Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome back! ;)--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Miranda 02:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea! — Rlevse • Talk • 03:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

As I stated during on the talk page of the WyomingHS.jpg image, the image was taken by me. The fact that it appears on the school web site does not eliminate the fact that it is my intellectual property, and, as such, I have the right to release it for use on Wikipedia. Read before you delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JagSeal (talk • contribs) 21:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

When you uploaded the image initially in April, 2006, you said, "Image was created by a public school and therefore is open for use." This is a false statement. HOWEVER, based on your statement on my talk page that you, personally, are the actual photographer, I have restored the image temporarily. In order for the image to stay, we need to have appropriate documentation in the m:OTRS system demonstrating that it is not a copyright violation. To provide this documentation, please send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org giving (1) your name, (2) a statement that you are the photographer and the copyright holder (keep in mind that if you photographed it as a part of your duties as an employee of the school, the copyright belongs to your employer as a "work product"), and (3) a statement that you release the photograph into the public domain. For more information, please see WP:COPYREQ. Thank you. --B (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on your team winning today! Bowl or no bowl? Miranda 22:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Virtually every Division I-FBS (formerly I-A) team with a winning record goes to a bowl game. So yes, we will be in a bowl game no matter what. If we win the ACC title game against Boston College, then we go to the FedEx Orange Bowl and probably play Georgia, but possibly Kansas (if Missouri wins the Big XII title game) or Missouri (if Oklahoma wins it). If we lose to BC, then it's either the bowl formerly known as the Peach against a Southeastern Conference team or the Gator Bowl against Texas Tech. --B (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, congrats on beating Boston College too...Gator Bowl. :-D Miranda 05:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell me when this became consensus. It seem odd to me that former professional football players are not notable, but former pro baseball and basketball players are.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can draw that particular conclusion from anything there. This was a proposed change to a proposed guideline that was a work in progress. The proposal appears to have been rejected. --B (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have mentioned your username in evidence presented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Your administrative action was mentioned as one superior (IMO) to that taken by one of the parties in the case. GRBerry 01:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thx ... is Matthew Hoffman a reincarnation of Profg or something? If not, I'm missing the connection. I notice you also mentioned Whig. I think it was a really all-around bad idea for an involved admin to be the one to block him, but he really did need to be banned. I suggested during a previous ban discussion instead placing him on probation/editing restrictions and he just continued to be disruptive even during the discussion. An uninvolved admin should have been the one to make the block, but he did need to be banned. --B 01:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hoffman created his account in 2005, didn't edit until 2007, and edited this page before Profg. Profg ended up with the last edit in the edit war as his only edit. The connections are 1) participated in same multiparty edit war, 2) Profg elsewhere was in disputes with the same users, 3) both were blocked by the same admin. GRBerry 04:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you back. Definitely missed your insights and your work. I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look at the FAC for 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl and leave a few comments. Since it's a Virginia Tech bowl game, I think it's right up your alley. Thanks, and good to have you back! JKBrooks85 17:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a rather serious error in the article. I'm pretty sure that game ended at halftime. ;) Seriously, looks great! --B 18:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Don't I wish. Incidentally, are you coming down for the Orange Bowl? I'll be there. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No - but remember to take lots of pictures ;) --B (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, do you have any more photos for the 2007 ACC Championship Game article? If not, I'll throw up a post on Tech Sideline and see if anyone has some they'd be willing to offer. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

