Misplaced Pages

User talk:B: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:58, 19 January 2009 editElonka (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators70,960 edits Please be aware of the recent ArbCom motion← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:36, 5 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,301,001 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:B/Archive 9) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{NOINDEX}} {{/header}}
{{Virginia Tech ribbon}}
<div style="border:solid 1px black;background:#f0fff0;padding:10px;" class="plainlinks">
This is a user talk page at the , originally located at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:B. If you are reading it at any other location, it is unmonitored and may be out of date or otherwise invalid. Comments left here have not been verified and should not be deemed to be reliable.


{{NOINDEX}}
Because of privacy concerns, I no longer maintain separate archive pages. One of the worst policy decisions Misplaced Pages has made is to allow user and user talk edits to be indexed by search engines. (Note that even though they can be blocked from Google with {{tl|NOINDEX}}, mirrors can still pick them up.) This creates a space that is largely unmonitored for libel and nonsense, but is nonetheless a top g-hit for any relevant search term. For previous comments on my talk page, see , , , , , , , , or ].
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(120d)
| archive = User talk:B/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 9
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Aan}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 10
}}
{{archive box|search=no|auto=short}}
<!-- Please leave the above lines alone. Add new discussions at the bottom of the page. -->


==Season Greetings==
Please note that I am ] on ], but not on most other projects. As of June 2008, there are users named User:B on 63 projects of the ], but only twelve of them are linked to my account. On Commons, where another user has had the B moniker since long before I claimed it here, I contribute as ] and I may occasionally edit from ] locally as an unintended consequence of ].
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FFD700; background: #FFB924; border-width:4px; text-align:center; padding:7px; height:220px;" class="plainlinks">]
{{font|text=''' Merry Christmas {{BASEPAGENAME}}'''|size=30px}}<br /><br /><br />{{font|size=17px|text=Hi {{BASEPAGENAME}}, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,<br />
May next year be prosperous and joyful.<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;–] <sup>]</sup> 10.43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)}}
</div> </div>
== WikiProject Scouting Newsletter: May 2024 ==


{| style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF"
== HoHoHo ==
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" |
|rowspan="2" |
|style="padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; |]'''<big>]</big>''' '''|''' <small>May 2024</small>
<br />
'''Notes for May:'''<br>
*Looking for something to work on? Try looking at, ].
:Some important articles that need help: ], ], ], ], ]
* We are working to develop a featured portal, ].<br />
*Looking for a new project? perhaps authoring an article on'' ]''


'''Other ways to participate:'''
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]
* ] '''|''' ]
* ] '''|''' ] '''|''' {{watch|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Scouting/Article alerts}}
|}
--]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup> May 22, 2024


] (]) is wishing you a ] ]! This greeting (and season) promotes ] and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow! <br />


<noinclude>]</noinclude>
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{]:]}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
<!-- Message sent by User:TheDoctorWho@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Scouting/Members/delivery&oldid=1223364509 -->
</div> ] (]) 01:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


== New FAC == == Precious anniversary ==
{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Nine}}
I don't know if you know that your entry leads the list ;) - Your edit notice makes me point at ] where a reviewer and I can't agree yet, and I hope for independent eyes. --] (]) 05:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
: Thank you for your message. Please see ] for a process for requesting a third opinion. Unfortunately I do not have the time to devote to this at the moment. --] (]) 21:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


== Deleting File:614+znGMXnL. SR600,315 PIWhiteStrip,BottomLeft,0,35 PIStarRatingFOURANDHALF,BottomLeft,360,-6 SR600,315 ZA31,445,290,400,400,AmazonEmberBold,12,4,0,0,5 SCLZZZZZZZ FMpng BG255,255,255.png: ==
I know you're not big on reviewing FACs (at least from what I've seen ... I may be mistaken), but I've submitted another in the line of ] articles for FAC. ] is now awaiting reviews and comments, and any questions, concerns, or support you'd care to add would be appreciated. I'm planning to submit the ACCCG article once this one passes or fails, and that likely will be followed by the Orange Bowl article, hopefully. ] (]) 07:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
:Well, ] passed and is now an FA, but I just wanted to give you a heads-up that I've submitted a new FAC. ] is waiting for comments when you get a chance. Thanks again! ] (]) 11:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I'm ], and I am letting you know that I am using ] on a draft that you cannot see yet, because I haven't figured out how to save a draft before publishing. ] (]) 20:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
== States that do not copyright ==


== B-bot needs to check templates which use images and what links there ==
I know that Florida does not copyright their state photos, but do you know if any other states do the same. ] and ] probably mean California and Utah do not copyright, but I wanted to double check. ] (]) 05:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
:I've heard it claimed about California, but I don't think it's true. I searched awhile back and couldn't find anything confirming a claim that works of California are PD and their own website (ca.gov) claims copyright. --] (]) 06:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


