Archives: Greeting | 2005 | Jan–Feb 2006 | Mar–Apr 2006 | May 2006 | May 2006–Nov 2015

Nice Workin' with you BorgHunter Mahogany

You still owe me those. What are you doing, regenerating? :) --Cat out 20:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AP exam practice. Calc is tomorrow. English Lit Thursday. Physics Monday. Sorry, I've just been really busy. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have assimiliated your block on User:KarateKid7 hoping that a 5 hour cooling off peorid will add its perfection to our own, I hope you don't mind. Now, Ensign Crusher, get me out of here, warp 9 -- Tawker 20:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object! I am not Wesley Crusher! —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Alert - Riker to the bridge, 3 Borg Cubes 2 million kilometers off the port bow -- Tawker 03:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I assume you meant User:TheMADTim? Joyous | Talk 02:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god, I am completely retarded. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, did you get any of those emails I sent ya? --TheMadTim 16:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BorgHunter/Archive 4,

Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your faith in me, and was overwhelmed by the positive response to my RFA; for it shows that at least I'm doing something right. :) I've started working to improve myself already, and I hope that next time, things run better, and maybe, just maybe, one day we can bask on the shores of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M o P-_ 21:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this Wikipedia:Deletion review#Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush.

Merecat 00:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please tell me what you think of this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination).
• You can leave your message on this talk page here.

This article seems silly. Why does this have it's own page? - Sal 09:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't ask me, I don't even like basketball. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am KarateKid7 and Karatekid7, I was not TheMADTim, this has never been verified and was described as likely, I dispute this. My initial account Karatekid7 was unfairly blocked by user:jtdirl . I was then later permanantly blocked by user:gator1 for removing the details of my previous block from my user page this admin has since disappeared. I then had KarateKid7 blocked by you for being a sockpuppet of Karatekid7 personally I do not think this was sockpuppeting as I thought it was very obvious and the account was created after my ban. I also considered the blocks to be unjust and did not know how to question them as my user page was blocked for Karatekid7. I think my edits show that whilst some of my edits may be considered controversial by some, I am no vandal, and I have reverted a good amount of vandalism myself. Simple fact is I could wait a week, register a new account with an unsimilar name and not be banned as a sockpuppet, so why ban me for being honest? --TheKarateKid7 02:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but if I were you, I'd take this up at WP:ANI and not with me. I don't have enough info to change my decision, which was made on the advice of a couple other admins. I won't block your new account in the meantime, though. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I have put it up on WP:ANI if you want to comment on it. --TheKarateKid7 02:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karatekid7 and its user page is blocked from editing could you put the {{unblock}} template on it or could you allow it to be edited? --TheKarateKid7 03:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --TheKarateKid7 03:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BorgHunter, I noticed you recently substed a few {{deletedpage}} templates and I think that was a very good think to do. Thank you. Some people do seem to oppose it, though, please see Template_talk:Deletedpage#Subst.27ing if you would like to further participate to that discussion. Cheers, jni 07:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you(not really) but I have yet another question. A new, very wordy, editor has moved into to an FA article you're very familiar with. His intentions(as he writes) are to "correct dramatic misunderstandings of Rush's style and music". The article that took so long to pare down in size has now ballooned to great enormity. I don't believe the editor read the two tags at the top of the talk page. In the process, by my quick reading, it violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and a probably a few others. It's starting to read like a Rolling Stone record review. How does one approach that sort of situation without starting an rv war? Just wondering. Cheers and take care! Anger22 21:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted, but I posted my reasoning on the talk page and alerted the user to the fact on his talk page. I think that's the most diplomatic thing to do. You can read my thoughts on the edits on the talk page of the article, and my alert on User talk:PainMan. About avoiding revert wars: You can still revert if necessary, but it's all about not being a dick. Cheers! —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read them and thought it was a good approach. I lean toward the "inclusionist" when the content improves the article as a whole. In this case, I thought the additions worked against the FA process the article went though to get to where it is. Anger22 23:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet read your comments on your reason(s) for your reverts but I want to thank u for a polite, professional attitude. Wisdom89 decided to (rhetorically) kick me in the cojones instead of approaching me the way you did. I'll probably totally disagree with you, but that's not the point. The point is you know how to deal with people. Of this Wisdom89 clown, the less said the better.

