Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:36, 28 May 2008

• Check out our current Project Articles Needing Action (updated October 2, 2024) as well as our major backlogs

Auto-generated alerts follow:

Articles to be split

• 29 Jun 2024 – Thomas Massie (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Kodiak Blackjack (t · c); see discussion

Archive 1: 2005-2006 Archive 2: January-June 2007 Archive 3: July-December 2007 Archive 4: January 2008 Archive 5: February 2008 Archive 6: March 2008 Archive 7: April 2008 Archive 8: May 2008

Clarify

Do you mind clarifying why you said at Talk:Climate of North America? Thanks. --RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 02:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

One could write a doctorate dissertation on the Climate of North America easily, so I thought the article can use more information. That said, it is certainly worthy of DYK right now, but it can be much more than it is right now.--Bedford 03:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But I thought that stubs couldn't be a DYK. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 03:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as its not called a stub on the front page, it's OK; it just needs 1,500 characters of main text. I marked ti as stub to encourage filling out the article.--Bedford 03:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying. Cheers. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 03:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:5/16 DYK

Thanks! Although, it would be nice to do that somehow without any stress. :P Cheers, and keep up your work at DYK reviewing. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 04:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Not really. At this stage, more nervous about how I will handle the extra responsibilities :) Gatoclass (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thompson and Powell Martyrs Monument

On 16 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thompson and Powell Martyrs Monument, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. Perhaps we will have a chance to collaborate in the future. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RyRy5 at DYK

As a person who handles a lot of the DYKs, I thought you should be aware of this notice. Several of RyRy5's DYK nominations have been for articles he's created through copying and pasting off other websites. We're asking that no one accept further nominations for DYK by RyRy5 for awhile. Thanks, Metros (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Confederate-Union Veterans' Monument in Morgantown

On 17 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Confederate-Union Veterans' Monument in Morgantown, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Tebb's Bend Monument

On 17 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Tebb's Bend Monument, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

Just finishing up on my thank spamming, that took much longer than I anticipated!

Anyhow, this is just a small token of appreciation for all your support over the last few months. This round is on me. Enjoy! Gatoclass (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

True Scotsman DYK

Dear cute and charming (true!) Bedford, True Scotsman and I thank you for the DYK 17/5, Julia Rossi (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. It didn't seem right for it to get passed over due to a day or two miscalculation.--Bedford 22:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

*two thumbs up*  : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

C-uploading

Hello, Bedford. Please be reminded that images from Wikimedia Commons need to be (re-) uploaded to English Misplaced Pages, or the protection done here in English Misplaced Pages will not protect the picture, but only protect whatever edits made locally in English Misplaced Pages. If the image displayed is still a WCommons file and the picture is not uploaded and protected locally in English Misplaced Pages, protection is needed at WCommons by an admin there. Applying {{C-uploaded}} (or {{M-protected}}) alone won't help, as it's only a courtesy notice and a maintenance tool to facilitate categorization. Hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Double DYK

On 18 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Bi-State Vietnam Gold Star Bridges, and Confederate Monument of Morganfield, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 19 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Downtown Greensburg Historic District (Kentucky), which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Juliancolton 18:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

A new newsletter has been released; Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Issue 017.

List of Indiana state parks

On 20 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of Indiana state parks, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 10:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Livermore Bridge

On 20 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Livermore Bridge, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My Recent Rfa

Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 16:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hines House Photography

Hey dude, I went out and took many more images around Warren County and Bowling Green today, which you can find in my contributions. However, the one shot I really wanted to get, the Hines House, I didn't get. I went to the Houchens Center for Women with the intent of photographing the next door residence, as you mentioned. However, one side of the center was bordered by a street, while the other was a modern resource center. I guess I need to do some hard research in order to get the shot, but I will attempt it again.

BTW, what's a Barnstar award? Not that I mind getting awards, but what is a Barnstar award, well, awarded for?

