User talk:B/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

For prior archives, see User talk:B/archive200709.

Request for Review

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

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

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

block

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

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

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

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

Née

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

Thanks again

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

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

UnclePaco

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

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

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

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

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

ANI thread (blocks by JzG)

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

Bakaman 3RR

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

Protection of Bloods & Crips

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mail

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

User:Frogsprog

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

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

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

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

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

Bleek25

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

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

National sport

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rather than create a New User Name

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

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

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

Prem Rawat photo

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

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

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

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

IFD comment

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

Godislove.png

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potential Featured Topic

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

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

Happy Valentine's Day!

User:Wilhelmina Will has wished you a happy Valentine's day, and good luck in love and friendship!

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

64.131.205.111

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

Thanks for the welcome

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

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

RFC discussion of User:G2bambino

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of G2bambino (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/G2bambino{{highrfc-loop|page=Wikipedia:Requests for comment|username=G2bambino|number=zzzz}}]]. -- soulscanner (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Advice

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

3RR

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Tasc0 (talk · contribs)

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

Can you reply at my talk page, please? Thank you. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Tasc0 and rollback

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

Community bans

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

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

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

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

Bleek25

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

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

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

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

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

Request

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

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

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

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

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

Question

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

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

Whitelist/blacklist issue

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

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

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

Thank you

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

Request

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

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

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

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

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

Bummer. I'll have to email Autiger to see if he's got any pictures of the '05 Sugar Bowl, then. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated Virginia Tech bowl games as a potential featured list. Does it look all right to you? JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It needs something more. What about a mini infobox for each game that gives the game name, opponent, date, and scoring summary? I'm going to make {{NCAAFootballSingleGameHeaderMini}} from {{NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader}} and try it out. --B (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added it for the first few ... you can decide whether or not you like having it in there ... but I just think that a featured list is going to need something visual (as opposed to prose) to get approved. --B (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Anything can get featured provided enough people view and give their approval of it. I really like the mini single-game header... now we've just got to get people to read the damn thing and give their opinion. I've got no problem fixing laundry lists of problems. It's just getting people to make those lists then give their approval when the items are complete that's the toughest part of getting things to featured status. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

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

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

Whitelist/blacklist issue

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

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

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

Thank you

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

You're welcome. Glad to help. In the future, if a similar issue comes up, please feel free to contact me to ask for help and/or a third opinion. --B (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

East Carolina Pirates football seasons

Hey, you wrote

I don't think you need a separate color for NSC championship vs SC championship since each row tells what conference they were in. (In other words, pick one color for a conference championship.)

How do you feel about having one box that that says Conference Champions. i.e.

Conference Champions

Bowl game berth

And the reader can look on the line to see which conference ECU was in. Thanks, PGPirate 01:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you a cell borders wiz? I copied this table, hence, I do not know how to manipulate the table as you prescribed. Also, please look at the ref in 2005. How does it look explaining division rankings. If you have any direct questions/comments, please respond on my talkpage. Thanks, PGPirate 01:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the WWII area. Feel free to tweak the text or add a ref to it. The colors and legend you suggest look fine. As for the 2005 change, I don't know what the right answer is, but if I didn't notice it, a reader might not either. I don't know what the right answer is ... maybe change the conference label to "CUSA Eastern" (or whatever the division is called), then it would be obvious what it is talking about. --B (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting changing the ref to CUSA East (not Eastern:) ) or put it somewhere else? Also, should the colspan stay at 7, where you put it? Or 6, which is between bowl game and AP Poll? I would say colspan 6, but I would like your opinion. Thanks, PGPirate 01:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think 7 probably looks the best, otherwise, there's a chunk of a box hanging out in the middle of nowhere. As for CUSA East, I'm suggesting changing the "conference" column to read "CUSA East" or "CUSA (East division)" for 2005, 2006, and 2007. --B (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How does the CUSA East look now? I wasn't quite sure where you thought it should go. If it is not where you thought it should go, please tell me and I will try to fix it. I do believe the CUSA East designation is needed somewhere. Thanks, PGPirate 14:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What has changed that I'm looking at? It doesn't look any different. I would change the "Conference USA" label in the 2nd column to "CUSA East" or "Conference USA East" - that makes it more obvious what it is talking about. --B (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Even though the "division designation" did not happen until the 2005 season? From 1996 - 2004 there was no East, West division. I don't think that would be a good title. Because ECU wasn't in the East division from 1997-2004. PGPirate 23:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we're on the same page ... here's what I'm suggesting (good, bad, or indifferent, I don't know - just a suggestion): --B (talk) 00:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

