Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zsero (talk | contribs) at 05:09, 26 February 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Few things in life are as annoying at the {{Talkback}} template. If I leave you a personal message (not a pro forma notification of an image deletion) I probably am watching your talk page and will notice a reply there. If you want to reply here, that's fine too. If you want to simply start a new section and type "I have replied to your message on my talk page," even that is ok. But if you leave this silly template on my talk page, it will be ignored.

On January 16, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Moir, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Please have a look at John Hick

Jeez, your talk page is huge. Really slows down my browser. Anyway, please have a look at John Hick to see if the changes I have made are in accordance to your interpretation of BLP. Thanks!--Hazillow (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Woot barnstar! Thanks!--Hazillow (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: King fisher322 (talk · contribs)

This appears to be a much bigger problem. east.718 at 06:19, January 19, 2008

WP:AE

I've responded to your comment regarding Scientific Apologist where you posted it. - Revolving Bugbear 18:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Chris Johnson (Running back)

Can you move the page so that the R in running isn't capitalized? I don't believe it should be, as it's not the first word in the article and it's not a proper noun.►Chris Nelson 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually nevermind. This article was created after the one I created. I'll fix it.►Chris Nelson 05:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Clemson University football recruiting scandal

• Comment - Can I get the abridged version? --B (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Sure. Here it is from above: This is a confessed attack article, may meet the provisions of WP:CSD, but can also go to WP:AFD otherwise. Article has false (fabricated?) info intended to disparage its subject, is not otherwise notable, is inadequately sourced, has multiple problems relating to Misplaced Pages policy, and was generated by a newly registered account with significant history of edit wars, harassment, and disruptive sockpuppet/meatpuppet edit history.--Thör 07:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Plus there is the issue of the 1300 copyrighted words on individual infractions from the NCAA report. Probably the worst article that I have seen on Misplaced Pages. Good catch on the copyright.--Thör 07:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
      • As I read over and over in the AfD discussion, it makes no difference WHY a person writes an article for Wiki, or WHO writes it, only that it be notable and well-sourced. This article is both. Public reports like the NCAA one excerpted in the article are NOT copyrighted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ViperNerd (talk • contribs) 15:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
        • As for copyright, you are just flat wrong. Every creative work is inherently copyrighted. Only if it were authored by the US Federal government, which explicitly disclaims its copyright, can we use such a report. This report is copyrighted by the NCAA. We can use portions under a claim of fair use, but that's it. As for your motivation, you really need to stop and ask yourself what you are doing here. Your edits from your account aren't bad, but if you are the IP that Thor mentions, your bias is flagrant and is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. This is about building an encyclopedia, not about furthering your rivalry. If you push the line and don't obey our core content policies like WP:NPOV, you will be blocked - Misplaced Pages is not the USC or Clemson message board. --B (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Thanks for making the exact same argument I made in an AfD discussion involving the USC steroid scandal article written by a Clemson fanatic in response to the mere MENTION of probation in the Clemson-Carolina rivalry article. What was the motivation in that case? Why don't you go warn CobraGeek the same way you just did me? Like I've pointed out already, double standards have no place in an encyclopedia either. ViperNerd (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Well, I didn't see the other AFD while it was going. This isn't like a message board where every admin sees all or substantially all content within their area of interest. I rarely pay attention to AFD discussions and I don't really care one way or another about the two schools. I saw this issue because I am one of several admins who patrols WP:AN3 and your behavior was reported there. So I looked at contributions to see what the dispute was about. --B (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Returning

After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve.

PS:On those Free Republic blocks you did, I notated it on the logs part of the case page. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Tgannon

Yeah everyone has their views. As an admin who regularly makes blocks, I suppose you're eventually going to come across someone who disputes your block. Anyway, I'll be watching that user. Hopefully the nonsense edits will stop. Spellcast (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

IP attack

Hi B - I believe 207.237.228.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has taken over where 74.73.106.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) left off - they appear to be the same person, making the same accusation against Happyme22 about Nancy Reagan, in the same manner - almost exactly. The IP has been warned about personal attacks, but more may be needed, and I think an admin should keep an eye on it too. thanks Tvoz |talk 09:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok ... I'll keep an eye out ... if he gets over the top, we can block the IP for an arbitrarily long amount of time. --B (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Virginia Tech massacre an FA?