When you've got the time, could you swing by 2007 ACC Championship Game and see if there's any glaring errors or anything you think needs to be changed in it? I tried to model the article after the Chick-fil-A Bowl article I shepherded to Featured status, but there are still some things I'm overlooking, I'm sure. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your last edit to {{cbb link}} broke the template. Is there a way we can compromise to still make it work while limiting the #ifedit traffic? This is the first I've heard about problems with that function, would you mind filling me in (and please dumb it down as much as possible, I'm no computer whiz) Hoof Hearted 21:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right ... I screwed up and forgot to take off the extra trailing brackets. It's fixed now. See the bottom of WT:CFB for the discussion. The problem is that excessive #ifexist calls place a drain on the server and starting next Monday, ALL articles will be limited to 100 per article. So getting rid of the redundant calls is one step. The template was allowing the user to enter gender=men's or gender=men and rendering both versions as men's. That's a good thing - but it was taking four calls to #ifexist to do it. I reduced it to one call - anything resembling "women's" will be changed to "women's" - anything else is "men's". That knocks it down from 10 calls to 5, which is probably still too many for season articles. (100/5 = 20 ... and we have 25+ games/season.) So we need to link directly to season articles that exist and probably could remove the "athletics" link since that isn't our naming convention. (Articles named "Virginia Tech athletics" should be renamed to "Virginia Tech Hokies".)--B (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you're still missing an 's in there somewhere... Ah, you got it. OK, I will start unloading the pages of the {{cbb link}} where the season articles have been created. Hoof Hearted (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... I'm going to give this thing some thought. The football articles aren't as big of a deal because virtually every BCS school for the last two years has an article. So just fixing the links to existing articles gets it well under the 100 limit. But looking at Category:2006-07 NCAA Division I men's basketball season and Category:2007-08 NCAA Division I men's basketball season, very few of the basketball teams have articles. So we're still going to be over the limit on those and probably need to remove {{cbb link}} if there is zero chance that the team will ever have an article for the season (eg, 2006-07 Charleston Southern) and simply link to Charleston Southern Buccaneers men's basketball, making a redirect if the page doesn't exist. {{Cbb link}} may need to be reserved for actual text articles and not used in schedule pages. --B (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like your feedback on my proposal at Template Talk:cbb link. Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up about #ifexist. I was not aware of that limitation. I'm also active in the US highways projects, where {{jct}} is used a lot. I just checked, and it does not call #ifexist, so it should be fine. (Articles with long exit lists may call the template over 100 times; because of calls to images, it really makes articles a lot more readible to use that template and not subst it.) You're right, though: cfb link should be subst'ed or otherwise avoided, except where there's potential for a future article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you are about! Sorry - I thought that you weren't, so brought up Profg's return to try and find an alternate mentor thingie. Sorry! Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. talk to you when not sleep-deprived and can speak coherently. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Right. What I was trying to say is that User:Profg has returned, and I'm a little worried about him being without (minor) oversight. Are you willing to do this, or should I poke around the mediation cabal and see if I can find someone? I'm hitting exams. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on his contributions. --B (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup. nobody can resist the gravitational pull Wikipedia appears to have on people. :) Maser ^(Talk!) 04:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I was going to upload that image (amongst others) and put it on my user page, but couldn't find a proper citation for it. When I went back and looked at my user page, I didn't have it on there and I thought I just decided not to upload it. Like I said, I was doing a bunch of them at once and I guess I put that caption in there with the others. This is certainly a BIG mistake on my part. Do you know the process for getting a photo deleted (and this one certainly should)? — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's gone now. --B 00:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!! — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your hard work in the thankless task of image cleanup, I award you this shiny new barnstar made from 100% recycled photons! – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine, I viewed the source and it did not provide an author, so I think chances of that image returning to Wiki is slight. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I still have OTRS access. I looked this up (Ticket 2007121410018321) and the agent handling it decided (for which I agree) that getting a free license out of the owner isn't possible. They want attribution on the article, which we don't do. They also don't seem to really understand the free license part, putting restrictions such as "not uploading to Commons" which would be perfectly acceptable under a free license. My thought (with the agent that handled it) is that we have no hope of a free license and should delete the image(s). It was worth a shot, but doesn't seem possible now. MECU≈talk 03:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It got muddled in a collection of photographs I have on the subject. I may have taken the photograph, I don't know, I have been in contact with the guy on the blog in the past, and it may well be my image. Though I cant be sure. Iwas at that parade, and recall taking pics. So feel free to delete that image while I clarify. Sorry for the trouble. My bad. Lobojo (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It is in the second-to-last paragraph under Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#Instructions...

“

Note: Images can be unlisted immediately if they are indisputably in the public domain or licensed under an indisputably free license (GFDL, CC-BY-SA, etc.—see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more on these). Images which claim fair use must have two people agree to this.

”

If I misunderstood this, please correct me. It strikes me that this rule was probably intended for those editors who shoot off an invalid fair-use claim in response to a claimed-as-free image being challenged. WP:IFD would have been a more appropriate venue for the ip editor to nominate the image in question. WP:PUI largely deals with possibly unfree images that are being claimed as free. That being said, both venues generate very little traffic, and two (now three) editors in agreement seem to indicate that I made the right choice. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Ok ... I had never noticed that. I was trying to figure out where on WP:FAIR it was coming from, so I was looking entirely in the wrong place. ;) --B (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I replied to your post on the sophia image deletion discussion [1]. jbolden1517^Talk 13:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

So sorry, didn't realize that person was still alive. sorry. KitHutch on the other hand should have tagged the info, instead of unilateral deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerome709 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. This is a bit of a curiosity - someone else took the image from my upload to 'Find-a-Grave' (c. 2002) and claimed it on WP as their own. I couldn't really be bothered to argue - but have now tagged it as a GFDL under my own name. Best regards, Smerus (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got a few free tickets to the 2008 Orange Bowl... want one? JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate it, but getting down there is prohibitively expensive right now. --B (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

B, the permissions were forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, the images are now uploaded at commons (see the links at the discussion page for those images) and can be used directly from commons now. All permissions appear at the commons address provided. Once again, thank you for your help and all the best in this season. Jenny^Len☤ 09:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am requesting your periodic monitoring of this page as HappyTalk22 has proven to be dominant in his editing and reverting this article without any "three-revert-edit" imposition placed on his account.