OPMaster (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you had the same problem I had finding the Hines House. Barnstars are given whenever another user thinks you deserve an award for your efforts. I like telling people what I'd award for, so they have some goal to achieve, to motivate them. Barnstars are just a nice thing to decorate your user page with.--Bedford 21:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons

Actually that was something of an in-joke from a recent meet-up, and as such was fairly appropriate. However, joke now over, I shan't be repeating it. Cheers, What Girls Do In Secret.txt (ask me if you want to know!) 08:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hines' Raid

On 22 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hines' Raid, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge, Muscatatuck River

On 22 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge, and Muscatatuck River, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Colored Soldiers Monument in Frankfort

On 22 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colored Soldiers Monument in Frankfort, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

I have to ask, why are you referring to the American Civil War as the POV War of Northern Aggression in the text of articles? I have caught this several times and am beginning to think it is something you are doing on purpose in violation of Wiki policies on neutrality. IvoShandor (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

More like giving equal weight to both sides. "Civil War" is not a neutral term either.--Bedford 21:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I figured you'd say something like that. There is a clear term that is used in scholarly literature, and on Misplaced Pages. War of Northern Aggression is obvious POV, if you cannot see that then there is no point in discussing anything with you, your biases make it impossible. Have a nice day, good luck rewriting history to meet your POV on Misplaced Pages. This project is screwed. IvoShandor (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned. IvoShandor, a wikipedian whom I admire very much has apparently left in disgust and I believe that this conflict may have been the "straw". I find it disconcerting that a well established administrator such as yourself would choose to use a different term for the American Civil War, such as you have numerous times. What motivation could you have to call something so notable by a name different than that given in 99% of literature on the planet other than POV? I find that this type of action also shakes my own faith in Misplaced Pages. Your brazen comment above as a justification for this behavior speaks volumes, and it is unsettling. I also personally have a problem with this because, as a fellow southerner, I believe this type of thing further perpetrates the negative stereotypes others have of the south and it's people. I am requesting that you stop. If you don't, I will be forced to seek dispute resolution by other means. Broooooooce (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The War of Northern Aggression is not a normative nor scholarly name for the American Civil War. I urge you to consider changing. Bstone (talk) 05:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, Ivo should get over himself, and if he can't, I'd advise looking up an adage about doors and certain portions of one's anatomy. Motivations would include adding balance to the coverage and prevent "centricism"; note that I do not revert anyone using the POV term "ACW", so I would say I'm the one who's acting in a tolerant manner, which Ivo apparently wasn't. Your 99% is an exaggeration, and the only ones promoting negative stereotypes are those like yourself who act like being a southerner is something to be embarrassed by.--Bedford 05:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am quite proud of my heritage, thank you. Your assumption to the contrary, having only the above paragraph to draw from, was hasty and incorrect. I understand your reasoning; I still disagree. I am going to seek a third opinion. Broooooooce (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Bedford, admins are expected to be a model citizen of this community. Your above comment doesn't make you appear to be just that. I am a little disappointed, to tell the truth. Bstone (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am being as diplomatic as possible, but Ivo has a history of blowing his top, which is why his RfA failed. Meanwhile, my preference for using the term WNA was noted in my RfA and I passed. Then again, unlike either of you my specialty area is the conflict in question, so I would know more about the subject than those who, judging by their contributions, are not experts in the field.---Bedford 05:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Bedford, diplomacy aside, now you're trying to appeal to authority? That's something that this project very much does not do. This is reminiscent of the Essjay controversy. Regarding the RfA, the community gave you a mandate to be an admin. They didn't say it's fine to use War of Northern Aggression in articles. Please don't let that mandate become invalid. Bstone (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just kidding about the trout business. Anyway, sorry to interject, but I agree with Bstone when he says that just because the community gave you admin powers doesn't mean they gave you the right to arbitrarily term conflicts any way you deem fit; saying that you used the term "WNA" in your RfA and still passed is like saying that global temperature shifts are caused by the decrease of seafaring pirates. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 06:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