2003	Conference USA	10	1	10	—	—	—
2004	Conference USA	10	2	9	—	—	—
2005	Conference USA East	4	5	6	—	—	—
2006	Conference USA East	2	7	6	Lost Papajohns.com Bowl vs. South Florida 24–7	—	—
2007	Conference USA East	2	8	5	Won Hawai'i Bowl vs. Boise State 41–38	—	—
2008	Conference USA East	—	—	—	—	—	—

Ohhh, well that makes sense:). I was thinking column title, not horizontal title. Yeh, I like that. I will change it now, and thanks for the advice. PGPirate 00:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you included a clean up list, which is complete, would you be willing to look over the article once more, and give a verdict? PGPirate 16:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks fine. --B (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Question re removing incorrect warnings

Here you wrote that "an incorrect warning can be removed by anyone". Is that the general rule? If a user has been warned incorrectly, for something that the warner mistakenly thought was vandalism but actually wasn't, is it OK to remove the warning? Hu12 insists that it isn't. I don't know how he came across this page unless he's been checking my contributions (to which I have no objection but it does seem to mean he's looking for something to take me down).

This IP has been used almost exclusively for vandalism, but it made one edit that, though of marginal utility, wasn't actually vandalism, and wasn't warnable. I assume that the warning editor, primed by the IP's record, didn't consider the case closely enough, and assumed this edit was just like all the others; it was a mistake, so I corrected it by removing the mistaken warning. Every other warning on the page was well-deserved, so I left them, and indeed added one of my own. My question is whether Hu12 is correct that I may not remove a warning that should never have been left, or whether your statement is correct, that incorrect warnings can be removed by anyone?

-- Zsero (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about this edit? That looks like vandalism to me. I have no idea who Mr. Pena is, but the IP modified someone else's comments and added something that looks like irrelevant nonsense. To answer your question, I doubt there's a written rule anywhere about removing obviously incorrect warnings, but it falls into the category of "things that are obviously a good idea". If someone is a good faith user, we don't want to drive them away by falsely accusing them of vandalism. But in this case, I would not suggest removing the warning - you should only remove the warning (or replace it with a personal message) if the edit was obviously not vandalism. --B (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I got confused between that edit by a vandal IP, which was indeed properly warned as vandalism, and another edit to the same page by a different vandal IP (since blocked), which was marginally not vandalism. Sometimes these vandal IPs all blend into each other... In this case, of course Hu12 was quite right to replace the warning which I'd mistakenly removed. <emily-litella>Never mind.</emily-litella> -- Zsero (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Unblock

Thank you for your understanding and unblocking.--TrUCo⁹31¹ 03:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Taulant image uploads

Thanks for reminding me of those. No need to list the others, I had resolved a time ago it would be better to delete all his uploads anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal:American football

That is awesome, did you put it up there? Also, if you have time, could you add a verdict to the FLC page, if you would want to? i.e oppose, no support or support. Thanks again, PGPirate 14:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok ... I made it clearer and put "support" in front of my comment ... I have no experience with this process and didn't realize it was a support/oppose !vote. --B (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

clueless administrators

sub-Planck is a valid research area of physics for decades; I added 1 reference from NATURE the world's top journal -- just to make you all happy; I am sick of having to justify the significance of this topic to 5 different administrators today and also to witness a discussion among clueless users

It is not my personal reserach area..You are just totally ignorant of the area apparently and its reality; although not as psycho-vandal busting as other administrators... Your editorial and administrative powers (or actually those of others...) have exceded your content of knowledge resulting in a disasterous pre-emptive attack on less well-known but relevent issues.

