Misplaced Pages

This user is a bibliophile. User:Fix Bayonets!//Userboxes/Confederate defend ancestors X This user does not believe in the existence of human races, except as a social construct. X

This user is a grognard.

Benny

The change to the beauty article is not a strange edit. Take a look at the discussion section. I made a note to under "Object and Subject." It's not a change I made willy-nilly, which I can understand you might think because I made the changes to the pronouns. I HAVE STOPPED making changes to the pronouns because I was unaware of the gender-neutral concensus page. Please take this for granted and revert all of my edits without thought.

Ft. ORD 3\9 MANCHU

I REMEMBER THE DAYS OF D.R.F.AND BEING UNABLE TO GO ANYWHERE THAT DID NOT HAVE A PHONE:).I CAN STILL PICTURE THE BAKYARD THERE ON PLANET ORD .AND THOSE ROAD MARCHES WERE@#**#@!!! NEVER MIND THAT:) . I THINK BACK ON MY TIME AND WHAT IT MEANS THEN I THINK ABOUT YOU GUYS THAT ARE IN NOW. NO MATTER HOW HARD IT GETS REMEMBER YOU ARE A MANCHU BE WHERE THEY DONT EXPECT DOING WHAT NO ONE ELSE CAN . KEEP UP THE FIRE !!( LET THEM CHOKE ON THE SMOKE )IF YOU ARE GOING TO WRITE THE HISTORY I WOULD THINK YOU WOULD WRITE IT ALL. THE 7 I.D. WAS A GREAT PLACE TO BE , BUT I GUESS YOU HAD TO BE THERE TO UNDERSTAND. WHOOAHH!! LIGHT FIGHTER

FORT ORD CA. 7th.I.D 3rd BN. 9th INF. RGT. LIGHT FIGHTER (88-92)

Keep Up the Fire

86-90 2nd Manchus Oldwildbill (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Jockamo feeno ai na nay'

Hey, I have no idea how that AfD discussion on the Baton Rouge crewe is going to wind up, but I'm enjoying your input and observations. Please accept this as a token of my appreciation:

		The Purple Barnstar
		For standing out in your ability to bring vibrancy and style to the Misplaced Pages community! Ecoleetage (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

When this is over, let's hit Bourbon Street (or the Baton Rouge equivalent!). Ecoleetage (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much. My very first barnstar, I shall cherish it always. Last time I was in Baton Rouge was for a friend's graduation from LSU. Laura Bush was the speaker and she brought her husband, thanks to their security precautions traffic was bad and graduation was an absolute nightmare. Cops and Secret Service everywhere. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand how those guests would disrupt what should have been a memorable moment. Thanks again! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it appears the article wound up being kept, as per no consensus. Oh well, on to other points of interest... Ecoleetage (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Muslim outrage

Hey, good to see you in the AfD debate on Muslim outrage -- and that was a great comment on the song, too! Hope all is well. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I am quite well and hope you are too. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

More Stalinism coming

This person just doesn't get it. See Talk:Appeasement#Britain's strategy of turning Germany eastwards to destroy USSR. 129.71.73.243 (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll try to take a look at it in the morning. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

9M311 vs 9K22

Hi L0b0t, I have been trying to make sense of the difference between missiles (such as 9M311) and missile systems (such as 9K22). The NATO reporting name convention does not stipulates explicitely when to use the missile or the missile system. as part of the Weaponry task force, we try to standardize and define the right name and level to use for the templates and categories.

Please ensure you understand the difference between the missile and missile system next time you remove categories and revert someone else's edits. Thanks Germ (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think, the more I think you are right and the missiles should all have their own page, but they don't. For instance, look at the SA-6 : the missile system is 2K12 Kub but the missile is 3M9, which does not have a page. The template will redirect to the missile system in that case. I guess what I am saying here is asking for help with that mess... Germ (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Good hello. I moved the tag simply because the missile itself did have a discrete article and the weapon system uses cannons in addition to missiles and I didn't feel that a missile specific tag was warranted. However, I would have no objection to moving it back if the task force already has a protocol for tagging such things. I agree, many of these articles are a mess. You should check out some of the Iranian military articles if you want to raise your blood pressure, they are a nightmare. I've had to take a break from them as I tired of all the Persian hyperbole and misinformation that kept creeping into the articles. Either Iran has made huge leaps in its ability to make things without reverse-engineering the work product of other nations in the few years since I was last there or we have a sizable group of editors and IPs that would like the Iranian military to seem much more advanced and fierce than they really are. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi there. I just reverted an undoing of your talk page archiving by an IP address. You are free to edit your talk page as you wish but sometimes archiving old talk may be a better option than simple deletion and makes for easy reference. See WP:Archive for more info. I will do the job for you if you want me to. Still, feel free to ignore this if you prefer the deletion method. Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yea, I've been hemming and hawing over the idea of werdnabot or the like for a while now. It's an issue that doesn't come up often enough to bother me (and my talk page is not very active) but the people who are bothered by deleting are often really bothered by deleting. So you're right an archiving method can save on headache remedy. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"Deep oil"