B, I was looking through FA articles, and saw that Virginia Tech massacre is a featured article! Congrats! When will it be featured on the main page? miranda 15:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, I hope we have the good sense to do it on 4/16 (the 1-year anniversary). --B (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like from Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests it has to be scheduled not more than one month in advance, but I hope we have the good sense to pick that date. --B (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ask Raul654. He made Oklahoma appear on the main page on Nov. 16th, and that was way out of the 1 month range. :-P Cheers. miranda 18:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I never thought a Misplaced Pages page would make me cry. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Freedom

My point was that opposing free culture because it allows people to promote thing you disagree with is promoting a lack of freedom. Think of the children! Should they all be raised in a world where information is proprietary and controlled or raised in a world where they and others are all free to express themselves? Freedom of speech is about the freedom to communicate and promote what we don't wish communicated and promoted or it is nothing - there is no need to protect speech everyone supports. Freedom is the right for people to be free to act the way they want to act. The free culture movement is about enabling people to create, modify, and distribute information as text, sounds, images, or video by providing copyleft software tools and content for modification and redistribution. It is not free if the uses are legally restricted to the original content creator's desired purposes. For that, you need to use a non-free copyright license. Misplaced Pages and WikiMedia have a mission of maximum worldwide free distribution of freely re-editable educational content. If one does not want content that they create to be legally free to be modified and redistributed for causes one does not personally endorse, then they should not contribute them to a free culture site such as wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to you or anyone else trying to get Wikia to only promote good things. What I object to is attacks on the legal tool of copyleft copyrights which is needed in the fight for freedom. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh. You need to step back from your ... umm ... ideals ... and live in the practical world for a minute. We're talking about the privacy rights of children here and their right not to have their likenesses used on a site that advocates child abuse. There's no such thing as absolute freedom - as the adage goes, my freedom to swing my fist stops when it impacts your nose. You are free to use Rlevse's photo in any way that is compliant with the GFDL and which does not infringe on the personality rights of those involved. This clearly does. If you are advocating this stuff, then we really don't have a common ground on which to have a meaningful discussion. Child abuse is wrong, period. --B (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There are several issues involved. *I* was solely talking about people badmouthing the GFDL because it is able to be used to promote bad things. My interest was to defend the GFDL in spite of its ability to be used to promote bad things. Like some people defend gun ownership even tho guns can be used to do bad things. Defending the right to own a gun is not advocating murder. Defending copy left is not advocating bad things that can be done with copy left content. Advocating freedom to speak is not advocating that Misplaced Pages or Wikia allow anyone to say anything on either of those sites. I am for the right of people to legally advocate bad things on their own site (not Wikia or Wikimedia sites) using copyleft content. I am for people protesting the advocacy of bad things. I am against making either the advocacy or the protest illegal. I believe that freedom of expression is the best way to identify what in fact is a good thing versus what in fact is a bad thing; and in laws that outlaw doing bad things while retaining the freedom to advocate a change to those laws. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The right to freedom is not absolute, check any of several supreme court rulings. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

True. And liquid water is wet. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Youth images

Is there any other way to protect images of youth other than the personality rights tag on commons? --— Gadget850 (Ed)  - 15:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I really think the solution is don't upload them. I don't know if every council is like this, but our's won't even put an identifiable photo (in other words, zoomed in enough that you can see the face) of a youth on the website at all without signed permission from a parent. We shouldn't be more willing to put a photo on Misplaced Pages that we wouldn't put on our own website. Unless or until Misplaced Pages is willing to accept under-18 photos under a more restrictive licensing scheme (ie, never) we should stick to low-res photos of large groups where you can't pick out a single youth or photos that are public domain by age (and everyone depicted is old or dead). --B (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That is what I figured. I have a draft guideline at User:Gadget850/Sandbox4 and am bringin it up on the Scouting talk page now. --— Gadget850 (Ed)  - 16:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why?

That user page you just deleted. User:MittRomney-something-or-other...'s page. Why? (I'm not stalking your contributions or anything; User:Bongwarrior's talkpage is on my watchlist and they contributed to it, so I noticed the link was blue but went red. That's not really fair, actually; it's their userpage, and a userpage is only the property of the user with that name, unless they say otherwise on it. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, actually you don't own your user page. But regardless of that, he was using his page to make attacks on Mitt Romney. Attack pages may be deleted any time, not that he needs it as this was a vandalism-only account. --B (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny, but I don't recall anything saying that you cannot attack a celebrity; only that you cannot attack another IP user. And yes, you do own your userpage. It's the articles and the discussion threads that belong to everyone, not an individual editors' userpage. Their talkpage, on the other hand, belongs to the community, as it is where others must edit in order to deliver the user a message. But more importantly, when did the "Don't even attack celebrities" policy start? (I'm sorry if that sounded snappy, it was intended to be said in an upbeat but interested tone.) Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:CSD criterion G10, WP:BLP, and WP:NPA. Any attack page, whether the subject is George Bush, George the editor, or George my next door neighbor, may be deleted on sight. As for ownership of pages ... well, you're just incorrect. Misplaced Pages is not free webhosting and if you misuse your userpage, it will be deleted or protected. --B (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Your Note

Hello B:

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I went back to the arbcom discussion page to see what I said.