I.e. if I put up a Millard Fillmore was president of the US page (assuming one didn't exist) it would be deleted instantly because 99% of your administrators don't know that HE REALLY WAS president even though this is common historical knowledge.

I'm sick of wikifascism on the part of administrators. If I wrote the article in sub-Planck wrong, or in the wrong "styel" then leave it for other people to correct and contribute.

If you disagree with wikifascism at least have the courtesy to put it up (where it belongs wether a talk thread or somewhere so that it can be debated instead of censored...

You're right. I don't know a thing about it and had a grand total of one physics class in college, nor do I pretend to know much other than that force = mass * acceleration. That aside, most any article that addresses the reader as "we" or contains little other than unsourced speculation is going to be deleted on sight. The RIGHT way to handle the issue is to give a list of academic or other reliable sources (not blogs, not message boards) that discuss the concept. The WRONG way to handle it is to start making personal attacks on administrators. As for wikifascism, that's obviously not an encyclopedic topic. --B (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Templating

Whoa. Time out. How was I supposed to know he was expeienced? After all, WP:DTTR stands for Don't Template The REGULARS, and, looking at his talk page, he's only been welcomed today. Two One Six Five Five ^τ _ʃ 01:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Other than deletion templates for inappropriate pages, repeatedly templating any good faith user is a bad idea. Leaving templates instead of responding to the concerns he raises just inflames a situation. --B (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I see. I tend to use the "Revert and Warn" button a lot on Huggle, so that should explain the repeated templating. As for good faith, did you see the message he left you? Two One Six Five Five ^τ _ʃ 18:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Pardon me if I sound defensive, but I'm just citing my reasons.... Two One Six Five Five ^τ _ʃ 18:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

CFB images

Thanks for suggesting some nice CFB portal images! I added some thoughts to those, and also made a few nominations today. Have a great day! Johntex\^talk 07:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Marcs Monk

O.K thanks. SexySteelerFan 14:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Model Nonprofit Corporation Act

The username that created it was blocked indef as a sockpuppet, but the main account (now editing as User:Obuibo Mbstpo) has been unblocked on the condition that he not engage in any further disruption or sockpuppetry. I undeleted the article on his request. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Turn Up the Wick

I'm not sure if you've ever read it, but I'd highly recommend reading "Turn Up the Wick, by Beamer and Chris Colston. It's a great look behind the scenes at Tech football, but it was written in 2000, so everything reads like it's from some odd parallel universe. The unintentional comedy scale blows up for it, but it's got some really insightful parts, too. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

DC Meetup on May 17th

Your help is needed in planning Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4! Any comments or suggestions you have are greatly appreciated. The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship

Dear B, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your concerns about my candidacy. Unfortunately very few of the opposes gave me advice on points I should improve upon (bar the examples of incivility), and I ask you now, very humbly, to visit my talkpage, should you have any concerns about any of my actions here.
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Patrick Nyarko

I have nominated Patrick Nyarko, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Nyarko. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking Shirley

That did it. Thank you Jayron32, Tiptoety and B, you are each both brilliant and more importantly, kind gentleman.ShirleyPartridge (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC

I'm willing to combine my RFC Any advice? I do personally think I was spoken to in a disrespectful manner Uconnstud (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing to combine. The best thing to do would be to drop it and move on with life rather than beating a dead horse. Sometimes you have to pick your battles and arguing over what amounts to an extremely minor discourtesy doesn't accomplish anything. --B (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess it'll stay. Thanks for your thoughts. Uconnstud (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Order of the Arrow

You were recently involved in discussions on the article Order of the Arrow. Some of the issues brought up then were not resolved. If you are interested, please participate in the continued discussion at Talk:Order of the Arrow#Safeguarded material. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible UnclePaco sock