For a thorough bashing of the hypothesis of Abiogenic petroleum origin by people who know their oil, see Talk:Petroleum#Abiogenic_Petroleum_Origin. Synthetic petroleum can be created in a lab, but no evidence or observations of oil field patterns exist which support the possibility that commercial amounts of petroleum are created without biological material.

BTW, also have a look at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Yasis_reported_by_User:NJGW_.28Result:_.29. Create another one if you feel like collecting difs. NJGW (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Your friend

Hi, L0bot. I've noticed your "buddy" you've managed to pick up. Per my comment here, if he happens to return, let me know and I can take care of him. Likewise, if a specific page becomes targeted, feel free to let me know, and I'll semi-protect it. I'll caveat that by letting you know I'll be going to sleep shortly, and won't be on much until about 13:00 EST, so you'll have better luck with AIV and RFPP until then. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The funny thing is, like most people with deep family roots in New Orleans, I am not "white" by any definition of the term. So I'm not really sure where the white-supremacy angle comes into play in this kid's febrile imagination. Thanks for the cleanup though, I appreciate it. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Was going to contact you over this matter, but I see the issue is in hand. On an amusing note, maybe your friend's statements of "removed vandalism by white supremacist hater" refer to the point that he/she is under the impression you hate white supremacists. Yours Czar Brodie (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto what Parsecboy said for me as well. I also added this page to my watchlist, so I happen to catch "our friend" in the act, I too can block, revert, and protect as necessary. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all very much. Hopefully, being summer, his mom will send him off to camp or something and he'll tire of the wiki foolishness. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yasis

If he uses IPs again he'll get blocked , so just report it at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents when you see it. For reference, but it will get archived if there's no activity for a few days. NJGW (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Found an interesting article for you lobot

Russia’s "New Order" of security relations incorporating the US, Russia and the European Union: The Medvedev proposal http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9641 218.186.65.112 (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that is an interesting read. I appreciate the link, thanks again. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

To Provoke War, Cheney Considered Proposal To Dress Up Navy Seals As Iranians And Shoot At Them

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9725

Mugabe’s Biggest Sin Anglo-American and Chinese interests clash over Zimbabwe’s strategic mineral wealth

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9707 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.10 (talk) 05:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on Lemon Bay High School

I understand that it can sometimes be difficult to avoid edit warring, but you seriously need to stop violating the three revert rule. Not to sound threatening, but if I see any more edit warring on that article, I'm going to have to request page protection again, and then I'm afraid I'll have to report you for edit warring. God bless. GO-PCHS-NJROTC 03:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You really should check the edit history, I had 2 stalkers who were just blindly reverting several different editors across multiple articles. There was no edit warring here, just multiple people reverting petty, pointy, vandalism. Also, my last edit to that article was 4 days ago, nothing current to warrant a threat of protection (esp. seeing as I was the one that got it unprotected in the first place). Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If Anarchist International is your cup of tea

then you'll just love K. Banerjee Center of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies‎! -- Hoary (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, after a quick glance I think a nice, neat, small-batch bourbon is required to process that mess. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Message to To Enric_Naval, Nsk92, ThuranX, Cast, L0b0t, Pete,Hurd, Annette46, Artene50 and, T-rex about cooperation to improve the AI-Wiki-page

As you well know, the AI-Wiki-page is once more deleted, this time by Bjweeks on a request from Hoary. I have written to them at their talkpages about cooperation to achieve an AI-Wiki-page that has general Wiki-consent, before publishing it again. Copies of these messages are on my talk page. Take a look at them. As AI is the largest anarchist-network in the world, it of course should have a Wiki-page. I invite you all to contribute to a better AI-Wiki-page for later publishing. This time so good that it will not be deleted by anyone.

(Anna Quist (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

Manchu History

As a matter of practice I do not generally attempt to contact others regarding Manchu history. However, after reading this account of the 9th Infantry Regiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/9th_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)) I felt compelled to. As a veteran of "Operation Just Cause" I feel the need to point out that the 2d Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment also participated in the Operation. We were also the unit that was initially deployed to Panama in support of "Operation Nimrod Dancer" from May 1989 through August 1989.