Hello, your bot marked an imaged I'd uploaded for deletion. I fully understand you may be absent for a while -- a cursory review of my own talk and contributions says I'm away much more often then you are, so I fully agree there are things more important in life than Misplaced Pages. However, because of the short timeline your bot acts on, and because you might not respond for a while, and because there's apparently no oversight on what your bot is doing, and because it doesn't follow the chain of where an image is used, I raised the issue where you suggested to on the bot talk page: "Please ask at WP:HELPDESK. That page is monitored and will get you a rapid response." I made a new section/discussion at ]. ] (]) 03:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
== To You To ==
:{{ping|Banaticus}} it looks like your question was answered there. Non-free images are not permitted in templates or article drafts. The bot will tag those as orphaned. If you are drafting an article, you can put a placeholder image in there until the article is ready to move to the mainspace. Then you can upload the image as the very last thing when you are ready to promote the article. If you need to have a non-free image in the infobox, then make a parameter for "image" and fill in the parameter from the article. --] (]) 12:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
To you too! ] (]) 20:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
:Thank you, although my holiday isn't until the 2nd. ] ] '']'' 20:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
::I'm looking forward to that one too - that one should be an exciting game. This year, for the first year in a while, the BCS matchups really look enticing. I watched a few Utah games this year and they certainly look like the real deal. It should be a good matchup with Alabama. --] (]) 22:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Back atcha! ] (]) 07:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


== RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review ==
== Merry Christmas ==


Hi there! The trial of the <strong>RfA discussion-only period</strong> passed at ] has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at ''']'''. Cheers, and happy editing! ] (]) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 00:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)]]
<!-- Message sent by User:Theleekycauldron@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Mailing_list&oldid=1223231383 -->


== Invitation to participate in a research ==
<br clear="all" />
== The only game that matters this year ==


Hello,
]. What else would I watch?] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 02:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
:] interests me as a good yardstick game. ] should be a nice shootout. The ] and the ] should also be good games. I watch all of the bowl games, but these are probably the ones that most interest me. I also had ] on my list, but somewhere around halftime with the score around 500-0, I lost interest. --] (]) 05:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
== Simulation12 evading block. ==


You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
Thanks for blocking Sim12's Ip, but while the IP was unblocked she created a sock-puppet account: Tddmoines. Could you block that account too? ] (]) 22:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
::Never mind, the sock-puppet was blocked.


Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
== Horn_speaker NPOV dispute ==


Kind Regards,
Please see the ] page. There is a disagreement between me and another editor about the page, and I think he convinced you to lock it. I think it would be appropriate to at least put a {POV} tag on the section in question. Rather than repeat the details here, I encourage you to read the ] page. ] (]) 02:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


]
== ] ==


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
Thanks for your help, that guy never quits. I figured I'd be reverting him for days :P --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 17:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins&oldid=27650221 -->


== Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research ==
==SA's private civility policy==


Hello,
Per my ] I will gladly refactor the comment that I made about your support for ]. Obviously, you were never running a real protection racket for him, and I'm suprised that you took it that seriously. I thought the comparison apt since your support for him extended way beyond what I normally see in administrators. I simply do not have very high tolerance for administrators who try to support editors with agendas that extend to whitewashing, defacing, and destroying the best writing we have about scientific material.


I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ].
In the future, if you ever have any civility complaints about me, take them directly to my talkpage and follow the recipe I outline there.


Take the survey ''''''.
] (]) 04:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
:In what way is extorting money from Profg (what you accused me of) an "apt comparison" with unblocking a user whom not a single uninvolved editor even supported blocking? At the time, in this thread, I expressed this concern:
:{{cquote|Something is really bothering me here. The diffs above don't seem particularly bad and I've seen far worse from a number of admins. The article talk pages in that topic area are largely a cesspool simply because emotions tend to run high. Pick out a few diffs from anyone who edits controversial topics and you'll find some things here and there. It looks like there was a previous well-earned block but since then, the only diffs provided are that he has opined on an arbitration case. Good grief, should we go block everyone who does that for "stalking"? Unless there is something more, I oppose this ban. I'm not saying there isn't something more - just that I haven't seen it.}}
:At the time, not a single uninvolved editor weighed in to support his ban. The admin who had blocked him was clearly involved and should not have made that decision. (He was later desysopped, although I strongly disagreed with that decision and supported his effort to regain his adminship and will do so again if he applies again.) With 20/20 hindsight, we knowing now that Profg would not avail himself of the opportunity that he was given, I would not have unblocked him, but nobody can predict the future. After I unblocked him, he had all of SEVEN mainspace edits for the rest of eternity and, as we would find out months later, he started socking immediately upon being blocked and continued to use that sock so it didn't even matter that the block on the main account was lifted - had he remained blocked, he still would have evaded it with a sock puppet anyway. So the action I took was to remove a wrongly placed block that no uninvolved user supported and which wound up making no difference. There is nothing whatsoever similar between this action and a ], an extortion scheme in which someone extorts money from the victim. Your "refactoring" is taken in exactly the spirit in which it is done. --] (]) 12:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
::Look, we have our differences of opinion on the matter. However, your claim of the "spirit" in which I refactored not only does not ], it actually is dead wrong. I wasn't being sarcastic at all. ] (]) 03:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
:::SA, I was also upset with B regarding Profg. What I've realized about B is that he's a legal absolutist rather than a constructionist, so even though many of us despised Profg, B correctly determined he was more annoying than anything. But once Profg socked, you can see that B changed his opinion on the editor. I'm not 100% sure I know B's background and POV on various topics, but I know he's an absolutist with regards with things like racism. This is all IMHO. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 15:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