See Bigdaddy718 (talk · contribs). This user is edit warring with TiconderogaCCB‎ (talk · contribs) on St. John's University (Jamaica, NY). Bigdaddy718's account was created just three days ago and he's fully aware of policies (as demonstrated by the sockpuppet tag additions and his 3RR report). I just wanted to let you know. I was going to ask for a CU to reveal any sleeper socks, but I'm about to go to bed. If you get this message while I'm offline, could you file a request at RFCU? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 06:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that. Blnguyen got a direct hit with the CU. Blocked indef. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 06:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

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

Ravi Zacharias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi B. I had a quick question, and since you've been so helpful in the past I thought you might be able to help. IP address 128.252.254.20 has repeatedly vandalized the Ravi Zacharias article. Is there any way to block them? Their talk page says they are a Washington State University computer that may be shared by multiple users. Thanks for your help. Kristamaranatha (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking. --B (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That IP hasn't edited in 12 hours so I'm kinda hesitant to block it right now. It's obviously a static IP (doesn't change) but I can't tell if it's shared or one person. There are non-vandalism edits from that IP, but it could be all one person just with an ax to grind. I'll keep an eye on it and if it continues, I'll soft block the IP for the rest of the academic year. --B (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, thank you! Kristamaranatha (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced user block

I would like to comment in relation to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User: 72.0.180.2 reported by Andyvphil (talk) (Result: 31 hours). I believe that in this case, the block you placed on User: 72.0.180.2 (who is an established editor, despite the use of an IP address) is unjustified for two reasons. Firstly, the reversions to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 (a daughter article to the WP:BLP Barack Obama) may fall under the auspices of the special rules governing reversions for biographies. Secondly, the reporting user) has consistently attempted to use Wikipedia policies as a tactic to block editors from maintaining certain articles in a way that he dislikes. In otherwords, I believe he reported User:72.0.180.2 for a 3RR violation for personal, rather than sensible reasons. I suggest you reconsider the block you applied with these facts in mind. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Just shouting BLP doesn't make it so. There is no BLP necessity whatsoever for making any of these edits - [1], [2], [3], [4]. Also, these edits - [5], [6], [7] - though BLP was claimed, that is an incorrect claim as the source article says "Martin raised all kinds of strange allegations about Obama but focused on him attempting to hide his Muslim past". Neither version is a BLP violation as both accurately reflect what the source says. If there is an editorial reason to prefer one version of the wording or the other, that's fine, but it's not a BLP exception. Pick any four of the above and there is a 3RR violation. If Andyvphil is editing in an unconstructive manner (don't know - didn't look beyond to see if he violated 3RR on the article), there are other venues for resolving that issue. --B (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

IP is shared, it's 72.0.160.0/19. check whois report for 72.0.180.2 Momusufan (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The same person (and only that person) has been using the IP for a month. It's a high speed cable modem ISP in the US, nearly all of which issue static IP addresses, or, at least, IP addresses that change like every other year or something. --B (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for taking the time this afternoon. it would have been easier to just walk away but you didn't. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comment [8]. If I get into an edit dispute with a user, I usuallt try to find some middle ground. It is usually possible to find a way forward by discussing at the talk page and consider each other's arguments. When there is a matter of opinion, this preferable solution usually succeeds. As I'm sure you know even better than I do, that's less easy with people who are on Wikipedia more to push a nationalist agenda (or any agenda at all for that matter) and are uninterested in other's views. Unfortunately, users dealing with the topic of Macedonia often fall into this category, be they Greeks or Macedonians. As you might have seen, this dispute was even featured in the Economist recently. In the case you refered to, the user didn't even bother to explain why he was deleting the existance of Macedonians in Greece from many different articles. As can be seen from his edit history and his user page, he's a Greek Macedonian refusing to accept the existance of Slavic Macedonians in Greek. With this category of users, it is unfortunately harder to find a middle ground as they are less interested in exchanging opinions than in imposing their own view. Luckily, users like these are very much the exception in all topics I've come across on Wikipedia except those related to Macedonia. Cheers JdeJ (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Help Needed at BLP noticeboard