Thank you very much. 74.73.106.239 (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been working on the 2005 ACC Championship Game article, and was wondering if you happened to have any photos of that game. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:2005 ACC title game FSU VT.jpg is the only decent one I have. Most everything came out blurry - my old camera was pretty worthless. --B (talk) 05:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks a lot for that. I'll do some posts on TSL after the holidays and see what pops up. After the work I did on the 2007 game, and what you said, I now know what to ask for license-wise. JKBrooks85 (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I created a selected article, since I couldn't see that one had been, and also couldn't see that any discussion was being held to decide which. I went with the "safe" decision of Paul the Apostle, since I figure he's more than a little bit influential, important, featurable (I know that's not a real word) and the article's a good one. I've basically copied the lead directly across, with a few crops and removed all of the references. Is this how you'd want it? If you had anything else in mind to do with this, feel free to change it, but I thought I'd throw my hat in the ring. --lincalinca 14:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I screwed up the deletion/redirect for this article when I was trying to make the article name consistent with what seems to be our style. I'd appreciate any help you could give. JKBrooks85 (talk) 16:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw it on my watchlist and have fixed it. FYI, copy/paste moves are bad because they leave the history orphaned from the article and potentially, if someone comes along behind you and reverts it, leads to two parallel copies of the article being developed. If you want to do a move, it's important to always use the move button rather than copy/pasting the content. Even if it's a total rewrite, it's still best to move it so that it won't confuse someone down the line. --B (talk) 16:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Good to know. Where is the move button? Moving articles isn't something I'm too familiar with, but I thought it was appropriate there. JKBrooks85 (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Durr... I see it now. How'd I miss that?JKBrooks85 (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

 ;) --B (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I see you have added an entry to the blacklist. However can I ask you to please log any entries that you make with a permanent link to the request came in some form. This may seem a little irritating but in 6 or 12 months time the rationale may be impossible to find and the listing will then be removed by someone. I recently had to do exactly that on a Meta listing than no one logged! Let me know if I can help - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a request for it. That site is a link aggregator that I have seen frequently added to articles. You can see [2] where I removed several links to it that had been added in the last month or two. --B (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem - putting that in as the request would be good. The problem is that when the page is 100K long (Meta's is!) finding the rationale behind a listing (even who actually listed it) is effectively impossible! Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to request for FULL protection for the Christmas article. There is an edit war that I would like to see resolved.RC-0722 (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but the proper place to request protection is WP:RFP. I've edited that article recently and it may not be appropriate for me to protect it. --B (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A comment of yours regarding the fact that you were "denied access to the admin channel" has been brought up in an arbitration case, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop#Some admins are denied access to the admins channel. Do you mean explicitly turned down, or just ignored? Thanks, Picaroon (t) 02:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The latter, I believe - I don't think I ever got a reply from a channel op. Keep in mind, this has been 8+ months, so I don't remember everything. If I remember correctly from the instructions, there was an online form to fill out to request a cloak ... I never heard back from that ... and I emailed the user that it said was in charge of it and I think a couple of the ops, but honestly, everything before 4-16 seems like a lifetime ago and I couldn't tell you who I emailed. I looked back at my emails from the time and I don't have anything there about it, so I must have used Wikipedia email. I honestly couldn't tell you who I emailed. I'm sorry I can't be of more help. --B (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

B...if you want I can email you notes I made on the process as it is confusing and not that well documented. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. --B (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've read your comment here and I am flabbergasted. You've got a lot of nerve creating that stink where you accused me and others of being sockpuppets considering you've contributed under another username which you're trying to keep quiet. You're an admin, in a position of trust, fer chrissakes. Full disclosure is called for here and on your userpage unless you have a very compelling reason why the community should not know your other username. I'm still stunned. Odd nature (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. I have exactly one account. I changed my user name 5 months ago. I left a soft redirect at my old user page for a month, then blanked it. Anyone who needs to get from my old user name to my new one can easily do so by looking at the page history or the logs. Anyone who needs to get from my new one to my old one can go back to my earliest contributions and look at my signature. This isn't rocket science. --B (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. A sockpuppet himself. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You're joking, right? I HAVE EXACTLY ONE ACCOUNT. If you would like to be renamed, you too can be at Wikipedia:Changing username. --B (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do I still have this page watchlisted? Maybe it's fortuitous. Anyway, the reason socks are so widely disapproved of is that they can be used to deceptively create the appearance of there being more than one user when there is really only one. In order to make the deception work, though, the accounts have to be able to be used at the same time, in parallel. Changing names does not create another account; it simply changes the moniker attached to a user's existing account. Since there is still only one account to log in under, there is no threat of its misuse in sockery. If B was still able to log on as BigDT and started using one account to surreptitiously support the other, then there would be a problem. However, he can't, so there isn't. --Dynaflow babble 22:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