To further illuminate the reasoning behind my complaint: I feel that encyclopedias should be consistent in their nomenclature. While I understand you feel that ACW is also POV, I disagree because civil war is defined as an internal war between factions of a single country; the fact that we had a civil war is therefore a fact. The term you suggest implies specifics. This opens the door to POV pushing and revisionist history. If it is alright for you to use the term you suggest, then doesn't that set a precedent? Could someone else not use your argument to favor a term such as "Slaveholders War" (which is also listed as an alternate name of some notable use at Naming the American Civil War. I am not comfortable with such a precedent, not only for fear of the ramifications, but because it is simply unencyclopedic. Also, your additional assumption as to the specific areas of my knowledge seems presumptuous given what limited sources you have to draw your conclusions from, this pattern of action is also disconcerting. It is also noteworthy that in your RFA, you did not respond to the question regarding this issue. Broooooooce (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said that being an admin gave me the right to call things certain things. Plus, if anyone looked at my RfA they would note that I seemed to have set a record on the amount of questions being asked, so I do believe I am excused from not answering two out of more than well over a score of questions.--Bedford 06:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for the trout. Being a penguin, I like being fed fish. *wink* --Bedford 06:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps now that you aren't so pressed for time, you could answer it for us:

Question from VanTucky 26. On your user page, you say that your specialties are history and geography, and go on to call the Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression". Can you tell me why using this name (except in reference to itself) in the American Civil War article would be inappropriate, and how would you deal with a contributor attempting to insert it? VanTucky 17:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I wouldn't mind hearing your rebuttal to what I've already stated above. Broooooooce (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment here, but in The Civil War: A Narrative, by Shelby Foote (considered by many to be the standard of Civil war documentation) the war is referred to as the War of Northern Aggression thirty nine times in the three volumes. It is also commmonly used in the memoirs of Lee, Longstreet, and the war history wrote by Jefferson Davis. And a quick look on google books shows it is still used fairly regular in recent history. Although I do not know Bedford's reasoning for using the term, I find it perfectly acceptable to use it when the war is being referred in southern context. Anyone with a fair knowledge of the period knows that the north and the lincoln administration purposefully used terms to describe the war and the south that would avoid saying anything sounded as though individual states had sovereignty. And I am sure you have heard the term "the victors write the history". "American Civil War" was a term popularized after the 1870s-back then there was a debate going on as to whether the southern states where sovereign (which those using the term "American Civil War" said they were not sovereign) for the purpose of reintegrating the states politically into the union. Obviously this argument won the day as the southern states were reintegrated eventually. This is the same reason other common names for the war are not wide-spread, like "War of Southern Independence", or "War Between the States", two terms that ere widely used in the 1860s and 1870s. These terms, and any other that denoted the sovereignty of the south or individual states, were purposefully not used in official papers. Look at it like this - the British called the "American War for Independence" the "American Rebellion", had they won the war it would still be called the "War for Indpendance"? But if you are writing an article on the 1776 war or an article related to the British position do you think it is POV to say the British position considered the war a rebellion? And if this article was a bout a british memorial to dead in the revolution would it be incorrect to POV to say that it was a memorial to soldiers who died in the American Rebellion? - I think not, so long as the more common term is included. So in summary, I believe American Civil War is the best name for the war. But whenever it is being referred to in a southern context it is important and acceptable to show what the loosing side thought of the war. That said I would say removing "War of Northern Aggression" removes balance from the article and that in itself is what is POV. Charles Edward 11:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The most important thing here is that Bedford, as he says, never reverts over this issue... he merely starts articles using this term and doesn't edit war when people change it. That's not POV pushing... he doesn't agree with the term ACW so he just chooses not to use it, but doesn't make a fuss over people who do. A glance at the big ArbCom disputes on Misplaced Pages will reveal a lot of similar naming issues become massive problems when a genuine POV pusher is involved, this isn't once of those cases since there's no edit warring afoot. --Rividian (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

