Misplaced Pages

User talk:Bulldog123: 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 05:33, 3 February 2011 editIronholds (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers79,705 edits →tb: no proof of notability?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:58, 25 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(143 intermediate revisions by 43 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Hey Bulldog. In answer to your question about sourcing Sid Haig's ethnicity, I told you to go to his site and join and ask him yourself. It's also in interviews and his last name is "Mosesian". Some Nazi deleted it. Anyway, there's your answer, as best as I can see it. Cheers. ] (]) 06:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
'''Welcome!'''


==Dispute resolution survey==
Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
{| style="background-color: #CCFFFF; border: 4px solid #3399cc; width:100%" cellpadding="5"
*]
| ]
*]
<big>'''Dispute Resolution – ''Survey Invite'''''</big>
*]
----
*]
Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
*]
*]
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out ] or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!&nbsp; --] (]) 13:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
==Image copyright problem with Image:The_angel_size_18.PNG==
Thanks for uploading ]. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate ], it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
*]
*]

This is an automated notice by ]. For assistance on the image use policy, see ]. 08:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

]

== List of X-Americans ==

I've warned the editors in question that if I see them adding unsourced or poorly sourced material about ] again to the List of X-Americans articles, I will block them. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've started some talk on ] that you might want to give input on. Frankly there are just some groups on wikipedia that seem incessant on holding on to things in the face of all policy, logic, and good sense. See ] as an example. 3 attempts, not a reliable source to be found and we can't get the article deleted, because apparently they're just too cute so everyone thinks we should keep them.--] (]) 10:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you eliminated most of the people listed on the List of Laotian Americans. You left a bunch of non Lao such as Vang Pao and deleted all of the famous and successful Lao Americans. Why did you do this? I reviewed the old list myself and almost all of those deleted where legitimate. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== your idea on my talk page ==
Of course, what you did with ] or ] is very acceptable and you will notice I had no problem with them. I do the same thing with other lists what I watch. I do not have the time/resources to do generally do this work, but if you do, good. It was the blanking of articles and asserting that categories could replace articles that I had a problem with. Thanks ] (]) 03:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

== X-American_lists ==

Please comment: ]. Thanks!--] (]) 18:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Um, do you mind explaining why you transcluded the AfD page ? ] ] 20:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

== WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue V - January 2009 ==

It's here at long last! The ''']''' of the ''WikiProject History of Science newsletter'' is ready, with exciting news about ]. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --] (]) 03:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

==changes to list of Hungarian Americans==
Your changes of ] to ] is not discussed or agreed to by anyone; is disruptive; makes this article different from all the others in ] and serves no useful WP purpose. You may be confused, but you offer no evidence that anyone else is. 'Hungarian Americans', like all other 'Booian Americans' includes the people who just arrived from Hungary and any of their descentants Your changes are just a repeat of your previous disruptive edits in this general subject area and of no help to WP. ] (]) 01:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

==Category:Jewish philanthropists==
Re: ] Your comments that this Category which I created "'''Serves no purpose except to support the obsessions of certain editors'''" is inappropriate and unacceptable at Misplaced Pages. Disagreeing with any edit is fine, but ] are not. I strongly suggest you refrain from any further such statements about anyone at Misplaced Pages. Thanx. ] (]) 13:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

== Signature ==

Hello. Is there a reason you have disabled the link to your user and talk page in your signature? They are provided as a default for a reason. It is important for editors who are working on collaboration and engaging in discussion to be able to contact other editors. By removing these links, you are making this process difficult. In order to contact you, I had to look through the page history for your actual user name. My understanding is that the community frowns upon this type of signature and it could be perceived as "disruptive". ] (]) 00:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
:I second this. Please restore the link. --] <small>] • (])</small> 01:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
::Brownhairedgirl, try to focus on ''the argument on cfds'' and not fall back on trivialities in an attempt to "win" ''something''. <span style='color: #900009;'>Bull</span><span style='color: #FFA500;'>dog</span> 18:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
:::This does not affect the outcome of the CFD. Please read ], which says "It is common practice to include a link to one or more of your user page, user talk page, and contributions page. At least one of those pages must be linked from your signature to allow other editors simple access to your talk page and contributions log.". Note that phrase "at least one of those pages must be linked from your signature": is any of it unclear to you? --] <small>] • (])</small> 23:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
*If you truly feel the need to annoy your fellow editors by not providing a link to your user or talk page, you must at least sign with your actual full username, i.e. "Bulldog123". Please govern yourself accordingly. See also ]. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 19:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
*:Why make it harder for people to communicate with you? How is that helpful? -]<sup>(])</sup> 21:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
::*Bulldog123's stated reason is "". Disliking the messages received is no reason for disrupting communication in this way. --] <small>] • (])</small> 23:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
*My comment above indicated that it was OK to not have a user or user talk page link in your signature; I then read the addition by BrownHairedGirl above. Is there a particular reason you are ignoring the generally well-regarded signature guideline? Please consider putting at least one of these links in your signature. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 23:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
:First of all, the whole thing was brought up by ] ]. Nobody seemed to care before then. Then BrownHairedGirl jumped on the bandwagon, most likely because she's peeved I was questioning her rationale on a recent CfD. Which, frankly, is immature. And had somebody else mentioned it first, perhaps in a less passive-aggressive way (wow - another example), I ''would'' have added back the link. But now it just seems like BrownHairedGirl is having a bit of an "authority-complex" issue. The '''I'm an admin, how dare you not listen to me'''-type of thing. So, it's sort of gnawing on me to ignore her. <span style='color: #900009;'>Bull</span><span style='color: #FFA500;'>dog123</span> 17:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
::had I come across you before, all content disputes aside, I would've asked you to add a link. There's no good reason not to have one. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 17:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:::*Sigh* Fine. I'll put it in when I get a chance. <span style='color: #900009;'>Bull</span><span style='color: #FFA500;'>dog123</span> 17:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Thank you. (I wonder if perhaps you removed the link because you couldn't get the colours right? you can colour links by putting the color code inside the pipe... in case you didn't know) –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 17:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, just for , there are called Bulldog who need diffrentiation! Thanks for agreeing to put the link in, therefore! <font color="#A20846">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 17:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:I agree with other complaints. Failing to provide a link is irritating, and (whatever the actual intention) it comes across as some gittish passive-aggressive agenda to disrupt the ethos of communication between users here. Enough people have told you this. Consider. ] (]) 00:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::Okay. I've already agreed to add the link back hours ago, who the hell is this^ ? <span style='color: #900009;'>Bull</span><span style='color: #FFA500;'>dog123</span> 00:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::: So do it. Now. It's not an issue of "when you have a chance". As I'm sure you know, you just switch to signing with four tildes, thus <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. You can elaborate it later. Treat it logically: ignoring emotive issues, a lot of people have told you that providing no link is disruptive to the communication that's a central part of collaboration here. ] (]) 01:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::::I'd just like to know who you are. You're not an admin, I've never spoken to you before, yet for some reason you've decided to pop in and give your unnecessary two cents - sorry if that makes me suspicious. ] 15:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for adding in the three numbers. But as per ], it's ideal to have a link included. There's no reason not to. I know you've said you'll do it "when you have time," but you can do it now, very quickly. If you go to ], and paste the code below into the "signature" box, check the "raw signature" box, and click save. Then it'll look exa ctly the same, colourful, it'll just link too. Thanks! <font color="#A20846">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 08:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
:<tt><nowiki>]</nowiki></tt>

