User talk:Blaxthos/Archive 1

Talk: Modern American Liberalism Explained

Blaxthos, political articles de facto belong to those with the greatest axe to grind and/or the greatest time on their hands. Weasel words and bad (or no) citations are like chisel and mallet in the hands of these artists as they carve their POV into an article. I respect your boldness in tagging the obvious, but know this: your "bogus" instigation has just placed you toe to toe with a veritable Wiki-Bernini. Tread carefully.

Sorry for being cryptic. It was a warning (kindly meant). That, despite the fact that you are dead right, you must beware of the time and frustration commitment required to keep political philosophy articles scholarly and to a Wiki standard. You must contend with the closet bloggers - who will simply dismiss as "bogus" any notion that the POV in their artcle is disputable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.120.14 (talk • contribs).

Andrew Jackson Jihad

Please review this newest AfD, your opinion would be appreciated. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 00:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

FoxNews RfC/re:bait

I was just joking with the jealousy remark. No problem.

I am only tangentially participating in the RfC. I figured if people were to come to the article, there should be some showing that this is pure sour grapes by one holdout and that editors have reached a consensus. I was going to add my opinion to the RfC list page, but I think that would be against Wiki policy. That's why it's the first comment. Ramsquire 23:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Archiving the Common-Law Talk-Page.

Yes. And thanks for preserving my last comments after you did your archiving, as my work there was/is on-going.

Also, i like you reference to forms of communism which ignore practical reality, I seem unable to view the video linked there-to. Is there any more simple ascii/text or html kinds of explanations of your point?

Thanks again, Charles ...

FNC

I'm well aware of that fact and did, in fact, read the material. But yet the argument was going on and on and degenerating into mere personal attacks at the other person, and showed no sign of stopping. So I thought a definitive vote (which given your consensus you should easily win) would help finish the discussion rather than prolong it. And, to be fair to Cbuhl79, the original RfC concerned a different issue. You may think consensus had been reached over the whole wording; he (rightly or wrongly) disagrees. How do you foresee this argument ending if all he does is repeat his argument, and all you do is say you've already reached consensus. And your edit summary was far from assuming good faith, I might add. Trebor 17:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps we have to agree to disagree over this. I think cbuhl is still acting in good faith (based on the tone of his postings) and doesn't think the issue is as cut and dried as you do. The vote I proposed hadn't already occurred - the current intro came after discussion (not a vote) at the end of the last RfC which had began on a different topic. So I don't see how I'm calling for "another" one. You say you'd planned to stop responding, but it had been going on for 5 days already with little progress. If you thought it was 'sour grapes' and not worth replying to, why did you bother responding for that time? And in any case, how was I to know you weren't going to continue ad infinitum - you showed no sign of personally stopping (well, you said "I think at this point further conversation is moot" but then replied twice more). I said earlier that I've thought about the issue and am largely indifferent as to which intro goes in - I'm not going to 'jump' in on a particular side. I'd been following the discussion for several days without commenting and thought it was getting nowhere, so suggested a poll, with agreement in advance to adhere to the result, might break the deadlock. But then you jump on me as if I've done something wrong. You shouldn't be afraid to defend your position, and if you think there was already a vote (an actual poll) on the issue in question can you point me to it because I can't find it.Trebor 07:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, he's trying arbitration now (although I suspect it won't be accepted as a case) and I don't want any further part in this. My actions were made in good faith (and in assuming good faith) and I hope you see that, but I won't comment further on the issue.Trebor 20:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, apology accepted. :-) Trebor 08:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Fox News Request for Arbitration

This is a notice that I have filed a request for arbitration[1]. You are either an editor with which I am in direct dispute, or an editor who has been involved in the discussion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by cbuhl79 (talk • contribs).

Blaxthos, I don't think I've had sufficient involvement in this matter to judge whether there should be an arbitration or not. I'll keep my eye on the proceedings though. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Colbert GA Status

Thanks for taking the time to review Stephen Colbert -- I'm not in a rush about GA status, and I really do appreciate the feedback. I've asked a friend to help me copyedit for grammatical errors in particular, and fixed any obvious flaws I could find on that front, including your examples.

With regards to POV and OR, I'd really appreciate examples of any sections or passages that seem problematic to you besides the White House dinner section, which I will work on. OR in particular -- You mentioned that certain thorns stick out, but I think I'm having trouble seeing them because I've been looking at the article for too long. I had intended to work on this a fair amount this week, both cleaning up and expanding a few things (the "early career" section in particular). I'm also interested to know which specific areas you felt needed greater depth of coverage.

Thanks again for your help, -- Bailey^(talk) 00:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

One more quick note -- I just saw your comment about this not being a former GA. I didn't realize I was supposed to leave both templates while renominating, but the article was listed as a GA for 3+ months. It was only delisted three days ago, and I only renom'ed it because the delisting editor indicated her objections were now fixed. Diffs here and here if you're curious. Sorry about the confusion. -- Bailey^(talk) 06:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate any and all notes I can get. :-) No rush, though. -- Bailey^(talk) 07:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

FNC/ArbCom/Auburn

Well, if I were to make a statement, that is the general idea it would have; that I believe the entire situation is overblown and unworthy of ArbCom's attention. Now more importantly, yes I am an Auburn student. I've been down here a few years now and can't image going anywhere else. Well, until I graduate; no desire to make this home. Love the town, the people, the campus, pretty much everything, but it's just too small-town-Alabama. Although if you haven't been down here in a while, it has definitly grown. ^{War Eagle!} AuburnPilot^Talk 00:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And since I writing the above, I've left a message stating my opinion on the ArbCom situation. AuburnPilot^Talk 00:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made a request to Cbuhl to remove his RfArb because of WP:SNOW, I hope he accepts and stops wasting everyone's time. Ramsquire 16:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

NPA

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Cbuhl79 17:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Notice - This template was applied in bad faith out of spite. ArbCom was notified. /Blaxthos

The new ArbCom request

Blaxthos, I'll surely take a look at the request, read it thoroughly, and make my statement known. I am however on my way out of town at the moment. I'm standing at the Auburn airport about to climb into a plane and fly myself down to the beach for a much needed 2 day (1 night) vacation. When I get back into the office, so to speak, I'll take a look. AuburnPilot^Talk 21:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I will definitely go make a statement; I'm actually in mid statement right now, pausing to reply here. After getting in late last night, and having to be back at the airport this morning, I was unable to coherently write much of anything at that point. I would hope this request is taken seriously, and not simply brushed off. AuburnPilot^talk 18:06, 30 October 2006 _(UTC)

I was starting to wonder if the ArbCom was on vacation, but it seems another member has finally issued an opinion; 1 Accept, 1 Reject...hopefully it will keep going in the positive direction. Interestingly enough, Chubl hasn't made any edits in 3-4 days; not since he wrote his statement on the ArbCom. -- AuburnPilot^talk 05:26, 2 November 2006 _(UTC)

Definitely a good sign. I was curious to see if the other members were active so I looked into their contribs and it seems they are all actively participating in ArbCom proceedings. Since we'll need all other members to vote accept, this could be tricky. Needs to be 5/1/0 I believe. And the side note; AU has 11 Cessna 172s and a couple Beechcraft Duchess's so I use them whenever I need a plane; being a student gives me priority over everyone else so there's always one available. This is one of the AU 172s. -- AuburnPilot^talk 17:14, 2 November 2006 _(UTC)

You did an excellent job in the workspace in showing that there may be some sockpuppetry involved in this. I really think if the Arb gets accepted, we should look into the edits of Cbuhl, Trebor, and Kevin Bass, and make sure there are in fact three users, and not sockpuppets of each other. Ramsquire 18:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a comment to the ArbCom request, noting how disappointed I am in the way it's being operated. With a 4-2 vote, it's likely to be delisted. On a similar topic, I believe we're now dealing with another Cbuhl suckpuppet on the FNC talk page. They amazingly stop/start editing at the exact same time. You can see what I mean in the message I left on Gamaliel's talk page. [2] -- AuburnPilot^talk 17:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting...we comment, they remove the case. I guess that's it. -- AuburnPilot^talk 18:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've placed another comment on the talk page here. Let's see if there is any response from the ArbCom. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You and me both. It's amazing what lengths some people will go to in order to push their POV regardless of previous discussion. One of the things I do most is reverting vandalism, but I never expected to spend so much time arguing one point on one article. As far as sockpuppets, I'm not convinced one way or the other, but if it's just a coincidence, it is one hell of a coincidence. If anything, I'd agree that Cbuhl would be the sockpuppet of Mrmisc rather than the sockmaster. The arbcom was a definite disappointment. With 4 members willing to hear the case, 1 voting before any involved members made a statement, and several "active" members not even voting, it was not handled well. I'm not going anywhere either, so I guess we'll both be on the task force for a while to come. ;-) -- AuburnPilot^talk 04:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I did find this edit interesting. Maybe it's finally over after all. -- AuburnPilot^talk 06:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your AMA advocate

Hi, after reading your request and studied a bit I think I can help you with this (though my "speciality" are direct personal attacks rather than excessive wiki-lawyering). As you said, what you like is an advisor rather than a "real" advocate, if you need something, please feel free to send me a message to my talk page or an e-mail.

Now, about the case itself, what I see is that Cbuhl79 is violating any consensus policy there is in WP and that's the main point of everything he does. But, I would really need that you send me more details (some diffs) to fully understand what's happening. Meanwhile, I'll be looking the evidence in your userspace.

I'll stay in contact! --Neigel von Teighen 17:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

My extensive watchlist

You stumbled onto one of the many pages on my watchlist and I couldn't help but respond. -- AuburnPilot^talk 03:45, 31 October 2006 _(UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ted_Kennedy

The article Ted_Kennedy you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Ted_Kennedy for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. USER:Kghusker 09:38, 31 October 2006

Cbuhl79

I apologize for not responding to your messages earlier, but I was tied up in real life and didn't have enough Wiki time to come up with a thoughtful response. I too am troubled by the behavior Cbuhl79 has exhibited and I admire the fact that you are willing to make the effort to bring this editor to account. Too often here on Wikipedia (myself included) we are unwilling to make this effort and ignore troublesome editors in hopes that they will eventually wander off. However, what is more important than confronting a troublesome user is preserving a good user, and I hope that you don't get so frustrated with this conflict that you get burned out on Wikipedia entirely. With that said, if Arbcom is unwilling to deal with the situation or feels that it is not significant enough for their attention (they are quite busy) there is no reason that Cbuhl79 cannot be observed by concerned individual administrators who can intervene if necessary if he decides to continue this sort of thing on other articles. Gamaliel 23:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 02:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

List of DirecTV channels

Much for the same reason that these articles exist:

• List of XM Satellite Radio channels
• List of Sirius Satellite Radio stations
• List of CW affiliates
• List of MyNetworkTV affiliates
• List of Dish Network channels
• List of CBS affiliates
• List of NBC affiliates
• List of ABC affiliates
• List of Fox affiliates

I'm going to remove the deletion request. Instead of threatening to remove the article within 5 days, how about a little discussion first . . . an AfD request perhaps? --myselfalso 09:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now come on, and for cryin' out loud, Blaxthos! Does this mean that each and every listing on WP is going to be placed up on AfD? Given that each listing grew out of their associated parents, what would you suggest -- that each list be reabsorbed into their parent articles? A lot of people put a lot of work (myself included) -- in good faith that they were doing things the right way. Are you saying that all of this was for naught? How about a better explanation of the rationale here! --Mhking 15:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Using such a narrow interpretation would eliminate the vast majority of all similar lists on WP. It would certainly open up a can of worms, and defy the intent of WP:NOT if not the spirit (imo). While I understand the necessity of a restriction, when the lists in question are tied to an appropriately noted article, I would dare say they become encyclopaedic and outside the realm of WP:NOT by default. Otherwise, do we eliminate lists of state congressional representatives? Lists of newspapers owned by The New York Times? Historic lists of teams who have been in the National Football League? A reasonable line has to be drawn somewhere. --Mhking 15:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was my intention. If you're saying that WP:NOT is being violated, then there are many articles that are also in violation, and need to be taken care of. --myselfalso 17:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I just voted delete. But it appears that these articles have a group of editors who are so numerous that a successful AfD is impossible. I would seek administrator help or clarification on this one. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Using that line, none of these lists are promoting their business and are all give information.TravKoolBreeze 19:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out that the same is done at these (and many other) pages. If you're going to AfD this List of DirecTV channels, then you need to do the same for all those other pages, which you did. I am trying to be fair, just like you said. That's not a rationale, that the other pages do it, but for the same reasons those pages do are in existance. --myselfalso 20:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I came across a message about that AfD before it was too late. I would have voted to delete those lists, as well. Sorry people seem to have taken this personally and totally missed the point. -- Ned Scott 04:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

...

What gave you the impression I was refering to you ;-)? MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

- It was a direct quote from WP:WWIS.2 ;) MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Dead request

Well, it's over; there will be no arbitration for us. My question is if you're willing to continue working with me (I must know if I have to close the case or not in the AMA cases list) and if you do, what have you in mind to stop Cbuhl's behaivor. --Neigel von Teighen 14:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Burden of Evidence

Maybe you should take your own advice, biographies are supposed to be presented in a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW, as with anything else on Wikipedia. Your opinion does not override what the individual has presented to you as fact. The evidence is COURT DOCUMENTS, they are the FACTS of record. Look at page 26 of the proceeding document from the official FBI investigation. http://foia.fbi.gov/chappaquiddick/chappaquiddick_pt01.pdf Vinnievesh 02:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

CNS News is well respected news outlet

CNS stands for Cybercast News Service. It formerly stood for Conservative News Service but they changed the name a few years back. There is no doubt they have a conservative bias, just as there is no doubt the NY Times has a liberal bias. Having a bias does not preclude a source from inclusion in an encyclopedia. If it did, no publication could be cited. The fact is that CNS News is a well-respected news outlet that has broken several important stories, including stories about the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents. While liberals may not like to read the stories CNS News chooses to cover, no one doubts the accuracy of the reporting. That is what matters to an encyclopedia. RonCram 12:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you very much for supporting my advocacy on the Followup survey! --Neigel von Teighen 20:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Red links

Hi, please stop your massive unredlinking. Wikipedia bases on redlinks. ~~ Phoe _talk 09:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

As explanation, reasons to remove redlinks are, if there is no chance that someone will create an article about someday, if the links are broken or if they are multiple avaiable. (see also Wikipedia:Red link) Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 09:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

Night? Funny, here it is morning. :-) Wikipedia and its articles will never be complete, but will stay instead a expanding process. What today it's not notable, will be notable perhaps tomorrow. By the way the British peers are notable by Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) and there is also a project to write articles to them all. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 10:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

You're right, an article full of redlinks doesn't look good, however better than one without any links. Also it is hard work, after having created an article, to search where you can add appropriate wikilinks, which guide to the new article - preexisting redlinks can make this work a little bit easier.