Kind Regards,
Misplaced Pages policy is determined by consensus; there is no such thing as a 'private' policy. ] (]) 03:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


]
== ] ==


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
Hey B. :) ] requests to be ]. Your comment would be appreciated there. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">]</span></b></small> <span style="color: #999;">//</span>&nbsp;] 08:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins_(reminders)&oldid=27744339 -->


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
Explain this edit:
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requested_articles/Social_sciences&action=history <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You're out of line. Do not revert my edits without proper cause. Discuss any reverts in the talk page of the article or on my talk page. Beware of the 3RR, you are dangerously close. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Make worthwhile edits and they won't be reverted. --] (]) 02:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
== ] ==


</div>
Well, I didn't say anything for fear of jinxing them, but yes, I am very happy right now. Not even the fact that it's -50F outside right now can bother me. Well, not very much. ] (]) 05:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
</div>
:I was getting nervous. When we kicked the PAT on that last TD, I had visions of an ECU-like ending where Cinci scores 2 TDs at the end and wins it 21-20. Having a team that finds a way to win close ones is a great thing. --] (]) 05:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1258243447 -->
::I was more interested in the Rose Bowl today, what with my living in SoCal. I just saw the highlights of the Orange Bowl, and I'm sure I'd be drinking heavily. :) Well, glad you go the win. Tomorrow is my alma mater up against Alabama. Not sure I'm going to be on the edge of my seat. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 06:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Utah is going to keep it close - it is not going to be a blowout. Alabama doesn't really have it in them to blow out anyone who is well-disciplined. (I thought you went to SU? Or is one your grad school and one undergrad?) --] (]) 06:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Undergrad, Utah. Graduate school, Syracuse. I also went to medical school in Syracuse, but not SU, since they don't have a medical school. Because I spent more years at SU than I did at Utah, I tend to wear orange rather than red. Utah actually has a strong athletic tradition, recently in football, but they have a lot of basketball victories and a few final 4 appearances. I think my heart is more at SU than Utah. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 15:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

== Many thanks… ==

…for your assistance on the ] matter. Hopefully, he will use this as a means to improve his editing skill and style. Happy New Year! '''- ]''' <sub>(])</sub> 14:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

==Re:]==
Thanks for the warning. However, in the interests of administrator fairness and objectivity, you may also want to leave a warning for ] since he too (actually, even more so than me). Regards, ] (]) 14:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

== Arabic Lang Page Protection ==

Thanks for protecting the page, however I believe that we will be able to come to a fact based compromise before 9 January. I presume we can ask you to review the talk page and then unprotect at that stage. As for our friend, I would observe that Taivo was merely implementing a compromise regarding Malta that, on facts and modern linguistics, was entirely defensible. Given the large and aggressive convo in the Arabic Talk Page (now removed, see history) about Swahili, it would appear the above user is playing a little wikistalking. (] (]) 17:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC))
:Sure, if everyone is happy before January 9 say something here or if I am not readily available, you can ask on ] for another admin to unprotect it. "1 week" was just an arbitrary time from the drop box, not a firm date. --] (]) 18:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
:: Well understood, no worries then mate, thanks again. (] (]) 21:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC))

== If you don't mind breaking yourself from the TV ==

:Seriously, the best way to resolve the issue is for both sides to walk away. You have archived the offending section - just let it go away. --] (]) 04:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

==Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Stereotypes_of_Jews==
Unless someone can come up with a darned good reason not to, I'm inclined to delete this thing under G4. There is an ] going on now about this, by the way. --] (]) 05:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
:Delete it, and I will happily withdraw the 3RR complaint.] (]) 08:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

