Hello, Spacecowboy420, I hope you are well. I am currently working to improve the article Wild Palms (band) which uses UK English. The article creator used the word "whilst" twice in the article in ways that look odd to my eye, but I'm not familiar enough with UK usage of the word to be sure whether it's correct or not. Would you mind taking a look?

(On an unrelated note, you may not be aware that it's preferred to archive conversations from one's talk page rather than simply blanking the page. Previous versions remain visible via the article history page, but blanking one's user talk page can create the appearance of having something to hide, which I doubt you intended. Help:Archiving a talk page has more information; if you have questions, feel free to visit the Teahouse for further assistance.) —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's still reasonably common (when being formal) to use the word "whilst" however, while is a totally acceptable alternative and I thought that there was some kind of policy/guideline that stated we should choose words that are acceptable for all forms of English, if there was a suitable term available. (I may be wrong about that policy, I will take a look) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to you on my talk page. Thanks again for your help! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I recently created an article about the now-defunct Camden Crawl music festival, and have run into some issues with it. This is your personal invitation to join the discussion going on here about how to handle unwieldy lineup information. If this is outside your areas of interest, feel free to simply ignore. Happy editing, GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 20:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look. Sorry, I only edit from Monday - Friday, so I didn't reply earlier. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, WP:TIND. Thanks for you contribution to the discussion! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 11:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted the section title being homophobic is different from being accused of being homophobic (which is what is being written in the article). To give an extreme example, a person who is accused of rape/murder, would not have the section titled "rapist"/"murderer" just because he is accused of it. Hope you understand. Zhanzhao (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty clear that he is homophobic, but after second thoughts, "pretty clear" implies original research, so I agree with your revert. Besides anyone can read the article and judge for themselves. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It can get quite tricky when dealing with labels, especially with controversial figures which may attract supporters for/against them. I did play around with possibly going for "accusations/allegations of homophobia" but that seems to be a loaded title as well. What are your thoughts on that? Zhanzhao (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there are enough really reliable sources that call them homophobic, then yes. If those sources aren't quite so strong in calling them homophobic, then controversy would be the safer option.Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not done adding information to this article. This school has become notable in recent years. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 07:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure, but I thought the normal way was to construct an article in your personal sandbox, and when it meets all the required criteria for a wikipedia article, then to create the article. That way people don't see a half made article and suggest it for deletion. Either way, I would suggest improving it kinda quickly, as a previously deleted article, it's probably going to have people (other than me) wanting it deleted again. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Spacecowboy, for your interest in the Jean Sibelius article. While I share your desire to simplify the level of language used in Wikipedia articles, I don't think it is grammatically correct to replace "the core of his oeuvre" by "the core of his works". A "core" can only be applied to a single entity. Furthermore, oeuvre is widely used to cover the sum of a composer's work. A quick look at the biographies of other composers reveals that it is used in connection with Wagner, Vaughan Williams, Mahler and Benjamin Britten. The sentence with your change now contains the word "works" twice: "The core of his works is his set of seven symphonies which, like his other major works..." which is not at all elegant. The sentence now needs to be rewritten to avoid repetition. I think you must agree the change you made was a backward step.--Ipigott (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is pretty ugly English to have works twice. I have reverted myself, if I can think of a nicer way to reword it, I will propose it on the talk page, so that editors who have put time and effort in the article can give their opinions. What can I say? I had to use a dictionary to find the meaning of the word "oeuvre" - so I guessed it was a reasonably obscure term. (either that, or I just need to read/learn a little more.) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We all live and learn. It it is a fairly obscure term but is used quite a bit in art, music and literature. It is used similarly in French where in the singular it means the total work of an artist. Thanks for cooperating on this. I hope you will continue to take an interest in articles on classical music. Unfortunately there are not more than a handful of us who contribute to any extent. Let me know if I can help you in any with with your own articles.--Ipigott (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's my main motivation in editing wikipedia, I tend to edit a lot of articles that I know nothing about and end up learning something new. I think that is probably the first classical music related article that I've edited, but if I find myself on one in the future, I will keep your offer in mind. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see that File:Glasgow_youths_4_06.jpg is "already in use on another article on wikipedia" - from the links on the image page it's currently being used on talk pages at Talk:Ned (Scottish) and Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board/New images/Archives/March and April 2006, and some foreign-language Wikipedia articles about drinking in public. By all means cut the cartoon while it's being discussed, but we should not be presenting a photo of three Scottish kids as "typical chavs". --McGeddon (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, it was used in the past, but not right now. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been checking back on old articles I've contributed to. It looks like the pages on Shinchonji and Lee Man-hee have been sanitised of all mention of controversy, or even each other. Lee is referred to as a "peace activist" with no mention of the church through which he operates. I looked through the Talk pages for both, and I think it would be a good idea to start pushing to get both back in order, with reputable sources. Seeing how you had contributed to the discussion, I wanted to give you a heads up in advance. Junganghansik (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know, I will take a look at those articles. There were a few accounts banned that were removing content from those articles, I imagine it's the same person with a new account/IP. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I just caught a user Lura1234 vandalising the SCJ page. I reverted it back to a previous edit, but it might merit some extra attention. Junganghansik (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't paid much attention to those articles recently, but given the vandalism, I will keep an eye on them, thanks. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's Lee Man-hee's birthday this week, so looks like our work is cut out for us. Junganghansik (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Let's get busy. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look at this the talk page of the list of fastest motorcyles .Not sure who contact I know you as well have had problems from dennis bratland. I think this guy is doing this because I spoke against him and is now doing this. Or at least tell me who to contact sorry to post to you talk page I do not know how to just message someone. 72bikers (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good timing! I was just posting on that talk page. I'm not 100% sure, and while I'm not sure if it counts as stock or not, if it's not street legal, then it doesn't belong on the list. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your response. I did not want to get into some drawn out debate with someone not adhering to there own rules. You made some valid points on what is street legal as well. But in there reference it did clearly state not street legal to achieve those results. 72bikers (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With the source stating "track only" it seems pretty clear cut that it shouldn't be on that list. I'm sure you're aware that Dennis isn't the easiest guy to deal with. He's been here a long long time and has put a lot of work into these articles, which is great - but he also gets rather hard to reason with, if he doesn't agree with your edits. I've found that sticking to clear policy and inviting opinions from other editors, is the easiest way to deal with stubborn editors. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty new to this but yes found that out right away. I do not mean to attack anyone or to speak badly of anyone. But It seem like he introduced himself from my early start so that I would be led to believe that he was a authority. And I would need his approval on anything I posted. And when spoke of consensus his trumped all. 72bikers (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's very similar to my experience. When I edited a motorcycle related article another editor said something like "we should check with Dennis" - while I don't mind being polite and asking the opinion of more experienced editors, I won't be treated like a little kid by someone who thinks they own the motorcycle related articles, just because he's been here a long time. But, I will try to be fair, if there is a good edit, I will respect it, no matter who makes it. I don't see it as a big problem, every time he has tried to boss people around in the last month or so, virtually every single other editor has told him he is wrong. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave that link there for now. Even when looking for the earlier link it was hard to find, and then spot. But it is up there, in the 1990's section. [What not to link] Dave Rave (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that is was already in the 1990's section. I don't mind if it stays or goes, so if you wanna remove it, please feel free. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

can you take a look at the Aprilia RSV4 page. There is a reference there that needs fixed and not quite sure how. 72bikers (talk • contribs) 04:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert at references. (actually, I'm not an expert at much on wikipedia) but I will take a look and see if it is something I can fix. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

which reference is broken? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its not broken it just going across the whole screen cant miss it maybe I will ask pete. 72bikers (talk • contribs) 00:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that different browsers display references differently. I couldn't see it...but then again, I'm using an old PC in my office, with a tiny screen, so I dunno what other people see. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see a difference now? before the reference went across half the page into the info box. 72bikers (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to say "no violation" here. As you note, it's not a violation of the letter of the law, and given the details, I don't want to say that it's a violation of the spirit. If you check the page history, you'll see that he's edited the article several times before — it's plausible that he already had the article on his watchlist and merely did what he would have done had anyone else done the same as you did. So basically, while it's quite possible that you're right, there's an easy alternative explanation, and people shouldn't be getting blocked for spirit-of-interaction-ban violations when there's an easy alternative explanation. If he were stalking you, immediately following your edit with an AFD nomination of a page he'd never before edited, I'd be speaking quite differently.