But something is fishy here. His other account has no edit history, I suspect he had it deleted/oversighted. One has to wonder why. Additionally, the rule of thumb with the community is that a template used for identifying alternate or previous accounts. One has to wonder how B's RFA would have turned out had he used the alternate account template on his user pages and those who knew him as BigDT where able to participate in the RFA in an informed manner. We'll never know now, particularly since BigDT's edit history is MIA. Either way, as an admin, B has a higher standard he must meet, and admins should not be hiding their alternate or previous accounts. Odd nature (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted or oversighted. See Wikipedia:Changing username. All of the edits are transferred to the new name. You're making all kinds of preposterous and nonsensical claims here. One has to wonder why. -- RG² 22:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know - I think that B guy is pretty sketchy. --BigDT 22:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That probably wasn't the best joke to soothe paranoia. This might be more mollifying, though: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=B. These are the BigDT edits going back to his first Sandbox test, as retroactively reattributed to B. No oversighting, just a routine renaming. --Dynaflow babble 22:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(ri)You're likely right Dynaflow, although I've always wondered why people change their aliases. It reminds me of the Witles Protection Program, but, hey I'm sure there are goos reasons for changing one's nick. Really. •Jim62sch• 23:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping clean up that guy's vandal welcomes. =) --slakr^\ talk / 04:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Copy and paste errors. I love 'em FlowerpotmaN·(t) 04:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah ... I had his contributions opened up in tabs so that I could delete the pages where his was the only edit and revert the ones where there was another edit and for some reason (idiocy on my part) I thought your page was his ... really it was just his most recent contribution. --B (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I guessed that was the story. Actually I was laughing so much I didn't check to see if it had actually happened. ;O) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 04:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You reverted my edit of Template:UK geo article. I must confess that I didn't understand the meaning of "COTM".

So this template is used in one place Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/cotm to change one article title, and the page in question is in it self transcluded like a template. So the template still seems meaningless to me, but I agree that it is not a candidate for speedy deletion.

Then Category:Geography and place-related templates. What is the problem here? —Leo Laursen ( T | C ) 11:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I was going through CAT:CSD at the time ... it was not speedyable and I didn't notice that you made another change at the same time. I have reimplemented the category addition. --B (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Message redacted Magnonimous (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I give up. What are you talking about? --B (talk) 13:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I happened to lift the autoblock at the same time that you declined to do this. Feel free to re-block the user if you think he is abusing sockpuppet accounts. Sandstein (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's a pretty dead certainty they are sockpuppets. See Okinawa Coral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Also, note that Magnonimous left me a message just above, even though he and I have never come into contact before. On the other hand, I have interacted with Jerome when he complained about my removal of BLP-violating nonsense from an article. I have blocked Jerome709 for the duration of the original block. --B (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No objections here. Best, Sandstein (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In case it's helpful, MLGSP says he's MoonLightGlory [3] --Ronz (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Based on that, I am less confident that MoonLightGlory is the same person. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Magnonimous‎ if there is anything you would like to contribute. --B (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I, Jerome709 am not magnonimous, nor have I ever been. I have been editing wikipedia through a private Canadian proxy as I have had bad luck with hackers in the past. I must say that I have enjoyed magnonimous's antics ever since I saw his edits when I checked the ip, ironically, to confirm that it wasn't in danger of being blocked. I did not expect him to fly off the handle like this though. I would appreciate it if you could unblock my user account, and I'll go back to my real IP. As a new user it will be hard, since I don't know all the rules, but I promise I will try not to bother anyone anymore. P.S. Can anyone suggest a good firewall? --220.231.124.5 (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please log into your account and post this on your talk page from your own account. Thank you. --B (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI to anyone keeping up with this, the 220 IP is an open proxy and is now blocked. --B (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

When I reviewed the block, I wasn't sure that the material that Kjoonlee was reverting definitely fell under the spam exception to 3RR. I've seen a lot of mods that are really strange, but nonetheless real. Reading it again, though, I can see how it could simply be a prank or attack on someone named Daniels. I'm sorry, I will try to be more diligent in the future in reading repeatedly inserted content like this to determine its validity. I believe that Kjoonlee's 8 hour block has already ended, so I can't really unblock him. However, I will leave a note on his talk page to the effect that I have reconsidered his block in light of your reasoning.--Danaman5 (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No harm done. We all make mistakes. --B (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