==]==
FYI, I've reverted the article to an older version of the article, but am asking for input on whether or not that version should be kept.---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 02:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
:I g4'd it.---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 02:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
::All of it should be deleted. If there is a single stereotype worthy of an article, make an article about it. Otherwise, it's just a collection of random opinions about white people. And the same goes for any of the "stereotypes of ..." articles. In the now deleted revisions of this article, you can see that Deeceevoice's original reason for creating them was anger over ] not being deleted. Well, two wrongs don't make a right - that article should be deleted too. --] (]) 02:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

==Intellectuals and Nazi ==
Are you still going to move the Nazi article? You locked it without making the move. --] (]) 20:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
:Is ] the target you want or ]? --] (]) 20:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello B,

The move of this page to ] or ] was the outcome of an ongoing attempt at consensus on the talk page but just the idea of Richard and a partial idea of ChildofMidnight, most editors have not expressed agreement with this move, these DGG, Shoess, and myself. Nor did others agree to a move, though they were less involved: Colonel Warden, -Cerejota. During the Afd the overwhelming choice was '''Keep''' and not '''Move''' nor '''Keep-Move''', this had the support of Shoess, Totnesmartin, Celarnor, csloat and myself. The only name change suggestion in the Afd was to lower the case of Philosophers to '''p'''hilosophers. The original request for deletion of "nazi philosophers" was made by ChildofMidnight who in his application for deletion specifically asked regarding the category "Nazi Philosophers", the majority thought it a valid category.

thanks ] (]) 10:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC).
:Discuss it on the talk page and get agreement there. --] (]) 13:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