Thanks for approaching this situation the way you did, by the way. From the admin's point of view, this is the ideal kind of report: calm and peaceful, sufficient links provided so I don't have to go looking, and you acknowledge the "weakness" of the letter-of-the-law nonviolation rather than pretending that he was in the wrong in every possible way. If you seek further input, or request future ban enforcement, in the future, please do just like you've done here. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read his mind, so it's maybe safer (for my sanity) to assume it was a genuine edit, with no motivations related to me having edited the article. And thanks for taking a look at it, it's maybe easier for all involved to send a quick message to an admin, rather than deal with the huge drama that is associated with ANI reports. I would say that I will contact you the next time this happens, but hopefully there isn't a next time. I'm sure the other parties involved are just as sick of this as me. thanks again Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further details in this comment from Drmies, who came to my talk page after I requested outside input. Nyttend (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, Nyttend, how we agree and yet do not totally agree. We are truly in a "judgment" area here, and right now I have a bit less faith in Dennis's judgment here: it smells too much like skirting around the ban. But it's a smell--there's no evidence, as you correctly suggest. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

72bikers is running into stormy waters and I'm having trouble working out what's going on. He feels he's been harassed, but I'm not seeing how. Something to do with copyvios on some motorcycle article. He's been blocked for a week, but with no warning given for a junior editor on a first offence, I think that's a little steep.

Contact me via email if you want to go into details, but at the moment I'm seeing a need for a fellow biker to help him edit constructively on motorcycle subjects, of which I know nothing. --Pete (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I didn't know that happened. I will take a look. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this: not all web browsers are created equal, nor all displays. I frequently read Wikipedia on a monitor turned long side perpendicular to the ground, or on a 5:3 aspect ratio tablet held the same way. On my tablet right now, the images float above the table and it looks pretty poor.

Many people view Wikipedia on a handheld device such as a phone which definitely does not have a lot of space on the sides. Something to keep in mind when making image-placement decisions. – Brianhe (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look on my large screen, tablet and android phone when I'm not at work. I was under the impression that putting images as thumbs made it easier for different browsers/displays to deal with them. 11:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Spacecowboy420 (talk)

Thumbnails are great. But packing them in until your display looks "full" probably isn't a good idea because it will be over-full on someone else's monitor. This link should show you what I mean [1]. - Brianhe (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I use the wiki-app on anything that doesn't have a decent sized screen. I've never had issues with that. These things are always going to be a compromise. Image full for those with big displays - tablet users will suffer. Less images so that tablet users are happy, less content than optimum for PC users. 11:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Spacecowboy420 (talk)

Another option, lots of tables have tiny images in-table that can be clicked through to view. List of Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks for example, and many in Category:Lists of National Historic Landmarks by state. Brianhe (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look later. I should be doing some work, instead of editing wikipedia all day long. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The in-table images seem to be the best idea. I have no idea how they look on other displays, but if it's a standard thing on wikipedia, I guess they must be suitable. It's gonna take me a while to complete though. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's all a learning process. I'm sure it will be easier the second time around, if you decide you want to try again. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thank you for your support. 72bikers (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're always welcome. You're one of the good guys here.

I'm starting to feel that it isn't worth arguing with certain admins. If I am blocked again, I will just play video games for the duration of my block and get back to editing, once the block is over. I like wikipedia a lot, I just don't like the lack of consistency or accountability from a few of the admins. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree more! Except in my down time I choose to work on my own personal motorcycle. 72bikers (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I shortened what your last message said on my talk page. I did not change what you said just removed the last part about feeling crappy. About 2 hours after doing this Brianhe who must be stalking me now undid the change I made. I left a message on his talk page to stay off mine and to stop stalking me. Should I bring this up to the admins attention? 72bikers (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't bring it up with the admins, but you can of course change the wording of that message of mine, or remove it from your talk page. If you have asked him not to touch your talk page, perhaps you should remind him of that, and make it clear that not touching your talk page includes, posting,reverting,tagging,templating,editing,etc. He wants to be an admin, so I'm pretty sure he won't want to get involved in any more nasty dramas. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Kapil Sibal page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it as too much, but I removed this contentfor WP:Undue. Regards Alokibees (talk) 06:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entire article is too much, so good edit! Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spacecowboy420, Please let me know what makes you keep saying only 'cult' and removing whole other information. Could we mention it both side information? What do you want to keep it this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facttrue (talk • contribs) 12:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

mainly because I think there are enough notable sources stating that it's a cult, but there are not enough reliable sources for the other content. Wikipedia is being used to promote a weird religious cult, and the editors who are promoting that cult have a conflict of interest because they are connected to that cult. Also, they are not following the rules of wikipedia and are using multiple accounts. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to surly follow the Wikipedia rules but it is not easy. So please make this article more clearly not saying only one side information.

This is google first page when you enter "HWPL" https://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=hwpl&oq=hwpl&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l5.3759j0j7