Let me put it this way: in my neighborhood, where I grew up, if he'd popped off to someone like that to his face (or hers) he better be 6'4" & 220 of muscle. You just do not talk to people like that. Only the anonymity of the Internet gives guys like him the courage to act the way he does. What a joke.

But you, I think you and I could have a civilized conversation no matter how much we disagreed on the substance of an issue. Of course, if your reasons turn out to be written like his I'll look the fool. But I'm hoping that what you wrote on my page is indicative of how you approach things in general.

PainMan 09:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Wisdom has been on the less than tactful side. Why don't you be the bigger man for the time being and, instead of responding in kind (which gets everyone angry and doesn't lead anywhere productive), try to maintain a productive discussion. I've suggested a sandbox version on the Rush talk page, that way we don't disrupt the main article. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input into the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_5#Template:User_paedophile. It is unfortunate that this template was deleted with neither a good reason nor a clear consensus. I believe that by using language that lacks the criminal/abusive connotations, we can satisfy the concerns of the delete voters and create useful, less controversial userboxes. So I created Template:User boylover and Template:User girllover last night.

Unfortunately, Doc glasgow speedy deleted these templates, citing T1. T1 did not apply, and you can tell him so. Your vote at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#Template:User_boylover_and_Template:User_girllover will be much appreciated. Seahen 15:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell you how eager I am to avoid this situation again. I shall not be participating in the discussion. It's kind of a sore point with me, you understand. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Could you do me one last favour and unlock my user page? --Karatekid7 21:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could I also ask that you unblock user:KarateKid7 uppercase. I will not use this account ever, simply I feel that there is no reason to keep this account blocked and it adds ammunition to people who try to claim that I am a sockpuppet of a blocked user. --Karatekid7 16:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the following message when I tried to edit today "Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by BorgHunter for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Pat8722". The reason given for Pat8722's block is: "Gaming of the three revert rule. It is not an entitlement; it is rather an electric fence" Your IP address is 72.131.49.76. I have never gamed the three revert rule, and am entitled to a statement as to the factual basis upon which it is alleged I did, considering that I was reverting unilateral reversions that were made without addressing the outstanding questions stated on the talk page.pat8722 14:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has expired now, but I will indeed give you an explanation. You made 6 reverts in 24 and a half hours. That's textbook gaming of the 3RR rule. As for quote-unquote "unilateral" reversions, check your Request for Comment page. No one has agreed with your summary, but a number of people have agreed with the view opposing yours. I think you might be the one being unilateral here. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[03]Your "explanation" of the block requires some explanation. Do you know what a "unilateral" reversion is? I was myself reverting a unilateral reversion, so my reversion was permitted under the wiki 3rr rules governing unilateral reversions. So do you agree that blocked me for a non-3rr issue? A reversion is forbidden when the reversion doesn't address the unanswered questions and concerns outstanding on the talk page, particularly where the reversion being reverted by me has been frequently made in the past without addressing the outstanding questions and concerns. Reversions of such unilateral reversions are permitted, which is all I did. My second question to you is: Did you read the full Talk:Libertarianism page before you blocked me? My third question to you is, were you a past participant on any of the talk pages concerning these disputes? My fourth question is, are you an associate of any of those who have previously participated? Your block of me was entirely against wiki policy. pat8722 17:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not blocked anymore, man. Even if I were to somehow admit wrongdoing, what exactly do you expect I would do to rectify it? There is nothing more to be done. The matter is closed, and I have nothing more to add, except: Please don't revert war. Thanks. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[05]No, its not over. Unless you acquaint yourself with wiki policy and what I did for which you blocked me, you are likely to do the same. Three reverts a day are permitted, when that is the only way to get those who are NOT seeking consensus (by their failing to answer the outstanding questions and concerns) to seek consensus (by answering the outstanding questions and concerns.) If you follow wiki policy, eventually the others will engage in meaningful debate and we will resolve the dispute, or they will "give up" and go elsewhere where they will do less harm. So please assure me that will not block me again for using my daily alottment of three reverts, until paragraphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235] are answered, as wiki policy required them to be. Please also answer my other questions, as it appears to me we have yet to see an unbiased person participate on the RFC page.pat8722 19:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, I strongly urge you to stop this. You are not "allotted three reverts" during the course of the day, you are LIMITED to three reverts to prevent the exact same sort of revert-warring you are engaging in. Furthermore, you did violate the 3RR. BorgHunter legitimately blocked you for a short cool down period- after which you've chosen to violate Wikipedia's civility policy by calling him a "bully" and stating that "he is destroying wikipedia". You need to calm down and realize that you're not in the right here, and cool off a little. Daniel Davis 01:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[07]BorgHunter, when you added the minor "::" to my comments on your discussion page, you stated in the "edit summary" field the belligerent comment you should have stated in the discussion text, namely "Yes, the matter is closed. Mainly because I choose now to stop replying to it. Good day". That is not a rational response. You (and Daniel Davis above )are ignoring the KEY POINT, my reverts are ENTIREYLY CONSISTENT WITH ALL PRESENT WIKIPOLICY. It is those who revert my reverts WHO ARE NOT FOLLOWING WIKIPOLICY. Consistent with the approach of consensus building, I have posed questions to the reverters, which they are merely ignoring, choosing to make the forbidden unilateral reverts, instead. Therefore they are the ones wiki policy requires you to warn and block, not me. The only reason for the blocks of me have been political and the result of "piling on", where the admins doing the warning and blocking have not actually looked at the facts to determine what has been going on, and who the policies should be enforced against. Three reverts a day of those who are unilaterally reverting my reversions, by failing to respond to the questions at paragraphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235] is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH PRESENT WIKI POLICY? Do you agree that a response to relevant questions is a necessary part of consensus building, and that without it, "consensus" is just the forbidden "vote" wikipedia: voting is evil? I would like your assurance that you will NOT block me for three reverts a day on the Libertarianism page, until my questions at paragarphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235] on its talk page are answered by those who do the reverts.