== 25 minutes of fun ==

But . But UNC went down. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 03:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
:I turned off the television midway through the second half - it was terrible. We're a young team this year, but I really think we've taken a step back with the talent level. We had a lot of really good players come in Seth's first year, but they are all gone now and we're kinda out of phase in recruiting. We lost most of the team two years ago and then our best player - ] - last year. Now it's a very young team that has a long way to go. --] (]) 03:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
::Va Tech is just not a basketball school. Kind of like Syracuse is just not a football school. A few programs can win in both games (Florida, for example), but most major programs just don't have the wherewithal to win in football and basketball. I wonder if it's a money thing. USC has all kinds of money, has been a power in football since I was a kid, yet never makes major strides in Basketball. I think I can name maybe 8-10 programs that do well in both (and I'm wondering if I'm ready to add Utah to that list, although they've dropped off in BB since ] left. But they're the 10th most winning team in NCAA basketball.) One of the reasons VA Tech joined the Big East (a sore point for me) was to upgrade its basketball, although the ACC is maybe a nano-step above the Big East (and much better as a football conference). But we'll see. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 03:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
:::For Tech, joining the Big East was about getting back into a major conference. We used to be in the ], which had some really strong basketball programs in its day. When Loserville and their allies decided they wanted a football conference, Tech wasn't interested because we were already in the Big East for football (with an automatic Alliance Bowl bid, now the BCS). So they came up with the scheme of kicking us out of the conference, then "merging" with another conference to avoid having to pay exit fees. Virginia Tech and VCU both sued the other members and each received a settlement of $1 million, so they made t-shirts at the time that said, "Thanks a million, Metro". In 1995, when this all happened, the football schools all threatened to leave the Big East and form their own league if the basketball schools didn't let everyone in. But they compromised with just taking Rutgers and West Virginia (both of which were potential Big 10 expansion targets - everyone assumed that they would quickly go to 12 teams) and left Temple and Virginia Tech out (nobody was beating down the door to invite us into their league). We joined the A-10 after that snub. While our article ] may say they are a major conference, most people recognize there's a huge dropoff between the BCS leagues and the others. When we were in the A-10, our profit sharing was something under $500K. In the Big East, it would have been around $1.3-1.5 million for non-football sports, except that we never actually saw any of it - part of our entrance fee was no revenue sharing for the first five years and then we left during the fifth year. --] (]) 03:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Loserville. LOL. I'm almost certain that Va Tech was a Big East football school too? Didn't the get rid of that weird system where some schools played basketball, some football, etc.? Now I have to read the damn articles. Grrrrrr. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 04:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
::::OK, now I understand what you were saying. Va Tech was a football only school (in the Big East), until 2001. I am getting old, because I thought it was earlier than that. As an aside, Temple was a joke in Football...I hate to see you lumped with them. Anyways, I was hoping that SU would join you, Miami and BC in the ACC. SU vs. Duke and UNC every year would have been great to watch (no offense to the other teams). BC and SU have had an incredible football rivalry, so I'm sad that's gone. And honestly, Miami and Va Tech were the only reasons why the Big East rated a BCS slot, although I think today it's still worthy (but just barely). ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 05:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::A little more history - the Big East started as a basketball league in the 70s. They were mostly small Catholic schools with no football teams and the few football schools they had (Pitt, Syracuse, BC) were independents in an era when major independents were common. (Penn State, Florida State, Virginia Tech, South Carolina, East Carolina, and Miami were all major east coast independents.) Two changes drove teams to join conferences. One of them was television - it used to be that the NCAA controlled all television rights and then the ] controlled TV rights. Either way, there was no advantage to being in a conference. But in the early 90s, conferences started handling their own TV rights, so if you wanted to be on TV, you needed to join a conference. Also, it's not like today where most 1A games are on TV somewhere, even if just local TV. Back then, ESPN was in its infancy. The second thing was bowl tie-ins. It used to be that it was a free-for-all, but bowls were starting to pair off with conferences, so if you weren't in one, you weren't going to a bowl. The three Big East football schools realized they needed a football conference, but they weren't about to leave their basketball home. Penn State wanted to join, but Pitt wouldn't allow it - they didn't want their in-state rival in the conference. In hindsight, that was a terrible decision, obviously. Penn State in the Big East probably would have resulted in the Big East football schools breaking off and gobbling up ACC schools to get to 12, instead of the other way around. Anyway, they wanted Miami - that was the marquee team, so they were allowed in for all sports. Beyond that, they needed bodies and those bodies were Temple, Rutgers, West Virginia, and Virginia Tech. East Carolina narrowly missed being picked - again, that was a bad decision. ECU has a rabid fanbase and was actually very good at the time. With major conference status, they would have grown like Virginia Tech did and would probably be a perennial powerhouse right now. Anyway, the basketball schools did not want to dilute their conference, so the four expansion teams not named Miami were in for football only. So that's where the split conference membership came from. In 2003, when the realignment happened, one of the court documents that became public record was minutes from a Big East meeting. They all but said in that meeting that their intention was for the conference to split up after five years (which would be July 2010 I think). There is an NCAA rule that in order to get autobids to a sport, you have to have 6 teams playing together for 5 years. So after BC/Miami/VT left, they picked up enough teams to have 8 football schools and 8 non-football schools. That lets them all play together for 5 years, then get a divorce. Each new conference can then keep its NCAA tournament bids and the football league could expand to 12 teams. Whether they will still go through with that or not, I don't know, but the mixed conference has never worked very well. I'm sure it is working much better now that it's only one way - when there were football-only schools, there was a lot of resentment and there were institutions that really just had incompatible goals. Every school wants to be in a major conference and for the football-only schools, there is no loyalty whatsoever to the conference because if any major conference ever came calling, we were gone. That's not a way to run a business. At least now, though, there are no football-only schools so I'm sure everyone gets along better than they used to. --] (]) 05:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::One correction to the above - Penn State wanted to join the Big East when it was originally formed, not when they created the football conference. When they were rejected, they went to the A-10, then eventually to the Big 10. --] (]) 05:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I didn't follow the Big East during the 90's very carefully, so your history is very interesting. I wonder about your theory of 2010 however (I won't quite label it ]). A school like SU must have some conflicting issues, which probably existed in '03. SU has longstanding rivalries with non-Football Basketball institutions like St. John's, Villanova, and Georgetown. The SU-Georgetown basketball games are almost always have the highest attendance at the Dome (which is hard to sell-out, so the definition of highest attendance varies from year to year). So if they split off with Loserville (LOL), Pitt, UConn and the other football schools, some of which have powerful basketball programs (Loserville again), they're going to lose the Catholic school rivalries (my terminology). BTW, I agree with you about ECU. Although South Florida has had a few good years of football, it's still a commuter school without a rabid alumni base. ECU fans are nutters!!!! (Said in all good faith.) I remember reading about Penn State back in the day. Although hindsight is 20/20 from today, back then Penn State had a lousy basketball program. In other words, Penn State needed the Big East much more than the Big East needed Penn State. My secret dream is that SU joins the Big 10, but I don't think it's the quality of research institution (although it is a member of ]) like Ohio State or Michigan. So, I guess in a couple of years, I'm going to see a new conference with Pitt, Uconn, SU, Loserville, Cinci, USF, Rutgers, and West Virginia. That's not bad, I guess. But it's not the PAC 10 or Big 10, which are more than just athletic conferences, they kind of represent Academics too. Saying I went to a Big East (or Mountain West) school has less cachet than say Big 10 or Pac 10. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 17:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

