Welcome. It sounds like you're well on your way to figuring things out, but if you have any questions, feel free to drop a line on my talk page and I'll help as best I can. I'm not an admin or anything, but I'm always happy to help out. I'll see you around! - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your well reasoned and well thought out way forward on the ANI discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Animemidatlantic_and_article_Anime_Mid-Atlantic. Your solution escapes most administrators and shows a tremendous amount of knowledge of Wikipedia policies. v/r - TP 13:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to re-add your comment without reference or link to your off-topic talkpage discussion. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought better of it - it wasn't productive. What annoyed me was that it got reverted, but it could have been explained to me a little better. I was in the wrong now I see, so I reverted my comments as when I looked at them again they could have been seen as deliberately provoking. - Letsbefiends (talk) 06:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to go further - remove the whole "Neutral statement" section on the talk page if you like. It wasn't a controversial change and need not have required any talkpage discussion. Timeshift (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rue Alibert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 10th arrondissement. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Administrators report Queensland Nickel - increased cost of production.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, no apology necessary (but thank you anyway). You are quite entitled to make your case! Frickeg (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and also, my comment here was directed at Tony, not you. Sorry for not being clearer! The "what on earth?" was because Tony was making a fuss about a major undiscussed move being reverted, and as he is a very experienced user I was surprised. Frickeg (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Frickeg: Ah, sorry about that! Yeah, it can get tricky to work out how to collaborate well sometimes, I'm still learning :-) Thanks for your kind words, I appreciate it. - Letsbefiends (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on User talk:The Drover's Wife, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Salim Mehajer. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fart in your general direction, which is a hell of a lot more pleasant than editing Wikipedia, I can tell you! - 203.217.39.91 (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is only being used to contravene Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I've instituted this block for:

• Engaging in massive original research to look for information on Salim Mehajer in obscure primary sources and post it on Wikipedia at User:Letsbefiends/sandbox - this information is clearly not of encyclopaedic value, and it looks like you were digging dirt on this person. At minimum its a violation of his privacy given that it clearly doesn't belong on Wikipedia
• Posting this on the relevant article's talk page and then into the article despite another editor expressing concerns that it violated the core policy WP:BLP
• Using an IP account to try to edit war this material back into the article after it was - entirely correctly - removed.
• Continuing to ignore the concerns raised on the talk page, and starting a doomed-to-fail WP:ANI discussion as a way of escalating the dispute

Given the seriousness of this conduct, I've set the block duration to indefinite. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appear the content concerns were this here?

Appears reasonably well referenced? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Doc James. A good argument can be made that the section went into too much detail, acquiring more than its due weight in the biography overall, but deleting the content outright wasn't correct either, given the cited sources. --Andreas JN466 09:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The block is not for adding material cited to reliable secondary sources per-se. It's for posting large numbers of obscure primary sources relating to this person in various places (a violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY), combining them with material cited to secondary sources describing negative aspects of this person's career in considerable detail, and then engaging in sustained and escalating edit warring and related problematic conduct (including personal abuse and a doomed to fail ANI report) to try to keep this material in the article despite concerns being raised by others. As I noted elsewhere, the overall impression is that this editor was using Wikipedia to grind a personal axe concerning the subject of the article, and was escalating rather than seeking to resolve this issue. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nick-D can you provide and outline and diffs of the concerns in question.

The majority of the content that was here User:Letsbefiends/sandbox was to the mainstream press Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that given the user's statements to Wikimedia-l, it is probably best that they stay away from Wikipedia. But no way is this block even halfway legitimate. The user was discussing extensively and correctly on the talkpage. Much of the content was sourced to mainstream sources, and even their interlocutors agreed that with a fair bit of condensation, it should be on the page. The concern was UNDUE-ness, which was misindentified as BLP concerns. If their interlocutors had not wholesale deleted the content again and again, instead of working to cut out the UNDUE part, this wouldn't have happened. And the indef-block is way too harsh - unjustified on its face. Even if there was edit-warring, one should start with a short block and escalate. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nick-D yes agree the edit warring and switching to an IP was not cool. But a block of 1 or 2 weeks seems more appropriate. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the content, while there was obviously room for some criticism of the individual, going so far as to list minor traffic infractions was clearly undue weight and pushing a point of view that was not neutral. The Oz has also been conducting a campaign against the subject of the article, and we ought to hold ourselves to a higher standard than that tabloid. Combined with the socking (right down to this account referring to his other account in the third person in what appears to be an attempt to deceive), I think that the block by User:Nick-D was defensible. If this person can acknowledge the problems with what they've done and commit to not repeating these errors, and wishes to return, then I see no reason why they shouldn't now be unblocked. Lankiveil @ Alt ^{(speak to me)} 00:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

(friend of the user in question) The user has asked me to ask that this content discussion stop happening on this page. I'd suggest that keeping prodding the blocked user is not ideal behaviour - David Gerard (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sydney Building Construction Pty Ltd Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. WWGB (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #15811 was submitted on May 19, 2016 03:13:49. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #15839 was submitted on May 23, 2016 02:02:12. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Letsbefiends. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]