[08]Without discussion on the points raised, do you agree that there is no consensus building, only bullyism?

[09]Please also answer the questions at paragraph [03] above, as you are looking like a classic bully admin who abuses his powers and should be stripped of that role. Is there any review process in wikipedia, for proposing that you be stripped of your admin powers for bullyism?pat8722 17:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pat, sorry for the lack of response. Your comment got added at the same time as one by Mel Etitis below, and I looked at his without looking at yours first. I only noticed it when you added the paragraph numbers. My apologies.

You claim that I'm being a bully. Can you please provide evidence of this? If I seem that way to you, I apologize, this was never my intention. However, I would like to note that you have been tossing insults about on this talk page, such as "bully", and also suggesting that I be stripped of my sysop powers. If you plan, as stated in your edit summary, to make a complaint against me, these words will indeed come back to haunt you, and you may find yourself in hot water rather than the other way around. It is generally best, in a dispute, never to let your temper get the best of you, and to always follow WP:CIVIL.

As for some of the rest, I see some misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy. "choosing to make the forbidden unilateral reverts", for example, is one. Reverts are not forbidden, as sometimes an editor or a group of editors may need to alter text that may not fit with other Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NPOV. Sometimes, reversions are the only way to make the text fit with such policies. It should not be taken as an attack on you or your prowess at editing articles. I further note that you make numerous references to consensus. I admit that I have not visited Libertarianism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in a while, but last I was there, there were two or three editors reverting your changes, while you were the only one adding them or suggesting that the text be changed. To me, consensus would seem to be clearly in favor of the group of editors rather than your side. In my mind, if an editor is truly concerned about consensus, he would not make a large a disputed change, such as yours, once, much less repeatedly, without a note on the talk page and discussion on the proposed wording. Revert wars, such as the one you entered into, do nothing to further Wikipedia's goals, and are extremely detrimental to the project, as it causes tempers to run hot and people to lose their cool. As I have no desire for such behavior to continue, I blocked you for twenty-four hours, attempting to give you and the other side a chance to cool down, as well as hopefully demonstrating to you that such behavior is unacceptable. Your response to my block has been argumentative and petty, which is unfortunate, as I don't think my message has gotten through to you. My main point, which I beg of you to understand and take to heart, is that Revert wars are harmful to Wikipedia. There is no leeway allowed on that rule, nor is there any discussion to be made. Such behavior does nothing but turn Wikipedia into a haven for bickering, arguing, and doesn't help write articles. I would suggest to you that you not make another revert to Libertarianism at all, and instead, that you try to strive for consensus on the talk page. Revert warriors, no matter their cause, are frowned upon here. Please do not continue such behavior. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[13]"Bully" is a perfectly good english language word. It means "to bluster or domineer" (New Webster's Dictionary, Westin FL, 2005). Admins who don't investigate before they block, who don't give explanations for their blocks, and who speak and act without checking the facts, meet the definition and need to be dealt with as such.