==]==
I have a quick question about your block of {{ipuser|154.20.40.205}}. You set the block at 3 months, but noted it as indefinite on their talk page. They're petitioning for an unblock with the "It was my sister" defense, so you may want to have a look and clarify the length of the block. Thanks, <b><font color="FF6600">]</font> <sub><font color="black">]</font></sub> <font color="FF6600">resolves to be more caknuck-y</font></b> 04:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
:Simulation12 is banned from editing under any name or IP. We don't indefinitely block IPs because they can change over time. 3 months was an arbitrary period of time - if that person returns to that or any other IP, they are still banned and should be blocked. --] (]) 04:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
::Two things then. 1) There was a request to protect the talk page based on the unblock request silliness. Do you want the honor of yanking their talk page privileges? 2) You noted in your block summary that it was likely a static IP. Should we consider a longer IP block then? Cheers, <b><font color="FF6600">]</font> <sub><font color="black">]</font></sub> <font color="FF6600">resolves to be more caknuck-y</font></b> 05:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

==Call me wishy washy==
Ok, I was asked about deleting ] per G4 because the article up for nom was a somewhat different nom and the august 27th version I had reverted to was not the same article nominated on August 28th. I've reopened the debate and invite you to put in your two cents concerning the reverted to version. The version as of Jan 3 was a clear G10.---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 04:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
:I don't think any good can come from that especially given deeceevoice's stated intention of disruption. But regardless, of that, if this article is going to exist, there's some history merging from a copy/paste move that needs to be done. See ] to get the article names where half of the history is. --] (]) 04:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

== Thanks for the humour ==

gave me a chuckle. Thanks. ] ] 06:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

== Heads up on the Rascal ==

Therascal99's edits appear suspiciously like those of blocked users Sgt. Dizzle Guy and Lou Pepe, discussed in ], i.e., editing beer-related articles, pointing out who is Jewish, editing sports-related pages, etc. Plus, she appeared as soon as Sgt. Dizzle Guy and Lou Pepe were blocked. Plus, some of her puppets have nearly said the exact words "Beware of the 3RR, you are dangerously close." ] (]) 05:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

== For your edification ==

See . He's a loose cannon. But on to more important topics. Who's winning tonight? I'm calling my bookie based on your answer. LOL. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 22:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:Between Tulsa and Ball St? A better question might be will the total number of points exceed the number of people watching? ;) Tulsa is favored by 3. Ball State isn't going to stop Tulsa - they hung 77 on UTEP. Tulsa played Bowling Green out of the MAC last year in a bowl game and throttled them. Ball State's schedule was atrocious and they really weren't all that spectacular. I'd say take Tulsa and give the points. Tulsa wins by 20. <small>(For entertainment purposes only.)</small> --] (]) 23:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::Duh. I meant Thursday night. But, I'll take this information. :) ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Prior to Friday night, I would have said Florida in a blowout. I'm still saying Florida, but in a tight, lower-scoring game ... maybe 24-21 ... a Texas-OSU range score. --] (]) 23:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:That doesn't make any sense - unless I am missing something, there are four possibilities and I shall use my mad wikisyntax skillz to demonstrate them:
{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|-
! &nbsp;
! FT2 requested that the edits be oversighted
! FT2 did not make a request
|-
! The edits were correctly oversighted in accordance with policy
|style="color:green" align="center"| Good!
|style="color:green" align="center"| Good!
|-
! The edits should not have been oversighted
|style="color:red" align="center"| Bad!
|style="color:red" align="center"| Bad, but not FT2's fault!
|}
:Answering the question of which of the four possibilities is the case here should not be that difficult. --] (]) 23:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::Are there some odds on this guessing game? I mean from a strictly random statistical POV, there's only a 25% chance that he's bad. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 00:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Well, there's the general suspicion of "if there's nothing to hide, why hide it?" --] (]) 01:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Have you read his most recent comments? He seems to be reading ] speeches. Yes, I dislike corrupt D's as much as R's. And your call on Tulsa was right on. If only I really had a bookie.] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 00:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

==Straw Poll==
You are a user who responded to ]. As someone interested in the discussion a ''']''' has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:If you would be so kind as to remove your comments and place them in discussion. This simple straw poll WILL get quickly cluttered if everyone adds comments...responds to others...retorts...responses...etc. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks!
::You know, you and I seem to disagree a lot, but you are always so cordial and respectful. Thanks a lot! <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 00:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Don't pick on Virginia Tech. Just saying. :) ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 00:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::As a user who responded to the ], your further input is requested with regards to the ] and ] <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 00:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

== ]... ==

...has been pushing this same paragraph for ''nearly two years now''. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 17:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:I'm looking through the contributions of his IP addresses now ... I'm considering whether to just go on and upgrade it to indef - if he were staying logged in on all of these edits, he would have been indeffed long ago. On the other hand, incentivizing him to edit from IP addresses that can't easily be tracked/blocked isn't a great idea either. --] (]) 18:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::This issue showed up at ], I think it was. The guy had been editing from IP addresses for awhile, then went back to his long-dormant logon once semi-protection was put on. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