All right. Done. Jesus, never seen so much fuss over a talk page link. ] 15:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

== Badagnani RFC ==

Hello, Bulldog123. {{User|Eugene2x}} files ] on {{User|Badagnani}}. Since you've known him for a long time, your input on ] would appreciated. Thanks.--] 00:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
==Removal of images==
Could you please stop removing images that people have spent much time and effort searching, uploading, and aligning, such as you have done on French-Americans, Dutch-Americans, Swedish-Americans, etc. It is very time-consuming to replace what you have arbitrarily deleted without consensus. --] (]) 06:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
:Actually, it would make a lot more sense if you discuss BEFORE random replacement of images we can't even verify. I also don't think a reader would benefit in any way just by looking at a few pictures of people who are maybe the 3rd generation from a mix of cultures. ''''']'''''<sup>]</sup> 03:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
::I just don't think one image-of pirate ] sums up the entire representation of French-Americans, ditto for Dutch, Swedes, etc. I pointed out that the editors who had added the images went to a lot of trouble, and Bulldog deleted them ''sans'' comment. End of justification.--] (]) 05:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

== Please include ] ==
Just a simple and friendly suggestion - I've looked through your edits for the past few months, and I've noticed that very few of them provide an ]. Edit summaries are '''extremely important''' on Misplaced Pages, and it would be helpful to the overall Misplaced Pages project if you could please remember to provide one with each edit, even if it is only a simple explanatory word or two. Thanks, and happy editing. --] (]) 16:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

==Message==
{{talkback| Susan118}}
Forgot to leave this last night when I replied to your message, so maybe you already saw it by now. Thanks for coming by to discuss it. --] ] 17:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

== ANI Report ==

Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:|The thread is ]. }}{{#if:|The discussion is about the topic ].}} <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. - Please see ]. ] (]) 22:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

==Polish Americans?==

You realize you removed the entire template and not the image? If you have a problem with the image, why not take it on on the Template:Polish Americans talk page? ] (]) 18:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

:Whoa, Coach K? How is he not a Polish American? Dan Marino, okay, I can't find a good source for that. But Coach K? What about ? ] (]) 19:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Heads up on ]. They formed a virtual shooting squad against you. By the way, why'd you remove ] from before? She has dozens of sources calling her Polish American. I'm not even gonna to bother listing them, just google it. ] (]) 07:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

== Content dispute? ==

It's not a content dispute when you harass everyone who contributes to ethnic articles and try to force them to adhere to your views. Read the talk page of the German American article and its archives. The issue of who constitutes a German American was resolved ''by consensus'' long ago. --'''<font color="#DAA520">]</font><small>&amp;</small><font color="#A0522D">]</font>''' 00:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

== June 2009 ==
] Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a ], talk pages {{#if:Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBT studies| such as ]}} are for discussion related to improving the article, ] about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting ] and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-chat1 --> '' is not a constructive use of editing privileges. Please refrain from such remarks that may be considered trolling by other editors.'' — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 20:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

== Ping ==

I sent you email last night to the address you have at your user page. Did you get it? Thanks.--] (]) 22:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

== Consensus, edit-warring ==

There was a robust talk page conversation at the Andre Geim page. It concerned both the concept and the actual text that you have now -- twice -- deleted. Kindly desist. That is edit warring, and editing against consensus. Please take this as a warning, in lieu of a template warning. Please also note that the page was only unprotected with a warning by the sysop that he was prepared to block anyone who edit-warred over this issue. Best.--] (]) 11:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
*You have continued to edit against consensus with unsupported deletions at the same page. Please take this as a final warning. Please also note that the page was only unprotected with a warning by the sysop that he was prepared to block anyone who edit-warred over this issue. Best.--] (]) 23:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
:*You have know extended your edit warring to List of Jewish Nobel laureates, deleting Geim despite robust supporting citations, against consensus. Please note the wikipedia rules against such deletions without an appropriate rationale, and the attendant sanctions, and consider this a final warning as to edit warring and inappropriate unwarranted deletions of sourced material.--] (]) 09:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
'''Please click to participate.'''<br>
Just a courtesy notification that your (Bulldog's) recent edits are under discussion . Feel free to remove this notice once you have read it. ] (]) 05:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
:Bulldog, I want to apologize to you for my testiness about your edits. I have been editing Misplaced Pages quite a few years, in areas I thought were often full of controversy (political pages especially) but a longer exposure to debate at ] has caused me to realize that my dream of consensus to be reached there by unswerving civility was a pipe dream. ] (]) 23:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

== re your comment at ] ==

I largely agree with your recent comments. You want to nominate this list for deletion? I'll support you. ] (]) 13:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
:I'll probably do it, but I gotta prep myself for it first. You can't imagine the (for lack of a better word) sh*tstorm that ensues when these lists are nominated. ] 00:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
::Yeah. I understand. Well keep in touch. I hate hate hate these kind of shinanigans and would be happy to help in anyway I can. ] (]) 04:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Thanks, Nick. If I start seeing more supporters than detractors, I'll go ahead and nominate it -- which may be soon. ] 21:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello! For your information, there is a larger discussion going on at BLP. I am not canvassing you in any way, and since we have discussed the issue at Andre Geim I just wanted to notify you that your efforts may be redundant, as there is a proposal to remove all ethnic/religious/orientation categories in Wiki. Regards, --] (]) 20:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
::Seems like wishful thinking. I really doubt it will be possible to remove all ethnic-related lists given nationality/ethnicity overlap so often. ] 21:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

== Odd view ==

You've expressed the rather unique view that there is no such thing as a Romanian who is Jewish. And used that to make mass deletions. That view is not correct. Also, you are edit warring. Please take this as a kindly suggestion, of the final sort, to desist in making untrue statemetns, in using them as a basis for revisions, and in edit warring. Best.--] (]) 01:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

== re ] ==

Meh. I just don't care about it that much. But you're absolutely right of course. And the tag on the section - "This section is factually" disputed" is completely ridiculous. No one is disputing that the guy said what he's quoted is saying, so any dispute is over ''whether or not it's true''. OK. So we are saying that it might be true, I guess.

Hoo-boy. I suppose next our article on the construction of the ] will be rewritten to say "Another possibility is that the Hoover Dam appeared instantly one night, by magic, and the same magic altered the records and everyone's memories, and this cannot be disproven" or whatever.