[14]"Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another", such as you and the others have been making are what is defined as "incivil" [wp:civil].

[15]Your latest problem as revealed above, is that you consider "voting" to establish "consensus". OF COURSE THAT IS TOTALLY UNTRUE (see wp:voting is evil and wp:consensus). If as an admin you still don't know so, that's more than one reason to eliminate you as an admin.

[16]You also state "if an editor is truly concerned about consensus, he would not make a large a disputed change, such as yours, once, much less repeatedly, without a note on the talk page and discussion on the proposed wording". That is the whole point YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE FOR MISSING - I DID make many comments on the talk page, and I have repeatedly provided the cites to it. I will do so again -,see paragraphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235] on the talk:libertarianism page, which are still awaiting an answer so we can achieve consensus. You just keep proving you did not investigate before you blocked me, and that you have no interest in investigating to see if what you say is true. (Another major reason to eliminate you as an admin.)

[17]You say you blocked me for making "unilateral reverts" (which I have never done). You have then given examples only of unilateral reverts you say are ok. As you unjustly blocked me for allegingly making "unilateral reverts", describe what you mean by "the forbidden kind of unilateral reverts", as you have been asked to do.

[18]Lastly, revert wars happen all the time in wikipedia, and sometimes they are the only way to get others to make an effort at achieving consensus - by encouraging them to respond to outstanding points on the talk page - the only real way to do it. (It's either that, or getting you to block them for their unilateral reverts -which do you prefer?) Your failure to answer the questions of paragraph [03] above, indicate you have something to hide. Combined with all of the above, you definitely should not be an admin. What is the procedure for accomplishing that? pat8722 22:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not put words in my mouth; I've never suggested using voting to achieve consensus. I said that discussion, not voting, is necessary. Also, I am aware that you placed notes on the talk page; however, this does not excuse revert warring, which is not an acceptable method of editing, as you suggest. If you're making edits that are being reverted without discussion, follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. If there is discussion but the outcome is not in your favor, which is what I believe has happened...shoot for a compromise. Don't inflame tempers. I'd be glad to help you out in editing in this sort of fashion, if you wish—doing so creates a scenario in which people are far more willing to work with you. It also doesn't get you blocked under the 3RR.

If you wish more eyes to be on the situation (note that this is not a trial to get my sysop bit flipped), follow the steps on Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. That page states that if discussion has failed, mediation or a request for comment is next. A RfC is less formal, more open, and I would heavily advise against this course of action in view of your own outstanding RfC which has shown relatively few users supporting your view. Mediation is currently fairly backlogged, and I doubt you could get through. I'd like to head off either course of action, though, so as not to create undue work for Wikipedia. Again, I'm not sure what you desire from me...could you please say so? I'm a pretty easygoing guy, and I'm not unwilling to make accomodations for you, within reason. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[19]It is clear that reversions of my edits were unilateral, not the result of "discussion", in that "discussion" must be two-sided, and my questions at paragraphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235] on the talk: Libertarianism page are still awaiting an answer.

[20]If you believe that "discusssion" is what is necessary to resolve edit wars, then we have no dispute. You and I need only to come to a joint conclusion on how that is achieved. Mediation and Rfc's accomplished nothing, in that only the original parties and their associates, took part, consisting of the same unfounded accusations, the same failure to answer my points, and the same ongoing failure of their admin cronies to actually read the talk page to see what had actually happened.

[21]Right now, the only thing keeping a "non-definition" on the Libertarian page is a "majority vote" being enforced by a couple strong-arm admins, who haven't read the talk page and who don't respond to the points I raise in objecting to their block of me.

[22]Discussion is necessary to achieve consensus, and discussion means "debate, examination" (New Webster's Dictionary, 2005, Westin FL), which requires the others to respond in the discussion, i.e. to answer paragarphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235]. As the only party being blocked is the only party willing to enage in discussion on the unresolved points, the problem of the wrongful blocking has got to addressed.

[23]It is only because a cabal of editors have a couple of admin friends who they know will block me for reverting them, that keeps a "non-definition" and "false by implication" "definition" on the Libertarianism page, and which keeps them from participating in discussion. To my understanding, there are only two ways to encourage discussion (dispute resolution) with non-compliant parties under the wikipedia rules - doing three daily reverts and using blocking.