I should have made myself clear that my "take some time off" note was general, to all the editors in that discussion. I didn't do that and I apologize for the misunderstanding. It was not specific to you, but I can see why you might take it that way.

Very sorry, Wanderer57 (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

thank you for removing my block, but i need help

i never meant to vandalize anything, and i didn't understand how to operate the warnings. but i don't think the pages i were trying to make are for promotion, it was simply adding to another page. a lot of people have told me they were interested in seeing the pages i made to be brought up. but how is the best way for me to go about doing that? the pages are already made, what should i change about them? i made it the best way i could just to be informative for wikipedians and viewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLICKFINGERS (talk • contribs) 00:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If a page you create is deleted, the proper way to contest that action is to (1) discuss it calmly with the deleting admin or, if the result is not agreeable, (2) open a request for community consideration at WP:DRV. Recreating the article repeatedly is what got you blocked before. --B (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback

On the talk page, I supported this image's removal, though I contend it simply was mislabeled under fair use vs WP:NOR, so I am not quite sure what you are talking about. What can I do to convince you otherwise? — BQZip01 —  04:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Non-free promotional discussion

Hello, B. Since you recently contributed to the lively deletion discussion for Template:Non-free promotional, I thought I'd let you know that I've continued the discussion about this template at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content#Template:Non-free promotional. The result of the deletion discussion was to keep the template, but there are still some questions about whether the current template serves a useful purpose and how to prevent its misapplication. Please contribute to the discussion if you are interested. —Bkell (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Riley Skinner

Thanks for the tip. The reason I left the vandalism template was because the article had been vandalized several times within the past few minutes by different people and I thought he/she was vandalizing as well. I'll try to find a message template showing the actual edit, etc. the next time I leave a message for someone in regards to possible vandalism or bad editing. About reverting the comment on my userpage...I did that because I don't want arguments to start on my userpage.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

CAT:UWT gives the full litany of warning templates that you can use. Also, if you use Firefox, you can install WP:TWINKLE, which gives you, among other things, a friendly menu that helps you choose the warning to leave. But if there isn't a warning that says what you want to say, it's always ok to leave a personal message. --B (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Gracias.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you, but is the message i left on this user's talk page the most appropriate one to use? Sorry about bugging you again, but I've only been on this site for a little over 2 weeks and I've been asking alot of question to more experience users. --AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I could have sworn that there used to be a template specifically for that purpose (warning users who add themselves/their friends/their birthdate/other non-notable personal stuff to lists). I looked and couldn't find it, so the one you picked is as good as anything else I suppose. I fixed your signature, though ... it was missing a span tag. If that was from your signature and not the template, you may want to check and see that it is setup right. --B (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Feedback of Single-wing formation

Hello, I am looking for help on an article that I have adopted called Single-wing formation. I have expanded the article; however, now I would like to upgrade it to improve its quality. Thanks, Bill Spencer (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Profg

You were the main proponent of an unblock for User:Profg. You should be aware that he has been running a sock puppet, User:Goo2you‎ since 12 October 2007, which is the very day that your editing restriction on him took effect. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Indefblock reinstated, based on using a sock to evade the block on his main account + violation of terms of probation (1RR) with sock. --B (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why change my Mike Hart?

Mike Hart (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Why did you change my Mike Hart? I put my sources in there. They are the one from the Detroit Free Press and the Michigan Daily newspapers. What do I need to do to get it fixed and keep it on there? The sources are listed at the very bottom they just need to be added in with number, right? Its a pretty big news subject. Just go ahead an search google "Mike Hart" "Little Brother" and it has close to 8,000 hits. This isn't a rant about some rival school, its an actual noteworthy fact about Mike Hart.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lions4superbowl (talk • contribs)

Misplaced Pages requires all content to adhere to a neutral point of view and for all content in biographies of living persons to be well-sourced. The content you added was neither. Every controversial statement needs to be directly cited with an inline citation using "ref" tags. --B (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The viewpoint was very neutral. I explained how the comments were said which angered head coach Mark Dantonio. Mark Dantonio responded by taking a shot at Mike Hart about his size, all of which can easily be referenced. The fallout from the comments are now the little brother and little sister comments between the two colleges, which can also be easily referenced. If the problem is referencing, that can be fixed. How can the "neutral view point" be fixed? All I am doing is reporting history, which I don't understand how you can claim it isn't a neutral viewpoint.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lions4superbowl (talk • contribs)