We'll be in the Signpost on Wednesday, 2 Jan about 17:00 UTC, someone noticed us, be sure to read it, many of us get it, read it on my talk page if you like. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I do have the releases and will forward them within the next couple of days. I'll double check, but I'm pretty sure it's only the three images you mentioned plus two others. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Once you send them, someone from that office will tag the images with the {{PermissionOTRS}} tag to indicate that permission is in the system. --B (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 17:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks B. I'll see what his response is, but if you see anything positive before I do I'm more than happy for you to unblock. --Stephen 00:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Relax and good luck with the game tonight. miranda 01:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The pregame is just finishing up and I'm about to go crazy waiting for this thing to start. From the blue waters of the Chesapeake Bay to the Hills of Tennessee, the Virginia Tech Hokies are on the air! --B (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least VT didn't play in New Orleans, Louisiana against a home team for the national championship. Good luck next year. miranda 08:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, ****. At least the tickets were cheap, and I did take a couple hundred photos (literally), some of which might actually be usable. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You can tell from my contributions during the game how quickly I became annoyed. I'd love to see some photos if you get them posted somewhere. --B (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(aec) Uh, you could have told me that y'alls were going to be smacked around like that. I was convinced that the line was a good bit off—I liked the Hokies by 10 to 13—and I took a real soaking on this game. On blogs and the like over the past week, I've, my general distaste for the ACC notwithstanding, been pushing the idea that the Hokies ought to be included alongside USC, Georgia, and Oklahoma (well, the last not so much any longer) in the enumeration of teams that deserve consideration for the national championship from AP voters—however good may have been the performance over the latter half of the season of the Trojans and Bulldogs, the Hokies, by my estimation, had the best final six games of any team, and they are, in fact, the only team with at least five wins I, in one of my ranking systems, scored as "very fine" or better, of which four (the two BC games, at Ga Tech by 24, and at UVa by 12) came in those last six—and my otherwise impeccable sports prediction credentials are now irreparably soiled. You surely owe me the {{Sorry my team cost you all that money Barnstar}}... Joe 05:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing to always remember about Tech - we don't show up in bowl games. In 2002, we blew out LSU (defending SEC champs), won at Texas A&M, and beat Marshall (when they had Byron Leftwich and were a top 15 team) but had some injuries down the stretch. Towards the end of the season, we got healthy, beat UVA, hung close with then-#1 Miami in a shootout, then got shipped out to the Diamond Walnut Bowl against a mediocre Air Force team. Air Force was pretty terrible and we should have hung 50 on them. But it was a close game and the game ended with us winning 24-17, but AFA was sitting on our goalline. We just don't show up. The only teams we beat in bowl games are ones where we are twice as big, twice as strong, twice as fast. --B (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Or, with the 1995 Sugar Bowl, where we get lucky. JKBrooks85 (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting really close to wrapping up the writing on the 2008 Orange Bowl article. Just need a few more paragraphs for the Kansas Statistical Summary section, and it should be good to go, except for as-needed updates in the post-game effects section. Could you swing through the article when you get a chance and let me know if anything catches your eye? I know that it needs a pass for style — en-dashes and non-breaking spaces — but if there's anything else, could you let me know? Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Good call on deleting that idiocy from the Frank Beamer page! After watching tonight's game, I went check his bio and couldn't believe that an entire section was devoted to the subject. Also, it appears that that bunk was hanging on the page for a while. Regards, AlphaEta 06:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As I was verbally (textually?) sparring with Betacommand on the talk page it occurred to me that the article was not always named "List of Metalocalypse characters", and was in fact named "Characters in Metalocalypse" (per my suggestion, actually) specifically to avoid the kind of crap that's happened here. Looking back it appears that User:Fullmetal2887 moved the article to it's current name in November with no discussion, fanfare, or (I would presume) consensus to do so. I'll admit there was sort of a silent approval thereof, but I think this latest edit war has highlighted exactly why it would be better off under the former name.

Thus, to make a short request long, (:P) could I persuade you to rename the article "Characters in Metalocalypse", given that you've protected it? -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) —Preceding comment was added at 08:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better to hold off on making that change while it is protected. Suggest it on the talk page and if there is consensus for a move (or, nobody cares enough to respond), just do it in two days. --B (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look and offer your opinion again? A lot or tangents over there, and nobody seems to be focusing on the point. See Talk:D._James_Kennedy#A_vital_component:_good_research. Ra2007 (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to edit your section. I didn't know it was against the rules.

This is my first arbitration case!

It would be difficult for me to move my comments and they might look out-of-place. I thought I saw people at the bottom responding in the way that I did.