Please see these links for "HWPL" news using google news searching (past year). https://www.google.com.au/search?num=50&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=633&tbs=qdr%3Ay&tbm=nws&q=%22hwpl%22&oq=%22hwpl%22&gs_l=serp.3...0.0.0.1179.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.serp..0.0.0.2DVXTTARdFA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facttrue (talk • contribs) 14:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, I've been trying to keep the Lee Man-hee and SCJ pages honest. I was the one who accidentally anonymously posted the edit that Mannam, HWPL, IPYG et al are not "cults" but fronts for a cult. I also am the one who contributed the picture of their 2012 Olympiad which you keep removing (until the last time, I thought it was the SCJ drone taking it down). Out of curiosity, why don't you want that picture up? I risked my safety to take it, and I think the mass games are a suitable representation of SCJ. Junganghansik (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reinsertion. FYI, that white-clad group standing in the middle of the stadium in the photo, that's a bunch of foreigners in Mannam shirts that were sent into the stadium with no idea what to expect. Apparently even a few of them had been recruited earlier that day. If you ever need to play tag team on either of those pages, just send me a message. I try to check in monthly. Junganghansik (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're doing well with our work on those articles. Socks get blocked, silly content gets removed. I'm sure there will be more socks there, but if we keep on making good edits, it's never gonna be a problem. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand your reasoning here. It's an Indian market bike, wouldn't Indian awards be especially relevant in its case? Note that this is the 150 cc, Indian market Suzuki Gixxer, not the 750–1000 cc world market Suzuki GSX-R which is also called "Gixxer" in the U.S. - Brianhe.public (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are awards given out each year for numerous bikes such as in Cycle World. These are not rare occurrence and even on such notable motorcycles as the Suzuki Hayabusa which has received many make no mention of them. So I do not think it is of such importance to make note of them here. Gives the page a appearance of a advertisement. 72bikers (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it were an India only bike, I would agree that awards might be relevant. However, due to it being available in other markets, the notability of those awards is far less. Also, I would agree with 72bikers, that there are so many awards given out, that they are no longer of great importance and lack notability. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is an India-only market bike, as far as I can tell, according to the sources. And the awards were significant "bike of the year" awards from major media like Autocar and Top Gear. Sorry but I'm just not seeing what the problem is with this. Shouldn't an across-the-board deletion of "bike of the year" awards start with consensus at an appropriate venue like WP Motorcycling? - Brianhe (talk) 08:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really certain that it isn't India only. I will do a little searching, and confirm exactly where it is sold. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem, it's just something that adds nothing to the article. There are more bikes awards, than there are different bike models in India. They are kinda meaningless, and serve no purpose apart from marketing. Oh. Gixxer is sold in the Philippines. (and might be sold in Japan) - not sure where else though. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is also sold in the Philippines so it is not a India only motorcycle. But as I stated earlier,these are not rare occurrence and even on such notable motorcycles as the Suzuki Hayabusa which has received many awards there is no mention of them. 72bikers (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also there should not need to be a debate on a issue that clearly is not the norm in motorcycle articles. 72bikers (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Putting awards on bike articles, does not seem to be the norm, so a long drawn on debate on it doesn't really seem to be required. If a really well known and respect bike such as the Hayabusa, does not have mention of its numerous awards on its article, then a minor bike such as the Gixxer most certainly shouldn't have mention of its far less notable awards. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well done nicely spoken. Looks like we were on the same page with this 72bikers (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not blank pages, as you did to List of countries by graduates in natural sciences and engineering, whatever the reason. Somebody will come to Wikipedia, find a blank page and wonder what on earth is going on. If an article is a duplicate of another, then redirect it. If you feel that an article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, then look at the deletion policy. If it indeed meets the criteria for deletion in your judgement, then nominate it as appropriate. Thank you. — Smjg (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Honda CRF1000L (and Honda XRV750) a different title by copying the content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Africa Twin. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I will revert your edit & then make a request to merge the history of the two original articles, into the new article. That seems like the easiest way. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfect. Thank you for taking the trouble to do that. — Diannaa (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it works, it's the first time I have requested a history merge, and I wasn't sure if it could be done, because it was merging two articles, into another one. Fingers crossed. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appleyard is the history merge maven, I'm sure it's all right. — Diannaa (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I spoke to him a couple of days ago, about something unrelated and he was able to resolve that issue really quickly. Thanks again. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at recent edits here, I'm noticing bullshit warnings being posted - and reposted when removed - by IP editors. That sort of harassment remind you of anyone? --Pete (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's someone who has had their precious feelings hurt by my edits. It's kinda sad when things are taken so personally, over a collaborative project. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to show that those are track only or in track form bikes? It should state somewhere that those two are not street legal. 72bikers (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same, the additions to the list were good, but there needs to be additional notes to say which are street legal.Zachlita (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is exactly what I was thinking. Just so that no one is mislead with the information given. 72bikers (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also maybe define how the ducati achieves its top speed. That it is a street legal bike but that you have to equip the track only exhaust. That is provided from the manufacture along with the street legal exhaust. And that it does not need to be derestricted or tampered with but just adding the manufactures track exhaust 72bikers (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Yes, of course the notes should make things a little clearer. I will get to it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the notes. Feel free to adjust the wording, if you can think of a better way. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. 72bikers (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was amused by the discussion | here. If you have a history with someone that causes you to be wary of them, it's self-preservation to track their edits and speak up when you find conversations about you or incidents involving you. As long as you butt out from discussions and conflicts that don't involve you, the other editor doesn't have a leg to stand on by accusing you of "following". It's just a red herring to distract from the real issue of their behavior. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the user in question has already accused me of being a sock-puppet and is commenting on the merits of accusing people of being sock-puppets, then I agree with you 100%. Looking at someone's edits is obviously acceptable and obviously done by those who are making sock-puppet accusations, so yes they are trying to distract people from their errors, by throwing mud at everyone who disagrees with their edits. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Looking at someone's edits is...obviously done by those who are making sock-puppet accusations" Oh, but they defending the project against you, so their motives are entirely unquestionable. Defending yourself against them is just being petty. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

99% of things on Wikipedia are very petty. I find it annoying that I came to Wikipedia to edit, and found that I had to learn all the petty rules and guidelines in order to have any chance of my content surviving here. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are, which is why I usually tell people throwing the WP:ALPHABETSOUP at me to go pound sand. 99% of the people that like to do so only pay attention to standards they like, they rest they flout with impunity. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I told you, the rules only apply to others. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they do. Morals and fairness from certain editors, is a little to much to expect. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loved you edit summary. My other pet peeve is the cronyism. Editors butting into conflicts that don't involve them. Notice how the same editor had jumped in the sock-puppet discussion? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's to be expected. Of course if you or I did that, there would be an ANI report crying about how mean we are. Oh well, as long as I don't change my style to accommodate their silliness, all is good. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to attract the middle-school crowd. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please could you justify why you deleted the line, "Essentially a solo café racer, the TRX has meagre provision for a pillion passenger, with a thin pillion seat, a token seat strap, and uncomfortably high foot pegs"? Cheers. Arrivisto (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and yes of course I am happy to explain why I deleted that content: It seemed very much like a personal opinion, not a fact and therefore unsuitable for inclusion on wikipedia. Take a moment to read similar content that I added to the KTM 390 series article.

Motor Cycle News reviewed the bike and complimented the build quality, saying "It may be built in India, but the Duke seems to be well finished. Every bike is quality checked in Austria before being shipped to dealers."^[1]

It makes it clear that it is the opinion of a third party reviewer, puts the relevant text as a quote, and shows the source.

If the content you wish to be included is from a review, I would suggest either quoting or paraphrasing the review, and providing a citation. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your reply, but I disagree with your assessment. To call a bike a café racer is a factual description, not an opinion. It may not be a 1960's bike, nor a faux-retro (like the new Thruxton), nor does it have spoked wheels, but it is a café racer nonetheless. The pillion provision is awful (fact) for the reasons given, and Yamaha effectively acknowledge this by producing an optional plastic tonneau cover to replace the "seat". A delicious TRX project I saw at the Stafford Classic Bike Show yesterday was original apart from dispensing with the useless pillion seat and glassing it over. Of course, I have been the main contributing editor to the TRX page for some time, but I acknowledge that I don't own it; and, being anxious to avoid an edit war, I shan't interfere for the time being; but I note that another editor, 49.196.128.105, reverted your edit (which you promptly re-reverted), so it's currently 2:1 in favour of café racer! Arrivisto (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've never ridden the bike in question, but I certainly don't doubt your statements.

The problem is that if you want to say that something is awful, we can't do it on wikipedia, all we can do is say "this media source stated that it was awful"

I will take a look for some sources online, hopefully I will find some sources supporting as much of the above content as possible.

I'm at work now, so I will have to take my time, but hopefully I will get around to it, within the next few hours. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews are proving hard to locate. The MCN one is already on the article, and it says a little about the uncomfortable pillion. More is hard to find...

I have plenty of refs. When I dig them out, I'll reinstate the sentence, supported with citations. Best! Arrivisto (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Motorcycling WikiProject. Hopefully you have a good time, start many new articles and can contribute lots to the existing ones as we need that. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm looking forward to finding fun things to edit. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Spacecowboy420. Please see these edits. I have an experience of déjà vu.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let them edit a little more, the more silly edits they make, the easier it will be to get them blocked. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted a Sockpuppet investigation regarding Massyparcer. I would appreciate if you could comment to the investigation.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was just thinking about him...Of course I will comment. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. I opened another case today.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. This guy doesn't give up, does he? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making edits implying that the term misgendered is a neologism, as you did here and here. As I already explained in the edit summary reverting your first change, misgendered is over 30 years old, which is an eternity in this fast moving field. In particular, the term is older than other terms such as genderqueer and transwoman, and unless you want to call every term in the transgender glossary a "neologism", misgendered certainly does not qualify as one. Mathglot (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're basing your comments on the assumption that the criteria for a term being a neologism, is purely based on when the term was first used, not basing it on when the word was recognized by mainstream sources. You should also note that the standard procedure for dealing with neologisms, is to just remove them from the article. I was trying to be nice by offering a compromise and explaining that it is a neologism. I can deal with it the other way, if you prefer. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm basing it on solid evidence that the term misgendered was attested in at least forty books by 1986, according to the n-gram chart I linked for you right in the edit summary, and once again above. The evidence also compares usage of misgendered with two control terms that are widely used in articles about transgender issues all over Wikipedia and are not marked as neologisms, though they both happen to be more recent than misgendered. You then reverted, stating in the edit summary that "it doesn't really seem that way to me" as your evidence for misgendered as a neologism.