It started out with "Mike Hart infuriated college football fans across the nation". 95% of college football fans probably didn't even hear about it and if they did wouldn't have give it a second thought. Dog fighting and steroids infuriates fans. Barbs at your rival are on every message board every day. We don't give undue weight to minor events and make it sound like it's a defining moment in his life - this section is nearly as long as the rest of the content on his time in college. If anything, it's worth at most two well-sourced, inline-cited sentences. --B (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that the above statement may be considered a bit biased, but I think its doing a disservice to the wikipedia community to not to talk about it. If this doesn't count as noteworthy, then you need to evaluate every page such as Mike Gundy and take off the portion about his rant. This obviously is a big enough news story to be mentioned in the Mike Hart wikipedia article. LIke I said, if you google "mike hart" "little brother" you get 8,000 results. His comment has sparked a huge uproar between the two colleges and all of it can be referenced. ESPN talked about it. It doesn't matter if that portion is larger than what he did in college, this is actual news event. I think that taking that off would be a shame. This isn't about covering up his college and high school achievements its about reporting news and spreading knowledge. So what is so wrong with what I added? Let's clean it up, reference it, and let the world see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lions4superbowl (talk • contribs) 19:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Then give it one or two neutral well-referenced sentences. It doesn't need everyone's reaction. It doesn't need righteous indignation from the entire college football world. Optionally, I can look into it tonight and come up with something neutral to put in there. --B (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My RFA

Those comments about Gagne were for humor. Thanks for voting! HPJoker 18:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but it's still inappropriate for something in project space. --B (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

JJ and them didn't seem to mind. Most of the things I type that are humorous they seem to enjoy. HPJoker 20:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't make it ok. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and content in main space or in project space needs to be kept at a certain level of decorum. Nothing good can come from calling someone a "dirtbag" - in jest or otherwise. --B (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLII

I didn't know you were rooting for the Giants. Burner0718 23:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't care one way or the other - I'm a Virginia Tech Hokies fan and rarely pay much attention to pro football. I usually root for the underdog if I don't have any interest either way, but it really doesn't matter that much to me who wins. I just want to see an exciting game, not a 62-0 blowout. --B (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've rooted against the Pats all season except for the Dallas and Cincinnati games, so even though I'm a Packers fan, I'm rooting for the Giants. BTW, My college team is the Ohio State Buckeyes, although I like a few other teams, including Virginia Tech. :) Burner0718 00:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Kalee Carey‎

You recently prodded the article Kalee Carey‎. I have moved the discussion to AFD, at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kalee Carey‎. You are invited to join the discussion there. Aecis 22:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for Review

I've got a couple of Tech football game FACs in progress and upcoming, and I was wondering if you'd be willing to review and/or support them when they come along. The first is 2007 ACC Championship Game, which is in the review stages right now. The second is 2008 Orange Bowl, which will be put up for review once the ACC Championship Game article passes and I perform whatever changes need to be made based on the input from the first review. The third one that I'll be putting up for review in the next couple of weeks is 2005 ACC Championship Game, but it needs to still go through the GA review process first.

My ultimate goal is to create a Featured Topic consisting of all of Virginia Tech's bowl games, but that's still a long ways off. Until then, I'd appreciate anything you'd be able to contribute to those three articles whenever you've got the time. Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

How do featured topics work? What would it take to make all of Virginia Tech a featured topic or is that too broad? --B (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It'd take a hell of a lot of work, I think. Featured topics basically (from what I gather) require a whole series of featured/good articles linked by a common category or infobox. Michigan State University had a featured topic, though, so I imagine that it can be done. The status of that topic is still kind of up in the air, however, and it seems to have been eliminated for not meeting the requirements. I think we could do a Virginia Tech featured topic, but do we even have a single Virginia Tech featured article beyond Virginia Tech Massacre? JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok ... that makes sense. --B (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the unblock. NiggardlyNorm (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

your recent user name block (I'm sure you know which one)

wow, your fast, I was just about to add {uw-username}. I salute you.