== {{User|SmoothFlow}} and ] ==

I know you've been trying to counsel SmoothFlow but he/she continues to edit war . There are a lot of things suspicious to me about this account including being a SPA on something that I worked on, intentionally editing in spelling errors and irrelevant section titles, and the fact they started their account on January 6. SU students don't come back until January 13 (I know, because my son is a student there, and he's home annoying me). But I digress. HELP. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 02:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

== Thank you. ==

Thanks for protecting my userpage. :) ] ] 06:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hello B. I notice you issued a short block to {{userlinks|83.254.20.63}}, who signs himself as Mats (i.e. Mats Envall = Consist). See ] for some of his past accounts. Since {{user|Consist}} is indef blocked for disruptive editing, isn't a long block justified? E.g. 30 days at least? I didn't do this myself because I occasionally edit articles such as ]. Thanks for considering this, ] (]) 03:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
:I blocked the user based on a request at ]. Nothing in the report mentioned this user being a reincarnation. Obviously, had that information been available, I would have taken blocked longer and with a different message. I've hard blocked it for a week. If the user is hopping IPs, blocking this one for a month isn't going to do anything as they will be long gone. They seem to be semi-static IPs. I don't know if he has control over when they change (ie, turn off the cable modem to get a new IP) or if they just auto-rotate every week. In any event, a hard block for a week seems a reasonable step. dnsstuff says that this IP range is 83.248.0.0/13 ... but that would cause a heckuva lot of collateral damage and is really a bad idea if it isn't absolutely necessary. Anyway, prohibitions against involved admins taking actions are out the window when you're dealing with a banned user. Rather, it's a really good idea for involved admins to take action, because you have all of the background information. --] (]) 04:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks for your reply! After I looked at the article histories, I saw that he has changed his IP even in the past month, so my idea of blocking is more for poetic justice than anything useful. (People have had to revert him dozens of times even in one article, so he is quite a pest). I semi-protected four of the articles and closed the AN3 report that way. The next step (not yet taken) is to start semi-protecting talk pages. I have read that Misplaced Pages is not the only website where he is blacklisted for being a nuisance. ] (]) 04:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

== WikiProject College football ] ==
The ''']''' of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.<br /><small>This has been an automated delivery by ] (]) 02:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)</small>

==Userspace==
You have deleted a user page without warning. What reason had I to know that this was even a remote possibility?

Please restore the removed text so that I can profit from the error you have now brought to my attention. If I don't understand, then your action was both pointless as well as intrusive.

I do not perceive this as either appropriate or laudatory; but since I don't understand well enough to be more specific, it is difficult to know how to express my dismay. --] (]) 05:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

:It would appear, based on the following, that you have identified a niche in which you hope to improve Misplaced Pages:
::One of the worst policy decisions Misplaced Pages has made is to allow user and user talk edits to be indexed by search engines. (Note that even though they can be blocked from Google with {{NOINDEX}}, mirrors can still pick them up.) This creates a space that is largely unmonitored for libel and nonsense, but is nonetheless a top g-hit for any relevant search term.

:The whatever-it-was which led to you to do whatever it is you're doing is opaque. The policy which informs your edit is similarly opaque. In my view, you now have an obligation to explain and to mitigate the awkward consequences which now ensue.

:One thing should be clear: I have been heedlessly unsettled by your actions. Two questions are now implied:
:*1. How many others have been caught up in your novel tactic?
:*2 Am I the first, or only one in a strategy of edits which could have been handled differently?
:These questions are not merely rhetorical, but substantial. --] (]) 05:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
::Umm ... yeah. Your subpage contained word-for-word copies of four ] articles. That is copyrighted material and not appropriate to use here. Deleting copyright violations is not awkward, novel, or anything else. --] (]) 13:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

:::] -- Let's move further development of this thread to my talk page. I suspect I will want to archive this for future reference. --] (]) 17:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

== Remember Smoothflow ==

was fairly amusing. Don't hold it against the editor, I just thought you'd get a chuckle. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 08:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
:Wow ... that one lasted for a while without being noticed. Now if we had ] ... --] (]) 13:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

==]==
Thanks B! You fixed it. I appreciate that. ] (]) 21:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