I am just trying to be inclusive in this history of the 9th Infantry Regiment.

Keep Up the Fire!

djs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chapin98 (talk • contribs)

Cool. I have had VERY little to do with that article other than some minor copy-editing. If you have reliable sources to cite then you should add that info to the article. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

user information

Your user page directs to your talk page so except for your userboxes you provide no user information yet one of the IP address I use has retained its user page.

I have been forced to use my IP as my user name again recently as the result of false claims of personal attack which were statements of fact in my defense, since statement of fact for any reason in the Misplaced Pages can be deemed a personal attack even if made in self defense.

I believe an article I wrote was nominated for deletion as a personal attack due to the expression of my philosophical belief stated elsewhere (similar to as your userbox about indicating that for you race is a social construct.) and was wondering if you might be willing to help me investigate the real motive for the attack. The user that initiated it was born in Beijing in 188, raised as an atheist, indoctrinated as a Communist and sent off to Atlanta where he entered the public school system for 3 years and then went on to Georgia Tech for another 4 years and is now a graduate student there with ambitions to work at JPL where he is visiting this week.

It appears that a group of users at a school or connected in some other way such as a robotics cabal were able to gang up on me and have the article deleted. Since many users and administrators and even bureaucrats are under age 15 this type of thing is to be expected normally but the above information is what makes it special in this case. Misplaced Pages now appears not only to be a place where the new generation can kill off the old generation but now where Communists can even kill off Americans whose ancestors fought in the Civil War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.7.91 (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, without a link to the AfD for the article in question (or even the article's name) there is not much that can be done (also, I am in no way, shape, or form, an administrator.) If you feel an article was deleted erroneously, then you should first contact the administrator that closed the AfD and see if they would be willing to restore it. Failing that, your next shop should be Deletion Review where there is a formal process that you can start to have the initial deletion discussion looked over and possibly reversed. If you post a link to the AfD, I would be happy to give it a read through. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

South Park

The episode itself is the source. If you can't be bothered to view the episode, you shouldn't work on an episode article. - Denimadept (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well in that case, I believe the {{cite episode}} template should be used (WP:CITE an WP:CITET would be the places to look.) The episode itself is a primary source however, and as such is subject to some use restrictions. It cannot, for example, be used a source to establish a connection with another work. That is, if one wants to say that a scene in an episode of South Park is an homage, parody (or any other semiotic element) of another work, then one would need to cite a secondary source such as a media studies textbook or a book about South Park. Without a source that says the writers intended a specific allusion or symbolism one runs the risk of violating the prohibition on editorial synthesis. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

So we can't say that a reference in a South Park episode is to a previous episode? And yes, there was a previous episode. - Denimadept (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Cartman gets an anal probe

You seem to be a fairly experienced editor, so I won't insult you by tagging your talk page with a {{blatantvandal}}. However, please be careful what version you restore. Your last edit to Cartman Gets an Anal Probe restored a heavily vandalized version of that article. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry mate, thanks for catching that. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about forgetting to apologize about my edit summary above (can't undo edit summaries). Your edit looked like vandalism, and I characterized it as such in my edit summary, but then I looked at your edit history and realized you just made an honest mistake. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries, did the same thing myself. Also, I did not pay enough attention to what I was doing in the first place so I'm sorry for starting the whole mess. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Whale tail

Thanks for your attention to the article. I have trying to get people to lend a hand, especially with the copy, which happens to be the trickiest proposition for me. I really appreciate (especially since I have this delusional hope to get this article to a GA status someday). But, well, I have a little disagreement with you here, especially about the spammy goodness that was removed. A website that's been covered by mainstream media as a part of the stuff intrinsically associated with the whale tail needs to be in the article for the sake of comprehensive coverage (a mandatory for article quality as described here and here, if nothing else. I am putting it back for a closer review (may be the copy is bad, may be bit of inappropriate material has crept in). Shall we discuss the matter then? Aditya 06:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Good hello. My opinion is that the website in question need not be in the article, the website is not a reliable source, fails the notability criteria for inclusion and has not been "covered by mainstream media" (a passing mention in the NYT style section in an opinion piece that is not about the website in question is not coverage.) I am, however, open to discussion on the matter. Do you have some sources that actually write about the website itself (beyond trivial mentions of the site's mere existence)? Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the website in question was not used as a source, therefore I don't think its reliability is important. On the other hand, its notability should established enough for an inclusion in the article on the related subject, though it doesn't meet the notability criteria for a stand alone article. I know that there's a philosophy of exclusionism among many editors who prefer to have only the academically sound material included. But, probably the real spirit of Misplaced Pages lies in the philosophy of inclusionism upheld by many other editors, who believe that eventually Misplaced Pages can become a repository for any and every knowledge.