The reason for the piping is simple. Peers or baronets have sometimes various Christian names and titles, but normally we use only one as articlename: in example the article of Gilbert James Heathcote-Drummond-Willoughby is located on Gilbert Heathcote-Drummond-Willoughby, 3rd Earl of Ancaster, but he is also Gilbert James Heathcote-Drummond-Willoughby, 27th Baron Willoughby de Eresby. Therefore we pipe the redlinks to avoid double creations with different names or titles. ~~ Phoe _talk 14:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

PS. I forgot: piping is also useful for disambiguation, if we have in example Jim Smith, 1st Baron Whatever, who had lived from 1648 until 1700, and have also another Jim Smith, 1st Baron Whatever (of another creation of the title), who had lived twohundred years later. Best wishes ~~ Phoe _talk 14:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

Response to Blaxthos

Blaxthos, civil libel actions are more common than criminal libel, but libel is a crime and can be prosecuted by the state. Check out this article on "Libel and the Law." [3] I complained about your attack against me because any reader of your statement would believe I was the source of an accusation against Senator Kennedy. You wrote "Your source is unreliable and your accusation libelous." It is not my accusation. I only seek to have the published and verified reporting on the issue included in this article on Kennedy. It is against wikipedia policy to prevent the inclusion of information on POV grounds. Read carefully this excerpt from the guidelines for biographies of living persons.

Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on association.

I want to make certain you read my response on the Kennedy Talk page, so here it is again.

No controversy on Kennedy-KGB link

It was nice to see Seraphimblade agree that the source for the CNS News and Washington Times op-ed piece is solid. (As an aside Seraphimblade, your conclusion that the Washington Times piece "is an editorial and therefore inherently unreliable" is not exactly accurate. Any reader is free to disagree with the conclusions of an op-ed piece, however, the facts presented in the piece have to reach the same level of accuracy and verifiability as any reporting. When reading op-eds, you have to be able to separate the reporting from the opinion. It is common practice for op-ed pieces to be linked on wikipedia.) It is wrong to say a controversy exists on the issue because neither Senator Kennedy nor John Tunney have denied the story. The story is based on far more than the recently released book by Paul Kengor. Kengor's research has certainly moved the story along by providing fresh details, but the story is based on several recovered KGB documents. Former KGB agent Vasiliy Mitrokhin published a paper in February 2002 based on document(s) he found. You can read that paper on pdf here. [4] An op-ed piece by Herbert Romerstein gives some additional facts. One of the KGB documents "was found by the knowledgeable Russian journalist Yevgenia Albats and published in Moscow's Izvestia in June 1992." The first document was "discovered in the Soviet archives by London Times reporter Tim Sebastian and a report on it was published in that newspaper in February 1992." [5] According to the London Times, businessman John Tunney (he was already a former senator by this time) admitted going to the Soviet Union on 15 occasions during the late 1970s and early 1980s to represent Kennedy and other senators. There is certainly more to the story and more of it will come out. However, we cannot say the story is "too new" for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The story has been verified repeatedly and has never been denied by Senator Kennedy or John Tunney. RonCram 10:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Blaxthos, I'm new to this and have noticed you appear to be a moderator or something. I just wanted to ask you about wikipedia and its uses. Can anyone post on any page? Also do you always have to state facts with a source. (I've noticed that some do not contain links or at least the links are dead) If the links are dead should I delete it? Also how do you create a red link page? Some of the things I've looked for are red linked (I think it means nothing is there?) Thanks for your help, Alantio 01:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What is Vandalism, Blaxthos?

Blaxthos,

I believe you have the wrong impression of what constitutes vandalism. I urge you to review the Wiki standards page on vandalism. My contribution of personal opinion to a discussion page is, according to Wikipedia standards, merely that. "Unconstructive text" is not mentioned anywhere as vandalism, and furthermore, I'd consider your mischaracterization of me to be vandalism, as you have stated misinformation on my user page since you did not phrase it as a personal opinion of me.

As for my comments on Kennedy, I recently discovered the most likely scenario was that Kennedy simply fled from the scene to escape a DUI, which is the opinion of the investigating officer, so I no longer stand by the notion that he strangled her himself, although that is still a possibility, in my mind, as there was no autopsy. I would also urge you to try to be less "authoritarian" when you deal with opinions that conflict with your own.

Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.228.149.10 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a few tips and references for you:

• Please sign your posts. You may use four tildes (~~~~).
• Your opinion regarding historical facts have no place on wikipedia. This constitutes original research.
• Any information contained on Wikipedia must be verifiable and cited from reliable sources.
• There is a extraordinary burden of proof that must be met when adding negative information to biographies of living persons. Adding "he strangled her" would subject you to libel lawsuits, in addition to violating at least five wikipedia policies (which exist to protect Wikipedia, its editors, and the subjects of the articles).
• I am very comfortable interpreting and applying Wikipedia policy, which may contribute what you percieve to be authoritarian.

Your contributions are welcome, but please make sure you review the project policies and community norms before jumping in - it will save misunderstandings like this! Thanks! /Blaxthos 00:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, not vandalism, and my opinion, as well as the opinion of others, belongs in the discussion page, where I left it. Your threatening comments were unprovoked. Did you not realize it was a discussion page? You are completely wrong, and you obviously have a problem admitting when you're wrong.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.228.149.10 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's try again!

1. Please sign your work when you post on discussion pages. This is not optional. Please see WP:SIGN.
2. Discussion pages exist to discuss improvements to the articles found on wikipedia -- not to discuss your personal opinions or thought the subject of the articles. I direct your attention to the talk header at the top of the talk page, which clearly states such.
3. The threatening comments to which you refer are actually from the Wikipedia template regarding vandalism, which I simply applied because I felt it was appropriate. If it was not intended to be vandalism (and simply uninformed espousal of an opinion) I apologize. Please see the point number 2 on this list. Unsigned work is often the work of vandals, and in conjunction with the wild speculation with no sources (that, as mentioned earlier, violates at least five Wikipedia policies) appeared to be simple vandalism.
4. Please do not assume that I am attacking you, or I threatened you. One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is to assume good faith. Your claim that I "obviously have a problem with being wrong" -- that is in complete violation of the assume good faith policy. Please read it.
5. You claim I am "completely wrong". Where, exactly, do you get justifcation for that statement? I've now quoted several policies on Wikipedia that directly contradict what you're saying.

Again, before jumping in feet first please take time to read appropriate policies before jumping in and claiming wrongdoing -- especially since you have almost zero edits to your credit. I am going to continue to assume good faith that you simply do not understand the way Wikipedia works -- please make the effort to do some reading of the policies. If you need further clarification on this or any issue, post to my talk page and I'll help if I can. Thanks! /Blaxthos 21:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The Warp Years - history removed

You removed a piece of history about an alternative (and the genuine) reason for the Warp product name. I cited the actual Court in which a SEVEN YEAR battle took place to establish the fact that IBM were approached by APT to market their software and they instead took the name. The Court records are public domain if you care to go to Paris to check them out! I also have original copies of letters from IBM regarding our offer to them regarding our product WARP.If you want an image of the letter I will show it with the article. Theft is not trivial and it is certainly relevant to the origin of the name. IBM reputedly spent $300,000,000 marketing a product using our trademarked name.ken 18:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• here it is !!ken 18:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bots

Yes, there are some information that are not in the relevant portions and some office listings that are either irrelevant, or not in complete sequential order! Dhwani1989 22:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Ibm_pc_xt.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ibm_pc_xt.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

AFD Discussion - Gaming

Hi there,

You seem to know something about the game industry. Would you mind weighing in on this discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bryan_Brandenburg

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stanlys212 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Gaming article

In an attempt to follow my own talk page guidelines, I responded where the conversation started; on my talk page. Just wanted to make sure you would see it. -- AuburnPilot^talk 03:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser

Thank you for your recent application to use AutoWikiBrowser. Regrettably, I have declined your request as you do not have 500 mainspace edits. You are welcome to apply again at a later time. Feel free to contact me with any questions, Alphachimp 02:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandal reporting

Thanks for pointing that out. I see it does say that in the guidance at WP:AIV, I only skimmed it though as I was in a rush to report the IP given they showed no sign of stopping. My bad. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 20:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Enterprise 128

Hi Blaxthos. I've added citations to the Enterprise 128 article. Most of the interesting stuff about this fascinating computer is contained in a Your Computer article which was written at the time. You can find it if you go down to the very bottom of this page and click on the links Your Computer article on the history of Enterprise, page 1, 2, 3 and 4. Richard W.M. Jones 22:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

re: Common law

Wow is right. That is absolutely astounding. My favorite part: "...and statutory obedience-commands of "The Queens English". You complain about the splinters in the eyes of others, but you ignore the rafter in your own; and all for no greater reason than that your rafter has the blessing of the queen of england and the pope of rome. You strain-out the gnat, but ignore the camel; for these same reasons...". Well, that and "the exclusive aristocratic franchise of the babylonian-whore capitalist/money-changer supported educational jurisdiction."'. I guess that means I too have been supporting the "babylonian-whore capitalist" ;-). That is the most impressive rambling I've seen. The length alone...wow. Thanks for the good laugh; a true gem. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! --AuburnPilot^talk 04:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Jpso harrylee2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jpso harrylee2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — BigDT 05:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Truth vs Positive Bias

Blaxthos, maybe you are the one to ask. There is an article published that refers to only the positive roles a certain group has had on a community, however, takes no mention of listing any negative roles. How can a wikipedia 'article' be an article if facts aren't listed, just the positive twist on things?

For instance, if I was to write an article on Saddam, would it truly be an article if I wrote only the positive attributes he had on his country (no matter how short it may be?), and none of the negative roles he played in terrorism?

There are articles published, however, because of the nature, only in community published college level. However, citation can be made.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

LetTruthBeKnown2006 14:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just reverted it again, not realizing it was only early this morning (late last night) that I reverted it twice. I'm done reverting, but Blaxthos's opinion is definitely welcome. AuburnPilot^talk 15:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied at User Talk:LetTruthBeKnown2006 /Blaxthos 17:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Balxthos, I left a message on AuburnPilot's discussion board dealing with this matter. Could you possibly take a look at it and comment? D-Hell-pers 14:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

E (PC-DOS)

Hi. I'm the editor who started the E (PC-DOS) article. It's kind of a downer to have someone suggest deleting one's first real article. But it led me to add an infobox, expand the info slightly, and provide a couple of footnoted references. For reasons given in the article's talk page, I hope you don't feel the need to reflag it. – 2*6 00:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I am new to the Wiki community, but I believe the edit you were referring to was posted by DNeronov. Thank you for looking out! (OfForByThePeople 02:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC))

After reading the quote on your main page, I believe we share the same concerns. I joined Wikipedia after becoming frustrated with a popular trend amongst many editors. Many editor's who claim to be concerned with having NPOV's are amongst the worst abusers. I call their tactic 'psychologically suggestive writing'. They site neutral facts, and then present it in an ideological manner. The average person will not notice these things. For example: If I read an article to learn about one political candidate, I will then read about their opponent. Proper judgements cannot be made until one has all of the facts. Citeing sources, and giving true information is useless if they are presented in an ideological manner. If you share these concerns I would like to work with you on fixing these discrepencies. If not, thank you for your time.(OfForByThePeople 03:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC))

Skypad

You were right about one thing: Skypad was a sockpuppet. He/she has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of MagicKirin. You had the right feeling, just the wrong puppeteer. I think that means the intro discussion is dead for another few days at least. AuburnPilot^talk 20:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed FNC from my watchlist. I cannot continue to take part in a discussion that after three months of work is disregarded as "silly" and "laughable". There are other articles where edits actually have a purpose, so that's where I'll be. I know if I continue to edit that article, Wikipedia will simply be ruined for me. If it comes to formal mediation again, I'll be happy to leave my viewpoint, but I'm just done for now. AuburnPilot^talk 19:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Charles8854

Following 2 edit conflicts, I took the liberty, as the blocking admin, to leave my blocking notice. just wanting to let you know.Circeus 05:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in many cases (I am a quick-trigger on vandalism-only accounts and IPs), I do not even bother to leave a reasoning on the talk page. I decided to do so because of my comment at WP:AN, and the fact the user was active in a somewhat meaningful way.Circeus 05:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Comments

So what about orginal research, that shouldn't be the sole grounds for deletion.