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For amazing speed in the protection of the wiki Pewwer42  Talk  07:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

block

If you think that editor's behavior is acceptable, feel free to unblock him. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

....umm, I was complementing him on a job well done(hence the barnstar) besides If I felt the user hadn't done anything wrong(which he did) I'm not an admin. Thats beside the point, I was giving B a Barnstar.--Pewwer42  Talk  08:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Carlos is talking about a different user --B (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok, never mind--Pewwer42  Talk  08:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Née

I'm sorry that you don't approve of my using a universal term (née) that many more than tens of people worldwide use. I thought the entire point of Misplaced Pages was to educate the masses.CymHastings (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again

Thanks for the unblock. I appreciate your speed and discernment. I hope I prove worthy of your trust, should I remain active.Jrichardstevens (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sometimes mistakes are made and that's why the {{unblock}} template exists - so that we can correct those mistakes. --B (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

UnclePaco

UnclePaco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

MiGustaToto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

66.152.198.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

64.131.204.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

From the editing history, the IP appears to be UnclePaco. However, I'm confused by the actual edits. The IP essentially removed the entire violence section at Dominican Day Parade, and he removed the exact same content which UnclePaco restored on a number of occasions. I did notice some activity at Dominican Day Parade, and I think that 66.152.198.210 and MiGustaToto are UnclePaco's socks. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread (blocks by JzG)

You commented on this earlier. Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Review of three of the above blocks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Bakaman 3RR

With all due respect, this same admin who says he is trying to work this out with Bakaman also blocked me for a 3RR here without even blinking. I deem this as favoritism. Wiki Raja (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Bloods & Crips

I consider it not very civil since you haven't discussed anything about the edits disputes. You can refer to the creator of the article's talk page. I'd appreciate it. Thank you. If you wish to reply at this thread, please do so here. Tasc0 03:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you prefer for me to protect the article or block you? I have no preference in the matter. Please see the relevant AN3 request. --B (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that a threat? I really wasn't expecting a reponse like that one from an admin. And I haven't broke that rule. Still, I hold my request to discuss the article protection. Tasc0 04:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I made no threat. I protected the article because it was the source of an edit war. This edit war was reported to WP:AN3 with a request for administrator action. You made an excessive number of reverts in a 24-hour period, violating the three-revert rule. I decided, though, that protecting the article to facilitate discussion would be more constructive than blocking you. --B (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't broke the rule because I only made three reverts in a 24-hours period of the edits of a single user. If I have, would you please show me. I'd appreciate it. Tasc0 04:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I apologize - I was mistakenly thinking of a different report. You are correct that you did not violate 3RR and I apologize for saying that you did. In this case, it was a slow moving revert war and I felt it best to protect the page rather than to allow it to continue. --B (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I have to admin that I didn't like your attitude at the beginning. There's been a year I'm registered on Misplaced Pages, and I do want to give this matter a solution. I think a third point of view would be a good a idea. Would you please read this? I'd like to see what's your point of view. Also check the article's talk page. Thanks in advance. Tasc0 04:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at it and honestly, I don't know enough to offer an opinion over whether or not this topic needs its own separate article. I obviously know who the Crips and the Bloods are and I think it's pretty interesting that they had a musical collaboration, but I don't know how significant that collaboration is in the musical world. --B (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. Well, you really don't need to know much about the topics. It's pretty simple: two groups made those two albums. Not just one group, that's why I don't think it's correct to have an article about something that doesn't exists. Tasc0 05:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Mail

Ping. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Frogsprog

I would like to unblock Frogsprog -- it has been well over a year since his block and he seems to actually want to contribute. I would volunteer to keep an eye on him and help him over the next few days.

If his disruption continues, I would endorse a reblocking. - Revolving Bugbear 20:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I find little hopeful in an unblock request that begins with essentially an attack on the blocking admin ... but if you want to unblock him, I don't plan on trying to stop you (or really care that much one way or the other). --B (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand -- is the attack in question his pointing out that MONGO has been desysopped? That's kind of a misguided reason, sure, but I'm not sure I see it as an attack. - Revolving Bugbear 17:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ping -- just wanted to make sure you had seen this. - Revolving Bugbear 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Bleek25

Can you explain 3RR to him in a more comprehensive way. He thinks my total of 5 edits means I've violated 3RR but I have not. I actually tried reverting my last but he had reverted before I could revert my last. Additionally, and this is what he misses, two of my edits were removing periods and adding episode information, clearly not 3RR. He just doesn't understand and has a vendetta against me. Thanks for any help you can offer. KellyAna (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest simply disengaging from him for now. One purpose of 3RR blocks is so that everyone can cool off. --B (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

National sport

THUGCHILDz‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Guy0307‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