[24]My three dailing reverts did finally begin to work, when Rehpotsirhc made an attempt to respond to my questions (insulting me in the process, but I don't mind as at least he responded) and to propose a compromise definition at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libertarianism&diff=49047925&oldid=49037958, but the others, knowing no attempt at consensus was necessary as long as they had strong-arm admins to enforce a mere majority vote, would not respond to efforts to parse that definition to see if it was the equivalent Rehpotsirhc believed it was, or whether it was an accurate definition if it was equivalent.

[25]If the couple admins involved would just follow present wiki policy by allowing me my three reverts of unilateral reversion (or by blocking the unilateral reverters), the others will either engage in discussion (i.e. answer paragraphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235] on the talk: Libertarianism page, such that the outstanding issues will be resolved, or they will go elsewhere where they will do less harm, and we will finally have a chance to put the definition of Libertarianism on the Libertarianism page, rather than the absolute nonsense they have there now, and which they know cannot survive discussion.

[26]Since you are presently the primary obstacle standing in the way of achieving discussion (i.e. consensus building) on the outstanding points (paragarphs [113], [118], [224] [229], [231], and [235] on the talk: Libertarianism page), and since you have been violating wiki policy in blocking me for using my three revert allotment to encourage consensus building (i.e. consensus-building through discussion on the talk page), and in failing to block the others for their unilateral reversions of me (in violation of 3rr, even though using less than 3 reverts a day) by failing to respond to the outstanding quetsions on the talk page (paragarphs [113], [118], [224] [229], [231], and [235]), the main problem right now to "how wikipedia is supposed to work" is you, and such as the one other admin who also blocked me without investigating ("piling on"). Since "discussion" is the solution, how do you propose making that come about? pat8722 18:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ceasing to refer to the 3RR as giving you "an allotment of three reverts" is a good first step, because that is explicitly not so. Secondly, I encourage you not to edit war, and to discuss on the talk page. That's really about it; I don't wish to throw my hat into the ring on the Libertarianism dispute. I don't like confrontation. Cheers! —BorgHunter (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[28]No, not good enough. I DO have an allotment of three reverts a day, particularly where those reverts are NECESSARY to encourage the others to engage in discussion, there being no other means to achieve consensus. My use of reverts was ENTIRELY WITHING WIKI POLICY, and you know it. It's not like you don't like confrontation (blocking is a form of confrontation), it's that you don't like investigating before you confront, or engaging in discussion after you confront - you just like to use the bully power. Five votes, and two admin cronies to enforce it, have succeeded in keeping the definition of Libertarianism off the Libertarianism page - not the way wikipedia is supposed to work. So, what is the procedure for stipping you of admin powers?pat8722 15:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is none; please follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. I've said all I have to say on the subject. If you don't choose to believe me, that's your prerogative, but you really should. Admins only become such when they have a decent understanding of wikpolicy. That's not to say I'm some sort of god at it, but you really, really should believe me when I say that the 3RR is an electric fence and does not entitle you to three reverts per day. It says so at WP:3RR quite clearly. Please read that policy page in depth. —BorgHunter (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BorgHunter's exactly right here, Pat. You say, "I DO have an allotment of three reverts a day". But that's simply not the case. The point of 3RR is to stop edit wars in their tracks. This does not mean that it's the only way to stop edit wars -- just one of the quickest. Habitual edit warriors very quickly discover that 3 or even 2 reverts will get them blocked. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep revert warring is bad, we do not condole it by allowing users to revert 3 times every day. Borghunter acted appropriately by enforcing a short calm down block to stop an edit war. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last week or so the main page articles have been constantly hit with personal info vandalism. Any time the pages are unprotected the vandal strikes, and the page needs to be deleted. So it has to be protected, or there won't be a page to edit half the time ;-). I personally don't like it, but what can be done? Prodego ^talk 00:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, that really sucks. Like, really. Completely. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find who added it! Prodego ^talk 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I added it... That's odd Prodego ^talk 00:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You and your admin-kin have a tough go now and then. I've been eyeing the Pink Floyd article all evening. Couldn't hardly keep up with the re-directs!. It's an excellent article, too bad it had to be locked. It's not just there though. Bad edits abound on FA music articles tonight. Some editors can be a real Pain, man I just don't know where they come up with some of that fluff. Deleting book/autobiography refs and putting AMG links and unpublished essays in as replacements. And nary a word on the talk page about any of it. Pretty discouraging. Kudos, Cheers! and keep up the good work! Anger22 01:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still hoping for you to recreate those starfleet images ;) --Cat out 18:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you've managed to contribute to an edit war on Ages of consent in North America. This isn't very productive. As it states on the talk page there's an attempt to get all the parties together to discuss the issue on the article's main page. The page you moved is only one of 7 pages in a series. If one page is renamed then they should all be renamed the same way. It would be nice if we can come to a concensus regarding this before any moves are made. That way it will all make sense and all the pages will work together.