— RiseRobotRise

Are you kidding me? Have you actually read the original research policy? Do you understand it is one of only three content policies on Wikipedia? If you can't properly understand or comply with Wiki policy then I don't think you should participate in ?fD debates. /Blaxthos 12:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the refresher course in the WP:NOR policy. From what I understand, the original research policy explains that original research doesn’t belong on Wikipedia, which I agree with. If the content is unverifiable, then it doesn’t belong on this encyclopedia. However, the content in the AFD discussion which you refer to is verifiable, can be easily sourced, and has more than enough information on the web to back it up (on many Verifiable and Reliable sources which I may add) and yes, I have pointed that out in my comment. So no need for the rude remarks. While we're on topic of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, I would recommend might want to take a look at WP:CIVL, No personal attacks and you might want to work on your Etiquette. Thank you - RiseRobotRise 21:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways -- if it is original research, it is not allowed. As I understand it, this is a non-negotiable policy. It is not the content I'm talking about, it is your blatant disregard of said policies that I find offensive. In no way have I issued a personal attack; I just don't let people casually disregard the rules when it suits them. I apologize if you found it offensive. /Blaxthos 21:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand what WP:NOR is, and I'm fully aware of the policy. Please know that I have cited about five major sources in the debate. I have clearly stated in the AFD discussion, that because the content is verifiable, with a list of reliable sources, then it shouldn't be deleted, sources and references should just be added to the page. I hope you understand my reasoning for me wagering in a Keep on that page. If I weren’t for the abundance of any reliable source, I would've voted delete. RiseRobotRise 21:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Then shouldn't you say "I can add reliable sources" instead of "So what about orginal research, that shouldn't be the sole grounds for deletion."? Ignoring entrenched policy is almost never the right answer, and requires extraordinary circumstances, which I do not believe have been met in this instance. Once again, my criticism is leveled at the comment you made in the face of one of only three content policies -- I make no debate about whether it is or is not original research, I simply challenge the statement you made. Sorry if it came across the wrong way. /Blaxthos 21:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Addendum - Where are these reliable sources? How has it come close to satisfying notability requirements? As the AfD progresses, it seems the community does not agree with your position. /Blaxthos 22:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I wasn't trying to circumvent any rules. I wrote that statement, because I was questioning the nominator's endorsement. As I believed that he/she decided to endorse the article for deletion without doing any proper investigation to see if the article had any significance whatsoever. I know the article contains a large amount of original research or non-sourced information, but if the article was properly sourced, there wouldn't need to be any reason for deletion (as I said in the last sentence "Surely, we can look beyond what we see as original research, and verify the information ourselves. ". Please understand that the tone of your message overall sounded negative, and the last statement "then I don't think you should participate in ?fD debates. " can be seen by many readers as rude, and inappropriate. I understand now that the intention of your message was to make sure I was aware of certain policies. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, and I hope we can move past it. Please try to be more polite in the future. As for these reliable sources, if you read what I posted, you can clearly see that these links bring you to articles on Griefing found on Microsoft’s website, G4 Tech TV's website, Escapist's magazine, and many others, as for the AFD itself, it seems that the consensus on the AFD discussion is swinging on the side of keep, mostly because comments made by other users who also pointed out notable reliable sources. One editor actually changed his/her decision from delete to keep. I'll change the wording of my statement so it doesn’t sound too ignorant of the WP:NOR policy. P.S I wish no bad blood between us, I hope that in the future, we both can come together on more friendly terms, and work with each other in a constructive manner. Thank you -RiseRobotRise 06:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Nah, shit online doesn't get my blood up, . I am aware that I have a rather curt attitude towards those who appear to care nothing for the policies and guidelines contained herein. I think a lot of people on wikipedia try to bend/stretch/conveniently ignore the rules when it suits them, much like most people speed when a cop isn't around. Conflict in the short term is necessary to keep wikipedia in balance; conflict in the long run hurts us all. As a general rule for me, once we've said our peace it's done.  ;-) /Blaxthos 06:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, no problem here with me, thanks alot :) -RiseRobotRise 06:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

ibm

I agree that the current template is not ideal but the fact that ibm has dropped from number 1 to number 2 is going to generate a lot of edits over the next few days. 59.167.56.72 22:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(replied here due to anonymous user) It may (or may not) generate a lot of edits, however it is not due to changes with IBM. The results are in, and the {{current}} template is applicable where the subject of the article is undergoing rapid change, not where the wikipedia article is expected to undergo change. /Blaxthos 22:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

webcomics mass-deletion

Don't do it. It's pointless, will cause needless wiki-drama, and won't work.

Mass nominations almost never work, they encourage facile and emotive responses, and all it takes is a couple of "delete 2, 7, and 15, merge 9 and 45, redirect 11 to 15" comments and they are impossible to close.

Ok?

brenneman 01:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm rolling back your addition of the afd tag to most of these - it's clearly indiscriminate. Fair enough the nearly-empty ones, but you've tagged ones nominated multiple times (elf life) ones released in dead tree form (explotiation now, fans) and you're doing it alphabetically. Stop now or be blocked fro disruption. - brenneman 01:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Per your request, I have ceased the large batch. I can't undo what is done, however I took care to remove entries that asserted notability or even appeared to have a reliable source. Are we really to overlook such blatant violations just because no one will stand up to people who hold emotion higher than law? Please reply on my talk page, as yours seems hellatiouslly busy.  :-) /Blaxthos 01:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, we shot at the same time there. - brenneman 01:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Pick the four or five that you think are the clearest deletes and lump them up... but I'm taking the nomination tag off of all them for the time being, it's ok to make the nomination good before putting the tag on the article. - brenneman 01:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A little quick to threaten the block, eh? I think you caught the list as it was in progress -- both of the ones you had mentioned I had already culled from the list before final AfD. It certainly was not indiscriminant, nor was it a bad faith nomination. Practically speaking, I understand your position and bow to your experience. However, I would expect enough WP:AGF to assert that, would I have allowed to finish, only those that merit deletion would have been included. As I was going down the list I removed those that had anything other than a self-referencing or portal-based reference. None would stand up to WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR. Again, so we're held hostage by emotional fankids? /Blaxthos 01:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No question of your good faith, just that experiance shows this area gets nasty quickly and I wanted to short-circuit the possible disruption. I have to sign off for an hour, work on the nomination for the five worst (but don't link it to the pages) and when I get back I'll look it over then add the tags to the articles... deal? - brenneman 01:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Give me a little bit to try and find the five worst. I mean no disruption, and I have no problem with an experienced admin helping me avoid the drama. I've worked very hard at maintaining a positive wiki-reputation and understanding of the rules that govern us, and I appreciate the help. /Blaxthos 01:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Picked five here. Let me know what you think. Thanks again for the help. /Blaxthos 02:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Where or how do we post support for a webcomic that was initially tagged? On the comic's article discussion page? Or on the deletion list? --Knulclunk 04:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the admin in question was to roll back the AfD templats on the affected articles (thereby removing them from AfD). I never linked the AfD debate page to the main AfD list, so hopefully if the changes were rolled back there will be no discussion necessary. The admin discussed picking five that truely need removal and listing them at a later time. So, I would say that you shouldn't worry about this AfD currently, as it has been (or is in the process of) being "rolled back" (see above). If for some reason the comic in question gets re-listed at a later time, a more clear direction of where to discuss will also be made available. Sorry for all the confusion! /Blaxthos 05:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Corret-o: As the articles tags have been removed with consent and it was never linked to the afd page there's no sweat... Urk, but for that bot that automatically completes nominations. I'm acutally going to move the afd page into Blaxthos-space to prevent that, now at User:Blaxthos/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achewood. I've also made some comments in the sandbox nomination.
brenneman 05:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Blaxthos, if you're going to AfD stuff like Buttercup Festival, please do at least some cursory checking that they do not meet WP:WEB (particularly "# The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."). --Gwern (contribs) 16:45 19 January 2007 (GMT)

Your misunderstanding

I did not claim to know what was in anyone's heart. As you can see, "a socialist at heart" was put in quotes, meaning those were Ted Turner's words, not my "claims". --Shamir1 22:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Zariski surface

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zariski surface, you wrote

Delete Sorry guys, hate to be the lone dissenting voice, but this article is promoting original research. It's unforuntate that often times Wikieditors are asked to voice opinions on conceps we have little experience with, which makes it truely difficult to sift what's accepted in the applicable community from what is being promoted as a new construct or theory.

The initial author of the article, user:r.e.b. is a world-renowned professor who knows very well what's accepted in the applicable community. How did you conclude that it's original research? Your comments assert that, but you don't attempt to give any reasons for thinking so. Michael Hardy 00:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied at USER_TALK:Michael Hardy. /Blaxthos 02:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing two different people with each other.

The initial author of this article was NOT Piotr Blass.

The initial author was Richard Borcherds.

Do not accuse Richard Borcherds of offenses you should attribute to (if anyone) Piotr Blass. Michael Hardy 02:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Really, I thought I'd made this clear by naming Borcherds rather than Blass in my comments above. I can't believe how clumsy your attempted reply is. Try again. Pay attention this time. Michael Hardy 02:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Is the erroneous belief that Piotr Blass is the initial author of this article the only point against it, or is there something else? Michael Hardy 02:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Webcomics

In sort: yes we do have to go through a festival of brand new users every time. The solution is, I think, to triage them first, so that the really trivial ones with not a sniff of a source, under a hundred unique Googles, Alexa in the quarter million range and no syndication or publication, go in one batch. Then take the others in small groups or singly. Explain patiently to our new friends what the problems are, and ask Phil Sandifer and others for advice beforehand because they know of what they speak. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Fox News Bias

Fox News is obviously a right-wing media organization and has a conservative bias. Look at the facts and come to your own conclusion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by REscano (talk • contribs) 10:33, 24 January 2007

I don't disagree with your conclusion. I (and many others) have worked hard for a long time to ensure that their bias is noted and presented in a way that does not violate our neutral point of view policy. Anything added to the project needs to be WP:Verifiable by citing reliable sources within the article. At no time may editors add their own commentary or analysis to articles, as it constitutes original research and violates WP:NPOV. You and I may know that Fox News is biased, but there are others who believe they are not; our job is to ensure that all factual information is presented with a neutral point of view. /Blaxthos 16:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. And sorry, I didn't know I wasn't allowed to clear my talk page.REscano 17:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ibm 7090.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ibm 7090.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Blaxthos/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achewood

This page is confusing my AfD decategorising bot, Bot523 (it's reporting your user subpage as an unclosed or broken AfD). If this isn't intended to be a currently-running AfD, could you take out or comment out the category (the 'REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE... line') until it's restarted or moved back into project space? --ais523 14:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --ais523 16:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't really think of a better name

Could you please explain what notibility has to do with [[6]] in the slightest? Preferably on the deletion page. (Justyn 18:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC))

My screwup on Kitsune Afd

Thanks for catching that I'd deleted others posts. This screwup of mone was an accident. I don't get how I messed up like that, but I reverted myself (which did also delete your warning about my screwup). I think its correct now. If it isn't, feel free to revert me and/or repost your warning, while I retire feeling ignorant and embarassed. Edward321 00:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad ref code on Fox News Channel

Didn't mean to cause any hard feelings, I do apologize, but there's no need to be so sensitive. Whatever happened to "Always assume good faith"? You were so quick to revert my change that instead of improving, you took it back two steps. I'm trying to improve -- my edit didn't lead to an error. If the Reference is showing up as an error, what good is a description?Athene cunicularia 17:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem! I totally understand your frustrations and only meant to help. I usually watch articles that I edit (for a while), so I'll try to help with vandals to FNC as well. Cheers! Athene cunicularia 19:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:V

Hi Blaxthos, I noticed that you archived the talk page of WP:V by moving it. For future reference, it's probably better to cut and paste, because moving splits the page history, and it's sometimes helpful to be able to scan the history as a whole, rather than having to search through different archives. I hope you don't mind that I moved it back. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

When you move a page, you move the page history too. If you move one page into archive 1, and another into archive 2, and so on, you end up with multiple page histories. Therefore, anyone in future who wants to see who made a certain change must search through these multiple histories. That can be a lot more work than simply scrolling down one history. It's also easier to spot edit patterns in one history: for example when looking for sockpuppets. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fox News Channel

I edited various aspects of the Fox News Channel article from a neutral standpoint. The changes I made were based on reputable sources which either I cited, or were already cited. None of the changes I made were original content.Chris 02:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I must have forgotten to cite where the Blue Streak info came from. But that's not a big deal; I understand that it is less fact based than other parts. As for for the Fox News number of viewers, it was not original research. The website that the last person had cited for that entry is what I used. The website explains why Fox News has higher ratings but a lower number of daily viewers. It is a standardized equation used to determine ratings. What I had stated IS the reason the ratings were higher. You might want to check out the website if you don't believe me (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2005) it is reference number 15 on the current version of the article. You also said I you removed the moveon.org part because I called it liberal. I would like to point out to you that I changed the text (which you reverted back to) from "left-wing moveone.org" to "liberal moveon.org" and I did that because the word liberal fit into moveon.org in the same way the word conservative works in the current version of the article. There were many other changes I made from grammar mistakes to word choice many of which were to adjust the language to comply with a neutral point of view. Finally, if those were the problems, why did you revert EVERYTHING I did? I really wish you would have read my changes and read what you were reverting back to. 99% of what I did matched the rest of the article in neutrality, wording, grammar, etc. I am entirely willing to leave out the changes to Blue Streak and leave out the words "liberal" and "nonpartisan" form moveon.org and Common Cause; but I disagree with your other decisions.Chris 05:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I see where you might feel that some of my edits were nonsense. I have OCD tendencies and poor wording in formal writing irritates me which is the reason for many of me small edits. Often it is because a style has been used on the whole article except in a few locations and I like to reword those areas so that it flows smoothly. And I don't mean to criticize other editors, but the Fox News Channel article is one of the more poorly written articles on wikipedia. I'm surprised at how great the style and grammar changes from paragraph to paragraph in the article, and I was trying to adjust that. I also was unaware that there was a special procedure for editing that article and I didn't even realize that there was an issue until long into the edit. So I probably reinserted information that you had reverted back from without even realizing it and I apologize if I did do that. At no point in time have a doubted that you or any other editor made their decisions in bad taste. On a side note, your definition of "unique" is technically correct but it doesn't mean that it's an appropriate word. Very few people interpret the word unique the way you are thinking of it when they are reading an article. It comes across as suggesting that there is something wrong or abnormal about CNN's views if you call them unique when referring to their viewers. If you could discuss with me the other problems with my edit that prompted you to revert all of the changes I would greatly appreciate it, and it would be useful when I perform future edits on articles. Thanx. Chris 06:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

hangon tag?