"You should also note that the standard procedure for dealing with neologisms, is to just remove them from the article."

Noted, and agreed. So, stick to your guns: for consistency's sake, why not go ahead and remove every term from the Transphobia article that was attested by mainstream sources more recently than "misgendered" and let's see what other editors have to say about that. You can start with cissexism, cisgenderism, cisnormativity, transphobic, transphobia, trans bashing, and deadnaming, all of which are not attested at the 40-books threshold until later than "misgendered" (don't believe me, look it up).

"I was trying to be nice by offering a compromise and explaining that it is a neologism."

You don't have to be nice, though I do appreciate it; however you gave no explanation, just your opinion. Your "compromise" was to undo my edit. If an edit is challenged for factual accuracy, you need to support it with evidence, not mere opinion. Attempting to revert a change you don't like by stating "it doesn't seem that way to me" in the edit summary is an example of the Because I say so argument, and it won't wash, especially when it flies in the face of solid evidence to the contrary. Your edit was factually incorrect for the reasons given there and here, so I reverted it.

By all means, "deal with it the other way," if that's your preference. The concrete evidence is strongly against you. Mathglot (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on bullet point 2 in the box at the top, perhaps this thread would be more appropriate if it were moved to Talk:Transphobia. What do you think? Mathglot (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I think that for the sake of peace and stability on that article, I will not restore the content referring to misgender being a neologism, unless I can find a reliable source that supports that claim. At the end of the day, I think that most content disputes can be solved by using reliable sources, and even when those sources do not support the content I consider to be ideal, it's best in the long run for most articles. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably more likely an overly enthusiastic student edit than a COI editor. Student editing projects are a plague persistent problem on gender related articles. TimothyJosephWood 12:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, probably not a genuine COI. I've just seen so many references to that particular book on gender related articles. I'm guessing it's the same two or three editors putting it on there. However, that is of course the dangerous thing about guessing, I could be 100% wrong. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm RexxS. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Rodeo that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I'm not your fucking bro, sonny. RexxS (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I'm eternally grateful for such a charming and eloquent response. I am honored to read such well written, and classy messages on my talk page.

Do not delete those photos right now!!!! Ronald Galope Barniso (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're not Butuanon, and you are not allowed to delete those photos because those photos are important to the people of Agusan del Norte for the future!!! I warned you!!! Ronald Galope Barniso (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bakit? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a pointer toward where it appears File:Robinsons Place.jpg was scraped from? I didn't find it in a Tineye search. —C.Fred (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sorry..I saw this message, just after I put one on your talk page...give me a moment, I'm at work, so I will give you a pointer as soon as I get a moment... Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for how to post, escape the text? ("www dot daily hyphen planet dot com slash Bios slash Clark_Kent") If all else fails, email it to me, but I'd rather have it in an open log here in case it's needed for reference later. —C.Fred (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

replied on your page. I found a way to put the address in the message. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thank you for your thoughtful edits to the listing of Victory. Having reviewed your edits, I think they make the page more concise and to-the-point, which is clearly a good thing. So, thank you!

I have a question, though, regarding the removal of the purpose statement ("Victory exists to honor God and establish Christ-centered, Spirit-empowered, socially-responsible, churches and campus ministries in every nation"). The statement appears word-for-word in a properly cited column by Christianity Today columnist Ed Stetzer. I'd like to understand the thought behind the removal of this particular chunk of text, because I think listing an organization's purpose statement (or mission) would be great information to have in a page about that organization. But maybe that's just me.

I also found myself thinking, maybe the citation isn't good enough. But Steven_Furtick's blog was accepted as a source for citing the purpose of the Elevation Network in its listing on the Elevation_Church page (which was one of my pegs when I began to contribute to the Victory listing). So color me a little confused. I hope you don't mind my asking. Obviously, I'm hoping we can Undo this part and keep it in, or perhaps transfer it to a more appropriate part of the page; if not, at least I would have understood the thought process behind its removal.

Again, I appreciate your edits, and look forward to collaborating further with you and the Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganns (talk • contribs) 08:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning behind the removal was...

1. The quote on the source was a word for word copy from the everynation website, and as such it seemed to be pretty close to being a primary source.

2 Secondly, as you stated, it is from a blog. I personally, don't really have much faith in using blogs as sources in most situations. ::: I would probably have objected, if I had been editing the other article that relied on it as a source.

At the end of the day, I usually rely on news sources for content like this, if it is notable, it's probably in a reliable source somewhere. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Have a pleasant day. (Apologies too for the absence of the signatures; this is literally the first time I'm posting on anyone's Talk pages, and I haven't gotten the hang of things. Cheers!) Ganns (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than welcome. I tend to be a little too happy to remove content from articles on specific churches, because a lot of the time people add overly promotional content from their own particular church. It may be the case in this particular situation that the content could have remained. As long as it is worded nicely, and not promotional, I don't have too many opinions on that content being restored to the article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think your reasons are very valid. Victory will just have to take it as a challenge to make the kind of impact on mainstream media that would allow third-party content from reliable sources to reflect the church's purpose statement to come across in a way that is organic and natural. Thanks again for your time! Ganns (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

72 hours without talk page access, per your request here. In case this was a mistake, WP:UTRS is still an option. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to delete the article List of South Korean regions by GDP, but it's not my original work, i just moved it. Lakshmix Created it on Dec. 20, 2008‎. Cncs 17：41 May 25, 2016.

Why did you remove the articles? Is therea problem with my doing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald Galope Barniso (talk • contribs)

please,please,please,please,please learn about the Wikipedia rules. You're adding lots of things without following the rules. All the photos, stuff copied from other places, we can't do that stuff. Every editor has been trying to help you, but you just keep doing it! Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about my doing moments ago. But don't say bad words against me because it hurts to my feelings. Nextime I will never add souces about URIOS UNIVERSITY articles. Salamat

~ ~ ~ ~

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Imeldific (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Imeldific (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So where's your warning to Sro23, who was warring before my latest edit of Ray Combs? Did you not see my report of him? So where did you get the idea to send me one but not him, huh? 174.23.160.130 (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude, but it seems very clear that you are using IP addresses to evade an editing block. As such, I won't reply to your comments here, unless you are shown not to be a block evading IP user. Thanks. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are we good?Imeldific (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article is perfect, I'm sure it will be hard to get total neutrality on an article about such a controversial person, but I think with outside opinions, discussion and an open mind, the article will improve.

I will be 100% honest and say that I have doubts about your neutrality on that article. I have no idea where you are from, but I am well aware that in the Philippines the Marcos family is hated by some and adored by others, and such feelings should never be used as motivation to edit wikipedia.

I also have good faith in all editors, and their ability to do well. So, I will assume that your edits are based on logical neutrality, and treat them as such, unless I am proven wrong. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It needs work. Thanks. Can the contentious edits yesterday be added now?Imeldific (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder if we could turn this into a heat map? Hepatitis_B_vaccine#Usage

Made one here a while ago Breastfeeding#Prevalence

There is some new tools to help with this. I would love to see a bunch more heat maps made.