Maybe the section should be rewritten thus:
---- ----
<small>You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated ]. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 23:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)</small>
'''Magic'''<br>
|}
Some analysts have suggested that Ashkenazi intelligence is due to the intervention of magical, supernatural, or alien entities.
----
Maybe I'll suggest this if I ever get back over there... ] (]) 17:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


== Re: removal of source material/restoration of unsourced material ==
== Deleting text in ] ==


The sourced material I removed by who included two rather sneering messages with his edits. The source that user added was a fansite-hosted PDF file of collected quotations (the quotation in question wasn't very well-referenced within that file, only providing the title "10 Questions for Joss Whedon"). I responded to that user's "Absolutely nothing suggesting that" edit summary comment by restoring the previous phrasing but this time with a more thorough reference.
You've text with the reason "Link no longer active". That's no reason to delete and the thing to do in those cases is to tag as a dead link, which allows others to find a live source. A quick look on the Internet Archive would find , but I'm guessing you didn't look. This is all besides the fact that the material wasn't controversial at all. ] (]) 18:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


I admit that in the process of reverting the paragraph back to its previous phrasing, as a side-effect I also restored the the first, unsourced, part of the sentence (the "born Jewish" assertion with the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags). Yes, I should have been bold enough to go ahead and remove it myself - if I'd checked, I'd have realised that it was added by who seems to specialise in claiming that various people are Jewish. If I'd realised that, I ''would'' have removed it. But in the end, mentioning the lack of references in my edit summary was as far as I went.
== Ethnic Categories ==


(Having said all that, looking at the article again just now, I realised that I'd been distracted by the recent edits' focus on the start of the article and had forgotten that there's a whole "Spiritual and philosophical beliefs" section discussing the whole thing more thoroughly. It was entirely unnecessary for beliefs to be mentioned and disputed in the "Early life" section in the first place!) --<span style="font-family:monospace">]<sup>]</sup></span> 00:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
== Neutral notice of an RfC==
A ] has been posted for an article on which you have been an editor. If you wish to comment, go to ]. --] (]) 11:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


== '''The Olive Branch''': A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1) ==
I just stumbled upon something that can, and should be mentioned in any related ethnic/religious discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:EGRS


Welcome to the first edition of ''The Olive Branch''. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in ] (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are ], but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to ].
Specifically:
]
In this issue:
* '''Background''': A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
* '''Research''': The most recent DR data
* '''Survey results''': Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
* '''Activity analysis''': Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
* '''DR Noticeboard comparison''': How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
* '''Discussion update''': Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
* '''Proposal''': It's time to close the ]. Agree or disagree?
<div style="text-align:center; font-size:larger;">]</div>


--''The Olive Branch'' 18:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
"General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality is permitted, with the following considerations:
<!-- EdwardsBot 0345 -->
4) Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity, but is not required to be an exclusive interest. Moreover, inclusion is not transitive to any other activity. (For example: a notable LGBT activist is not automatically included in a corresponding LGBT musician category, unless also notable for one or more LGBT-related music compositions or performances.)"


==Disambiguation link notification for November 8==
In relation to the Andre Geim issue, and the more broad Jewish/Chinese/Etc scientist categories I think this pretty much settles it.
Basically, unless the person's activities have something to do with the ethnicity/religion, they shouldn't be used. Regards,--] (]) 22:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ] and ] (]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>
== Here's an idea for you ==


Why don't you nominate for deletion ]? Regards.--] (]) 04:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC) It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


==disruptive edits==
:Re: in response to Mbz1, the only reason it's a "relatively well kept article by comparison to others" is because I've been adamant in insisting it be properly sourced. On the other hand, for those who insist "Jewish" must also be "self-identification", and "specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity", I doubt any of the sources used support that. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
::I really don't think that was Mbz1's intent; I think Mbz1 truly thinks that one should be deleted. And I think it's pretty clear to Mbz1 and anyone else that I'd be happy to have it deleted too; my efforts have merely been the "second best option". ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC) If you think that an article needs to be repurposed and the content substantially altered, you need to first try to obtain consensus from other interested editors or stop your edits. As it is, your edits are simply disruptive to the functioning of WP ] (]) 05:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
:::One only should have taken a look at the article's to see that I'd rather had it deleted, but Bulldog123 came up with conspiracy theories and assumed bad faith. BTW, if you are to respond, could you please respond here. There is no need to have the same discussion in 3 different places. --] (]) 03:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
::::Where on that discussion page did you say you want the list deleted? The only thing you did on that talk page is complain about listing criminals as businesspeople. ] 03:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be best to wait for the outcome of the 5 current AfDs. Based on that, it should be more clear whether or not other lists should be nominated. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
*(ec)Well, yes, but it is seen behind my comments. Because the article got the way it did, I strongly believe it should be better off deleted, and it is my own personal opinion, which has absolutely nothing to do with Jayig. The thing is that when I commented on the article's discussion page I had no idea it could be nominated on deletion. Although I was contributing to wikipedia since 2007, I was mostly contributing images, and only in 2010 I started writing lots of articles, and even now there are still many policies that I do not know.--] (]) 03:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


==Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!==
== Talkback ==


{|style="background:#CEE3F6; border:1px solid #cee3f6; margin:0.5em; padding:0.5em;border-radius: 8px;"
{{Talkback|NickCT|Nominations}}
|-
!colspan=2 style="font-size:150%;"|] Misplaced Pages Partnership - We need ''you!''
|-
|]
|Hi '''{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}ROOTPAGENAME}}'''! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the ], a project of the ] and ]. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Misplaced Pages using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editors are welcome! (But being multilingual is not a requirement.) Please sign up to participate ]. Thanks for editing Misplaced Pages and I look forward to working with you! ] (]) 21:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
|}


==Disambiguation link notification for July 27==
== Outing ==


Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>
Hello bulldog. Could you please revert ASAP?--] (]) 03:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Why? Surreptitious canvassing is not allowed. ] 03:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
:Well, specifying that IP address belongs to particular editor is outing. It does not really matter who, and if was canvasing who. If you are to respond, please do respond here. There's no reason to have discussion in 2 different places.--] (]) 03:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
::Okay, you can remove it if you want. It doesn't really matter. ] 03:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
:::I'd rather you removed it. It is your comment after all.--] (]) 03:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
::::As the relevant outed editor, I would prefer to have it removed, regardless of who does it, and I wouldn't mind an admin cleaning up the original post from my IP while we're at it. Also, Bulldog, I've answered your "five notable Jews" challenge at the laureates AfD. - ] (]) 03:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
*Bulldog, was there actually evidence of off-wiki canvassing in this case? I can't tell because of the revdeletes. If there is, can you please post that evidence at ]? Thanks. ]&nbsp;<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
:*Bulldog123 was referring to an email I received from Epeefleche, which was in neutral terms itself but may constitute canvassing depending on who else received it. The text of the email is: "Hi. I saw that you commented on a similar AfD, so in the event that it interest you I'm letting you know of the existence of this AfD: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_actors Best". I post the text for your reference, but I do not wish to participate in the ANI case and do not believe that any of the Jewish list AfDs have been improperly influenced by Epeefleche's actions such as to require intervention. My argument in the AfD he was referring to was a Keep, and after receiving this email I declined to vote on any further Jewish list AfDs. - ] (]) 00:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
::*Thanks for the honest assessment and for coming forward, DFW. ]&nbsp;<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 10:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
== duck ==


== American sportspeople of descent categories ==
It is better if you report it at the correct noticeboard than speculate about it on the users talkpage when he is blocked. ] (]) 20:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
==Talkback==
{{talkback|Jayjg|Re:|ts=01:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)}}


Several categories that were deleted following this ] have been re-formed. Would you care to re-nominate them or should I? ] (]) 16:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
== Your recent CfD, following procedure ==