Which article are you talking about? --Fang Aili ^talk 06:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is a "full AfD"? Just because it was AfD'd once does not mean it has to stay deleted. Also, at least one other administrator thinks this article should be here; the logs show that User:Carnildo restored it on February 6, with the summary "One of the founding Keenspot comics? Hardly "non-notable". If you want to AfD it again, go ahead. --Fang Aili ^talk 06:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, use the tag as instructed on the speedy template. Do not simply remove the template. /Blaxthos 06:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm an admin and I can remove the tag if I so choose. Please read the policy pages on this. --Fang Aili ^talk 06:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I guess you can then. AfD opened -- sorry for not investigating your credentials more thoroughly. A particular new account is going around re-creating AfD articles (seconds after they're speedily taken off, he re-creates again). Thanks for the note.  :) /Blaxthos 06:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 14:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment moved from User:Blaxthos

(Incorrectly placed on your userpage. auburnpilot talk 18:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

Blaxthos, sorry about forgetting to put the four tildes, and not making clear that my comment was tongue-in-cheek (I added an explanation to that John Edwards Discussion comment to which you referred). I'm still getting the hang of things here. Thanks for the heads up. AuH2ORepublican 18:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

FNC

We've got a live one...when you get a chance, take a look. auburnpilot talk 18:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

FOX news and Wendi Deng

sorry man...your going to have to deal with the fact that this is all true...its sad for FOX i suppose, yet its all to be found in major news sources, ive begun referencing, even FOX news shows they are married...they just try not to make anything of it and didnt report on it till 7 years after the marriage!...ha ha!..the truth hurts doesnt it...Benjiwolf 13:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

i dont know man???...maybe it somehow works out good for everybody, this chinese stake in FOX...im not really sure how the control issues will end up, yet at least the chinese kids will always get a huge wad of cash from FOX...anyways im not taking sides one way or the other...whether the chinese kids get the 2 of 5 i think it is? controlling shares or not im not taking sides or argueing for or against...im just stating what the situation is...Benjiwolf 13:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

URL Syntax Problem in WinFS

Hi. Thanks, for pointing that out. I know the syntax, but the problem is in the course of typing I so very often forget to pay attention to the oddity. They could very well satandardize the syntax by using a pipe, though. :)

However, it was not the URL syntax that was problemmatic in the article. I forgot to cloase a <ref> tag. And that ate up half the page. I fixed it now. --soum^সৌমোyasch 10:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

fair use IBM

Well, then let's take a picture of any modern console's chip. There's no reason to have that picture of the manufacturing room, because it's not essential, or even particularly important to the content on IBM. Since we are attempting to illustrate the products of IBM, a picture of the chips would be acceptable, because free triumphs fair. Scepia 03:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"This image was released by IBM as a promotional picture" Unfortunately, that means fair use. Regardless of your personal feelings, or IBM's feelings on use of this image, the law in place on Wikipedia stands that we need to replace "promotional" photos where possible, or where the photos don't help the article greatly. Hey, if it were my site, or your site, that would be acceptable, but we have fair use. Scepia 04:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright matters. I can care about whatever i want. "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, not laws." Fair use is a law. You seriously need to check out the page on fair use. Fair use is not some imagined policy that Wikipedia came up with. Fair use is a valid US copyright matter. Do you honestly think i'm trying to be a snot? No, i am trying to comply with the law, which states that unless the image is essential to the article, it needs to be replaced. It is pretty easy to use... oh... . Scepia 03:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i do believe it is a problem. Considering we have a acceptable image (above), i don't see the reason for you to flame me about complying with copyright. Many other Wikipedia's have no fair use at all. IBM did not release the image to the public domain. That's all. Yes, i a go looking for "trouble" as i try to enforce the policy.

Tell me this, are you trying to make a point, just to prove that it "doesn't matter"? Scepia 04:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please point me to the situation where i created problems. All i've done is comply with policy (and law). Scepia 04:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"apparently inventing some when you feel the need"

Copyright is not something i made up. Scepia 04:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

second opinion

From a standpoint of policy, I'd have to agree with Scepia. As WP:FAIR states, a fair use image "can only be used if it is not replaceable with a free content image of equal or better quality." In this case, the fair use image (Image:Ibm wii chips.jpg) may be nicer, but the free use image (Image:Broadwaycpu.JPG) is more than an acceptable illustration of the chip. It might even be a better illustration since the chip is the main focus of the free use image. In addition, the article is about IBM, not the chip, so the image basically serves as decoration. Without an adequate fair use rationale, the fair use image also doesn't clearly meet the requirements of inclusion under fair use. I'd stick with the free content; it almost always trumps fair use. If I can clarify my viewpoint on this, let me know. auburnpilot talk 19:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Anime Convention

Hey, thank you for you input on the deletion discussion of Another Anime Convention. However, you cite only WP:N with little else in your explanation. Would you mind taking a look at the article again and then telling me on my talk page what should be corrected? Thank you! Kopf1988 22:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, although I disagree. Remember notability is not about importance, but about its worthiness of being noted. In comparison to the other anime convention articles, several have little proof that they are worthy of being noted, except what the article says (I had listed 15 of them!). Anyways, thank you. Kopf1988 22:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article does satisfy WP:ATT, all the actual information in the article is verified, via reliable sources. I would also argue, more importantly, that a convention with over 500 attendees is pretty notable, and since it has already happened, doesn't violate WP:Crystal ball. Not to mention, the convention is being held again, (not violating Crystal ball because it has been held once), and it would simply go against common sense to delete a useful article that would be recreated after the second convention. The absolute most important things to remember about Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, except it is an encyclopedia with no practical limit to the amount of content it can hold. Nobody will care about McDonalds in Muscatine, IA, because it's not interesting or important. There are at least 500 people (excluding Patrick) who would be interested in this article and who would consider it notable. Not to mention that anyone who likes Anime, or anyone who is curious about attending an anime convention in the NH area, would probably consider the convention notable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and useless cruft should be removed, yet Another Anime Convention is very encyclopedic. More importantly, it is the biggest anime convention in New Hampshire. Kopf1988 22:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't say none if it's not none. Animecons.com and Anime-mania are both reliable for information. But ignore that discussion, how about this one: Another Anime Convention is the biggest anime convention in New Hampshire. Doesn't that make it notable??? Kopf1988 23:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to invite you to take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another Anime Convention (2nd nomination). I had presented that Another Anime Convention is the biggest anime convention in New Hampshire, but before much discussion had taken place the deletion was closed. Would you like to voice your opinion, for or against, at the deletion review? The claims to notability meet the sole requirement for such claims to be verifiable, not necessarily verified. The two source I had provided show that the claim is as true as can be proven also. As I stated, if I claimed to own the only Computer Repair Company in Iowa, and I had multiple phone-books to prove it, that would be enough verifiability for Wikipedia. Also, any user can search Google for Anime Conventions in New Hampshire, and they will find no current ones (nor any larger than Another Anime Convention). I hope you consider participating in the review discussion. Kopf1988 00:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take another look

Hi Blaxthos,

After you contributed to the deletion discussion on the Helen Hollick article, the author herself put some references on the deletion page, and I think we now have adequate confirmation of notability from independent sources. I initially voted to delete myself, but I've been working with her to improve the page with more footnotes and more information. At this point I think the article is worthy of keeping, and I'm continuing to work on it with her. Please take another look at the page and consider whether you'd like to change your vote. Thanks! Noroton 22:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

Here's some Penguins for you! Penguins somehow in their own strange way promote WikiLove and hopefully these Penguins have made your day seem even better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Crested Penguin 09:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Eliot Bernstein

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eliot Bernstein. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Iviewit 02:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

please don't blank talk pages, it is considered vandalism. By the way, after looking at your recent edits, it is clear you are way out of line trying to suggest an "edited by consensus" tag on the FOX news page, one has only to look at the history to see some editors were even forced out after making factual fully referenced additions. Its a nasty page, its why I don't even head there at all, it makes more sense to just say that some wikipedia articles are blatantly flawed and highly inaccurate and poorly written, and to use other sources for such topics that are subject to fan bases and political blocks & gangs of editors. Enjoy the FOX page, its all yours! But stay out of other editors' business on more important matters and pages. Stick to the FOX news page and what your good at. CrystalizedAngels 01:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Thanks for the note. auburnpilot talk 03:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

indefinite???...well...in some sort of way i guess depending on the definition of indefinite (or else the the reference point & time frame of the observer)...what is indefinite to one occurence/entity may be quite brief to another occurence/entity...so you vandalize a talk page by blanking the comments of a user (a user totally uninvolved in this dispute over soemthing totally unrelated to FOX news)...then you get an admin to defend your vandalism!...well well...83.78.181.65 12:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Email

You've got mail. auburnpilot talk 04:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I left town for 48 hours and I see the arbcom has already rejected the case. I do tend to agree there is nothing they could add to the situation; we just need to get another admin involved. I must apologize again for not yet responding to your email, but I should have time to get to it today. Now that I'm back in town, I should have a bit more free time. - auburnpilot talk 20:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Finally, you have mail. - auburnpilot talk 22:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And resent. The first one was returned to me; said your box was full...never seen that before. Let me know if/when you get this one and if not, it may be something on my end. - auburnpilot talk 05:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the "easy management". I've discovered the issue with the email (well I had a friend look at it and he discovered the issue). It's something to do with an old vacation notice I had while away for Spring Break. Apparently it's bouncing sent emails into who knows where. He knows things I don't so apparently it'll be fixed tonight (or so he says). - auburnpilot talk 23:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty hate machine

What is your rationale for moving to lowercase? The title appears lowercase on the album cover, but so does "nine inch nails" and a lot of other albums like El Cielo. Any evidence to support the 'proper title' being lowercase? –Pomte 02:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Album titles and band names: "Do not replicate stylized typography in logos and album art, though a redirect may be appropriate (for example, KoЯn redirects to Korn (band))." And unlike KoЯn the album isn't explicitly known to be lowercase. Don't mean to use a similar example, but dredg is widely known to be lowercase because they never ever spell their band name with an uppercase D. The same reason With Teeth isn't WITH_TEETH. I'll seek consensus at Talk:Nine Inch Nails. –Pomte 03:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[7] Unfortunately there's no PHM here, and it looks like "The" didn't fit next to "Downward Spiral". –Pomte 03:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

SBVT

I finished formatting the citations on the SBVT article. If you would like to work on verification, it's all yours. I think there were only three sources that I could not find and did not have enough clues to write a reasonable cite. The last one in the Hoffman section is particularly problematic, since it appeared to be the only reliable (primary) source in the section, and the rest of the sources are blogs, Huffington Post being the cream of that crop. - Crockspot 05:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Squirrel_terminal.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Squirrel_terminal.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 00:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge WP:V WP:NOR and WP:RS into one big page?

You're probably familiar with the debate thats going on right now in regards to the possible merge of all three content policy pages into one policy page at WP:A.

In regards to our previous conversation, I thought you might like to weigh in on the debate found here. Even if your not really sure on weather to oppose or support it, you can still add your opinion in the neutral column. ;) -- RiseRobotRise 05:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 5 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Squirrel Systems, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 14:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

you have been banned from editing wikipedia artles untill further notice

you have been banned from editing wikipedia artles untill further notice —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spiddy (talk • contribs) 00:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Your patently false notice here, as well as blanking my userpage and vandalism of my userpage, have been reported to WP:ANI. /Blaxthos 04:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The editor has been blocked. Naconkantari 04:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Mobile, Alabama assessment

Hello Blaxthos. Thanks for your question about my assessment of the Mobile, Alabama article. I graded it as start class. My intent was to make it a "B" class. In fact, I thought I did. Of course, it cannot be GA because it hasn't, I don't think, passed through the GA process before.

• There are one or two typo's which need to be fixed (I will get them soon) and there are a couple of areas that need some expansion.
• The transportation section should include the cruise line which is in place and will likely expand this summer. I would like to see something about the two tunnels and perhaps the Africatown bridge which are all three critical arteries.
• Under Education we probably should add Faulkner University which operates in Mobile too. I'm personally conflicted about how much detail we should include about education. The public school system is struggling as are many metropolitan systems.
• Economy could be expanded too and needs attribution.
• What I do not see are violations of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR or WP:COPY. The material is well written, diverse and balanced.

I think with the above things in mind the article would be ready for GA review and then FA soon afterwards. As for the rating, I will change it right away. That was an error. JBEvans 01:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the revised assessment, including your comments regarding deficiencies. Thanks for taking the time to explain.  :-) /Blaxthos 02:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Trade Wars Reference Pages

Please, each one of the sites in the reference section you deleted are unique references for the game. Please put them back.

Cernnunos 04:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Cernnunos 04/15/2007

There are 2 reference to Stardock TWGS search in The "Telnet TW2002 scene". I don't think you play the game, I could be wrong, if you did play, you would realize the significance of the links you have removed.

Perhaps we need 2 additional sections directly related to TW play: The development of Helpers and a section on Strategy. To play TW successfully today you need 3 things: A helper, some scripts, and the information hosted on TW-Cabal (this site has so many articles on the strategy, the techniques and the math needed to play TW2002 successfully)

I have read the external link reference you left. TW-Cabal and the Grimy Trader sites are integral to Trade Wars 2002 the modern player can not succeed with out them both. Cernnunos 04:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Implied date field

Could you update the bot to understand implied dates in templates? See this edit for an example of broken behavior. /Blaxthos 21:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It is actually not bad at doing that, however that [particular] template was already broken as there is no implied date behaviour for default parameter 2. Rich Farmbrough, 08:30 16 April 2007 (GMT).

Errors

Blaxthos, I am guilty of making errors in using the tools you commented on. However there is no reason at all for you to assume anything else. In the case of the AWB errors I have corrected everyone that I am aware of and have gone back through my contributions list and searched for any I may have missed. Any errors I have made were just that, errors, mistakes. I can assure you that I will do my best not to make anymore but in spite of that I am just as certain that I will, from time to time, make mistakes. Please do not assume the worst. If there are any errors not yet corrected I will be happy to fix them. In some cases, errors were corrected before anyone said anything. In other cases I searched them out. My sole intent is to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Thank you for your concerns. JodyB 15:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Squirrel_terminal.jpg

This image is, already for a while, listed on WP:PUI. Did you had any luck with contacting the marketing directory for Squirrel systems. Otherwise I will delete the image, it can always be restored if good news arrives. Garion96 (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fox News Channel

It is you who is violating the neutral point of view policy. You see, when you say something that uses weasel words, it automatically violates the npov policy. You and i both know that statement violates the policy, so i wouldn't be using it as an excuse to continue the anti-FNC plight that you and other users have continued on. Frankly, i really don't know why someone would hate a cable news network so much as to want to destroy it on wikipedia. perhaps you could answer that in the fnc article while others remove it but then you come in again and re-add it claiming a breach of the npov policy. Oh, and here's your signature: --75.21.179.121 23:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Go easy on the incivility. The current version is a consensus version. I also advise checking out WP:LEAD. /Blaxthos 05:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fox News Channel

You've now twice removed the word "controversial" on the grounds it is POV, and now that it's unsourced. Please read the article itself, which contains multiple sources (as does the sub article). Read before asserting.  ;-) /Blaxthos 20:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Do ANY of those sources SAY that Fox's slogan is "controversial" or are you summizing that on your own? --Tom 12:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Policy on Links

I agree that Wikipedia is not meant to be a collection of links, however the links (that I am now reverting) are relevent to the article. UrbanTerrorist 15:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove links without first confering with the person who places the link

• Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Tradewars 2002.