You've also removed the preamble at the top of that page. It is a needed disambiguation parargraph, as age of consent can refer to matters other than sexual activity (see the other edit war going on at the same time). It would be nice if you could put that back. --Monotonehell 07:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I explained both my actions; see my talk page note for the former, and the edit summary for the latter. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BorgHunter/Archive 4,

Thank you for supporting my RFA! Unfortunately it did not succeed mainly because most opposers wanted me to spend more time on Wikipedia. Thank you for your faith in me & looking forward to your continued support in the future.

Cheers

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 01:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. You reverted (incompletely) my renaming of the article without consulting or informing me — why do you think that I was obliged to consult or inform you when I changed it back?
2. Editing in accordance with Wikipdia guidelines or policies, including the Manual of Style, isn't a matter of consensus each time. Wikipedia style for titles is that prepositions, articles, and conjunctions aren't capitalised. This is a pretty common approach, found in most style guides. If you disagree with the Manual of Style, then you should argue your case there. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I did what now? I reverted you? I wasn't aware of this; I didn't check the history when I moved it. As for being obligated to inform me...WP:AGF and WP:ROWN? —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Okay, I've researched this a bit. I don't see anything specific on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). It does, however, mention the Chicago Manual of Style, and I found this on their website:

   Q. Section 8.167 (3) of the 15th Manual of Style says that, when applying headline style, a preposition should be capitalized if it is stressed (A River Runs Through It). Please clarify what is meant by "stressed." Furthermore, how would you capitalize "One Nation under God"? Thank you.

   A. We are talking about how it sounds to the ear—admittedly, a somewhat murky rule. A river runs through it? A river runs through it? No—a river runs through it. Your "under" is likewise a good candidate for capping, for the same reason. Other examples: A Man about the House vs. All About Eve; Desire under the Elms vs. One Nation Under God [1]

   —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Album tiles and band names: "Convention: In titles of songs or albums, unless it is unique, the standard rule in the English language is to capitalize words that are the first word in the title and those that are not conjunctions (and, but, or, nor, for), prepositions (in, to, over, through) or articles (an, a, the)." --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User_Concordia Please explain the usage of the logo in this case and how it differs from the usage in in Template:User_SAIT

It doesn't. Thanks for pointing it out; I've removed it as well. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am the creator of the template User Concordia. You removed the picture of the Concordia University shield from it. I wasn't aware that there was a copyright problem for it when creating the template; I found the picture in the Concordia University article and so assumed that I could use it. I am sorry if I was mistaken. Could you explain to me why the picture Image:Concordia.shield.jpg can be used in an article but not in a template? What is the difference between this and, for example, the University of Waterloo crest? Can I do anything to make this image usable in the template? Thank you for your vigilance. IronChris | (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on that image, you'll see under licensing a big red copyright logo (©). That means that the image is asserted fair use, and per Wikipedia:Fair use, any image classified as such may only be used in articles. Images you can use are licensed under the GFDL (look for a big gnu head), Creative Commons, public domain, or are copyrighted but have had all their rights surrendered by the holder thereof. Thanks for your note! Let me know if I can clarify anything. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BorgHunter/Archive 4, thank you you so much for validating my RfA! I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have taken both the positive and constructive on board. If I can ever make any improvements or help out in any way, please let me know, ditto if you see me stumble! Thanks again for your much appreciated support. Deizio talk 18:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your vote on my RfA. Unfortunately there was no consensus reached at 43 support, 18 oppose and 8 neutral. I've just found out that there is a feature in "my preferences" that forces me to use edit summaries. I've now got it enabled :) Thanks again. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the authority bestowed on me by the Federation Council I hereby award you the Starfleet barnstar for the creation and recreation of rank insignias for the Starfleet ranks and insignia article. --Cat out 23:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a minute to read this your advice would be appreciated. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Karatekid7--Karatekid7 00:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what about impersonating this?