==Disambiguation link notification for November 1==
Hi Bulldog: As you may have noted I have actually been in agreement with ''some'' of your recent nominations of ]' lists and categories. But, in your recent spate of nominating various lists and categories of ] for deletion, in your haste and zeal, you have evidently overlooked an important ] of informing those users who have created categories etc that you are nominating their hard work for deletion, as advised on all deletion instruction pages, if you had cared to look. I have now recently done so on your behalf at ] and ]. You can find more information about how to go about doing so at pages such as ], ] and others like that. In addition, it is standard practice to ALSO notify the relevant WP deletion project pages, such as at ] at a minimum, as well as notifying users at ] about your concerns and nominations relating to many lists and categories that are of great interest and important to the Judaic editors there. Looking forward to your full cooperation in this regard, and hoping that no one has to run around and clean up after you in the future (because it's time consuming but unavoidable when you sincerely care about those subjects and are not just on a deletionistic rampage). Thanks so much, ] (]) 13:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ] and ] (]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>
:Sorry to butt in here, but IZAK needs to not accuse you of deletionistic rampage. As well, while it is courteous to notify other edits of a deletion nomination it is by no means policy. IZAK sometimes can say come across a little overzealous. Keep up the good work. ] 06:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 19:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
==Talkback==
== January 2014 ==
{{talkback|Jayjg|Re:|ts=00:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)}}


] Hello, I'm ]. I have automatically detected that to ] may have broken the ] by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
==]==
:List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
*<nowiki>ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBw] "<u>Armenian-American</u> community... '''Yousuf Karsh''' </nowiki>{{red|'''&#40;'''}}<nowiki>1908-"</ref></nowiki>
Thanks, <!-- (1, 0, 0, 0) --><!-- User:BracketBot/inform -->] (]) 09:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


==Disambiguation link notification for January 11==
Hi Bulldog123. As you were a chief complainant in the recent discussion of canvassing at list AfDs, I am sure you are well aware of Misplaced Pages's policy on canvassing. You would therefore know that selectively inviting other users to AfDs on the basis that you believe they will support your position (as you appear to have done ) is very strongly against Misplaced Pages policy. Would you care to explain that diff? - ] (]) 00:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)==


Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ] and ] (]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>
=="Meatpuppet"==
Regarding , I'm pretty convinced from the editor's contributions that they're not a sock but rather a novice editor with an interest in Jewish faith and culture, but there's no harm in the attention you've drawn to their editing history. "Meatpuppet", though, is an unnecessarily offensive term, both to the editor in question and to others supporting the editor's position who might be implied to be "operating" the sock (see ]). Would you care to perhaps withdraw the comment, or alternatively change it to read "Editors' attention is drawn to ]," or something similar? That would comply with the requirement to assume good faith and have the added advantage of linking to the relevant policy. It's generally regarded as bad form to alter another user's comment on a talk page, or I'd just edit it myself to reflect your presumed intention and allow you to revert if you disagreed. - ] (]) 06:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
:I'll take your advice, only because it's probably unwise to draw attention to it right now. Let the "editor" edit some more and we'll see if it was a single purpose account or not. However, novice editors don't "stumble upon" AfDs. ] 06:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 08:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
==List AfDs==
Hey Bulldog, looking at some of your recent List AfD arguments, it seems like at least PART of your argument is saying, "Look, these lists are in bad shape, and I don't know how to fix them short of AfD." While that's still not a valid argument for deletion, would you be interested in getting my help cleaning them up and arguing at their talk pages after the AfD closes? I'm not hugely keen to work on them but it seems like it might be a more productive use of my time to improve them rather than just fight AfDs over them. - ] (])
==Talkback==
{{talkback|Jayjg|Okay, why are you not defending your nominations?|ts=03:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)}}


== ] ==
== Latest AfDs & Discussions ==


{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I just read something that I think describes the whole partisan situation pretty accurately: http://newskeptic.blogspot.com/2007/01/wikipedia-is-joke.html
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692007949 -->


== ]: Voting now open! ==
In general, I think this applies to all encyclopedias (they are edited by people, and all people have biases), but in the case of Misplaced Pages, I think it is especially true.


{{Ivmbox|Hello, Bulldog123. Voting in the ''']''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
Looking at the stats and seeing a few thousand admins, and a hundred thousand users, I can't help but wonder why important discussions gather no more than 50 people. I can understand that those others might not be interested in those topics (although they are very important), but doesn't that mean that only biased (opinionated) people would participate in the discussions?

Anyways, sorry about the rant, hopefully the editors who voted "keep" meant what they said about their desire to review, and improve the lists. We shall see.--] (]) 14:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
:Yeah. Life is sad. We tried to persuade, we failed. In about two or so years, that list - with all the same problems it has now - will be put back up for AfD by someone. I'm pretty much certain of that. In any case, there's this movement to try to get Misplaced Pages programmers to build a feature where individuals can search by intersecting categories (it has a specific name but I can't seem to remember what it was called). If someone was interested in "Bulgarian Jewish actors with dwarfism" they could search the encyclopedia by intersecting the categories Bulgarian, Jewish, actor, and people with dwarfism and get a list returned to them. If that were to be implemented, all the lists under AfD recently would become obsolete and be deleted in a flash... essentially saving wikipedia's credibility. I'm really praying/hoping/yearning that that will happen one day. I'll probably see you at the eventual DRV for ]. Though... given there's now precedent... I'm not going to participate much. ] 15:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