The links are appropriate

• Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites

Not my sites

• Links to web sites with which you are affiliated

Not affiliated to those sites

• And links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product.

No products for sale.

• If you feel the link should not be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before removing it.

UrbanTerrorist 11:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop pushing your agenda of the Fox News channel article

Your bias and agenda pushing does not help this project. There are tons of blogs for that. Thanks! --Tom 17:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fox News

Haven't you heard? Admins always protect the wrong version.

But seriously, I did read the talk page and I don't see much consensus there that would give everyone free reign to revert his changes. I'm not in any way condoning his behavior, and I might have blocked him (even though he did not violate 3RR), but what would that accomplish? He'd be back tomorrow and nothing would be solved. So think of this period of protection as a good opportunity to discuss the issue with him and make some progress. He has motivation to talk because if he edit wars again I guarantee he will be blocked. You have motivation to talk because you want to change the version I've protected. So everyone has something to gain by discussion. Kafziel ^Talk 18:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

FTR-- I placed a tidbit about the block on the Admin Noticeboard to get an uninvolved third party to review everyone's conduct. I'll abide by whatever comes out of it. But I agree that locking the page was-- way-- too-- much-- overkill. Considering the "edit war" hadn't started and was in only a caption of the article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that this sysop has a superiority complex about his powers, and since Auburn Pilot appears to be supporting him, I don't think anything will be done to remove the page protection, which is weird because I don't see the edit warring. Hindsight being 20/20, if I had known you were going to ask for 3RR block on Tom, I would have stopped you since he hadn't reached that point yet, and that considering the new spate of admins something like this was very likely. However, Since master Kafziel has ordered us to continue discussing the topic, lest he blocks all of us, I've posted a new section to see if another consensus can be reached. But I am so close to taking this page off of the watchlist, and trying to be productive elsewhere in the project, if this is even possible. If the admins want to take the side of vandals and edit warriors, let them. The project would just become even more of a joke. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say I was going to block you; you can't edit the page, so you can't get in an edit war. The page will be unlocked soon enough, after things have cooled off a little. Perhaps it would be best for you take the page off your watchlist for a while, though, and gain a little perspective here. I'm on your side. 00:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't see how you are on our side. By blocking the entire page, you have placed Blaxthos, myself and all other editors in the same box. That isn't right or fair. Look at the discussion, and you'd see that Tom was just looking to be disagreeable and was making bad faith edits against an apparant compromise that had been reached by several editors the night before. Did he deserve to be blocked, no. But neither did the page deserve to be locked. I wasn't even a part of that dispute, but I can't make edits on the page. How is this being on my side?

Well, in any case, I'm probably going to get blocked because of my last post, and I don't care anymore. I'm taking a vacation from that page for a few days, so I'll see if anything happens by next week. Good luck in attempting to bring sanity and perspective to that article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Asking for sources is not making bad faith edits, thats bs. --Tom 12:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Tom, the only bullshit is coming from you... you have a history of this kind of behavior, and thus far you've only showed obstinance, ignorance, and defiance. Sources have always existed, and you're not doing yourself or the project any good by ignoring policies you don't like, or ignoring consensus with which you don't agree. I may earn a block for saying so, but you've brought it on to my talk page (uninvited and unwarranted) even after I've openly stated that I leave the dispute. /Blaxthos 13:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Man, how much crap do I need to take before you and Ramsquire understand that I'm not some crazy bully who is going to block you on a whim? On an average day I probably say "bullshit" ten times before breakfast. I don't think it's going to make anyone here cry, and as far as I'm concerned we're all adults here. It's really strange to see that both of you guys think I'm out to get you, and that I'm waiting for you to slip up so I can block you without warning. If I didn't block Tom for edit warring, I'm certainly not going to block either of you for speaking your minds. I have nothing against either of you. I said you guys can disagree with me all you want, and I meant it. So feel free to discuss all of this without worrying about any kind of penalties from me. Kafziel ^Talk 14:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving from AuburnPilot's talk page

Okay, you win. I'll go ahead and revert all the changes I made... oh, wait, I didn't make any. I'll put the FAQ tag back... oh, wait, I never removed it. So I'll just unprotect the article and you can edit it... oh, wait, I already did that, too. Maybe if I unblock all your friends... oh, wait, I didn't block anyone. In that case, I'm at a loss as to precisely what the hell you want from me. Kafziel ^Talk 17:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's take this step by step.

• That condescending, smartass attitude is what got you jumped on and set the incorrect tone in the first place. We expect more from our administrators, and I would certainly hope that you understand that it serves no purpose.
• Regarding the 3RR report:

• 1st revert: 17:46, 1 May 2007

Removed text The Fox News "Fair & Balanced" slogan has been the subject of controversy due to trademark disputes and accusations of bias. which was reached by consensus.

• 2nd revert: 06:35, 2 May 2007

Removed text has been the subject of controversy due to trademark disputes and accusations of bias. again.

• 3rd revert: 06:40, 2 May 2007

Removed the image entirely, rather than abide by consensus.

• 4th revert: 09:19, 2 May 2007

Removed has been the subject of controversy due to trademark disputes and accusations of bias. again.

Now, how come we have like 4 (established) editors reverting his changes? Maybe it's because we reached consensus... none of us violated 3RR, because with multiple editors you get oversight, whereas one obstenant editor consistantly reverting changes will be subject of 3RR violation. Now, granted, looking back you may not consider the removal of the image entirely as a revert, but that seems more like a technicality (since the same changes were effected). Also please note that he went on for DAYS doing this, after being corrected by admins and other editors.

• I haven't requested anything from you. It's my hope that you will both adjust your attitude towards the users with whom you interact, and you will either (a) do a little more fact finding before declaring that an edit war is ongoing (dig a little deeper man, you've got multiple experienced editors in good standing telling you that you jumped the gun), or (b) stop trying to mediate disputes like that entirely. Either issue the block, or say "no a block isn't appropriate because _____". Don't jump in half-assed and think you know what's occuring -- the edit times alone show that you took nothing more than a cursory look before (1) declaring an edit war, (2) protecting the page, and (3) making remarks that came across as "gleeful", selfrighteous, and power-tripish.

I'm sure it'll be tempting to brush off our criticism with some manner of admins are never appreciated and/or admins can't make everyone happy. I can assure you (as I'm sure AuburnPilot and others would) that I'm not unreasonable and my criticsm isn't personal or angry. I've been with the project since 2004, and this is the first friction I've ever had with an admin (save early in my first month of editing three years ago). My only intent is in the hopes that you'll take some of this to heart and you'll be a better admin for it.  :-)

Hope this helps clear the air. /Blaxthos 18:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

your bias

Blaxthos,

Concerning your attempt to delete the Russel Walder article, Here is proof that you are not reading articles and are trying to control wiki to suit your own agenda. I changed the sentence to "furthering the possibilities" from redefining the possibilities. How is that a not a neutral point of view? Yet, your note says redifining.HHmmm.

Now if you had bothered to read any of the references which you haven't, you would see that all of the claims are validated. Perhaps take the time to read. Now of course all of the references are from Google as it's the best way to show validation yet you make it sound like it's feeble. Now, I'm not a wiki expert on formatting so maybe thats a problem that you may like to help me out with. You also do not understand the difference between what is neutral and what is true. A true statement may include a phrase that says,

Frank Signature was the greatest singer of his time. That would be a true statement. But if you were editing that you would have that deleted because its sounds like grandeur and not neutral. You would want to say that Frank Signature was a singer. Not what kind of singer. Isn't that somewhat narrow-minded to think in those terms?

Try reading the references before you police wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oboeboy11 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

( I have also been reading responces from other people on your talk page who validate some of the things I'm saying. )

OK, I just went to encyclopedia.com looking up frank sinatra. Would you agree that that site is just as reliable as wiki? here is what it said: Frank Sinatra Print

www.encyclopedia.com

Sinatra, Frank (Francis Albert Sinatra), 1915-98, American singer and actor, b. Hoboken, N.J. During the late 1930s and early 40s he sang with the Harry James and Tommy Dorsey bands, causing teenage girls to shriek and swoon over his romantic, seemingly casual renditions of such songs as "I'll Never Smile Again" and "This Love of Mine." During his long career he became one of the most successful pop music figures of the century, widely respected as a "singer's singer" for his richly detailed readings of lyrics and his versatile and nuanced musical style. Sinatra's sophisticated musicianship was evident in his many recordings. He had a long-lived and successful movie career, appearing in 58 films including On the Town (1949), From Here to Eternity (1953, Academy Award), Guys and Dolls (1955), Pal Joey (1957), The Manchurian Candidate (1962), and The Detective (1968). He also directed and produced several films. Sinatra retired from show business in 1971 but returned in several concert tours.

What do you make of the sentance, During his long career he became one of the most successful pop music figures of the century,' OR Sinatra's sophisticated musicianship was evident in his many recordings. That is from the encyclopedia!!!!! Please explain how the encyclopedia is not neutral and attempts granduer. Oboeboy11 00:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's move this onto your page. /Blaxthos 00:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If I contact you on my own talk page, how will you know what is being said if it's not on your page? Oboeboy11 01:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now changed several of the words that you found 'outside' the parameters. Please re-read. I am against the deletion of this article. I am open to working with you or any other editor to make it work, Please read the referances and not just skimming. After changing wording how is this not working. Please give a point by point lisiting that shows how this is not relevant as by my understanding of the wiki policy , it clearly meets all criteria.Oboeboy11 01:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

NWA Shockwave AfD

I've just added the titles as well, which I somehow overlooked earlier. Can you go back and clarify your !vote is to delete all please, assuming it is of course! Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Enrique A. Pollack / Henry Pollack

I am requesting that a new article that I wrote on the subject be included. I noticed that you were in favor of deleating the original article and was wondering if you would vote on the new article I wrote with additional sources.. thanks Callelinea 00:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:OS2 Warp 3.png

Hello Blaxthos, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:OS2 Warp 3.png) was found at the following location: User:Blaxthos/Tech failures. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Keypunching - Two pass Verification

The reference to Two Pass Verification was in "Punched Card" and I moved it to Keypunch where it is a better fit. I don't have a strong interest in the topic (Two Pass...) but do think the term should be explicitly visible, either in the text or as a "See Also". Further, the Two Pass... text describes both acts of data entry and the comparison, while in "Keypunch" it now seemed tied to only the check function of the verifier. No need to respond to this comment. tooold 21:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Chappaquiddick: Read the edits next time, OK?

This is why I am beginning to hate Wikipedia. Dude, carefully read the edits of mine which you reverted. [8] My first edit was simply correcting a typo and adding a citation needed tag. Then I added two citation needed tags and fixed some spelling. [9] [10]

Someone else added that line about the OJ Simpson trial. I'm a copyeditor, not a research verifyer. I added no content "without citing reliable resources", as you claimed I did.

Next time you choose to revert an edit and warn the prior editor thereof, kindly check the history more carefully.

And please drop the "if you need to experiment, please use the sandbox" line. That was unnecessary and patronizing. I've been involved with Wiki projects for a long time, and I know full well what the sandbox is for. So much for assuming good faith, eh? - Sensor 04:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy-tagging Sore Thumbs

I received the notification of that you tagged this article for speedy on grounds of Recreation of deleted material. Now, This makes the assuption either I had made this article previously and it failed an AFD, or I copied someone else's article that failed an AFD. Now which were you thinking? You must have had personal knowledge of this AFD, and what the previous article looked like enough to deem it a copy, because I wasn't aware there had been such a process, or even a prior article named Sore Thumbs. Within few hours of your placing the tag, an admin took your recommendation at face value and actually deleted it. The deletion removed the record of the admin name, so all I'm left with is you, and the question if you'll face up to what you did, or ignore it. Murgh^disc. 10:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I found this ANI archive post which explains some motivation on your part, but did you sincerely think I was a sock of this person? How deeply did you look into this? Murgh^disc. 11:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing our links

You've been removing links on the TradeWars_2002 page, please stop. We are an active community, we can take care of the page ourselves. There are no promotional products on any of the links, they provide a large cache of downloadable resources, research, tutorials, and links to other areas of the community. These links are frequently suggested around the community forums and removing them does a disservice to people that would like to play the game. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnyarri (talk • contribs)

Please stop removing our links part 2

New posts appearantly can go either place. I chose the top to get your attention. It clearly worked. I will post at the bottom here per your request, however.

I'm not a wikinerd, I don't really care about the customs of the people around here but will try to follow your requests hoping you will follow mine.

Yes anyone can edit any page, but if you aren't an expert in the field you probably should consider other people's opinions when making changes. Again, I am not a wikinerd. I ask only that you respect the work and opinions of the experts on a particular page, we are trying to make it easier for new players to find the resources they need to actively play.

I am not asking you to not edit a page, I am asking, politely, that you refrain from making certain types of edits. That is considerably better form than many of the pages I've seen here.

The rules about information includes self-promotional links, these links are not self-promotional. They are designed by the community and supported by hundreds of people. I could draw a dozen analogies here, but it's a waste of time. We will continue to re-add these links as neccessary, and given the number of people involved you will be hard pressed to stop us.

I ask only that you stop making assumptions about topics you are not an expert on, and atleast be willing to consult one before making questionable changes. Thank you. Dnyarri 22:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Dnyarri

Re: WikiProject Banners

I know about 5 pages already that could use this. WKPT-TV is one...being in the Tri-States, it has the VA and TN Wikiproject banners and more. WCYB is worse. Many thanks for the idea, now I can get these out of the way:) Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: My AfD nomination

I felt your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attius Insteius Tertullus was inappropriately worded & offensive. It did not matter that you tried to soften your words with a smiley; your words that my request for advice on how to improve Wikipedia is "a waste of time" & to further imply that I am disrupting Wikipedia by this behavior speaks so much louder than any smiley can. Your badly-considered response can only create ill-will here.

Were I a new user, someone not quite sure of himself, & had made that nomination, reading your terse response would have conveyed the impression that I was not "good enough" to contribute to Wikipedia, & that despite all of the boilerplate stating the opposite I am not welcome to edit here. At best, that would only encourage me to leave Wikipedia -- thus driving away a possibly valuable contributor; at worst, perhaps your words would encourage me to figure out ways to attack Wikipedia thru vandalism or other destructive behavior. And the easiest way to fight vandals is to prevent creating them in the first place.