PIO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

National sport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After this mediation THUGCHILDz‎ and Guy0307‎ edit in disruptive manner like as a vandal!!!! Their edit warring in national sport is absurd. They insert Australia in list of nations where cricket is the most popular sport but in mediation's discussions Australian experienced editors assert Australian rules football and rugby league are most popular sports!!!! May you oppose them or advice them? Regards,--PIO (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the article is protected now. I'll take a look, but if this is something complicated and requires admin intervention, it needs to be documented and explained at WP:ANI. If it doesn't require admin intervention, you could consider opening a request for comment. --B (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

After looking at it, it looks like you and they simply disagree. They aren't vandalizing the article and calling them vandals is incivil. You need to discuss your concerns with them on the talk page or use WP:3O if you need an outside opinion to help consider the issue. --B (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I made this action but some persons don't understand anything pertinent sports or come from other planet!!!! You can read this message.--PIO (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than create a New User Name

and have people saying i'm circumventing a block. I figured i would send you this. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AUnclePaco&diff=186321560&oldid=184194869 I've been on block for over a month. Thanks for at least considering this. 64.131.205.111 (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Top 1000 Scientists: From the Beginning of Time to 2000 AD (second nomination)

I've nominated this article for deletion. It still has no sources besides the book itself, and having got hold of a copy of the book, I find that it actually makes no claims to be derived from an authoritative survey, so I see no notability. Since you've edited the article or participated in the old AfD you might like to comment. As there has been confusion about the book's actual content, I'd be happy to back up all the assertions I've made by Emailing you scans of the relevant pages. Best, Iain99 21:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat photo

This has been up for a few days and by my count, of the seven editors who have not edited the Prem Rawat article, 6 say delete and one says keep. Isn't it time to remove it?Momento (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a silly discussion. The image is a flagrant copyright violation. I don't really care one way or another about the cult wars and I don't think I had even heard of the guy until seeing it at AN3 (at least if I had, it went in one ear and out the other). The image is incompatible with our licensing requirements unless we plan on using it for critical commentary about the quality of Google Earth. --B (talk) 06:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You put the photo up for deletion, what's that mean. Who presses the button that gets rid off it.Momento (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

An uninvolved administrator will evaluate the image according to our policies and delete it. There are a handful of admins that regularly patrol IFD. --B (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

IFD comment

I believe that Jossi's proding was the first attempt to list the image for deletion. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Godislove.png

Hello,

It was a good idea to delete that image, bad file name and original placement. Uploading that image was my first experience working with the editors of wikipedia. The file name should have been tiferets_paths_highlighted.png and it should have been placed on the tiferet page, after the listing of the paths already there (paragraph 5). I plead that it is credible and good, if not better than any of the other images on wikipedia relating to the kabbalah.

I would like to reduce the file size (just to go the extra mile), change the file name, and then place it (or link it) on the tiferet page in relation to the sentence (paragraph 5) that already lists the paths of tiferet. I do not see how it could be a poor choice.

As for the debate I started: I originally put the image on the freemasonry project discussion page. They were offended that I would even link the kabbalah to freemasonry, let alone ask them for help in placing the image because I wasn't sure where was best. (My POV on cannabis did not help either, but I'm new and thought it was good info to share) After about 30 pages of typing people started to get past the fact I'm new (and interested in cannabis) and actually listen to me. I can now link the kabbalah to freemasonry as proven and agreed upon on the freemasonry discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Freemasonry#Pike

I am dealing with information that should be treated with great respect, and I think everyone will find I am doing so. I also think I have proven the original assumptions of the freemasonry project dramatically wrong. Incase you are interested, here is the quote that reversed this for me on the freemasonry page after MSJapan deleted my image w/o any attempt to listen to me. (Which is fine, he's a volunteer, I'm just happy to have him around)

From the official Encyclopedia of Freemasonry by Albert Mackey speaking directly on the Kabbalah (Cabala): "Much use is made of it in the advanced degrees, and entire Rites have been constructed on its principles. Hence it demands a place in any general work on Freemasonry." The quote is found here: http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/mackeys_encyclopedia/c.htm

It is for these reasons that I believe the situation has been corrected and the image should be uploaded with a better file name.