Darn..... well. Might be wise to sit on this and re approach later...... ] (]) 17:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
*Or get to work on improving the article to deal with your content concerns, perhaps using ]. - ] (]) 22:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
:*Uh... we're not the ones who wanted to keep it. I've already made my position very clear about the impossibility of an OR-free inclusion criteria. It's now '''your''' job to make the improvements ''you'' wanted. Get to work. ] 00:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
::*I didn't want any improvements. I like the lists just fine the way they are. I've said this at each and every occasion you've suggested it. The problems were suggested by you, and for all I know may exist entirely in your mind. My offer to help address your concerns via your talk page above was ignored; I've thus moved onto a ]. If you've got the energy to take these to AfD, and fight so strenuously for their deletion, but not to thereafter address the problems that you say exist in the article, then probably you're not really motivated by the desire to create a high-quality encyclopaedia. Or at least, that maybe those problems aren't quite so worldshaking as you'd have us believe. - ] (]) 00:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
:::*My !votes were not '''Keep and let's fix'''. My !votes were '''Delete. It's unfixable and here's why'''. Your !votes were the former, though, as entirely expected, you are denying the '''let's fix''' part, despite , which would have been totally unnecessary if you believed the lists to be notable intersections merely because the words "Irish American actor" or "Jewish American actor" return google hits. Your point was that the ''topic'' was notable, and so the content (right now) doesn't matter. However, now you're saying the content is also notable and it '''totally 100% reflects the topic''', even though your conversations with me frequently responded with remarks like - ''that can be changed by editing'' - instead of - ''No, you're wrong. It doesn't need to be changed. Here's why.'' A lot of passive argumentation going on there. So... that's what I'm saying... <u>get to work</u>. Find all those sources establishing the universal link between an actor's Jewishness/Irishness/Italian-ness and their acting... like you think did for ]. Otherwise, they are just indiscriminate lists of sitting under an unrelated topic. Using your standards, most of the list entries are direct violations of ]: Source 1: . Source 2: . Source 1 + Source 2 = Source 3: . Also, if you believe the problems for the Jewish actors list existed entirely in my mind, you might want to go and contact ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] and let them know their same concerns are fabrications of some DustFormsWords-diagnosed mental disorder I have. The other !delete voters were terse, so I don't really know their positions and won't speak for them. Unlike you, however, we've all since realized there is no way to make this list a notable (and non-]) intersection without supplying a contentious, potentially misleading, original research-derived criteria (which is disallowed anyway as the title of the article needs to reflect the contents 100%). Yet, not a single source was provided even ''defining'' exactly what is a "Jewish actor" or "British Jewish actor" and how, thereby, all the list's entries fall into that category - most of the information dug-up was laughable . But the !keep voters were clear. These lists are notable because of ''tangentially-related source #1'', ''tangentially-related source #2'', and ''barely-related source #3''. Literally 90% of the sources used to verify "Jewish-hood" on the Jewish actors article are from culture or ethnicity-promoting magazines/publications (Jewishjournal, Jweekly, JVibe, clevelandjewishnews, JewishTribune, TheJewishWeek, etc...), whose only statement-of-purpose is to make individuals proud of their (externally-imposed) ethnic heritage and thereby have Grandmother Muriel be happy that her favorite soap star is Jewish like her (by whatever criteria they see fit). ] did a pretty good job summarizing that last point in the Jewish Nobel Laureates AfD: . If I was Epeefleche, I would have canvassed him to give his two cents in these debates, regardless of whether he !voted keep or delete (and either way, it would have been inappropriate). The point being: the sources in the Jewish actors article '''do nothing to establish the notability between being Jewish and being an actor''' - so go find the ones that do. By voting ''!keep it's fixable,'' that's now your prerogative. With that, we'll go about our different wiki-paths. I'd also appreciate if you'd abstain from ] unless you want to leave me a message directly. ] 11:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
::::*TL;DR. (Oh, except I just spotted the end bit. Sure, if you don't want help or good advice, that's your prerogative. I'll confine interacting with you to AfDs.) - ] (]) 22:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

==Fooian Americans==
There is a long standing consensus written into WP articles that fooian Americans are based on the country the people came from. You may not like it, but that is the way it is. You seem to want articles based on ethnic background. Fine, create them. You can make articles named 'Ethnic fooian American' and 'List of ethnic fooian Americans' very easily by starting with the name, copying and pasting content from the existing country articles, then editing to remove all non-ethnic entries. In this way, you will not have conflict with the country-article maintainers, which is surely unpleasant for everyone, non-productive, and not helpful to WP. Think about it; try it and see. ] (]) 03:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
:The US census treats Fooian Americans as an ethnic group. Most external sources treat Fooian Americans as distinct ancestral and ethnic groups. The numbers on the infoboxes treat Fooian Americans as ethnic groups. If Wikipedians formed some long-standing consensus (I'd like to see where that discussion was) that Fooian Americans should be treated as "based on the country the people came from" then we've engaged in original research and need to reform that immediately. ] 12:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
::I don't know how to trace history in WP. What I know is that each 'fooian American' article states that the people involved are 'by country'. The consensus is that this is what WP editors have agreed to (by not agreeing to change this) for a long time. This is found in the first sentences of these articles--and they do not cite US census categories as justifications for these first sentences. The census does not dicta what WP does. It is every editor who has read or edited these articles, not just me, who consents to this. It is also previous attempts to change the articles or their categories which have failed every time--as you well know as virtually all your attempts to make such changes have failed and continue to fail. As I said, you and WP would be better served it you created articles that specifically say 'ethnic' in their name and purpose so there is no question about what they contain, instead of engaging in ongoing attempts to re-purpose the existing articles by deleting content and changing purposes one article at a time-- without discussion or agreement from anyone else involved with the articles, whether considered individually or collectively. ] (]) 19:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

*For what it is worth, your position (as I understand it) against these ethnicity lists/categories has my full support (for reasons close to yours). Please keep me informed. ] (]) 17:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

== vandalism ==

You refuse to obtain consensus. Unilateral blanking of established content is vandalism. ] (]) 03:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
:"Blanking" unsourced material is not considered vandalism per ]. ] 05:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

== Re WP:BLPCAT ==

The discussion doesn't really seem to be going anywhere, and looks more or less dead. To be honest, I'm not convinced that altering BLPCAT itself will really solve the problem, as BLP policy in general is ignored far too often. I'm inclined to think that it will be more productive for now to argue for stricter enforcement of ''existing'' policy than try to change it, when such change will have little real effect. ] (]) 02:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

== Template:X-American-list-entry ==

Does this template have an option to provide a link to a disambiguated title? The list ] contains about 30 links that go to dab pages and not the correct article. ] (]) 14:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

== Please stop ==

Hi Bulldog123, may I please ask to stop using the words "garbage", when you are are talking about my work. Also I'd like to use an opportunity and ask you to stop trolling and spreading lies about me like you , when you said about me: "Fact is, user has '''10 blocks''' in her block log and appears to regularly hound more than 5 users". I have never hounded anyone, but have been hounded myself. I am not looking forward for your response, but, if you are to respond please do it here.--] (]) 23:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:Hi Bulldog, Mbz1 also responded to my Delete !vote on ] with , following that up with a message on my talk page, again claiming my statement (that this was her third self-nominated DYK in a month on the theme of stupid/murderous Muslims) was false. I tried to find out what part of my statement was incorrect, but all I discovered was that since returning from her latest block she has been misusing the DYK system to plant links to POV content on the front page.
: Mbz's talk page and yours are on my watchlist because I once posted there, btw, which is how I knew about her other recent DYK articles in the first place. ] (]) 02:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
::Not hard to promote a DYK when all you need to do is get one crony to and another crony to . I wonder on what speed-dial settings she has brewcrewer, Jalapenos_do_exist, and Broccolo. 1, 2, and 3? Ready to vote-stack whenever an agenda-threatening AfD shows up? Still not sure which one's Shuki... maybe one I'm overlooking. ] 07:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Bulldog123, this really isn't helpful. Sean.Hoyland, for example, is not a "crony" of Mbz1's; quite the opposite, if anything. I've never seen Mbz1 do or write anything that was deceptive or dishonest; if she said she didn't contact people regarding that AfD, then she didn't. Please stop making the accusation here and on the AfD; it's not fair to her, it's not good for you, and it's not making it more likely that article will be deleted. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
::::As much as I respect you as an editor and agree with most of your positions, I'm going to have to say this is an instance where your assumption of good faith borders on ''naive''. Here's another example of . We need to set aside politics for a second and acknowledge when people are obviously using this encyclopedia for propagandist purposes... which is the case with Mbz1's use of DYK. ] 20:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::Lots of people use Misplaced Pages for propagandist purposes – in fact, many articles on ''both'' sides of this topical area exist for no other purpose – and, regarding "politics", I count at least four editors who have !voted on this AfD who consistently edit Misplaced Pages from the opposite political POV of Mbz1. Politics are endemic in Misplaced Pages in general, and certainly in this topical area. It's naive to imagine they will somehow disappear for this specific AfD. However, that's all irrelevant to the issue I've raised, which are these personal comments and accusations. If Mbz1 says she did not ask these people to !vote on this AfD then I believe her, and in any event these accusations do no-one any good. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::Respectfully ], I have to concur with ] here. I'm surprised you could see and not be at least suspect a ] mentality from this user. ] (]) 20:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::Mbz1 is obviously distressed because of these accusations, and no doubt because of other recent events affecting her on Misplaced Pages. Nevertheless, even if she expresses her distress in an inappropriate way, that's no cause for continuing to make claims that she explicitly denies. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
(restart indents) If we cut Mbz1 some slack for being distressed by Bulldog's arguments, I think we should give Bulldog similar slack for being distressed by her attacks and taunts at him, first on the AfD and now here on his talk page. I look forward to seeing Jayjg address Mbz1 on her talk page to ask her to stop insulting people who disagree with her, it doesn't help her cause either. ] (]) 22:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::::It's fine. I told Mbz1 I'd stop talking about her unless an RFC pops up, so I'm just gonna stick with that right now. Self-imposed interaction ban. ] 22:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Thank you. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