However, I have been contributing to Wikipedia in one form or another for almost five years now. Had you taken a moment to look at my user page, or at my talk page, you would have seen that I am not the kind of person who intentionally disrupts Wikipedia. When I am not editting, I spend my time trying to resolve disputes here. And despite all of that, I am person with feelings, & if provoked I can get angry. Instead of attempting to help a fellow editor, say to point out a better forum where I should have asked this question, instead you decided to make a joke at my expense. And I know a response like that does not reflect on me or what edits I have made -- but on you.

I strongly encourage you to consider how you make your comments here in the future. The next time you send a message like that, things may not end with a message on your Talk page. -- llywrch 19:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

FOX News FAQ

Can you please put that back up. Here's an interesting discussion thread I've recently discovered. 1—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsquire (talk • contribs)

Andretti curse

• I have added new sources directly covering this topic at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andretti Curse. I invite you to review them and consider whether they might change your opinion on deleting the article. Barno 00:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination)

You recently commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of Humanity, which closed with no consensus. The article has been re-nominated for deletion, and you may care to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Hi, I'm contacting you because you previously voted on the AfD for The Intelligence Summit. I am contacting everyone who voted on that AfD regardless of how they voted. Someone re-created the article and it is again up for deletion -- if you have any input, please add it to this page. Thank you! csloat 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

understood

But I would still appreciate "offorbythepeople" nothing more or less please. Thank you. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 16:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

KRU Records

I added some sources to KRU Records. Could you please revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KRU Records? --Eastmain 01:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Check your inbox

I just sent you an email. - auburnpilot talk 17:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

With my typical delay, I've replied. - auburnpilot talk 02:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Selfworm/Userboxes/NotCatholic_(2nd_nomination)

As you are an editor involved with the the previous discussion, I am notifying you that I have relisted it for mfd. Thank you. --Flamgirlant 12:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Strawman, eh?

I wasn't trying to make a strawman argument, just clarifying what the hell you meant. Seriously, the explanation you left for requesting protection was extraordinarily vague. Also Looking over the talk page, I saw no clear consensus, just you arguing against the people who opposed your POV. Explain, please, how, BLP applies to this case. The information cannot be described as libel since his opposition to Cape Wind is well sourced.

And I've looked at pages for other current senators, and almost all mention current issues to which the candidate is attached:

Olympia Snowe's page mentions "Both Snowe and fellow Maine Senator Susan Collins were reluctant converts to limited gun control following the Columbine High School shooting in 1999. Although she is pro-choice, she has expressed opposition to partial-birth abortion; however, she voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act because she felt it did not include the necessary exemptions"

Chris Dodd's page mentions this "Dodd was one of 16 senators who voted against the Vitter Amendment to prohibit federal funding of the confiscation of legally owned firearms during a disaster."

From Arlen Spector's page "Specter is notoriously abrasive, and has earned the nickname "Snarlin' Arlen" among his foes on Capitol Hill and in the public"

So please, explain why Kennedy publicly stated opposition to Cape Wind doesn't merit space on his article?

---Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 19:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't want to start a new topic, but perhaps you should look at the RFC on Cape Wind again, it seems consensus is shifting agianst you. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 18:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground, and the arguments are not personal. It's counterproductive to view as such. Also, let's not start popping the champaigne just yet -- no one has addressed any of the points I've raised, and the regular editors who contribute to the article have yet to make any statement. /Blaxthos 23:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Common law

I though t I archived the disdussions I removed in the way instructed by the archive instructions. Mea culpa if othwrwise. All of the discussions on the "common law" discussion page, except the last one, seem to have been resolved in favor of the status quo. Could you archive them please? Thanks Boundlessly 23:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: referencing

Sorry about that, I only knew <ref> before now. I was adding the same report to a few fast food chain companies (that is McDonald's, KFC, Wendy's, Burger King and Taco Bell) and encountered some resistence because someone who wrote a lot on BK is upset to hear that the report gave a really low mark on BK and reverted all my additions of the report to fast food chain companies. Try check it out at User talk:OhanaUnited#Environmental Report and Talk:Burger King#Environmental report. I hope you'll agree on my viewpoints and question him why he reverted my edits. On a sidenote, I recommend you to archive your talk page, it's getting a bit too long. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert on my change to the John Edward's article

Dear Blaxthos:

Re the following:

"(Undid revision 140120316 by Bsirvine (talk) -- We will assume good faith to what he says he knew (or didn't know))"

First, whom is "we?"

Secondly, I do not believe it is prudent policy regardless of the subject of the article to assume without evidence.

Unless I hear some better arguments from you I intend to reenter my edit.

Bsirvine 20:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Blaxthos:

Thank you for your civil response. I am going to look into the matters you brought up before I make any other changes or reverts. On my first cursory look, I dispute your reading of the wiki rules. In any case I will keep you informed before I do anything further re this issue.

Bsirvine 16:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Blaxthos:

Contrary to your belief assumption of good faith is optional; please check your reference. It is clearly stated to be a guideline. Now, of course that assumes I intended to or did violate a guideline, which I sincerely feel that I did not. On your part, I assume YOUR good faith in reverting my edit; on the part of the subject of the article the guideline does not apply. All (or at least the vast majority) of the wording in the discussion of AGF applies to Wiki editors and not to article subjects.

I also sincerely feel that my edit did not violate WP:BLP or Neutral Point of View (both of which I acknowledge as policy). The way the article is now edited (after your edit) makes it appear that it is impossible to consider the case that JE lied or that he weaseled around the definitions employed in the industry of subprime lending. The WP article cited has several openings that a medium sized truck can be driven through.

Bsirvine 17:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Blaxthos:

This is not going anywhere positive. We appear to have a difference of opinion and there ARE two points of view wrt JE's veracity. As an analogy, I see an object that is grey; I correct a report that says it is white. In response, I am told that not only is the object white, but that I have falsely reported that the object is black.

I am going to quote passages from the WP story that is a source for this article:

"Edwards said yesterday that he was unaware of the push by the firm, Fortress Investment Group, into subprime lending and that he wishes he had asked more questions before taking the job. The former senator from North Carolina said he had asked Fortress officials whether it was involved in predatory lending practices before taking the job in 2005 and was assured it was not. Edwards said yesterday that he recalls being told at the time of his hiring that some of Fortress's private equity holdings did lend to start-up businesses, which is why he asked about predatory lending practices. But he could not recall whether the firm's partners told him it had a major stake in Green Tree. Those are the things I remember," he said. 'They may have told me more.' Had he learned that Fortress owned a loan servicer with a history of predatory lending practices, he said, 'I would have asked some very specific questions about it.'"

I assume that you have read these passages. Why was JE satisfied with an alleged answer that said they did not practice "predatory lending" but that did not exclude other aspects of subprime lending?

I quote the JE wiki article (without my edit):

"Unknown to Edwards,[34] at the time Fortress owned a major stake in Green Tree Servicing LLC, which rose to prominence in the 1990s selling subprime loans to mobile-home owners and now services subprime loans originated by others."

Now I again quote the WP article:

"Edwards said yesterday that he recalls being told at the time of his hiring that some of Fortress's private equity holdings did lend to start-up businesses, which is why he asked about predatory lending practices. But he could not recall whether the firm's partners told him it had a major stake in Green Tree."

"'They may have told me more....'" "Could not recall whether he was told...."

After reading these excerpted sources; if you still feel that it is impossible that the ownership was "unknown" as opposed to "possibly unknown" I will let you have the issue with the understanding that follows. This change is not important enough to me that I will spend a significant amount of my time and effort to continue to argue it. I am getting the distinct impression that I am dealing with a JE partisan. It may be appropriate for you to examine your own motives and results wrt NPOV.

Wrt BLP and NPOV; neither are the policies clear nor do they concretely back your viewpoint. I sincerely do not believe that adding the word "possibly" puts me in violation of either. On the other hand, threatening me with a block the way you did, implies that you believe that I am violating Wiki policy in a particularly gross manner. That Wiki policy is most clear. I would highly encourage you to read THAT policy.

No matter what happens, I hope that you have a nice life.

Bsirvine 19:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Based upon the results of internal investigations and overwhelming public sentiment Bsirvine has decided to not do any Wiki edits with the exception of typos and simple grammar errors that affect comprehension. Fuck you all.  :-)

Bsirvine 12:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The word

That was my fault. :) - Crockspot 16:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Kind word duely noted and apology accepted wholeheartedly. /Blaxthos 16:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Leda and the swan (band)

Hi, This lot are completely NN - no recordings, one gig in march, one planned for August, but I find the templates a bit complicated, & am not used to the bands policy. I'd be very grateful if you could do an AfD - I think it might qualify for speedy. Cheers Johnbod 20:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! Johnbod 21:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

The acrimony seems to have died down at WP:V and people are now co-operating on a single version that should be able to accommodate all views. Please feel free to edit this draft. here or add specific comments on how to improve it, either for clarity or including more of the relevant viewpoints. Tim Vickers 20:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:V opinion request

Hi there, do you have an opinion on which of these formulations of a paragraph in this policy is preferable? Tim Vickers 16:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough...

On 27th January 2007, you made the following comment on Wikipedia_talk:Attack_page:

I definitely agree that the guideline should not apply to RfArb / evidence pages, but I have seen people use it as a misnomer. Modifying the inclusionary language might not be the answer -- what about adding an exclusionary clause. Something along the lines of Userspace pages used to gather evidence on other editors' conduct are not attack pages. /Blaxthos 02:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

and

You should be more appalled to discover that there are editors whos conduct warrants administrative action, and you should be glad there are administrators and users who do due dilligence in investigating and addressing such. Is it unfortunate that something like that is necessary? Of course, but it is necessary and it hurts us all when admins and users trying to help by gathering and presenting evidence can be accused to harboring attack pages. /Blaxthos 15:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It might interest you to know that an evidence page I established User:Rfwoolf/Evidence which was very fair, very civil, a preparation for a RfC (Request for Comment), was nominated for deletion by the very admin (JzG) who was the subject of the evidence page. But that's not the problem. The problem is the User:Radiant! simply speedy-deleted the usersubpage citing "CSD G10 (Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject)." i.e. Attack Pages.
It seems your comments made back in January were exceedingly relevant.
Since then an appeal has been opened in Deletion Review here
So if a user collects evidence in preparation of ARBCOM, RfC, or just evidence, is this considered an attack page? There's a lot of controversy, and your opinion is welcomed on the highly controversial deletion review. Your feedback is appreciated.
Rfwoolf 18:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia talk:Policy shopping

I've nominated Wikipedia talk:Policy shopping, a page you created, for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Policy shopping and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia talk:Policy shopping during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Crockspot 19:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I called Crockspot out for policy shopping earlier today on the Matt Drudge page. His response appears to be the above. You'll be happy to know consensus is running overwhelmingly in favor of keep. --Eleemosynary 00:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The (double) irony here is that he was one of the original inspirations for the essay, and his nomination has given the essay a much wider audience within the community writ large that seems to feel (at least in many circles) that it should become a guideline. If nothing else, I feel quite validated at the community response -- I never thought there would be such support for my essay; it's nice to know that wikipedia editors largely agree with my position. Thanks for the note. /Blaxthos 15:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a good essay, and as I said in the MFD, it dovetails nicely with the essay on being a fanatic. Only a fanatic would keep searching for reasons to delete or add something to an article after being repeatedly told their use of a certain policy is wrong. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

And the result is keep. It'll be interesting to see if any new editors pop up, now that it's been seen by a wider audience. - auburnpilot talk 21:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

I cheer the survival of your essay, which I regard as a positive contribution to the decent operation of Wikipedia. —SlamDiego_←T 05:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Though I don't take such things personally, (as mentioned elsewhere) I am extremely humbled by the outpouring of support from the community, both for the existance of the essay and the support for the points it makes. I never expected such a positive and overwhelming response. I hope it continues to grow and influence the community. Thanks for the note! /Blaxthos 07:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

AmeriCorps

Hello.

I see that you erased all the criticisms that I added to the AmeriCorps section.

In the comment section, you said, "rm entire additition - i don't oppose criticism, but these all fail WP:RS and WP:NPOV"

Actually, I did follow the rules. I cited all of my sources.

After you erased what I put in the article, I looked at the "references" section of the article.

100% of the references - every single one of them - is from the offical AmeriCorps website.

This is not an article. It's a press release.

Grundle2600 17:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again.

I just read the message that you put on my page.

If you want to add sources, then please do so.

How come you don't mind that the entire article is just a press release from the AmeriCorps website? Isn't that a violattion of neutrality?

Grundle2600 17:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: FNC Part 3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MSTCrow#FNC_.28part_3.29 - MSTCrow 19:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, thanks for fixing up my talk page by adding the unsigned post tag. - MSTCrow 19:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Civility

- why are you trying to dismiss me? I try to work within the system then get shut out for trying to talk. I am an intelligent person if I'm wrong on my position, tell me why. I may be wrong but I believe the talk page is a forum of discussion on how to improve the article. You may not agree with me, but by what right do you decide no-one else hears my voice? Towers84 11:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

can i move this kind of stuff to my talk page too?Towers84 17:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Segger Microcontroller Systems AfD again

Segger Microcontroller Systems is up for deletion again. You commented before; perhaps you might care to comment again. —EncMstr 17:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Head's Up!

But when you warn me that what I did to bring balance to the Senator John Edwards article actually violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia, I have to laugh.

Word up: Every article about Every liberal and conservative politician/commentator in Wikipedia violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy since they ALL skew FAR left wing.

And getting my wrist slapped for trying to bring balance just confirms what EVERYONE already thinks about Wikipedia.

Good job crucifying the people that could actually help you guys out. The next time there's a fire in your neighborhood, I guess you'll create a barricade to keep the firetruck from coming in too, right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.70.140 (talk)

Archive your Talk, man.

Long User_talk is loooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng. Italia^vivi 15:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Arzel and AN/I

It seems Arzel (talk · contribs) has reported you to WP:AN/I. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#user:Blaxthos. - auburnpilot talk 15:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

ANI

You are mentioned on ANI. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 16:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice AP's comment above. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 16:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Arzel is following me, it seems.