If it's a big issue, I have no problem with a clerk moving my comments. Zenwhat (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Should we simply assume UnclePaco is telling the truth about that anonymous IP, given his pattern of trolling? I'm not fishing here, but I simply want this suspicious diff [4] to be investigated, since Paco was blocked. Zenwhat (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the English in that diff, that doesn't look like anything else UnclePaco has written. --B (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Zenwhat (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Zenwhat appears to be editing in bad faith (Meatpuppet and utilizing WP:Stalk". I looked over his contributions and I don't see him use the words "bad faith" or making "WP:" links anywhere. He has had a number of opportunities for both, but uses neither. I could be wrong, but I just don't think it is him. --B (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. You're right. Also, I just saw this diff. [5] Sorry to be a bother! Zenwhat (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this make sense? Yes and no. The abuse was his threat on my talk page--He threatend to block me without explanation. That was the abuse of Admin I meant . . . not the edit. I also think that others are above the 3RR. I can accept your opinion on that, as long as it is fairly adminster to others . . . as long as I am not the only one who is reminded about the 3 RR. It is my view that they are the ones who violated it-- (drew first blood) but, that does not mean I shoud have either, Further, when you see the profilers of those who were objecting---they all had a recent history of this kind of thing. In fact, Pats1 threatend to ban someone else it what looked like a personal thing about the New england Patriots. You can also see by his comment that the "show" is over displays the attitude I objected to. It connotes a true lack of respect and is not in keeping with this community. That is why I reported this. I don't think a threat---when not discussed (as you rightfully point out) is appropriate. I was dubious that those involed with the volation of the 3 RR would be reasonable, absed on recent actions. Then when the Admin came in as the "muscle" for chrisjnelson, I was truly concerned and that is why I filed the complaint. So, since you pointed me in the right direction . . . I have posted my abuse of power complaint. I accept you rulign here about the trivia tag. I dispute it, but will accept it and I thank you for your kindness and reason I have learned from your comments, especially that banning is not punitive but preventative. If youready the posts by Pats1 you could not discern that in any way at all.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, as you can see, the "attitude of Pats1 persists and I have filed the complaint. I, from the beginning, talked about this, as is in the discussion page so I feel good about keeping cool and following the rules. From the beginning I just didn't want to be bullied and looked down upon. I appreciate your reasonable"ness".72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know the vandalism went back that far, thanks for fixing that. Sincerely, Sir Intellegence - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 06:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel like idiot.Sincerely, Sir Intellegence - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 06:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was looking around for a shared account template and couldn't really find one, so I just went with the generic one. Unfortunately there's not a block reason field for that template, but I did provide the reason in the block log. As far as the unblock goes, I tried e-mailing a bureaucrat about it, asking whether or not shared accounts can be unblocked, as it can never really be known if the account is thereafter secure, but I didn't get a response. Pats1 ^T/C 14:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well ... if he had posted his password on the internet or something, no, those can never be unblocked. But there's a difference between a shared account and a compromised account. A sibling team or a husband-wife team isn't really compromised - they just need to be asked to get their own accounts, but presumably can trust each other enough that one can use the original account by him/herself. --B (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in and commenting on our stupidity. I don't know why I let the silly remark bother me so much, I guess I felt that it had impugned the good discussion. Either way, I'm going to take a break for a day, if he insists on putting that remark back, I'm just going to leave it alone. Your remarks were quite fair and accurate. Alan.ca (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

He indicated his brother got his own account and he had changed the password to that account, so I unblocked. Daniel Case (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I notice you "finished" the unblocking of Dominik92 last night. It seems as though whenever I unblock an editor (which frankly isn't all that often), we then have to do some extra work to also unblock their IP. Is there a way to unblock it all at once? I tried looking around for some instructions on this, but couldn't find any. Thanks --Kubigula (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you can't do it all at once. Any time a directly blocked editor tries to edit, that IP is blocked for 24 hours and anyone trying to edit from that IP will get an autoblock message. It's silly because if you are blocked for 24 hours and in hour 23 you try to edit, you are going to be autoblocked for 24 hours from that point even once your regular block expires. If the block was made recently, you can search for their name at special:ipblocklist and find the autoblock ID (using control+F ... entering their name in the search box doesn't work). Otherwise, unless you want to scroll through a day's worth of blocks, it's easier to just ask the user to give you the unblock ID. --B (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