These ones are getting old [2]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are instructions on them [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is something I have never made before, but also something that would be useful to learn... actually for my job, it's something that would be highly useful. Unfortunately, I never edit over the weekend, so I will take a closer look on Monday. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't revert. The edits weren't finished yet. Imeldific (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that you propose changes that are likely to be challenged, rather that make them (and even worse, revert other users)

I'd guess that seeing as you've already been blocked for edit warring on that article, many more reverts would see a much longer editing block, or worse... Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pincrete removed some paragraphs. There was already agreement with those. Imeldific (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Talk:Imelda Marcos #Imee and Bautista section. Imeldific (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then try to be honest in your edit summaries... Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pincrete removed that large chunk of content. So why the controversy?Imeldific (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to International School Manila has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you very much for writing me. You disrupt me to deliver FACTs regarding Aubrey de grey. Then, I will use a different strategy to deliver the FACTs to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wannabeanhonestscientist (talk • contribs) 20:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spacecowboy420, please respond in the WP:ANI thread. More blanking of articles or similar behavior will probably get you blocked from editing as what you're doing is being seen as disruptive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. John Carter (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter NeilN Replied on ANI thread. I don't honestly think my edits are anywhere near to vandalism, but I am always willing to take constructive criticism onboard, when it is given with good intentions. To be honest, I'm not quite as willing to listen to editors such as Flyer or Montana, as they are merely carrying over previous grudges, when I don't want any further interactions with them, but what other editors said on the subject on the ANI board made sense, and made me aware of other options when I see content without required or suitable sources. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very nicely said.72bikers (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.... but don't panic Mr Mannering ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's all become rather dramatic over something that could be simply solved by someone stating "saying X in an edit summary is/isn't acceptable" - thanks for the heads up. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per this edit, I am left wondering why fight posters are any different to music album covers. Both are covered largely under the same non-free/acceptable fair use criteria, so please explain the difference. Furthermore, the image has yet to even be tagged with a deletion notice, so it's rather poor form on your part in removing it from the article so hastily. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. I'm sure there are enough editors with extensive experience of what is and is not covered by fair use, that I don't have to be involved. If you're sure it's fine, then go use it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is required at Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape regarding the infobox of the article. Please do comment and give your opinion. Thank you. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will check it later. I'm working now, I will be free in maybe 30 mins. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you have some free time can you take a look at what is going on over at the CBR600F page. And what appears to be a IP editor vandalizing the page. You can get more info from the bottom of my talk page with talk with pete and from the cbr600f page edit history. If you have any questions just leave a message for me thanks. Also if you look at my sandbox it is what the page did look like as I was working on it. This is just one diff of many from him I reverted you can see the large blank spaces he was creating between history and style here [4] then went on to remove large amounts of content. 72bikers (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 72! Long time no see. Of course, I will have a look. I have a pile of reports to finish at work first, but as soon as I get them finished, I will give it my full attention. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per BRD, I reverted the article to a previous stable version. I think the best thing is that the IP gets consensus for any changes, before making the edits. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input and third opinion on this matter. 72bikers (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to restore the text I removed from Honda CBR600F, cool, but per WP:BURDEN you must add citations as well. I removed all of those paragraphs because none of them cited a single source. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. The wonderful debate of WP:PRESERVE vs WP:BURDEN. If you have a definitive answer as to which takes priority, then please inform me. However, I was more concerned with consensus and BRD. The article was stable. You edited it, and were reverted. So now the article seems to be at the "D" of BRD. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither bit of policy supports the inclusion of content that fails WP:Verifiability. And I did start a discussion about it; feel free to join in. You’d be the first. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest tagging it with a citation required tag, rather than edit warring. Looking at the amount of reverts you've made recently, and the fact that you just made a 3RR report, I guess you might see a boomerang flying your way if you keep on reverting. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The single revert of a policy violation I made today, you mean, and the two made over 24 hours before that? And when I was the only one attempting to discuss them? What is boomerang-worthy here? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting someone for edit warring on one article, and then making multiple reverts on the same article, could be considered to be boomerang worthy. I'd rather have discussion than ANI reports so don't worry too much. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you get a chance I have a question about merging the cbr650f page with the cbr600f page. 72bikers (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also the CB650f page needs to be merged with the CB600f page as this is the same model with just a displacement increase. 72bikers (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ask away. Also, I was given these two links that I used for the Africa Twin merge. Requested moves and Requests for history merge Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is what I thought you had some experience with this procedure and was just looking for your advice on how to accomplish this. 72bikers (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've got evidence that you probably need to add to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jagello but I can't do it on-wiki for various reasons. I think the way you worded the original evidence was problematic, but the content was itself not a violation of WP:OUT, so if you re-worded it to emphasize the fact that all of the information is available on-wiki, and that the off-wiki evidence was all explicitly stating "I am this user on-wiki and I did this and that", then it would not need to be revdel-led. My userpage has a bunch of watchers, including numerous admins and probably more than one current or former Arbitrator, but no one has redacted this yet because I was careful to word it in a manner that didn't violated any PAG.

Also pinging User:Bbb23 and User:L235 for fear the SPI will be closed and archived as unactionable before you respond to this.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) +1 Email is a good idea :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Haryana page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i am really shocked to have found that you have placed speedy deletion tags on some of the pages created by me such as Karuna Gopal, K K Handa, Sarman Singh and others. They are all very popular in their streams. Please, check out the references given on their pages.

I am a learner on Wikipedia and I have really took time out to create those pages as per the policies of Wiki to build wiki. I never thought that contributing to Wikipedia for about one and two year, people will question my interest at it or ask me whether i am being paid for the same or not. I really feel hurt with your question. I never thought that my contributions to Wikipedia would come to such a thing. I have created those pages because i feel that i should help Indian personalities get recognized for their services and work. The pages that i have created for the people, entity are all unique and as per the Wikipedia Policies. Please, check out the references. I understand you as an administrator have the role to manage, monitor quality of Wikipedia pages but I would request you to consider that pages i created are all unique too. Kindly remove the tags and help me continue doing what i am doing for i really want to contribute to Wikipedia. Thanks a lot.

Just stop it. The K K Handa article was already deleted, and you created it again with different punctuation to get around the deletion. I'm not an administrator, I just think your articles are created with some form of agenda. I'm not sure if you have a conflict of interest, a POV to push, or if you are simply a paid editor, but the vast majority of your articles should be deleted. These people are not notable. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be involved in an edit war over including information regarding hyperandrogenism, such as with this edit. This information is known, but it comes from a single point source that was anonymously produced. Per WP:BLPGOSSIP, this information can not be included until such time as another source is produced that is not based on the original leak. Also be aware that removing such material from an article is exempt from WP:3RR restrictions. I strongly encourage you to discuss the issue on the talk page before attempting this inclusion again. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, I have no desire to edit war over this point. I may at some time try to resolve this with a simple rewording. I'm sure the fact that it has been all over the media is notable in itself, and not portraying the claims as facts, merely as something that has been reported might be more suitable. The article already discusses the leak, so mentioning the content of the leak isn't a huge step to make, if done correctly. Thanks for the advice Hammersoft, it's so much nicer and productive to have a message on my talk page, than someone shouting at me on ANI. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You're quite welcome :) I'd still be careful about inclusion. That it was leaked might be news in and of itself, but it would still likely fall afoul of WP:BLP concerns. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• And less of this mocking nonsense. Please watch WP:BLP. You're long enough here to know the rules - Alison ^❤ 01:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, "hahaha. NO" in an edit summary is a unacceptable, while bullshit and shitty are acceptable? I'm not sure that I fully understand the logic in that, surely the use of "bullshit and shitty" in one edit summary is more offensive that "hahaha. NO"

I don't actually see why you felt any need to post on my talk page, I had already confirmed that I understood and agreed with the previous poster, who had voiced a concern about the BLP issues. Due to that issue being resolved, did you feel the need to pick apart an edit summary of mine, just because sourced content that I added to an article, didn't fit in with your particular beliefs regarding gender?