Talk:Fred Thompson#Age difference again —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Italiavivi (talk • contribs) 18:04, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Proposed Essay

I'm trying my hand at essay writing. I've completed a very first rough draft and would like your input on whether it is a worthy topic, things that should be added etc. It's located in my workspace. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

test email

When did you send that email? I still haven't received anything. - auburnpilot talk 15:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Delayed due to vacation, but you should have email. - auburnpilot talk 03:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Genderfuck AfD

Hi, Given your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genderfuck I thought you might be interested in the examples of the term being used in peer reviewed academic journals that I have listed there. Best regards, Pete.Hurd 14:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:BayNetworks.jpg

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:BayNetworks.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 14:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:EWSD.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:EWSD.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please be sure. my bot work well with your image, you should not add a note to my talk page if there is not problem. Thanks for fixing ;)--OsamaK 19:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply

The plot section has a reference to SNPP, and I am trying to clean up and source every single Simpsons episode but it's a huge job and I can only do what I can. First off, the section in question contains weasel words - "Many consider". If there was a source where a guy said exactly that, then it might be acceptable. "The episode was originally broadcast four days before the fourth anniversary of Hicks' death." is just making something of a pure coincidence and is not notable. OR is not acceptable and neither is POV, and the section fits under both because it was added by some fan who thinks they are similar and at the same time there are no sources. If you think that such a section is acceptable because other crap exists, then you need to read up on policy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You're logic escapes me and your argument is that it has to be reference to something just because its slightly similar? Hundreds of fans assumed that The Principal and the Pauper was a reference to Martin Guerre but the writer later said it was solely based on the Tichborne Case. Either find a source for it, or it will be removed. And if there are no existing sources for Simpsons episodes, why are there 40 Simpsons episode GAs and 4 FAs? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a DVD commentary for the episode, so basically all one would have to do is listen to it and then there would be enough real world info to save the page from the anti-fiction brigade. But, most people don't enough time to do that. And yes, I would love to erase a lot of the OR from pages. I apologize if I was a tad harsh, but it is quite frustrating because almost every time I try to clean up and remove a lot of stuff from a page, some random user objects and insists that something trivial like the number of times Barney has burped in an episode is important information. If you would be interested in sourcing and cleaning up the page, there are sources you can use, like the DVD commentary, several books and the BBC website. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Cabletron.jpg

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Cabletron.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 19:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

JkDefrag AfD

Hi, I was just wondering what expertise you have in the field of Windows Optimisation software to know whether the JkDefrag page is notable software or not? Just curious RitaSkeeter 20:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Signing user warnings

Hi... got your note. Thanks... I normally sign talk page items but I didn't sign user warning items because they usually don't seem to be signed when I see earlier ones already in place. Anyway, I guess I'll just make it a habit to sign everything. Paul Koning 00:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible recreation of Lists of fictional things at Lists of fictional topics?

I just saw Lists of fictional topics and thought it had been deleted a while ago, then I found it was actually Lists of fictional things which was deleted. The new list seems to be essentially the same thing with a different name. I saw you'd nominated it last time, so I thought I'd mention it. Magiclite 02:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't sure if they were the same as I only remeber the previous AfD, not the list itself. Maybe it's time for all the Lists of fictional X to start getting deleted? (Thanks for fixing my talk page, I don't know what happened there). Magiclite 21:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiTruth

Incidentally, thanks for the Wikitruth quote on your user page. Their hostile attitude does not, alas, preclude them from being right, and that's the most spot-on description of the action against articles on fiction that I've ever seen. --Kizor 02:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

...aaand now I see what section I was posting this into. No commentary was meant. --Kizor 03:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not exactly sure of what your point is, though. /Blaxthos 04:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Fictional elements AFD

So why exactly did you thing it wasn't notable? or sourced?--Marhawkman 09:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF

Twice now you've accused my nominations for deletion in bad faith, stating that they're simply due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please assume good faith and comment on content instead of editors' motives. Thanks. /Blaxthos 15:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi. Thanks for your message. From my eye, however, your nominations are the content upon which I am commenting, just as much as the articles are. However, I will certainly bear in mind the need to assume good faith. May I also return the advice, though. Please assume that I understand your point of view, and am not belittling it or indicating it is in bad faith simply by disagreeing with it. You seem to be stating that because I disagree with the fact that you nominated something, I am labelling that nomination as being made in bad faith. That is not the case, and I resent your accusation. I would suggest you simply assume that when people disagree with you, they are simply disagreeing with you, and that you better concentrate your efforts on taking on board the disagreement, either through engaging and working it through to a consensus, or ignoring it and allowing others to do so. If you do not wish your reasons for nominating something to be commented upon, then I suggest you misunderstand the deletion process. The debate is intended to encompass all civil arguments, so as to reach a stronger consensus. What you'll find is that most any nomination pretty much amounts to "I don't like it". It's better to test how strong the "I don't like it" feeling fits with the mood of afd and the guidance and policies of the time rather than ignoring it. To do so is to do a dis-service to the wiki process. Hope that helps, and happy editing. Steve block Talk 17:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Each nomination was made with a detailed rationale for deletion, including policies and guidelines for which violations are alleged. Labelling a nomination as an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument implies (or, some would say, explicitly states) that the nominator has some bias against the subject of the article nominated and detracts from the actual issues listed in the AFD (a red herring of sorts). My advice of caution regarding assuming good faith is to encourage you to discuss the points made in the AFD nomination; simply labelling it as an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument neither shows good faith nor addresses the actual issues at hand. Thanks for the reply. /Blaxthos 17:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where I wasn't clear that I understood your points, but please rest assured I do. I simply, again, disagree with your analysis. Most arguments boil down to I like it or I don't like it, and all we do is find chapter and verse in policies to support. I made an argument as to why I thought the articles should stay, but you seem to be focussing on some perceived insult which I have already stated was not meant, intended and should not in any way be read into my comments. I think you'll find I did address the issue at hand. I asked people to consider what was more important to Wikipedia, deleting the content or allowing it to remain and be improved upon and allowing readers to gain whatever they could from the article as it stood. The discussions, to my eye, look closed, with one set of articles deleted. I'm not sure what we are now arguing about. If you have no bias against the articles, I'm curious as to why you nominated them for deletion? I'd aver that a nomination quite obviously declares a bias. The problem between us seems to be that you have decided that is a hostile act, whereas I believe it is a simple statement of fact, and am making no value judgement upon the bias. Were someone to respond in kind and accuse me of "I like it", I would not be offended. To my mind, the greatest part of Wikipedia is the pulling together of people with differing philosophies of what Wikipedia actually is, and discussing in a civil but robust manner. If you feel my robustness exceeds WP:AGF, then once again I can only disagree. There was no malice in my words, and I vehemently disagree that stating that I don't like it explicitly detracts from any issues involved. I would hope you would agree that the issues we are debating at WP:AFD are discussions as to what sort of content should be deleted, and therefore the issues are far more expansive than simply quoting chapter and verse from whichever policy supports your version of what Wikipedia is. I would ask that you simply accept my explanation that in the main, all my comments are, have been and always will be made with the best of intentions, and in the assumption that everyone is working to build their version of Wikipedia in an honest manner and with the best of intentions, and that where I fall short of that aim, I am quick to hold my hands up. In this instance, I know what was intended, and I know what I meant, and that I haven't fallen short of WP:AGF.

• Now, looking at this little misunderstanding, I admit to being a little perplexed as to why we are even here. I'd note that WP:AGF states that Making unwarranted accusations of bad faith (as opposed to explanations of good faith) can be inflammatory, and is often unhelpful in a dispute. If bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is in fact based upon bad faith, it can also count as a form of personal attack. Now I'm not going so far as to say you are personally attacking me, but I am asking why, when someone states that you have nominated an article for reasons which I stated "amounts to I don't like it", you're escalating that to being clear evidence of a bad faith assumption. Me, I just don't see it. But, you know, don't worry about it. Take it easy. If you still feel like this needs working out, then I'm more that willing to take this to mediation. Steve block Talk 18:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to quote the whole section, but there's a couple of things I'd like to clarify. I wasn't quoting any language regarding "regarding real-world content instead of in-universe information", I was quoting myself. Check the contribution history, I wrote it. I'm making nowt of that fact but a simple claim of authorship, I'm quite aware I released those words under the GFDL, but that grants me the right to assert authorship, and I think it is germane to do so, if only to point out that two people can agree on every single word in a statement whilst absolutely disagreeing with the application or interpretation or meaning of those words, without either party being wrong. Are you correct in applying those words, or am I? That's why we discuss, not to determine who is correct, but which particular viewpoint we will follow. I think perhaps you are seeing this issue as a binary problem, with only two possible outcomes, and perhaps even ascribing values of rightness to them. That's where I feel our misunderstanding is, I don't tend to make value judgements so readily, they to me impart a lack of faith. If I label something as wrong, then I have acted in bad faith. If I simply label something as it is, then I make no value judgement. You make a lot of good points, but miss one larger, overall point, that of WP:IAR. Our rules can be ignored, when we as individuals or as a community choose to do so, and there is no shame in that. You've also misunderstood another of my points. If you nominate something for deletion, you most obviously have a bias. That that bias is built upon guidance and policy does not negate the fact that it is a bias. I fact, rules exist to reinforce a particular viewpoint, or bias. To forget that fact is perhaps to lose sight of what we are really doing here. Each deletion debate is a little discussion about what sort of encyclopedia we are, and they simply boil down to people sitting in I Like It and I don't like it camps. Now it's not enough to simply state I don't like it, that sort of expression is deemed unhelpful to the debate, but it is permissable to state such a position and outline why, or to sum up another position as being based on one of the two camps. There's a long tradition of it on Wikipedia, in fact people used to declare themselves deletionists or inclusionists as they saw fit, which are two other expressions of the two camps.

• • Also, I wouldn't be too concerned at anything an admin says, in the main, you need to remember, admins are just editors at the end of the day, and since you've already quoted passages of policy I've written, it seems you find some value in my thoughts and utterances, and perhaps your concern is a little misplaced. Maybe you need to re-read what I said from a more detached point. "If you have no bias against the articles, I'm curious as to why you nominated them for deletion? I'd aver that a nomination quite obviously declares a bias." You yourself declare "I nominate articles based on their compliance with our rules, not how I feel about a particular article." You base your opinion on whether an article should stay on your interpretation of our policies, and ask the community to debate the points. You make a value judgement. You compare an article's content against what you perceive is the Wikipedia standard, basing that on policy. This is sensible, and the correct way of doing so, but it still evinces a bias. You are making a value judgement, you are favouring aspects of our policies and guidance, you are biased in favour of certain policies and guidance. There is no shame in that. It is what is encouraged by the process. But it is a bias, and I think it demeans what happens on Wikipedia, the communal process, to ignore or even deny that. You state that "Saying that any (or all) nominations for deletion are based on how an author feels about the content is a breach of good faith." Yet that is simply not true. It cannot be true, otherwise the nominator has not done his job, has not evaluated the content, has not decided the content's worth. If to do so, and to recognise that is a breach of good faith, then Wikipedia is founded on bad faith, that people can read an article, and evaluate it and improve it. How can we improve an article if we cannot judge it and evaluate it, how can Wikpedia grow if we are not allowed to make judgements? If it is bad faith to assess, how can Wikipedia succeed?

• • Anyway, the nub of it seems to be that you "simply wanted to point out that any like/don't like points are only a distraction". Like I say, I understand your point of view, whilst respectfully disagreeing. For me, I believe that doing so can actually enhance a debate if all sides remain civil and explain their thinking and work towards a consensus. I hope at this point we can perhaps mutually agree that both of our positions have merit and that more central is the Wikipedia project, and that it's perhaps best for the long term if we simply agree to disagree. Hope that's agreeable, and look forward to seeing you around. Good day and happy editing. Steve block Talk 18:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing

I notice you quote WP:NOT, specifically "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies both to stand-alone works, and also to series. A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." It may help smooth this misunderstanding if I declare that it was I who wrote an proposed that addition to that section of the policy. I am always amused when people quote my own words against me. See you around. Steve block Talk 18:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for review of Fictional applications of real materials

Hi, I've asked for a deletion review of Fictional applications of real materials. There were, I believe, good faith arguments on both sides, and no concensus was reached. This is independent of the merit of the arguments, where we obviously disagree. As one of the main contributors, I thought you should know I've re-opened this. LouScheffer 18:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

FNC talk

I think you may have misread/misinterpreted Arzel's comment. The two of you are in agreement that the slogan is irrelevant, and I don't see any attempt to "incite more strife". He was pointing out the absurdity of Zoney's argument, not agreeing with it. - auburnpilot talk 20:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Chris Erskine

Hey, I renominated this for deletion as 1 month has passed since the last debate, and it remains unnotable, however I don't know how to enter a 2nd AfD... could you please fix whatever I've done?JJJ999 04:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. /Blaxthos 07:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ego Surfing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Egosurfing I have issues with the notability of this page (among other things), and would like to nominate it for an AfD... however I notice that it has been nominated before. I have no idea how to do the 2nd nomination, and I notice you voted delete last time, so can I get you to nominate this also? Cheers.JJJ999 04:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have completed the nomination per your request. I will advise you that I do not believe this article should be deleted, and nominate it on your behalf out of good faith. Except in extreme circumstances, stare decisis et non quieta movere. /Blaxthos 06:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The University of Southern Mississippi

Hi. You may not be aware of this, but the page move and AWB edits that you are making are fairly controversial. Also, User:Mike Halterman just moved the page in the other direction two weeks ago. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) and Talk:The Ohio State University, and discuss the matter with Mike on article's talk page before proceeding with any more AWB edits. Thanks. ×Meegs 17:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

COI, bash.org

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article bash.org, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Editor is 'owner' of website the article is describing --Kickstart70-T-C 19:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate the note. "Great caution" is always excercised, and policy/guideline compliance is always my most sacred of concerns.  :-) /Blaxthos 22:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for not taking offense (many editors with a COI do). The note on the page is as much a note to the other editors to watch your edits as a reminder to you to be careful. Again, no offense intended, but I'm sure you understand that many COI-editors don't have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. --Kickstart70-T-C 05:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand completely, and I'm glad we have reasonable editors who are diligent in keeping the project honest. The notice is wholly appropriate, and would support noting such in any circumstance (even my own). Thanks for looking out. /Blaxthos 06:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Your behaviour in AfDs

Hi. There's no polite way to put this, so I'll be honest. I came across this AfD, which was summarily closed as unworkable, required an impossible amount of work for the voters to acquire an informed opinion, included at least one article where the reasons for nomination were completely inapplicable, and where you voted "delete all".