The bit on website (which seems to be "worthy of notice") is pure information, without added commentary or claims, and is in agreement with style guideline on trivia, content guideline against spamming and notability guidelines. Standing at position 33232 in traffic ranking its daily unique hit count compares to the French Misplaced Pages, and it shows more than 1200 hits in a google-search.

Two more things. Please, don't put refs "before" punctuation while fixing the copy. It's against Misplaced Pages manual of style. And, why are removing the redundant image repeatedly? There is no barrier for putting in two images of the same thing in the article on the subject of the image. The first image (beside the lead) illustrates the subject better, but the image you are repeatedly removing is a better looking image. Misplaced Pages doesn't stand against looking good, as long it doesn't violate one of the policies or guidelines or the spirit. And, the image in question is doing none of that. I am putting it back.

If you want to remove it again, please, consider clarifying the action on this talk page or the relevant article talk page. Consider that an edit war is bad, a pointless edit war is much worse. Such a post will only help removing disagreement and show good faith. Also, please, avoid using expressions like spammy website and spammy goodness. It's rather incivil, and shows a lot of disrespect for other editors. Aditya 17:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Won't you post your reply to my observations on the website stuff unless I put the stuff back again? Aditya 04:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Warhammer 40K Project updated

Protonk (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Sent with Auto Wiki Browser to all 40K project members.

Project activity

If you are still interested in helping out the 40K project or otherwise still want to be listed there you can say so in response to this message on your talk page or on mine. Alternately you can add our new userbox ({{User WikiProject Warhammer 40,000}}) to your userpage and I'll take that as a response. The userpage doesn't automatically include people in a category of members yet, but it might in the future.

We've assessed most of the articles in the project on the Version 1.0 assessment scale (the table on the project page should take a few days to update) but we need to push to get the core articles in the project up to GA status. Thanks for all your help. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help the project along. Protonk (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ash's Shotgun

L0b0t, I would rather not get into an edit war, but the fact that a boomstick is Ash's shotgun is some movie hardly takes precedence over what a "boomstick" is in popular culture. I happen to be a hunter and a hunting blogger and blog reader, and "boomstick" is very common slang for a musket or fouling piece (similar to a shotgun, but much earlier piece). If someone overheard the word "boomstick" and wanted to know what it was, having their page redirected to "Army of Darkness" is hardly helpful. If you must, create a disambiguation page and list "Army of Darkness", "Musket", and "Shotgun". Please.

p.s. I'm too lazy to go find my log-in to wikipedia, but I am currently an active user within other wikis on the wikia network

--64.33.203.67 (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

and there, I remembered my login lol

--Ggarfield (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Frankly, I'm neutral as to where the redirect points but a quick history of the article might be helpful. The article started out in 2005 as a dicdef of "boomstick" as a slang term to describe a shotgun with a sentence about Ash's shotgun from the Army of Darkness franchise (which Ash calls "boomstick"). As a result of an afd in 2007 the article was merged into sawed-off shotgun but since no one who regularly edits that article had ever heard "boomstick" used to describe a sawed-off shotgun other than in the movie Army of Darkness and, as per long-standing consensus, info about fictional weapons (or a real weapon used in a work of fiction) is not welcome in articles about firearms unless that fictional use is very notable, such as James Bond and the Walther PPK, a redirect to Army of Darkness was created. That is how the article came to point where it did. Your pointing it towards Musket is probably the right idea though as I can't see it being any more than a dicdef. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Jen Richter

That's why articles on AFD are usually moved after consensus has been reached. Anyway, I've deleted the other one too. Sorry to see your work go. - Mgm| 23:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy tagging

Hi L0b0t! You have recently tagged the article Boys Noize for speedy deletion. I didn't review your contributions, but am concerned about other possible tags like this. The article does assert notability, and a simple Google search is enough to see that the subject clearly does not satisfy the criteria for speedy deletion. If you believe that the article violates notability guidelines such as WP:N, WP:MUSIC, etc., you are welcome to open an AfD. The fact that the article has existed for a long time is another indication that it shouldn't be speedily deleted.

Again, I am not saying that the article should definitely be kept, just that speedy deletion is a process reserved for articles that should be clearly deleted without further discussion. -- Ynhockey 22:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)