political (events in Syria) or religious position (see Sufyani and Osama). But the editors haven't edited yet If you see a blatant violation, and the editor has edited recently, you can post it at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention where administrators specializing in username problems respond. Many people create accounts with odd names and then never edit with them. If they then start a career of policy violations, having a problematic name will not particularly help them when they start down the road to getting blocked. Edison (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

O.K. The second one was my poor knowledge of Islam, and I take the blame. Sexyglo is different though, it have reference to sex, and even though that Wikipedia have plenty of nude photos, or various porn stars that doesn't mean that a user is allowed to have it too, or am I wrong? On a side note, is your first name is Thomas by any chance?--Mishae (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If there is any uncertainty and if the user hasn't edited recently, then the username policy suggests taking no action. Edison (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I was remiss at not thanking you for your support. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

how is vandalize? sorry i don't know how messages work i hope this is right Lakdfhia (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

When a wiki page references a source such as Snopes, especially if it involves political themes, the political leanings of the owners of the sight MUST be disclosed. It is no secret that Snopes is owned by leftists, and their political views most certainly come into play when issues that may expose unkind truths of the left are the subject of their 'debunking'...

Afreemaninfl (talk)afreemaninfl —Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You added your opinion that Snopes "is run by lefties" to an article inappropriately. You did not provide any source to back up your opinion, contrary to Wikipedia's requirement for reliable sources to verify information in article. When you added your opinions to the article a second time, another editor removed it. Edison (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

(Seeming BLP violation by Afreemaninfl deleted)

Afreemaninf, you are very welcome to keep other editors honest if they stray from the required neutral point of view. But you are violating WP:BLP when you assert that someone is a rapist, when they have not been convicted in a court of law, so I have deleted your last post from this talk page, an action I have rarely if ever taken so far as my own talk page is concerned. The Assange article says "Assange is accused of sexual misconduct with two women while in Sweden in August 2010." That is as far as you may go in describing his status. "Accused" and "alleged" are useful words in cases where WP:BLP relates to possible crimes. Edison (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Umm, I've never before heard anyone equate "redirect" with "blank"; if we adopted your perspective on this issue, we'd start deleting pages under G7 anytime that their creators turned them into redirects. Readers are still able to view the page history without difficulty. Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that we prohibit blanking, while we don't prohibit redirects and other severe editing. I'll not inflexibly revert of course, as I would if someone inserted a copyvio, but I will not personally restore content like this. Nyttend (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		For this answer, good enough to be a movie plot outline! μηδείς (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! This thread also led me to another novel of a genre I enjoy, the one cited by the OP, where people suddenly have to live without modern technology, or have to redevelop it. Edison (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)