agreed Charles Edward 13:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Four thoughts for Bedford, some of which you have heard before: 1) American Civil War is the accepted neutral term on Misplaced Pages, using other names except in specific contexts (i.e. direct quotes or discussing alternate names) is very POV. Even Shelby Foote titled his book "The Civil War". 2) Using a direct link to War of Northern Aggression is a bad link (it is a redirect to Naming the American Civil War) as it does not link to the military conflict 3) As an administrator you are held to higher standards - we are supposed to clean up messes, not make more of them 4) I respect your work on Indiana State Parks and NRHP sites. I also repsect Ivo Shandor's work on Illinois state parks and NRHP sites. Your actions have driven him away - how does this better the encylcopedia? Ruhrfisch _><>° 14:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Charles, certain books calling it by that name does not serve as a proper rationale for using the term here. This is an encyclopedia. A more apt comparison would be seeing how many respected encyclopedias employ the term outside of very specific context. You note that if a person were writing an article about the 1776 war from the British position, would we still use the War for Independence. There are two problems with this comparison: 1) it was not a civil war, a term that implies no bias or specifics and is, by the very definition of the word, a FACT. 2) The entire idea of a "british position" is the very epitome of POV, is it not? Even Bedford says that his reasoning behind using the term was to provide equal coverage which not only acknowledges that there is POV, and that the term is POV, but explicitly implies his intention to disseminate POV information on Misplaced Pages. WP:NPOV is something I would think everyone is familiar with, especially administrators. I fail to understand just what in the world can possess someone to think otherwise!

1. Portal:Kentucky/On this day...
2. Portal:Kentucky/On this day.../February 11
3. Portal:Kentucky/On this day.../May 16
4. Portal:Kentucky/On this day.../February 28
5. Portal:Kentucky/On this day.../May 20

Can anyone please explain to me why it is appropriate to use this term on the front page of a featured portal numerous times? Even for those who do not take issue with the use of the term in limited context, can anyone explain to me why the War of Northern Aggression was the more appropriate choice of the two? Broooooooce (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The entries have since been changed and redirected. Reason = WP:NPOV

(diff) (hist) . . Portal:Kentucky/On this day.../May 20‎; 08:08 . . (-8) . . Ruhrfisch (Talk | contribs) (Proper name - see WP:NPOV)

(diff) (hist) . . Portal:Kentucky/On this day.../May 16‎; 08:08 . . (-8) . . Ruhrfisch (Talk | contribs) (Proper name - see WP:NPOV)

(diff) (hist) . . Portal:Kentucky/On this day.../February 28‎; 08:07 . . (-8) . . Ruhrfisch (Talk | contribs) (Proper name - see WP:NPOV)

(diff) (hist) . . Portal:Kentucky/On this day.../February 11‎; 08:06 . . (-8) . . Ruhrfisch (Talk | contribs) (Proper name - see WP:NPOV)

etc, etc.

This does not, however, address the underlying greater problem. As an administrator, I need Bedford to understand that this is not appropriate. This belief otherwise guides choices and edits and a misguided justification is all it takes to have further negative consequences on the encyclopedia. I feel that I am within my rights to ask that Bedford state implicitly that he has no intention of continuing in such a way. Broooooooce (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, Charles and Rividian: An edit war is not a prerequisite for POV pushing. Broooooooce (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to interject myself to much more into this as I do pretend to know Bedford's reasoning. But let me also say that this is the first I heard anyone say Bedford has POV towards the southern persuasion. In fact, in reading some of his articles I had considered just the opposite that his position was towards the northern persuasion. And also let also clarify my position: I do completely agree that the normative name should be American Civil War because it is the most commonly used name, and other names should only be used to provide context to the southern position.