I'd rather you came straight to the point, rather than making petty comments about an obviously harmless edit summary, if you have some moral/ethical concern about something related to me. I'm receptive to constructive criticism, when it is made in a polite manner. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. What were you trying to do here? --John (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to revert back to the most recent stable version of the article, to prevent edit warring. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Did you read the discussion in the article talk page? Did you read the material you were restoring? --John (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes + Yes. I think as a content dispute, it would be best to deal with it on the talk page, once the initial bold edit has be reverted. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Since you have involved yourself, what is your view on the merits of the unsourced material that I have removed after a six-week discussion? Do you think it should be allowed to remain, in violation of WP:V? --John (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, I would have agreed with you, 100%. However, I was subject to a huge amount of whining and moaning on ANI, when I started to removed large chunks of content, due to a lack of sources. In my opinion, there is no clear priority regarding WP:PRESERVE vs WP:BURDEN. I guess if you had removed things a little more slowly, piece by piece, then it is more likely to be approved of. What people always tend to ignore is that if "their" content is removed due to a lack of source, then it can always be restored, once they have obtained a source. Do you feel the content is inaccurate? or merely unsourced? If it's not accurate, then it should go. If it's unsourced, but the accuracy isn't disputed, then it's a gray area. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a big distinction between "unsourced for years, under discussion for six weeks" and "inaccurate". Indeed it is impossible to tell the difference. If you wish to get involved in this matter, it might be better to post in talk than to revert edits which are in compliance with policy. --John (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that while your removal of content was in line with wikipedia policy, the edits that restore that content was also in line with wikipedia policy. I would be more inclined to ignore contradictory policies and just make the article better. It's better to reach a compromise with those who seem to give a shit about keeping that content, than it is to go through a month or two of various noticeboards and debates. Up to you, I don't like the 2CV, so I don't plan to waste much time on that crappy little car's article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spacecowboy, I welcome your presence. Sorry it's a boring topic... John's deletions are for the most part of verifiable material, I am trying to help weed out some of the OR portions and add sources but it's not easy when John keeps edit warring. I am sorry that I didn't read the 2CV talkpage in July. For me, before I engage in a large scale and potentially contested edit I contact possibly interested editors (easily found through the edit history) to build support in advance. That way one can avoid a lot of unpleasantness. Best regards,  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile at a Safe School. Repeat after me, "There is no controversy." Be that as it may, the truth will win out. B20097 (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm sure the other editor involved assumes that I have some political agenda (I'm waiting to be called CIS privileged or something similar) - all I'm concerned about is that the organization in question are known for controversy, and supporters of that organization are trying to remove all traces. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per my note on Talk:Safe Schools Coalition Australia‎, please don't restore the misleading text to the lede of Safe Schools Coalition Australia‎ again, or you may be blocked. Bishonen | talk 17:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The "Marxist" comment was fine and there are sources. The content about resigning just needed to be re-worded for clarity. There was nothing misleading about it. There are also sources to support it. You may have been a little hasty with your warning. But, it's all in good faith, I'm sure we are on the same side here. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		for working towards the objective of ensuring the article, Safe Schools NPOV, "Indicate[s] the relative prominence of opposing views". B20097 (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, firstly, I will make myself aware of the technical procedures and guidelines, once I have done that I will start reviewing articles. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove road intersection lists as WP:NOTGUIDE. It looks like more of a WP:POINT edit, like what you did to the Roxas Boulevard article. Road junction/intersection tables are allowed.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. You might want to consider WP:AGF before you start talking about WP:POINT.

2. It's a waste of space to have a list of intersections, and if they have traffic signals, or allow U-turns. Why would anyone want that on Wikipedia?

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. I posted on the article talk page about this THREE MONTHS AGO. No one objected in the last three months, so I suggest you gain consensus for changing what can be considered to the stable version of the article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that road intersection lists to be a guide for you, but please see MOS:RJL and the guidelines by WikiProject Highways, if you're still not aware of the road/highway article structure. As far as I know, road articles may have lists, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the list, and made the table collapse. It might benefit from a few tweaks, but it seems like a reasonable compromise. What do you think? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The information in the Phonology section seems incomplete and inadequate. I've worked on improving it, but it is reverted.

This is how it was 'Indian accents vary greatly. Most Indians lean toward a more vernacular, native-tinted accent for their English speech.'

The changes I had made was 'Indian accents vary greatly. Few Indians speak English with an accent similar to the Received Pronunciation which is referred to the Standard British(English) Accent, whereas most Indians lean toward a more vernacular, native-tinted accent for their English speech. For instance, natives from the east and those from the south of India who are more familiar with their their respective Regional language(s) than English tend to pronounce English words in accents of their regional languages, unlike those from modern times who give emphasis to their Pronunciation in English.'