== ==

:That poor bulldog
:Got lost in ],
:Cannot get out of the fog
:To file complains, ask for blocks...
:I feel so sorry for bulldog!
:He does not sleep, he does not eat,
:He's only searching for my
:He lost the last of self-controlling,
:And only , , . :-)

It is scary to think that such users as you are could make such contributes as I am blocked. Poor wikipedia!--] (]) 20:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
:The level of defensiveness that you feel about all this only substantiates what I believe as true. If you actually believed I was trolling you (for what reason, I don't know), you'd ignore it completely. ] 20:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
::"The level of defensiveness"? Not at all. I'm simply having a great time, and I do thank you for your posts that I cannot stop laughing about. :-) BTW did you like my poem? --] (]) 20:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
:::It was okay, I guess. ] 20:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
::::], this is getting a little disturbing now. Your poems aren't good, and I don't think they're appreciated. If you and Bull have been having trouble, perhaps a voluntary interaction ban might be in order. ] (]) 20:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::Well, I tried to make it (the poem that is) funny, and I believe it is funny. About the interaction ban, sure,I will vote for this with both hands, if it means that bulldog will stop commenting on me in almost each and every of his post. Bulldog, are you OK with that?--] (]) 20:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::I'm done. I changed my !vote to express a merge compromise on the AfD (which likely won't be accepted, but whatever). I won't comment on you any more unless an RFC comes up regarding your shady DYK contributions. That's all. ] 21:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Oh that RFC... I guess one day I will be banned as many content contributes have been, poor, poor wikipedia.

:::::::BTW I have to admit that my opinion about you became just a little bit better, when you did not get angry with me because of my poem. I simply tried to be funny, and not offensive in any way. Of course I realize that the culture I came from, and my sense of humor could be very different from yours, but anyway...--] (]) 21:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The Vogons had a different culture, too, as was realised when experiencing ]. Any similarities are purely coincidental. Mbz1, although you happily ignored , I am glad that your latest article is something that (as I read it in the current version) tries to appeal to all sides. I hope it is well received! --] (]) 23:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

== I've been getting fond of ] ==

How many accounts do I need to list in my newest addition to ] from this AFD you've got going on? LOL <font face="Segoe script">]]</font> 06:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

== Barnstar for Bulldog ==

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="top" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|]|]}}

|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''Civility Award'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | to Bulldog, for recent forbearance when provoked, including your recent responses to Mbz1, your kind message on my talkpage even though I had criticized you, and above all your refusal to be trolled by people who just love to watch a good fight. ] (]) 19:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
|}


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.
== What, another barnstar? ==


If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
They're starting to pile up here.
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
{{Disambiguator's Barnstar|For clearing up every single dablink in ]}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/12&oldid=750556849 -->
Thanks! --]] 06:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


== Template:White people == == November 2016 ==
] Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of ], such as the edit you made to ], did not appear constructive and has been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our ] which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use ] for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-disruptive1 --> ] (]) 05:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


== Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion ==
Hi, saw your comment in ], and I wondered what your opinion of ] (at the bottom of the article) was? I've amended it slightly ;-) but frankly I think it needs to be deleted with rapidity. Where would be the best place to inform interested parties of this monstrosity, with regard to removing it from sight? ] (]) 18:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
]
:I think most people would consider that edit to be vandalism.''']]]''' 12:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
::If you consider it vandalism, report it as such. I consider the template racist, and as such a violation of policy in any article referring to living persons. ] (]) 15:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 07:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for ] and violating the ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''}}.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. &nbsp;] (]) 08:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-3block -->
== Images RfC ==


== Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion ==
Hi. I just wanted to check whether you still plan to start an RfC about the use of images in ethnic group article infoboxes, as discussed ]? ] (]) 10:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. The thread is ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 20:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


== December 2016 ==
{{talkback|Cordless Larry|Images RfC}}
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''72 hours''' for ] and violating the ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''}}.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. &nbsp;<span style="color: #9932CC">]<sup>]</sup></span> 03:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-3block -->
{{unblock reviewed|reason=Please double check the page. I did not violate the three-revert rule because I never reverted to the same version three times. Each edit was different. Thanks and I understand that it looked that way so I don't blame you for blocking me without checking. ] 04:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)|decline=You need to read ] again. It doesn't matter if it wasn't the same version. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)}}


{{unblock reviewed | 1=My 3RR was justified per: "Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material." Users are using wording that is borderline libelous, but don't care because the biography is of someone they consider contemptible. See for yourself on ]. ] 09:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC) | decline = Immediately after your prior block for edit-warring, you resumed. This time around, you need to show you achieved consensus, but that's not the case. After looking into the edits, I don't believe this is a BLP violation in this specific case. Note that I have no idea who this person is. Apart from reviewing unblock requests, I have never heard of him before. ] (]) 14:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)}}
== Declined PROD, now at AfD: ] ==


== Stop edit-warring against consensus ==
Sorry for the extra loop around the administrative track, details of my declining the PROD and AfD nomination are at ]. Your input it welcome. --<font color='#66dd44'>]]</font> 20:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


If you don't cease your disruptive edit-warring across an array of articles related to white supremacy, a ] action may become necessary. You have already been blocked twice for edit-warring related to this material, and it should be abundantly clear that editorial consensus disagrees with you. If you can't edit in keeping with that consensus, you need to find some other topic area to edit. Your personal beliefs in this matter do not supersede reliable sources. ] (]) 09:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
== Funny thing... ==
::Misplaced Pages isn't run on consensus without sources. I already explained what the problem is. Conflating one thing and saying its the other doesn't work. You can continue to ignore it, but in that case I will engage in the slow edit war to protect the truth. ] 02:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
::: There are numerous sources, which you appear to be ignoring and then claiming they don't exist. Misplaced Pages isn't run on an editor claiming that "up is down" and "east is west". ] (]) 02:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


== Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion ==
Yet another ] on a jewish BLP in which Epee is heavily involved that ends in no consensus, due to a chorus of too many voices contributing to the discussion. Curious. ]&nbsp;<sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 03:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' ''']''' from editing for ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''}}.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. </p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> ] ] 03:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC) <br clear="both">
== tb ==
:Since you've chosen to continue editing warring on the same article, I have blocked this account again. Unfortunately, since you have ''explicitly'' promised to continue violating our edit warring policy going forward, I have blocked this account indefinitely. ] ] 03:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