But I don't understand how a civil war article can be presented without in some way stating the position of opposing sides. To suggest the southern states where not (and are still not) sovereign (which the term Civil War suggests) is factually incorrect by the definition of federalism. This concept has pretty well been lost in the last 75 years, but in the 1860s each state truely did consider itself sovereign, so a war between them would not be a "Civil War" it would be just a "War". For example, the EU is now made up many sovereign countries but they have one central federal government, at this point in their development if they had a war between members it would be a civil war because each state is sovereign. Now this is no longer the case in the United States as the federal government has now become significantly far more powerful than the sovereign state governments. But this was not the case in 1860. This is a valid and generally accepted point by Civil War historians. Foote actually has a section in his book where he specifically talks about this and the naming of the war. If you would like to discuss this point with me further you are welcome to do so on my talk page. Charles Edward 15:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I never stated that the position of opposing sides should not be noted, that's really rather obvious. I also think that stating opposing positions can be achieved without necessitating different naming conventions. I do not feel that Bedford was using the term in an attempt to illustrate the different positions of involved parties--if this were the case, the usage would have been found in a relevant article (hopefully in a context simliar to: " ..., called the "War of Northern Aggression by many southerners, ..." not on places such as the Kentucky Portal front page. Broooooooce (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, what is going on here? I came upon this discussion accidentally, but don't see reason for a lot of heat. Recently i created an article naming it "List of Registered Historic Places in the City of Angels" knowing that was a bit informal to use a nickname for the city, pretty much anticipating that others would change it or would want me change it to use "Los Angeles" instead. Mostly, I just felt like naming it that way; i thot it was more interesting sounding. I did change it to "Los Angeles" after i encountered some comments about it and saw that it would not achieve DYK recognition with informal name. I consider Bedford's choice to use the WNA phrase to be pretty much like that, that yes someone will probably come along and change it to American Civil War, but that is not such a big deal. By the way, I value Bedford's contributions on Civil War-related NRHPs, I have been cooperating with him on a number of articles, and I supported him in his starting to develop numerous articles on the Confederate monuments covered in one big document, the "National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Submission: Civil War Monuments in Kentucky", which he continues to work on. I think it is fine if he has selective interests, like we all do. I also value Ivoshandor and Ruhrfisch's contributions and opinions and have recently come across Broooooce's new NRHP articles which i like, too.

Offhand, I don't think any big discussion needs to go on here. Rather can we just observe there are some differences of opinion, already aired. Ruhrfisch gives some feedback which sounds valid, altho i am not an administrator and am not knowledgeable about admin responsibilities. But no one has done anything that reprehensible, no one needs to apologize or make any promises, there is nothing wrong here, in my view. If i were a cop i would be saying: Move along, please, nothing to see! doncram (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In no way do I mean to diminish from the vast amount of truly significant quality contributions Bedford has made to Misplaced Pages, nor am I seeking an apology (although the requested assurance would have been nice, it's not necessary). I've said what I came to say and unless Bedford decides to continue using the POV term, the matter is, in my mind, resolved. Broooooooce (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Georgia Barnstar

Thanks for the Barnstar, Bedford! Reb (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Bedford 18:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Fahrenheit/Celsius spelling correction

Thank you so much (quite seriously!) for correcting my spelling in my contribution on the Fahrenheit page. How embarassing...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ds9kicks (talk • contribs)

DYK nom of Bangladeshi intelligence community

Hi Bedford - I just want to let you know that I have addressed Daniel Case's concern regarding this May 20 nomination - this is the changed nomination. I hope this is accepted for DYK. Thanks, Vishnava _talk 17:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I made my comments on the template page. Good luck.--Bedford 17:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made these changes (see hook on Bedford's comment below yours). Please have a look now, Vishnava _talk 17:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Confederate Monument in Danville

On 27 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Confederate Monument in Danville, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Muscatatuck County Park

On 27 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Muscatatuck County Park, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessarily combative, condescending, and insulting remarks

I am requesting that you cease speaking to me in ways that I feel violate WP:CIV and WP:NPA (such as you have on the DYK template talk page). In my limited experience on Misplaced Pages, I have found you to be the least welcoming and most insulting user I have encountered. You actions, I feel, reflect poorly on administrators as a group. Broooooooce (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Remember that old adage about one shouldn't point due to four fingers pointing back at oneself? I recommend you reflect on that. You're the one that needs courses on CIV and NPA. *rolls eyes* --Bedford 02:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

MedCab notice

Hi, Bedford. I am curious why you removed the medcab notice from your talk page, even tho it says, "Please do not remove or change this message until the issue is settled". Curiously yours, Bstone (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it was nothing but vandalism on Brooooooooooooooce's part.--Bedford 03:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you have a poor definition of vandalism. I find your actions to be plainly against policy and you've clearly violated WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Bstone (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, y'all have. Ivo started it with his temper tantrum, and y'all have done everything you could to encourage him to do such actions in the future, including trying to intimidate me. Because I do not cater to you, you go through this nonsense. Quite frankly, y'all should stop stalking me.--Bedford 03:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)