It is being reverted and the Phonology section contains the same incomplete and inadequate information as before. So, can you add adequate information in the Phonology section or help me do so? Thank you. EpiphanicJoe (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the above based on a verifiable source, or just your opinion based on your experience? Also, to say that few Indians speak with a British accent does not seem to be required, how about a focus on how they do speak, rather on how they don't speak? Few speak with an American accent either, do we need to mention that? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed deletion of this unsourced stub. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is neither a stub or is it unsourced. Why would you want to delete this?72bikers (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see now that when you posted this the article was in a different state.72bikers (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spacecowboy420. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Massyparcer is back as User:Teamupsmith. 2605:6001:E484:1000:1C70:502C:15D9:D068 (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, I only had time to revert a few of his edits, but as soon as I get the time, I will file a sockpuppet report and hunt down all his edits. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's back as User:Shakekevin. 2605:6001:E484:1000:709F:1F27:A058:46CF (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user is not blocked, see his/her blocklog. There are also no comments at his/her talk page. Did you even see what the user changed? Except that he made more paragraphs, she/he just changed two word: deleting the word "proposed" which makes sense since the article itself says that the agreement came into effect on Dec. 20, 2015. And the expression "went into effect" was changed in "went into force". --Christian140 (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sock account of a blocked user. So yes, they are blocked. Creating a new account is block evasion. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Korean ethnic nationalism page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just stopping by to wish a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year!72bikers (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best message on my talk page! It's not someone kicking my ass on ANI, so it's nice to read. Have a great Christmas and an awesome New Year too! Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL thanks!72bikers (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Christian140 (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor is making disruptive editing and reverted several pages of my edits. Although I reported to WP:ANI#Disruptive edits by Catrin00, please keep paying attention to the user.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Just an FYI you both (if you haven't seen)- also filed at ANEW. Long time no see, Spacecowboy! All OK? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 05:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look Phoenix, thanks for letting me know. And hi, O Fortuna! all is good, how are you? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christian140 came to Rising Sun Flag and reverted my edit. Please keep paying attention to the article.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment here speculating about another editor's nationality/ethnicity and their "connection" to a topic is inappropriate and unacceptable. Users' demographic characteristics are not pertinant to their editing. If an editor is being disruptive, address the behavior, not the individual. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a highly relevant comment/question in order to identify a possible conflict of interest and lack of neutrality. But thanks for the comment, I will consider your point in the future. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor came to blank the content. Please keep paying attention to the article. Thank you.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The editor was blocked indef. Thank you.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Due to real-life issues, I cannot handle this issue: I'm sorry. I initially thought of taking it to ANI, stating firmly that it was my idea, not mine, to take it there, but that still might not avoid all the drama. Therefore, I've emailed another administrator to ask him to handle your situation. Part of my email was This person [i.e. you] came to me because I've previously enforced the ban in question; while I can't offer an opinion on whether enforcement is necessary (I don't have time to check the links you gave me), I clearly stated that this was not an inappropriate request, so I expect that the other admin will carefully go over the evidence you provided. Nyttend (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I hope you get your real-life issues resolved in a good way. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to let you know that I posted a SPI to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Massyparcer.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edits do seem very similar. I will give him my attention. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Obi2canibe (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Obi2canibe: Just a couple of points. Firstly, this account is ~20 months old, so there's no need to template; WP:DTTR is a nicety in these situations. Secondly, since the editor has not actually edited for the last three days, I wonder what precisely inspired it / how necessary it actually was. Cheers. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obi2canibe please don't try to introduce your petty dramas to my talk page. Maybe it would be a really great idea if you put your attention on contributing to making Wikipedia better, rather than on if I do or do not use an edit summary. Hopefully, you won't feel the need to ever post on my talk page again. Bye bye Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. Such edits are considered vandalism and quickly undone. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNK48 Bnk48 the debut https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1195724393888150&id=842370685890191 After * June 2 : BNK48 The debut.Single 3 song was release. the activities were delayed. Before June : Single 3 song was release. the activities were delayed. June 2 : BNK48 The debut It the same i create page Petchnatawat (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will quit,I will delete page.I creat,You destroy.i halp me edit,not report,edit it right Petchnatawat (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not report,edit. My English isn’t that good. I’m still practicing. Edit please. No report. Petchnatawat (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't really understand your English. Maybe you should learn a little more about Wikipedia and watch some other editors, before you make lots of edits. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Highglanzen is a blatant sockpuppet of User:Pizzamall. All edits are reverted as of now. Please keep paying attention to the user.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who has violated the 3RR rule, along with making several personal attacks. I reverted your unexplained removal of content and your POV edits, and now you're trying to portray it as if you were doing something noble. Hilarious. Ohio girl (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, obviously that's not correct. There is a huge difference between adding content and reverting someone's edits. I'm not trying to portray anything as anything, I'm just warning you that you are subject to an edit block for making excessive reverts. If you use that warning as a catalyst to cause further disruption, or as an honest warning that keeps you out of trouble, is entirely up to you. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were making unconstructive edits and I reverted them to keep the article credible. Your deleting giant sections of sourced content and adding clearly biased sentences to the lead is not "adding content". If anything, I was reverting vandalism. Ohio girl (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per wikipedia rules, content disputes do not excuse editors from the 3RR rule. The fact that you can't even accept that you did something wrong, tells me a lot about the (lack of) respect that you have for Wikipedia. A good editor breaks a rule, apologizes and vows not to repeat their mistake. A disruptive editor breaks a rule, makes excuses, blames someone else and at no point accepts responsibility for their own actions - it's always someone else's fault. Which category do you fall into? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is an edit war on the page "List of countries by median wage" where user insist on using methodology which is blatant OR and OC. Specifically the user says the numbers will be deleted modified if someone concludes that they are such. I have attempted to modify and delete, but the user always reverts. I believe it is OR because the user takes different sets of numbers to arrive at a conclusion not explicitly mentioned by the source. It is OR plain and simple and I quoted the relevant rule. Lneal001 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the process now? Lneal001 (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that unless Jeine091 gains consensus for their designed changes, then as per BRD they can't include that content.

Seeing that everyone on that talk page has told Jeine091 that it is OR and shouldn't be included, it's going to be very hard for them to claim any form of consensus at the moment. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the entire page constitutes disputed content, what do we do with the page itself? Lneal001 (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be to take it back to the original redirect, that was there before the article was created. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had grammar promblms aslo i am girl with autism and I speak my native language but needed learned grammar from my parents so I added information on movies and please forgive me for my mistakes by --Sunuraju (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have content you want added, why don't you ask someone to help you with the grammar? Maybe they can check your grammar before you add the content? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit appears to be hugely problematic, including serious violations of guidelines and policies. What is your explanation? HampsteadLord (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please modify your tone a little. I don't feel so inclined to respond to people who delete my messages with condescending edit summaries and then come to my talk page with demands such as "What is your explanation?"

Come back with manners and I will be more than happy to discuss this issue with you. Have a great day! Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. HampsteadLord (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Safehorns (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to anyone reading this - "Nominating editor blocked indefinitely" for filing a bad faith report and sock puppetry. That is all I will comment on this matter. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

After your claiming a non-existent consensus to justify repeated reinsertion of poorly sourced allegations of illegal behaviour at Manny's bio, I think it's best you read this. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Poorly sourced"? huffington post, the guardian, bleacher report,ny daily news, NBC, the times, - are these the poor sources you are talking about? "illegal behavior"? A class lawsuit for fighting with an injury, recovering from an injury and turning down a PED blood test - which one of those is illegal? Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pacquiao's trainer Freddie Roach has had suspicion of Pacquiao's former strength and conditioning coach Alex Ariza. Roach stated that Ariza had been giving Pacquiao "special drinks" without his permission. Roach also stated "One of the reasons I don't work with him [Ariza] anymore is he's a little shady. He used to give Manny a drink before workouts, and I asked him what was in the drink and he would never tell me. I told him I need to know what was in the drinks because you're giving it to my fighter."

The given source, kdramastars.com, is not good enough. In fact the entire section is cobbled together from primary sources of varying quality. One is a copyright-violating youtube clip. As multiple editors have told you, it needs to stay out until a consensus has been reached on whether to include it, and if so, how it should be worded. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spacecowboy420,

I'm the bot who is deleting {{Persondata}}. I noticed your edit on Glenn Chong in which you added {{Persondata}}. This template is deprecated and deleted. Please stop adding {{Persondata}}. In case you want to support the Persondata project you can help with the migration of the dataset to Wikidata at KasparBot's tool. See Wikipedia:Persondata or contact my operator T.seppelt in case you have any questions.

Thank you very much, -- KasparBot (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spacecowboy420. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are engaged in edit-warring at Targeted Killings, using in your edit summaries personal beliefs in defense of Duterte, in the face of massive RS evidence, much of it based on his explicit declarations, that he advocates extrajudicial killings asnd the targeting of anyone assumed to be part of the drug scene. Your personal convictions have no weight against the weight of excellent sources. So drop the reverting.Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. They are legitimate police operations. It's nothing to do with defending Duterte. It's to do with facts, because that's what encyclopedias deal with. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. You admit you are here to defend 'legitimate police operations.' Amnesty Interrnational and Human Rights Watch, to cite a few important sources, state they are examples of 'targeted killings'. The page features 'targeted killings'. We go by sources, and your personal POV or opinions count for nothing. Revert again, rather than going to the talk page and outlining why Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch sources cannot be used for this page, and I will report you.Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chill.the.fuck.out.bro. It's a content dispute, not the end of the world. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ Mitsubishi love Edward321 (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. 72bikers (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, mate. Same to you. Hope Christmas was good and have an awesome New Year! Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see that you had reverted my edit. As per WP:source mainstream newspaper articles are reliable sources. The Philippine Daily Inquirer is a mainstream newspaper in the Philippines and not a tabloid. Thanks. ERAMnc 08:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC) ERAMnc 08:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about the source I just put there? Does that look okay? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's now okay. Cheers! ERAMnc 16:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Philippine English, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spacecowboy420,

I saw that my edits to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shard were removed as promotion. Is there a way to provide the information, in this case the interior designer of the Shangri-la Hotel at the Shard, without it being a promotion. Thank you for any input, I am new to this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaSimonova (talk • contribs) 08:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for the question. I'm no expert but I would suggest reading this link first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

There are certain guidelines regarding declaring a connection to the subject of an article and how to make/request edits. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, decided it best to take the discussion here Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard if you want to take part regarding the disagreement on Jake Zyrus‎. Regards NZFC^(talk) 06:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it's best to take it to the edit warring noticeboard, considering your edits over the last 24 hours or so.