As one editor to another, I'm deeply disappointed in your disregard for fairness and justice in your haste to destroy dislikable content, and hope that you use more discretion in the future.

HTH. Without malice, Kizor 16:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You may find my reply here. /05:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm, Excuse You?

You gave me a pesronal analysis warning yet you yourself are adhering to that very thing. I later rewrote the Media Matters comment to say they go after points of view that are not liberal (ie conservative or indpendent). That is absolutely true. If you can find me a significant portion of postings where they go after liberals too then I'll understand. For you to give me that warning is totally unjustified on your part. Talk about abusing power and squashing any type of legitimate points that should be mentioned to be fair. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a liberal magazine. As such it should present a fair POV and saying that MM attacks people and whom are not liberal is a fair statement and one the vast majority of people would adhere to. Arnabdas 15:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The first statement I had made maybe could have been seen as being opinionated by some, but the latter one of them "going after people who spout views that are not liberal" is not an opinion. Now I could be very well wrong, but if they do go after those whom are spouting a liberal POV I actually would agree with you there. From my understanding of the site, they only go after those whom are not liberal.

Regardless, you putting a warning on my talk page is out of line. That is an abuse of power. I rewrote it to be less opinionated (completely factual to my understanding, because I havent seen them go after any non-liberal POV). You shouldn't have given me a warning like that seeing how I took a good faith effort to make it written less opinionated. If I had written it EXACTLY the same way you objected to it, then I understand the warning. I didn't. That's why I feel you illegitimately gave me a warning. Arnabdas 18:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I hereby formally request you remove that label from my user page. It was unwarranted. Thank you. Arnabdas 21:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You have once again issued a formal warning to me yet fail to address the points I bring up in my defense. I have only tried to have a civil discussion in good faith. However, you have not engaged with me in a civil discussion in good faith about the topic but constantly give me formal warnings. Please stop harassing me with unwarranted warnings. Arnabdas (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

strange bird

I wish I could take credit for the quote, but others have said it long before me. The strange bird part, however, I will take credit for. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

PS, thanks for the interesting questions. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Check my sanity

Am I insane, or is it absolutely absurd that an admin could close Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedians_by_alma_mater_and_subcats as "delete"? I feel like I'm in the twilight zone... - auburnpilot talk 03:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Kucinich‎

I see you reverted the comment of Stewert from "joked" to "noted". It had been "joked" since its inception into the article, and he originally presented it in a satirical manner, i.e. joked. I simply reverted to the original form, and wasn't trying to impart a NPOV tone to the presentation. It appears to me that anti-Kucinich people were trying to impart their POV into the article. Arzel 17:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

mass rename of IBM articles

Please do not force the standardization of IBM-related article names. There is a more general guideline, known as WP:COMMONNAME, that was found to work very well. As an example, renaming TSS/360 to IBM TSS/360 does not help anyone, as there was no other TSS/360 system than IBM's. So this introduces needless complexity. Consider just adding "IBM xxx" redirects, if you fancy referring to articles by "standard" names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubanczyk (talk • contribs) 07:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Happened on this by accident. Amusing because I did a mass renaming of IBM articles some time ago, leaving only a few untouched because they were so commonly used. What the unsigned commenter missed, is that while "IBM" adds nothing for members of the IBM community, it adds a lot for people not familiar with IBM products (someone might be interested in WebSphere, interesting name, but not IBM WebSphere). In cleaning up the operating system category (moving pages to the appropriate subcategory, going from about 250 pages to 140 or, as I recall) I added vendor names whenever a product was associated with only one vendor. Whenever someone complained, I reverted - see near the bottom of my short talk page. Someone complained when "Spring" was changed to "Sun Spring", for example, and I reverted even though it's obvious (to me!) that Sun Spring communicates a lot more that "Spring". Also renamed many of the machines listed in "Early computers". LARC became UNIVAC LARC and no one complained. I only lost my nerve for the Zuse machines. Z1 doesn't communicate, but I judged Zuse Z1 would cause an uproar. IBM machines also acquired model numbers. STRETCH became IBM 7030 STRETCH. Even things like System/3 became IBM System/3. Ah, I remember now, there is long note on my talk page about renaming AIX to IBM AIX. Don't know if it's been reverted or not.

I'm also responsible for the mess made of IBM operating systems, started into that, realized I didn't know how to organize the current systems, and left it the mess that it likely still is. Sorry about that.

Wikipedia should have a naming convention requiring vendor names be the first part of a name when only one vendor is associated with the product. With a vendor name, a product page is much more specific. System/3 can be a lot of things, IBM System/3 has a much smaller set of possibilities.

Reason I found your page... I have a problem, need things explained to me or to some other people, and was looking for moderator/administrator help but found the offer of editor help. Reading through the list, looking for someone who understands software, came to your name that I recognized. Reading your talk page, finding that you've been renaming IBM articles, you're likely my best choice. Will add a new item to this page later; I've spent a lot of time typing already. tooold (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A big NO!!! to everything you wrote. Wikipedia is already suffering from instruction creep. Just read and use the existing guideline WP:COMMONNAME, instead of forcing a new one. Do not argue with it. It says: use THE MOST common, non-ambiguous name. Just use System/3. Wait after another System/3 name will come up, rename&create System/3 (disambiguation). Simple, isn't it? Live with this. And create a freaking IBM System/3 redirect, if you like to use that name, but please, please, please, do not perform mass renames. Mass renames are harmful.

The guideline does not say that the title should be informative at all. AIX is perfect, IBM AIX is bad, IBM Advanced Interactive Executive is worse, IBM Advanced Interactive Executive (OS, 1986) is even worser, and IBM Advanced Interactive Executive (AIX), is the name given to a series of proprietary operating systems sold by IBM for several of its computer system platforms, based on UNIX System V while containing... is the worst, and at the same time (sic!) the most informative and the most precise.

Btw, Blaxthos, I am very sorry about cluttering your talk page. --Kubanczyk (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Official Name

You are aware that you actually did (or do) attend The University of Southern Mississippi, right?  ;-) (RE: this comment). /Blaxthos 14:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a tough call. Both the University's Sea Grant and Research Charter don't officially recognize the article "The." The Sea Grant simply says University of Southern Mississippi, while the Research Charter lists it as the University of Southern Mississippi. Honestly, I think you can find documents that support both sides of the arguments. Kindest regards, AlphaEta ^{T / C} 16:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Swift Boat challenge?

I'm confused at to what this got merged up into. It doesn't involved the Swift Boat group themselves, so it wouldn't go there. It's not really related to the larger controversy over John Kerry's military service, and it would overlap in either Kerry's or Picket's bio articles. So, um, what's the parent article of which you speak? -- Kendrick7^talk 05:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the prod withdrawal. As both a Bostonian and Texan I'm finding the whole exchange quite interesting. Pickens has responded now so it does seem to have legs. Two American millionaires in a urination contest? I guarantee it'll be all over the papers tomorrow. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring Over Media Matters Description

[[ Please do not engage in edit wars and add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Politics of Bill O'Reilly‎. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to have a discussion about the topic, feel free to do so on the talk page and assume that your fellow editors have a good faith effort in engaging the topic. Thank you. Arnabdas (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)]]

The above tag seems to have been placed on this page in response to two warnings placed on Arnabdas's page by Blaxthos. As such it was done in bad faith, and should be removed. The proper response would be to file an RfC on user conduct or make a complaint on ANI. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am officially writing I did not do this in bad faith at all. I felt Blaxthos has been pushing his POV on the article in question (see Politics of Bill O'Reilly(talk)). However, I will wait to issue another warning until he gives reason for editing the article without discussing the issue on the talk page. I want to settle this with civil discourse. Up until now, Blaxthos has only engaged in edit warring. Arnabdas (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Final warning has now been issued to this editor. Further NPOV violations will result in a block. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to your 3rd warning description on my page, please stop being deceptive. Nobody has "admonished" me. Disagreed, yes, but not admonished. Your conduct has been reprehensible and your bias blatant. You will not be allowed to insert your POV into articles. Wikipedia is not your own personal journal. Arnabdas (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In an act of good faith, I have removed this tag. However, I maintain that this was not done without merit. It was an appropriate response to Blaxthos misleading of people about my conduct. I have officially challenged your comments on the Politics of BOR page. If you disagree with the comments, feel free to discuss them on the talk page and we can come to some sort of compromise, which I believe I have with Ramsquire on said page. I request you remove your 2nd and 3rd warnings from my page as an act of good faith on your part. Let's work together and culminate our ideas. Arnabdas (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to strike a bad-faith notice placed inappropriately. However, this does not mitigate your previous conduct, which was wholly unacceptable. Neither an apology nor removal of the notices is forthcoming -- they were placed appropriately and justly. I'm all for moving forward, but let's not try to undo the past. I encorage you to continue to learn or policies, norms, and mores in order to constructively contribute to the project. Best wishes! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to explain your edit here? [11]

One would think that adding an outdated survey of an population irrelevant to a unsupported claim in an article would be a bad idea, especially in the introductory section of a contentious article. John Nevard (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply can be found here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Southaven, Mississippi

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Southaven, Mississippi. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. /Blaxthos 09:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"Point well taken. I will say, however, that your comments seem a bit self-rightous. Your version was no more constructive than any other (mine or otherwise). The few items in such a basic article needing source confirmation had it already (i.e., census data). In addition, the original version of this article sounded like a Southaven pep-rally written by the local chamber of commerce. I was merely trying to tone it down to a theme with universally accepted facts."

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lrgjr72"—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrgjr72 (talk • contribs)

Reply can be found here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 08:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

excuse me

Well excuse me. This article has been considered for deletion multiple times. Now one can wonder why that is, or one could suppose that it's a right wing conspiracy as yourself. The truth is, this article had an extreme biased to it, including unreliable sources and sensational writing. So if you want to put a term on me pushing a conservative agenda, I'll have to say that it's people like yourself hurting wikipedia the most by claiming that articles such as these should be left alone and unchallenged. Thank you. (Moore article was like 5 months before I started actually using wikipedia, and would appreciate if you wouldn't try and paint that kind of picture of me because a friend was over and it was a joke before I really could understand the importance of the wiki project).RYNORT 22:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You may find my reply here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Dead

Wikipedia is Dead. Officially and entirely dead. Thanks for giving me insight to just how ludacriss, rediculous, pointless, and waste of time editing on Wikipedia is. Thanks.RYNORT 23:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The mature response to having your edits rebuffed by the community (if your interest is to actually help the project) is to invest in learning the rules, not throwing a tantrum and walking away because you don't get your way. We serve Wikipedia; Wikipedia does not serve us. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So you disagree that wikipedia is biased? HA! you don't have to answer that. Bye-RYNORT 23:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Guidelines

FYI- There's a typo in the suggested guidelines template you added to Fox News Channel. The word found is misspelled. I tried to fix it, but couldn't edit the text. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Got it. - auburnpilot talk 00:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Malmadey

I know this has been discussed in some articles related to BOR and a general agreement is that it was not deemed an actual controversy. If we want to discuss it that is fine, but even so, don't revert the material that the anoyn put in. If you read it you will see it is very much a rant from Olbermann, and is full of synth and weasle words. I don't have time to go through all of the archives (it may not be on the actual BOR criticism page). Arzel (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Response found here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I would note that you didn't even read the section. If you had you would have at least removed the signiture on the article page. Arzel (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion for removing the original version of the Malmadey incident can be found here. Some of the archives are missing so if you can fix that it would be great. The discussion was mainly to chop a lot of fluff out of the article and Malmadey was one of the proposed sections to be axed. No one really objected to removing it so it stayed gone. I'm not against some sort of presentation that I discussed on the talk page already and believe there can be a consensus reached to how this can be included. Thanks. MrMurph101 (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Melodrama

Response to melodrama may be found here. Evidence that all of the melodrama is coming from one user may be found in this addendum. No one is fooled, RYNORT. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Have blocked indef (see AN/I) and noted the sock likelihood on the IP's talk page and blocked it for a week. Please note that the claims about political positions are actually unactionable - some people have points of view which could politely be called fringe but are capable of behaving well and working with others. The behaviour, however, was several degrees beyond any notion of acceptability and, on checking the block log, I noticed this user was given a "last chance" unblock by an admin assuming good faith three weeks ago. Orderinchaos 23:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the reports and past block were for the unacceptable conduct, not political positions. Thanks for taking care of this -- hopefully this will be the last we hear of it. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann

I just wanted to clarify that I don't think Olbermann makes stuff up on his program or that he is dishonest. However, my point was that since he is a lightning rod because of his political opinions, using him as a source will often lead to the kind of situations that have occurred at Criticisms of Bill O'Reilly. In terms of consensus, KO is not usually the best source if others are available. But since I am asking people to find another source (solely to reach a consensus) I think it is important to state my bias, so that others have the full story and can accept or reject my suggestions. Usually, though, when KO comes up, I abstain from the debate. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I never thought for a second that you were implying that K.O. was acting duplicitously. Your point regarding his politics is well taken; I do note (believe) that Keith has quite a better track record regarding factual accuracy and sourcing (and retractions when necessary) than Mr. O'Reilly. You're also right about the wisdom of having multiple sources when a divisive figure like K.O. is involved, and your up-front attitude regarding bias is noted and appreciated (just don't let your SportsCenter rage turn into "anything he says is suspect"). :-> Merry Christmas! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do...and same to you. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Early closure

Hey. Thanks for the notification about the review. I totally understand and am glad you reviewed it. I went ahead and commented there and thought I would let you know. Thanks, SorryGuy  Talk  19:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, no worries. I am glad you went ahead and did it, I probably would have continued closing AfDs improperly. But yeah, I'm not discouraged, more encouraged if anything. At any rate, thanks and happy holidays. SorryGuy  Talk  22:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a thanks

And thanks for reading it :) Ral315 (talk) 06:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hey. I was reading the Editor Assistance page and noticed you as being one of the editors willing to help, in regards to edit disputes. I'm not really sure if you're able to help me, but I thought it worth a try.

I'm currently in a bit of a small edit dispute with someone whom I believe to be at it solely to lord if over the article without being willing to listen to an opinion that differs from his own, and constantly removing what I've written in the article. (I've only added a line, rather than delete what it originally says. My wish was simply to present the other formerly-common accepted claim, so people can see both sides).

If you're able to help at all, it would be much appreciated. If not, I'm sorry to be a bother :) Ophaniel (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply may be found here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)