== TfD debate ==

Thanks B for your comments ] on the domestic terrorism template. I was on the verge of just deleting the whole thing myself as a BLP vio but figured that would likely lead to drama and deletion review so a TfD made more sense, though maybe I should have gone with my first instinct. If you are inclined to nuke it feel free and I would obviously support that, though if you want to let the TfD run its course that's obviously fine too. If you decide on the latter I may, as a stop gap measure, go through all the articles of living people and remove the template as we just can't have that thing hanging around on BLPs - a point which I'm trying to communicate to the editor who created what we became the template, I'm sure fully in good faith but without thinking about it in terms of BLP.--] <small>| ] | ]</small> 01:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks very much for taking care of that.--] <small>| ] | ]</small> 13:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
::You're welcome. --] (]) 18:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


== BASTARD ==
== ] ==
Hi B, its now more than three months since ], and I'm contemplating running again. As you were one of the oppose votes last time I wondered if you could give me some feedback as to what you'd like to see change before my next RFA? ''']]]''' 17:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
:What I said on your RFA was about it - your tone didn't sound like you were taking it seriously. You don't have to be rigid and formal, but Misplaced Pages is one of the largest websites and before you are granted the keys to the kingdom, there needs to be a demonstration that you are sufficiently mature for that responsibility. --] (]) 18:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
::OK thanks B, point taken. ''']]]''' 19:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


You are a whinning little bitch ] (]) 07:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
==ArbCom enforcement==
B, please reverse your change. The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion that admins are not to revert other admins in ArbCom enforcement matters. See ]. Let's just let the ANI thread run its course, okay? --]]] 00:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:36, 5 January 2025

I'm largely inactive / 99% retired. There are more important things in life.

If you're an admin looking to ask about a block or delete I made, feel free to reverse it. If we would grant each other the presumption that we are acting in good faith, we could dispense with some of the drama and long ANI threads. Please don't use the {{talkback}} template - if you have something to say, say it.

If you are asking me to review a situation, please provide links to articles and diffs to the edits in question — I cannot read your mind to figure out what you are talking about.


Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Season Greetings

Merry Christmas B


Hi B, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
May next year be prosperous and joyful.
   –Scopecreep 10.43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting Newsletter: May 2024

WikiProject Scouting | May 2024


Notes for May:

Some important articles that need help: The Scout Association, NAYLE, Philmont Training Center, BSA Leadership Training, COPE

Other ways to participate:

--evrik  May 22, 2024


2023-03-01

Precious anniversary

Precious
Nine years!

I don't know if you know that your entry leads the list ;) - Your edit notice makes me point at Talk:Gerhard Klingenberg where a reviewer and I can't agree yet, and I hope for independent eyes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Please see WP:3O for a process for requesting a third opinion. Unfortunately I do not have the time to devote to this at the moment. --B (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Deleting File:614+znGMXnL. SR600,315 PIWhiteStrip,BottomLeft,0,35 PIStarRatingFOURANDHALF,BottomLeft,360,-6 SR600,315 ZA31,445,290,400,400,AmazonEmberBold,12,4,0,0,5 SCLZZZZZZZ FMpng BG255,255,255.png:

Hi, I'm Rocker338, and I am letting you know that I am using File:614+znGMXnL. SR600,315 PIWhiteStrip,BottomLeft,0,35 PIStarRatingFOURANDHALF,BottomLeft,360,-6 SR600,315 ZA31,445,290,400,400,AmazonEmberBold,12,4,0,0,5 SCLZZZZZZZ FMpng BG255,255,255.png on a draft that you cannot see yet, because I haven't figured out how to save a draft before publishing. Rocker338 (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

B-bot needs to check templates which use images and what links there

Hello, your bot marked an imaged I'd uploaded for deletion. I fully understand you may be absent for a while -- a cursory review of my own talk and contributions says I'm away much more often then you are, so I fully agree there are things more important in life than Misplaced Pages. However, because of the short timeline your bot acts on, and because you might not respond for a while, and because there's apparently no oversight on what your bot is doing, and because it doesn't follow the chain of where an image is used, I raised the issue where you suggested to on the bot talk page: "Please ask at WP:HELPDESK. That page is monitored and will get you a rapid response." I made a new section/discussion at Misplaced Pages:Help_desk#Bot_is_marking_images_for_deletion_because_of_non-use,_but_isn't_following_the_full_chain,_and_there's_not_a_great_way_to_chat_about_it. Banaticus (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Banaticus: it looks like your question was answered there. Non-free images are not permitted in templates or article drafts. The bot will tag those as orphaned. If you are drafting an article, you can put a placeholder image in there until the article is ready to move to the mainspace. Then you can upload the image as the very last thing when you are ready to promote the article. If you need to have a non-free image in the infobox, then make a parameter for "image" and fill in the parameter from the article. --B (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

BASTARD

You are a whinning little bitch 2802:8012:15:4F00:24BD:7C09:13DC:8C1 (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)