Hi Spacecowboy420. I noticed you don't enabled emailing feature. If it is available, I would appreciate if you could enable the emailing feature. Thank you, ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Repeated re-addition of off-topic personal attack. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an investigation on the both of us. It would have been polite if the person filing it had informed us, but it's possible they wanted to have this fly under the radar so we didn't respond.

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spacecowboy420, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned from the subject of Momoiro Clover Z for the duration of one month.

You have been sanctioned due to uncollaborative conduct on the article's talk page, including incivility and personal attacks, even after the article was fully protected in order to allow for good faith dispute resolution.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Swarm ♠ 03:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• To answer your questions, yes, it was in large part due to your "translating" their usernames, which at best comes across as a mocking personal attack, and at worst comes across as racist. While I'm not jumping to the conclusion that you were being willfully racist, it could easily be taken that way and deeply offend somebody. In fact, this kind of apparent cultural mocking would run the risk of offending somebody on any page. It just can't be tolerated. Again, not saying that was your intent, but it just goes too far, even given our somewhat flexible standards of talk page enforcement. Setting that point aside though, your "translation" also comes across as a condescending invalidation of your fellow editors and would seem to imply that they have a pro-Japanese bias, which is something you explicitly did on the talk page multiple times. I assume that was your intent? That would make sense, given your repeated comments such as "trying to whitewash the blackface" and such. When there's a dispute over contentious content in a BLP, nuanced discussion and dispute resolution is needed. An RfC costs nothing. But you can't just accuse people of POV and whitewashing. But, fundamentally, it was your "translations" that crossed the line, IMO, and I felt some sort of action was needed in response. I don't feel strongly about TBANing you from the article; I chose to do so out of restraint, rather than another BLP AE block on your account. I'm not choosing sides against you in the dispute. I think things just got way too heated, and temporarily taking you out of the article was a solution. If you think you can help negotiate a better solution, I'm all ears. Swarm ♠ 19:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm Thanks for the reply, that makes things much easier for understand, of course there are a couple of points that I would like to go over.

1 - "it was in large part due to your "translating" their usernames, which at best comes across as a mocking personal attack, and at worst comes across as racist." - I didn't consider it to be mocking - it's the equivalent of calling you "Mr. Swarm" - and I certainly don't see anything racist about it. But far more importantly, this is exactly the same as Hijiri88's talk page comment [5] in which he translated my name "Spacecowboy" into Japanese "Uchū no Ushi-Otoko" and referred to me using that Japanese translation, despite he protesting about me doing the same with comments such as "now making fun of us by transcribing our names into butchered Japanese" - if we are both doing the same thing, then surely both of us or neither of us should be subject to sanctions.

"But, fundamentally, it was your "translations" that crossed the line, IMO, and I felt some sort of action was needed in response." My translation was no different from the translation that Hijiri made of my name, so deserves the same response from an admin.

2. " your "translation" also comes across as a condescending invalidation of your fellow editors and would seem to imply that they have a pro-Japanese bias" Not at all, all three of us speak Japanese - (granted I'm not very good), all three of us have been or currently are foreign residents of Japan - any implication would apply equally to me, as I have a similar background.

3. "which is something you explicitly did on the talk page multiple times. I assume that was your intent? That would make sense, given your repeated comments such as "trying to whitewash the blackface" and such. When there's a dispute over contentious content in a BLP, nuanced discussion and dispute resolution is needed. An RfC costs nothing. But you can't just accuse people of POV and whitewashing." I did imply that they are biased towards Japanese content - the same as they implied that I was a sock-master and even after an SPI showed that I had nothing to do with the alleged socks, the accusations still continued. As with the Japanese translations, this is something that the other two parties are just as guilty of, but here I am with a topic ban, while the other two are free to edit the article?

4. "I think things just got way too heated, and temporarily taking you out of the article was a solution. If you think you can help negotiate a better solution, I'm all ears." This is what matters. Why this happened doesn't really matter at all - but moving on and making sure it doesn't happen again is what's important. I do have a suggestion.

Topic ban for all involved on that one article. Me, Curly Turkey and Hijiri88. I'm sure the article will be just fine without input from any of us. Other editors have supported the inclusion on content related to the blackface incident and other editors have been against including that content - let them work it out. From looking at block records, it seems we all have some previous history of conflicts with other editors - we all made too many reverts on that article, we all made too many ANI reports, we all made slightly personal comments, we all acted without good faith, we all contributed towards this drama. When two editors are edit warring, the sanction usually apply to all involved, this situation should be no different. As an admin you have a duty to find a solution - but you have also have a chance to do what is fair, topic ban for all or topic ban for none, is fair and a good solution. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hm, I think you make some fair points. I still think the translations came across as mocking and belittling (as it would come across if you did call me 'Mr. Swarm'), but the context you've provided does mitigate my view of the situation. I was thinking of something to deescalate the situation, so I'd rather lift your TBAN than hand out more. But let me review my alternative measures first, and I will get back to you soon. Swarm ♠ 21:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I've imposed page restrictions. Please see the talk page of the article for details. Your ban is officially lifted. Swarm ♠ 08:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pls stop chasing me and my edits, Im not intrested in arquing with you, because you dont seem to understand even that sr8 isnt streel legal vehicle. So pls stop adding content to my talk page and dont follow my editings. -->Typ932 ^T·C 09:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was a polite request, that is all. Just stop using "minor edit" for edits that are not minor, please. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Polite or not stop chasing me It was you. You failed with sr8 (not street legal) and Alfa matta articles, so PLS STOP CHASING ME AND MY EDITINGS. This is last comment to you -->Typ932 ^T·C 09:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "chasing" anyone. Your attitude and lack of understand made me concerned about the quality of your edits. Just don't abuse "minor edit" again please. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in the Electronic cigarette topic area. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

QuackGuru (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. Thanks. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I personally provided the citations for the image for each claim. Most images are not fully referenced. This one is heavily referenced. It was my idea to create this image and other images. I have requested help for others to work on new images. I still have a long way to go. QuackGuru (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dont need any consensus if I edit articles, there was comment left why the section was removed, fully unnneeded section, which has no value to the article and stop following my edits, this looks like personal attack so stop it -->Typ932 ^T·C 16:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I dont need any consensus" sorry, you don't need to continue. If that is your attitude towards Wikipedia, then that's all I need to know. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you dont even know what is consensus, consensus isnt opinion of 1 or 2 editors. Ill suggest that you will educate yourself little bit more about wikipedia editing guidelines. Editing article doesnt need any consensus, if there isnt any problem, one or two editors doesnt count as concensus, everyone is free to edit wikipedia articles . You have very bad attitude toward other editors. Following others editings and teasing them intentionally -->Typ932 ^T·C 13:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's about competence. I'm sure you're an intelligent guy, you just lack the English ability to understand what is going on. That's not criticism, just a fact. I'm not judging you, because I certainly can't speak your language. It's not suggesting that non-native speakers of English can't edit English lang. Wikipedia - because a lot of them are fluent. Unfortunately, you're not. You're having major issues understanding the rules here. You say that content shouldn't be included because it's "stupid" - you complain about "stupid rules" you think that you "don't need any consensus" - you're really failing to get any of this. Good luck with this shit. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem not to understand anything what is said to you. I dont wanna talk to you anymore, so dont follow me and dont leave messages to my talk page. You must be around 12 years old kid. bye -->Typ932 ^T·C 11:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Typ932 Vadno (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the new user created his account specifically to undo your edits on Japanese history textbook controversies. 2600:8804:1980:CF20:69B9:37E4:7E2D:BDCB (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spacecowboy420. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Ending iban from 2016". Thank you. This concerns an appeal of an interaction ban you have with another editor. I'm performing the notification as the editor did not do so, I assume because they were concerned about violating the iban. Nil Einne (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]