{{unblock reviewed | 1=Uh, dude, you're totally overstepping. I said I'd provide the editors a chance to provide sources for their claims on a ] where there's a clear lack of ] on the subject matter. I wasn't engaging in any disruptive edit war, and it's perfectly within my right as an editor to make changes I see as being against Misplaced Pages policy. You're being trigger-happy here. ] 14:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC) | decline = It is most definitely not within your right to edit war to make disputed changes you see as being against Misplaced Pages policy (except for a few explicit and unambiguous exceptions, which are not met here), and you do not get to impose your own conditions on other editors. This is your third block for edit warring, yet you still do not appear to have understood what you are doing wrong. You will not be unblocked until you can make a convincing case that you do understand and that you will change your approach to editing - and that includes your dropping of your insistence that you "''...will engage in the slow edit war to protect the truth''". ] (]) 15:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)}}
{{tb|User_talk:Joe_Decker#Care_to_explain_yourself.3F}}


{{unblock reviewed | 1=What exactly did I do to justify a ban? Ban me after the fact if I prove to be disruptive. These pre-emptive strikes reek of partisanship. ] 00:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC) | decline = This is your third block for edit warring. That's what you did. Further unblock requests that do not directly address the reason for your block will result in talkpage access being revoked. ]] 03:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)}}
== "no proof of notability" ==
:This seems to be explained above; you have edited disruptively and you have been blocked for it. Since you've promised to continue the problematic behavior, you'll need to convince someone that the behavior will change. You will also need to stop evading your block and editing logged out, please. That does not help your case. ] ] 00:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Could you explain exactly what that means, , for example? Many of these people are quite obviously notable, and a lack of evidence of notability should be followed by a deletion discussion, not the removal of a "see also" section. Thanks, ] (]) 05:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
::This is why this your ban is hard to take seriously. .Firstly, you're asking me to get on my hands and knees and beg you for an unblock. I've been an editor on Misplaced Pages for a decade. I'm not going to kiss the ring of some dude who decided to be a hero. You full well know this ban is overkill and (possibly) politically-motivated. Secondly, you're now outright accusing me of evading a block by editing while logged out... with zero evidence. Please cite the examples of me editing while logged out since this block please. Back up what you claim. (I know you guys intentionally don't do that on articles you disagree with politically, but at least stick to your principles as administrators and don't hurl accusations you can't back up) ] 13:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
:::To be perfectly clear, you have not been editing with an IP since your block? ] ] 17:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
::::Dude, I couldn't even edit with a naked IP address even if I wanted to since my block. I only have one IP address, it's not dynamic (or at least it doesn't seem to change much), and you blocked it. Whoever you think is me, isn't. ] 03:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
::::: That seems unlikely. The same IP waited out the IP autoblock and continued the long-term edit war you've been playing with at ] well after this account was blocked. ] ] 06:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::Yes, obviously that was me. What's your point? I'm not purposely evading a ban there if I sign my name afterwards. And if I made some minor edits off an IP address before realizing I was perma-banned, that's not exactly "maliciously evading a ban" either. We don't always remember to sign in. And yes, I don't exclusively go online from my house, and I expect you don't either. I work at a school with wifi so obviously I'm using frequently-shared IP addresses. I'm sure hundreds of people edit Misplaced Pages from this school. But whatever --- if you want to pin some stuff from an old IP address to justify a ban, okay, do whatever you need. ] 12:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
:::::::You've asked me to "back up my claim". I have provided you evidence of that claim. You have admitted to evading the block placed on the account. I asked you, above, to politely cease doing this. You can spin this into your persecution complex however you like. Good luck. ] ] 14:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Actually, it looks to me like the IP edit was made before the block - Bulldog123 couldn't have added his sig to it immediately afterwards had he been blocked at the time. ] (]) 14:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::The diff was to establish that it was his IP; the evasion was the , which all occurred well after the block of the main account on 12/28. ] ] 14:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::Ah, understood. ] (]) 14:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::If you can look up "login times," you'll notice I didn't even realize I was spontaneously banned until after making those edits. ] is basically digging for reasons to justify his perma-ban. ] 03:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
:Look, 3 different admins have blocked you for edit warring - and 4 other different admins have tried to explain that your blocks are due to edit warring - and that's just recently. You have been repeatedly warned that this is where behavior of this sort will lead. Perhaps it's time to consider that this isn't just some massive politically motivated conspiracy, and maybe you're just breaking the rules here? ]] 03:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
::I've been editting Misplaced Pages for a decade and have engaged in many debates on controversial topics. Many of these debates included what you would consider "edit wars" because I refused to allow the dessimation of information that is patently false (especially on ] articles). Yet, I get a pre-emptive perma-ban the second I start challenging the blatant orthodoxy on display at the highly controversial and political ] article. What a coincidence!
::You're right hough. It's not a conspiracy, because conspiracies are not this transparent, but it is obviously political. The easiest thing would be to change the wording to more accurately reflect reliable sources. But, hey, that doesn't support the narrative Misplaced Pages wants to promulgate, so I guess permabans for anyone not towing the line are way easier than justifying the diction. ] 12:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:58, 25 February 2023

Hey Bulldog. In answer to your question about sourcing Sid Haig's ethnicity, I told you to go to his site and join and ask him yourself. It's also in interviews and his last name is "Mosesian". Some Nazi deleted it. Anyway, there's your answer, as best as I can see it. Cheers. 76.89.232.168 (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Bulldog123. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 23:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: removal of source material/restoration of unsourced material

The sourced material I removed was added by an anonymous IP who included two rather sneering messages with his edits. The source that user added was a fansite-hosted PDF file of collected quotations (the quotation in question wasn't very well-referenced within that file, only providing the title "10 Questions for Joss Whedon"). I responded to that user's "Absolutely nothing suggesting that" edit summary comment by restoring the previous phrasing but this time with a more thorough reference.

I admit that in the process of reverting the paragraph back to its previous phrasing, as a side-effect I also restored the the first, unsourced, part of the sentence (the "born Jewish" assertion with the {{fact}} tags). Yes, I should have been bold enough to go ahead and remove it myself - if I'd checked, I'd have realised that it was a very recent addition to the article added by this anon user who seems to specialise in claiming that various people are Jewish. If I'd realised that, I would have removed it. But in the end, mentioning the lack of references in my edit summary was as far as I went.