OK - thanks for the info. I feel better knowing I was doing it the way it had to be done, but it doesn't seem like the most efficient system.--Kubigula (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's silly. There used to be an autoblock tool (it's still linked from the page) but it hasn't worked in months. I have no idea why. --B (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BIO has a section on athletes, stating: Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis. (are notable, that is).   jj137 ^♠ 02:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, my mistake on the "speedy keep" part, but there's no reason the article should be deleted if it meets guidelines. I personally don't think it matters if it won't easily get past stub-class.   jj137 ^♠ 03:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I know. Eh, sorry, I screwed up. Is it too late to "reopen" it, or am I allowed to do that?   jj137 ^♠ 03:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There you go. Again, sorry for the mistake.   jj137 ^♠ 03:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --B (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you got me. What is a "DI football or basketball player"? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Division I, the highest level of NCAA competition. Not all DI players are notable by any stretch of the imagination, but unless someone was doing something pointy like creating articles on every backup longsnapper in the Sun Belt Conference, it's not an obvious case and needs to go to AFD. Speedy deletion is only for obviously inappropriate articles that are indisputable. In the case of a major college football or basketball player, it's disputable. The longsnapper may not be notable and the walkon practice squad point guard may not be notable, but a starter for a major team is notable. So something like this needs to go to AFD if there's an issue. (In this case, there isn't - this player is clearly notable.) --B (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would love to request your assistance again with the article on the Dominican Day Parade. A user by the name of "UnclePaco" and I are arguing about the inclusion of information that I classified as lacking significance to the article. He has made snide remarks that can be labeled as an attack. You were very helpful with the opinion you provided on the article in the past and I thought I would request your help again. Please see the articles TALK page for more information. Many thanks!--XLR8TION (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, User B. Well i see we are at it again. He was let off of block and starts an edit war. Please go to the talk page and give an opinion. thanks. UnclePaco (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I don't know what to do with this one. For one thing, please see WP:COATRACK and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. This is a parade that has been going on for 15 years. It's a really bad idea for half of the article to be about violence at the parade one year. Take a look at Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. There is a small section at the bottom called Incidents_and_injuries. That's the appropriate proportion. Heck, one of the articles being used to source the violence [6] has about 20 sentences in the article and 3 are on violence. [7] has 2 sentences on violence, "Police said one person was hit in the head with a bottle at the parade. Records of arrests were not available by press time." You can't take these articles that just mention in passing that there was violence and turn it into a Wikipedia article where the bulk of it is about violence. So the best solution is to expand the article and make it a quality article, like Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, then a small section on violence would be appropriate. That's my suggestion. My other suggestion is to quit reverting each other because that's just going to result in both of you being blocked and the article being protected on the wrong version. --B (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with you here, and even tried to expand on the article. User:Xlr8tion deleted any type of expansions I placed in. UnclePaco (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Try expanding things unrelated to violence. Agree to disagree on the violence and move on to other aspects. Add content relating to the history (who came up with the parade?), administration (who puts it on, how much does it cost?), participants (organizations, floats, how many people each year), or other aspects that don't have anything to do with the violence. --B (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agreed to unblock XLR8TION provided that he wouldn't violate 3RR, be uncivil or make attacks. He violated 3RR just now. I told him that he would face longer blocks if he violated the terms of our agreement. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not even know you submitted an RFCU request. I asked for the same CU request because I thought the IP belonged to UnclePaco. Blnguyen revealed sock accounts that were being used to violate WP:SOCK. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I uncovered some more socks from previous CU requests. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/64.131.205.111 and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/YoSoyGuapo. However, I'm pretty sure Mykungfu is not UnclePaco. There are no commonalities in the contributions made by both users. I did happen to run into this, though. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have time to properly check through all the contributions for similarities. From your evidence, I'm convinced that Mykungfu is most definitely UnclePaco. I have now unblocked XLR8TION. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have any, myself... you could get a fair use one from Hokiesports.com, but that wouldn't be free-use, and it'd have to be replaced eventually. You could always try making a post on TSL asking for help... it worked for the 2007 ACC Championship Game. JKBrooks85 (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the information about the blog war between Markos and Brad because Rhobite kept removing all references to Bradblog and adding a quote from Markos. I could not cite the blog posts because Wikipedia bans blogs as sources. Personally, I think that both sources should be left out since neither is neutral. 76.31.249.88 (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick heads up on him:

ID the future report on one of his campaigns

Bill Greene is, of course, Profg. Indeed, if you look at the link for the podcast discussed there, it's

http://web.mac.com/profg/iWeb/Site/Podcast/7D1AFD6C-C07F-11DC-B69C-000A959E8368_files/Interview%20with%20Mark%20Mathis,%20producer%20of%20_Expelled_%20with%20Ben%20Stein.mp3

Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Just had to say it.

I LOLed! futurebird (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

B,

The positioning obviously is dependent on the browser used. I use IE and it looks fine. Not so good without it. Rather than just delete the formatting, will you please try to adjust it so the top line of wikinews is the same height as the top line of Wikipedia new for your browser? Thanks, RichardF (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at IE 7.0 and Firefox with a variety of browser widths and the default font size. The spacing looks fine in both right now, but in Firefox, the initial bulleted item has two bullets. You can't have ** - you have to do :* or {{*mp}}{{*mp}}.

• • two bullets in firefox

• one bullet in firefox

What browser/version/font size are you using? --B (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I really didn't follow the explanation. I'm using IE 7.0 and the Wikinews 1st line is lower than the Wikipedia 1st line without the formatting. With it, they matched perfectly. I don't control the bullets and the bot design is for the typical indented list like at Portal:Film. That's about all I can say. If you prefer to leave it like it is then that's fine with me. RichardF (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That problem is also a symptom of the second bullet. When you put in two bullets, that's rendered as <ul><li><ul><li>First item. In IE, each ul tag is going to have a carriage return. If the extra bullet goes away, the line in IE goes away. Using absolute positioning only causes problems for people who use different font sizes, different browsers, readers for the deaf, etc. The underlying problem - the second bullet - is what needs to be fixed. --B (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If you say so. Since this particular page is the exception, it's probably best to leave things as they are. :-) RichardF (talk) 05:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, this is fixed now with an optional "indent=*" parameter. :-) RichardF (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely understand. I would have done the same thing if I did not go to Tech, but alas, I am bias :). I will fix it later so that it is not a copyright infringement and will make you proud. Jwalte04 (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from pages that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you.