Thanks/ God Bless, --TaylorOliphant (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Potential Featured Topic

I brought this up earlier, but I'm trying to create a featured topic about Virginia Tech bowl games. Basically, I'd have to get all the Tech bowl game articles (all 21) to GA class or higher, including the overarching article about Virginia Tech bowl games. There'd have to be at least three FA-class articles in there as well, but one (2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl) is already there, and a second (2008 Orange Bowl) is in the review process. Basically, I was wondering if you'd be willing to help along the way. I'm always having trouble getting reviewers for featured content, and it'd be a big help if you could let me know if I'm getting off track or am doing something wrong. Do you think you could give me a hand? JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Taking a look --B (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

64.131.205.111

I blocked 64.131.205.111 (talk · contribs) (UnclePaco's IP) for one year, as a result of his recent post-block edits. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

I've been a fan of wikipedia for a while now, and enjoy using it to find information on just about anything that I need to look up quick. I know it's not a classic academic source, and I cross-reference anything really important, but all the same I really appreciate this site. I recently decided to get involved in editing because I found an article ( Ravi Zacharias ) nominated for deletion for not being notable enough, which I totally disagree with. I think there are ample sources to prove he is indeed a notable Christian apologist, and am working on writing an article relaying his bio and ministry information to show this (with ample citations of course). Is there anything I can do to get the deletion nomination taken off without the person who put it there putting it back up right away? Thanks for welcoming me into the community. I look forward to helpfully contributing to articles to make them better, more accurate and more well sourced. Kristamaranatha (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't actually been nominated for deletion &mash; it has only been tagged as not having sufficient sources to demonstrate that he is notable. Sometimes (and obviously this is a horrible idea) articles will have that tag on them for a year or more. Once there are 3-4 good sources of information about him added to the article, the tag can just be removed. Please note that it's important that the sources be (1) external to the subject himself (in other words, not just his bio page from somewhere that he spoke), (2) non-trivial (more than merely a listing of apologists, a listing of people who are on BBN, etc), and respected (not one person's blog/personal website - news sources are good, well-known ministries that are more than just one person are good). For those of us who are Christians, we know full well he's notable and we know that he's one of the 10 or so most well-known modern day evangelists (really, I'd say top 3-4, but 10 conservatively). But "I know it" doesn't prove it - we need to have verifiable and reliable sources in the article. --B (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:G2bambino

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of G2bambino (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at ]. -- soulscanner (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Involves 3RR decision by you from a few days ago. Thanks.--soulscanner (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Ciao friend, after your advice pertinent grammar, may you insert in correct manner with English language grammar this source and other source from this edit in introduction of association football? In first linked site you read section Australian Rugby Union and you read sentence the 2003 Rugby World Cup was the fourth largest sporting event in the world behind the Olympics, Soccer World Cup and the World Athletics Championships: Olympics is most followed sporting event in this source. In other source volleyball is most participated sport and Formula One Racing has the largest television viewing audience in the world. I would like insert other sources which consider various sports are most popular in the world but not soccer: sure several sources consider soccer most popular in the world but other sources no!!!!Regards,--PIO (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR

why was i blocked but User:KellyAna Wasn't and she reverted 5 times in a 24 hour period. here is the evidence:

• 1st Revert:14:38, 10 February 2008
• 2nd Revert:23:44, 10 February 2008
• 3rd Revert:00:01, 11 February 2008
• 4th Revert:00:02, 11 February 2008
• 5th Revert:01:42, 11 February 2008

Bleek25 (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

When I looked at it, the first two did not appear to be reverts. #3 and #4 were back to back, not separate reverts. Thus my count was only 2 reverts. If the first two are reverts, that information is important to have at the AN3 report. --B (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

none of mine were reverts but you ended up blocking me.that seem unfair that i get blocked for something but User:KellyAna does the exact same thing and she geta a pass.Bleek25 (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't violate 3RR and out of that list, three edits were in a row with nothing between them. How can that be a revert if there's no edits between them? Familiarizing yourself with policy will help you understand why you were blocked and I didn't violate anything and therefore did not deserve a block nor did I "get a free pass." KellyAna (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Tasc0 (talk · contribs)

OK, thanks for telling me. He really shouldn't have rollback; that was just inappropriate use of the button.   jj137 (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you reply at my talk page, please? Thank you. Tasc0 23:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Tasc0 and rollback

Hi B - in light of your exchange with User:Tasc0 regarding rollback, I'm giving it back to him at his request (which I gather you don't object to given your comment that "You're welcome to ask another admin..."). I don't disagree with your revocation of his rollback privileges, but I know him to be a good faith user and I believe him when he says that he didn't know that rollback was only for vandalism. Obviously if he abuses it again, it should be revoked and I'll look like an idiot, but I'm very confident that it won't be. I hope this isn't a problem. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Community bans