Bill_the_Bear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Karatekid7 01:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly enough for an indef block. Done. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is the impersonator, don't think you have banned him yet. Clever use of funny letter ls. he seems to be using a lot of proxies in Korea BiII the Bear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

%EF%AE%B0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I think is another TheMadTim as he edits pages to do with aids also, plus the non latin characters is a problem in itself. --Karatekid7 03:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for me to delete an entry to WP:RFI if it can be shown that it was put there by a user hiding behind a proxy. The user has used a south korean IP address and a number of these that I suspect to be user:TheMadTim have already been banned for being open proxies. --Karatekid7 12:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. If you're not doing anything wrong, he'll be ignored. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, BorgHunter/Archive 4! Thank you for voting for my recent RfA, which passed (to my extreme surprise and shock) with a total tally of 66/15/2. For that, I would like to thank you and offer a helping hand in any admin-related tasks that may be required -- it's as simple as leaving a message on my talkpage. Thanks again! -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 22:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I thought you should be aware of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:BorgHunter. Nobody (except Omniplex, for some reason) including me thinks this is a big deal. Chick Bowen 04:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note! I wish people who have issues with my actions would come to me first instead of going to ANI or whatnot and complaining there. Am I really that repellant? :) —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they're Borg and are just afraid to be alone with you. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI is the only game in town for admin abuse. There was certainly no discussion before this policy violation. Admins aren't supposed to violate policy, that's why they are admins. -- Omniplex 05:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Borg 05:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You never once discussed this with me. I don't know what you expect, but I'm no mind reader. —BorgHunter (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted my revised revert of the section in question of the Rush article before I hit my user talk page. I figured it would be more abuse, so I skipped it at first.

You'll take it as you wish, but I was not deliberately intending to get "cyberspatially" in your face. It wasn't personal.

However, I'm still not sure I agree with this sandbox thing. It's not been explained to my satisfaction how this squares with merciless editing--one of the things that drew me to participate in the first place.

Or who and how it is decided what the final version of the article is to be. Especially since we obviously have some diametrically-opposed views.

(If you hunt Borg, does that make you a member of Species 8472? Just curious.)

PainMan 21:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In re: Rush article

To help us reach consensus, a sandbox version (and revert-free zone!) of the Rush article has been created at Rush (band)/Sandbox. Once we get to a version everyone agrees with, we can merge that back with the main article. Please remember not to revert any other person's edits, and stay away from the main Rush article for the time being, and we'll all be peachy. Thanks!

Peachy for whom? I'm not feeling very peachy. If we can't edit, can't add our opinion, can't make changes, then what's the bloody point? I'm just supposed to wait while you and your friends email the article back and forth and then post a version you like--and then, I suppose, the page will be locked down--SOL PM!

Sorry but I have major, major problems with this approach. I really don't think I can adhere to it.

At least not without further discussion and explanation. PainMan 19:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your other option is to be nearly universally reverted. No fewer than three people have wholly rejected your edits, and I don't think there's any other way they'd stick. Sorry. —BorgHunter (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then to quote my favorite "wascally wabbit": "Of course you know, this means war."

I wanted to play nice. Obviously the totalitarian claque that's highjacked the Rush article is only interested in its own opinions.

Just as I thought the consensus of the Wiki-Politburo is: "PainMan go pound sand!"

How much did you guys pay for the page? Can I have verfication of the purchase?

You change it. I'll change it back. You'll change, I'll change it back. Eventually one of us is going to give up. It ain't gonna be me.

Period. End of story.

PainMan 21:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That will get you blocked. I would advise against that course of action. —BorgHunter (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One day I'll pick on someone else. Todays question: This new user's contributions read a little too neat. A quick web browse and I've found that he/she is lifting text(in some cases whole paragraphs) from this webpage and this webpage, just to name 2(there may be more...I didn't dig that far). His edits have been to this article and this article. I've never spotted anything like that before so I don't know what Wikidom does to handle that kind of contribution. Thought you(or any other Admins that happen in on this) could enlighten me on "procedure". Thanks and take care! Anger22 21:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I removed the copyvios from the edit histories and told him not to do it again. Incidentally, click here (irony included for no extra charge), please. Thanks! —BorgHunter (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and next time I won't be so subtle ;-) Cheers! Anger22 21:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]