Yes, I can see why you did it, but you should still not remove the tag yourself. I was just about to do it for you. Ros0709 (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh. You do realize that it was tagged for being a redirect to a non-existent page, a problem that was quickly rectified, right? There's nothing wrong with removing a maintenance tag once you fix the underlying problem. In any event, using a template to "warn" an experienced user is considered insulting. --B (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked him. However, his lack of civility is a concern. Thanks for the advice. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Help Please What do I have to do to get intervention from someone on my behalf? I'm being harassed and libelous claims are being made against me accusing me of being a sock puppet and a case has been opened. I left a message with arbitration but what else must I do to defend myself. I'm a known person and not some anonymous user.--Kingofmann (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The suspected sock puppets case it the appropriate way to handle it. If a checkuser confirms that the claims are false, the case can be courtesy blanked, but this is the proper way to handle it. Having the issue handled there takes it off of the article talk page and makes it clearly an issue of you the user as opposed to something having to do with your biographical article. --B (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I gave a short description on the talk page [8] of why the map Ceha has provided is the correct one, following the recent municipal changes. Cheers JdeJ (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again! Just a short note to say that I can confirm the source given by Ceha. This document [9] lists the changes made to the municipality borders in detail. And since it's taken from the official webpages of the Bosnian government, we're unlikely to find a more autorative source. :) Cheers JdeJ (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Evidence#Comments_on_Mateohoffman. Carcharoth (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It certainly wouldn't surprise me, but Arbcom are not releasing any of the information Matthew Hoffman provided on himself. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - glad to hear it. --B (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you look at Image:George Washington Honor Medal.jpg and tell me what you think of the licensing? I want to tag it {{movetocommons}}, but want to make sure it's okay first. --evrik ^(talk) 17:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your photograph is a derivative work of the coins themselves. My understanding would be since the coins were published in the US before 1978 without a copyright notice, they are in the public domain and so your tag is fine. I despise the {{movetocommons}} tag with a passion though - you can move them to commons yourself - you don't need to tag them. --B (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. By the way, check out this image, Image:Juliette Gordon Low dai.jpg. Something doesn't seem right. --evrik ^(talk) 18:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I took those pictures. I chose the option for "self-made" and assumed that was enough. Apparently I still have to say "PD-self". One of these days, maybe the folks who keep tinkering with the image uploading process will get it right. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you need to add the {{PD-self}} template if your intention is to release them into the public domain. If you don't do that, there is no way to know what your intended license is or if you even intend any acceptable permission. You may want to check your other uploads - I noticed several others by you, but, for the sake of not blasting your talk page, skipped over the others. (I'm going through uncategorized images in case you are curious where these are coming from.) --B (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I used to put PD-self on my own photos, but since they walk you through this template now, I assumed that would take care of it. Silly me. Now there are TWO things to do, which are largely redundant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So, are they on a "pending delete" list somewhere? Do I have to go to some other page now, and explain why they don't need to be deleted? Or was putting the "pd-self" there sufficient to cover it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as you removed the deletion template, you're fine. The deletion template adds it to a category that gets processed after a week. Once the template is gone, they are off the list. --B (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I took this "di-no license|date=17 January 2008" thing away, and the categories disappeared. I assume that's what you're talking about, and that there is now NO PROBLEM with these 5 photos. Right? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep ... I checked them out - you're good. --B (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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^Holla! 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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

• 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 Wikipedia policy, and was generated by a newly registered account with significant history of edit wars, harassment, and disruptive sockpuppet/meatpuppet edit history.--Thör ^hammer 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 Wikipedia. Good catch on the copyright.--Thör ^hammer 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 - Wikipedia 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)

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)

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)

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

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

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^Holla! 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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

• 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 Wikipedia policy, and was generated by a newly registered account with significant history of edit wars, harassment, and disruptive sockpuppet/meatpuppet edit history.--Thör ^hammer 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 Wikipedia. Good catch on the copyright.--Thör ^hammer 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 - Wikipedia 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia page would make me cry. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Is there any other way to protect images of youth other than the personality rights tag on commons? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 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 Wikipedia that we wouldn't put on our own website. Unless or until Wikipedia 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) ^talk - 16:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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. Wikipedia is not free webhosting and if you misuse your userpage, it will be deleted or protected. --B (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 — ^talk 04:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

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[10] 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)

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)

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)

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)

Wikipedia 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)

Those comments about Gagne were for humor. Thanks for voting! HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 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 ^{Leave me a message} 20:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't make it ok. Wikipedia 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)

I didn't know you were rooting for the Giants. Burner0718^{(Jibba Jabba!)} 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^{(Jibba Jabba!)} 00:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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