As you are considering a community ban against Hempbilly (talk · contribs), is it reasonable to request a community ban (where I would bring this up either at ANI or elsewhere) against CompScientist (talk · contribs)? This is a sock that I have been tracking for quite a while, and a new sock appeared today which I am awaiting action on. Would a community ban be appropriate here? Thanks, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like CompScientist was blocked for a month two weeks ago. Has he continued to sock during that time? I don't know this case at all so I don't know enough to offer an opinion one way or the other. In the case of Hempbilly, the main account TDC has a lengthy block history and has been previously sanctioned by arbcom. --B (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The article I first came involved in, Nissan GT-R, was becoming saturated with random IP addresses which most were traced via CU to CompScientist. He was blocked for 96h at 01:58, 9 January 2008 for abusing sock puppets (namely, IP addresses), for 1m at 18:12, 21 January 2008 for the same, which was reset and he was reblocked for 1m at 11:17, 3 February 2008 for abusing sock puppets (this time, with Wikipeadian (talk · contribs)). I'm unsure if it worth going for a block for Mcknight11 (talk · contribs), who I am positive is yet another sock (identical edit patterns as previous), or if a community ban can be imposed which would take care of the issue at-hand. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I found my answer at a CU for CompScientist. I know where I need to go now :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Bleek25

Bleek25 (talk · contribs) I need someone's help with this guy. He's now going to other users personally attacking me since his "sockpuppet" case against me was dismissed. I removed the personal attack from here but this is out of hand. He files false reports every chance he gets and is now doing this. Can you help? KellyAna (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

wow i hadn't even check that sockpuppet case until she just brought it up.if she thinks that is apersonal attack than it is one of the weakest personal attacks of all time.Bleek25 (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I just love it when they follow you when you ask for help. Yes, your statement on Randy's page WAS a personal attack. Accusing someone as you did is personal and an attack.KellyAna (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

it was in now way apersonal attack.i was telling the guy not to worry about you.also you fallowed me when i asked B for help a few days ago.Kellyana is realy a "class act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleek25 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into this tomorrow. --B (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Request

If you've got the time, do you think you could throw together a Virginia Tech bowl games navbox that we could throw at the bottom of the Tech bowl game articles? You're a lot better at box syntax than I, and I think it'd be a good thing to have to connect all 21 (and counting) Virginia Tech bowl game articles we'll have when I move beyond the keystone article. That, and it'd look really nice on the Featured Topic page one of these days. :) If you're too busy, I can try to tackle it; just let me know. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. See {{Virginia Tech bowl games}}. --B (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty snazzy. Nice work, and thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot... do you have any pictures that could be used for some of the older bowl game articles? I'll be asking on TSL eventually, I'm sure, but you're the guy on the spot, and if you have any, it'd be really helpful. I think I've got a few of the Insight Bowl, but I'll have to dig for them. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No - didn't have a camera at any bowl other than the CFA bowl in 06. --B (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi B. I have a question about the way things work around here that I wanted to ask. How long does an article have to be tagged as sounding like a personal essay before it can be deleted (as in the case of the article on John Hick)? I tried to clean up the intro but it is so poorly written that I'm not sure if it can be salvaged. What is typically done in such cases? I am not necessarily interested in rewriting the article myself, but something has to be done about it. Thanks for your help. Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Those "maintenance tags" are not a part of the deletion process. Category:Articles lacking sources, for example, goes back three years. Those tags are basically just messages that say "someone else should take care of this problem". I'm going to go ahead and nominate it for deletion. There will be a link to a discussion page at the top once I'm done. See WP:AFD for more information on nominating something for deletion. --B (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Whitelist/blacklist issue

Hi - could you comment on this request please. You added the site to the blacklist but there seems to be nothing in the way of logging or other request that I can see. Thanks --Herby 08:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously a spammy non-notable blog with a very high ad/content ratio. There is a massive effort to spam a particular group of fansites - see User_talk:B/page2#Fansite_spam_investigation for a list of ones I have seen. All of these appear to be owned by the same person/company/whatever. The Tyrod site does not appear related to the rest of these, but I still don't think we should have it here. It doesn't meet our external link policy and actual content is lacking. One of the "articles" is just a link to buy fatheads with an affiliate ID (ie, advertising disguised as an article). One of them is selling "Fire Jim Weaver" t-shirts. (No serious source of Tech information would promote such a thing. Jim Weaver is unquestionably one of the best ADs in the country, TSL trolling notwithstanding.) Three of them are links to youtube videos. This is just a spam site and absolutely should not be permitted here. --B (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot - I've closed it --Herby 16:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

As for staying away from Daedalus, I have no reason to go anywhere near him. I had never heard of him until he started reverting me on those users' talk pages. So long as he leaves me alone there's no reason we should ever come across each other again. -- Zsero (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)