(Having said all that, looking at the article again just now, I realised that I'd been distracted by the recent edits' focus on the start of the article and had forgotten that there's a whole "Spiritual and philosophical beliefs" section discussing the whole thing more thoroughly. It was entirely unnecessary for beliefs to be mentioned and disputed in the "Early life" section in the first place!) --Nick R 00:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutral notice of an RfC

A Request for Comment has been posted for an article on which you have been an editor. If you wish to comment, go to Talk:List of African-American firsts# Request for Comment: Pro wrestling. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

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

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

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

--The Olive Branch 18:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Armenian Americans, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Republican and Notre Dame (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

disruptive edits

If you think that an article needs to be repurposed and the content substantially altered, you need to first try to obtain consensus from other interested editors or stop your edits. As it is, your edits are simply disruptive to the functioning of WP Hmains (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Misplaced Pages Partnership - We need you!
Hi Bulldog123! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Misplaced Pages using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editors are welcome! (But being multilingual is not a requirement.) Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Misplaced Pages and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lev Nusberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

American sportspeople of descent categories

Several categories that were deleted following this discussion have been re-formed. Would you care to re-nominate them or should I? Tewapack (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Igor Markevitch, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ukrainian and Serbian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Armenian Americans may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBw] "<u>Armenian-American</u> community... '''Yousuf Karsh''' (1908-"</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Armenian Americans, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Republican and Notre Dame (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bulldog123. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Richard B. Spencer, did not appear constructive and has been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Someguy1221 (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Bulldog123 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: ). Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Katie 03:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bulldog123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please double check the page. I did not violate the three-revert rule because I never reverted to the same version three times. Each edit was different. Thanks and I understand that it looked that way so I don't blame you for blocking me without checking. Bulldog123 04:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You need to read WP:3RR again. It doesn't matter if it wasn't the same version. --jpgordon 04:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bulldog123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My 3RR was justified per: "Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material." Users are using wording that is borderline libelous, but don't care because the biography is of someone they consider contemptible. See for yourself on Richard Spencer. Bulldog123 09:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Immediately after your prior block for edit-warring, you resumed. This time around, you need to show you achieved consensus, but that's not the case. After looking into the edits, I don't believe this is a BLP violation in this specific case. Note that I have no idea who this person is. Apart from reviewing unblock requests, I have never heard of him before. Yamla (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Stop edit-warring against consensus

If you don't cease your disruptive edit-warring across an array of articles related to white supremacy, a Arbitration Enforcement action may become necessary. You have already been blocked twice for edit-warring related to this material, and it should be abundantly clear that editorial consensus disagrees with you. If you can't edit in keeping with that consensus, you need to find some other topic area to edit. Your personal beliefs in this matter do not supersede reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't run on consensus without sources. I already explained what the problem is. Conflating one thing and saying its the other doesn't work. You can continue to ignore it, but in that case I will engage in the slow edit war to protect the truth. Bulldog123 02:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
There are numerous sources, which you appear to be ignoring and then claiming they don't exist. Misplaced Pages isn't run on an editor claiming that "up is down" and "east is west". Rockypedia (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Kuru (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Since you've chosen to continue editing warring on the same article, I have blocked this account again. Unfortunately, since you have explicitly promised to continue violating our edit warring policy going forward, I have blocked this account indefinitely. Kuru (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bulldog123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Uh, dude, you're totally overstepping. I said I'd provide the editors a chance to provide sources for their claims on a WP:BLP where there's a clear lack of WP:NEUTRALITY on the subject matter. I wasn't engaging in any disruptive edit war, and it's perfectly within my right as an editor to make changes I see as being against Misplaced Pages policy. You're being trigger-happy here. Bulldog123 14:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It is most definitely not within your right to edit war to make disputed changes you see as being against Misplaced Pages policy (except for a few explicit and unambiguous exceptions, which are not met here), and you do not get to impose your own conditions on other editors. This is your third block for edit warring, yet you still do not appear to have understood what you are doing wrong. You will not be unblocked until you can make a convincing case that you do understand and that you will change your approach to editing - and that includes your dropping of your insistence that you "...will engage in the slow edit war to protect the truth". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bulldog123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What exactly did I do to justify a ban? Ban me after the fact if I prove to be disruptive. These pre-emptive strikes reek of partisanship. Bulldog123 00:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is your third block for edit warring. That's what you did. Further unblock requests that do not directly address the reason for your block will result in talkpage access being revoked. SQL 03:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This seems to be explained above; you have edited disruptively and you have been blocked for it. Since you've promised to continue the problematic behavior, you'll need to convince someone that the behavior will change. You will also need to stop evading your block and editing logged out, please. That does not help your case. Kuru (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
This is why this your ban is hard to take seriously. .Firstly, you're asking me to get on my hands and knees and beg you for an unblock. I've been an editor on Misplaced Pages for a decade. I'm not going to kiss the ring of some dude who decided to be a hero. You full well know this ban is overkill and (possibly) politically-motivated. Secondly, you're now outright accusing me of evading a block by editing while logged out... with zero evidence. Please cite the examples of me editing while logged out since this block please. Back up what you claim. (I know you guys intentionally don't do that on articles you disagree with politically, but at least stick to your principles as administrators and don't hurl accusations you can't back up) Bulldog123 13:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
To be perfectly clear, you have not been editing with an IP since your block? Kuru (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Dude, I couldn't even edit with a naked IP address even if I wanted to since my block. I only have one IP address, it's not dynamic (or at least it doesn't seem to change much), and you blocked it. Whoever you think is me, isn't. Bulldog123 03:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
This IP wan't you? That seems unlikely. The same IP waited out the IP autoblock and continued the long-term edit war you've been playing with at Bulgarians‎ well after this account was blocked. Kuru (talk) 06:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, obviously that was me. What's your point? I'm not purposely evading a ban there if I sign my name afterwards. And if I made some minor edits off an IP address before realizing I was perma-banned, that's not exactly "maliciously evading a ban" either. We don't always remember to sign in. And yes, I don't exclusively go online from my house, and I expect you don't either. I work at a school with wifi so obviously I'm using frequently-shared IP addresses. I'm sure hundreds of people edit Misplaced Pages from this school. But whatever --- if you want to pin some stuff from an old IP address to justify a ban, okay, do whatever you need. Bulldog123 12:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
You've asked me to "back up my claim". I have provided you evidence of that claim. You have admitted to evading the block placed on the account. I asked you, above, to politely cease doing this. You can spin this into your persecution complex however you like. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it looks to me like the IP edit here was made before the block - Bulldog123 couldn't have added his sig to it immediately afterwards had he been blocked at the time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
The diff was to establish that it was his IP; the evasion was the three edits after that, which all occurred well after the block of the main account on 12/28. Kuru (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, understood. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
If you can look up "login times," you'll notice I didn't even realize I was spontaneously banned until after making those edits. User:Kuru is basically digging for reasons to justify his perma-ban. Bulldog123 03:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Look, 3 different admins have blocked you for edit warring - and 4 other different admins have tried to explain that your blocks are due to edit warring - and that's just recently. You have been repeatedly warned that this is where behavior of this sort will lead. Perhaps it's time to consider that this isn't just some massive politically motivated conspiracy, and maybe you're just breaking the rules here? SQL 03:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I've been editting Misplaced Pages for a decade and have engaged in many debates on controversial topics. Many of these debates included what you would consider "edit wars" because I refused to allow the dessimation of information that is patently false (especially on WP:BLP articles). Yet, I get a pre-emptive perma-ban the second I start challenging the blatant orthodoxy on display at the highly controversial and political Richard Spencer article. What a coincidence!
You're right hough. It's not a conspiracy, because conspiracies are not this transparent, but it is obviously political. The easiest thing would be to change the wording to more accurately reflect reliable sources. But, hey, that doesn't support the narrative Misplaced Pages wants to promulgate, so I guess permabans for anyone not towing the line are way easier than justifying the diction. Bulldog123 12:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)