Hi, after all the block activity yesterday, the concerning text has been readded today. I know you don't want to get involved, but much of this issue would not have happened, if the BLP noticeboard had provided some timely guidance. So I am asking you, if possible, to get the BLP admins to please respond to the open request on the noticeboard. I am sending this message to admin: B and admin: Jayron32. Thank you for your consideration. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked at it, but honestly, nothing there changes my view. The BLP policy does not necessitate or forbid either wording. I don't like the "secret Muslim" wording any more than you do, but that's a personal opinion that can be talked out on the article talk page, not something that is a BLP issue. --B (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Review

I've submitted 2005 ACC Championship Game for an FAC review, but am having a hard time attracting comments. If you get a chance, do you think you could stop by, take a look at it, and leave a few comments? Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

New editor review

Hey. I am currently undergoing a new editor review to see how much I've improved since my first nearly five months ago. If you could, even though we haven't been in contact for quite some time (I'm leaving you this message because you commented on my first review), I would greatly appreciate if you could give me whatever criticism of my activity you can. Thanks for your time, Ksy92003 (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Lindsay658

Crap, so sorry about that. Lindsay658 doesn't appear to be a sock, you can fix the autoblock for her. Khoikhoi 04:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. --B (talk) 04:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Naep1

You offered this user a second chance in an unblock review. The user has requested unblocking again. My policy is, you're the one offering the second chance, so you have to decide if the proposed edit is good enough. Mangojuice^talk 05:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The edit was an interpolation that may or may not be factually accurate. I have explained that and asked him to try again. --B (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have reverted the review of the second unblock request as it was not made by an administrator, but Pope Barry George (talk · contribs), who appears to be a disruptive sockpuppet. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 13:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bcamenker

See my comment there. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of maternal grandparents.jpg

You appear to have delete dthis image because I did not respond to a comment about its copyright status. I'm sorry I'm not a fluent wikipedian and really don't have the time to deal with this sort of thing. The photo was taken to commission from the family concerned by a photographer who died in the 1910s. It is owned by my family who were pleased to see it available online. If you can, please restore it. I don't log into Wikipedia more than once every few months so I wasn't able to respond before you deleted it. Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexgray (talk • contribs) 22:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have restored Image:Maternal grandparents.jpg. Please edit the description if there is any more information you can provide about the source. --B (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Bardcom

You didn't block Bardcom after his 3RR case, but that's ok. I'm more worried about the general pattern. He seems to be a single-issue editor, entirely focused on locating and changing any use of "British Isles", often in ways which are destabilizing or outright false (as with History of Jersey). At [[Talk:User:Bardcom]] I've listed a number of examples; they were easy to find. I don't know the best way to proceed. I have requested him to stop his procedure, but I rather suspect he won't. What is the best thing to do, short of simply ignore his POV-pushing? Surely it violates WP:NPOV to decide that one is going to pursue a single term and obliterate it wherever possible? Tb (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Greg Glienna

Thanks for your efforts on Greg Glienna. greggymark (talk · contribs) is continuing in the same vein - his contributions are rather telling. Is there anyway a short block could be applied to him as it seems its just a way of evading a block with more "fact vandalism". I've already done two reverts on the page and been warned for WP:3RR and I don't want to get into any trouble for "warring". -- BpEps - t@lk 02:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making a definitive statement

Both Cheeser1 and myself do not have an amiable relationship, precipitated by some difference in style guidelines and his insistence on not accepting good faith. In turn, I monitored and interceded in his uncivility on another editor's talkpage and hence forth was labeled a stalker which I will admit in that particular instance definitely gave an appearence as such. I've attempted to show a sincere gesture of WP:WIKILOVE which he states is further stalking, unjustifiably in that sense. Suffice it to say, I thank you for concluding this matter so definitively. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 03:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested comment

I would like to request for your opinion here. All I want is your unbiased opinion of the topic. The reason I am doing this is because these people can't seem to reach a consensus. Please reply on the page. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 17:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your revert on the Human rights in the People's Republic of China. Obviously that you think that offer Dalai Lama's unsubstantiated view isn't biased or showing his glamorous picture isn't WP:COATRACK, while providing background information on him is. It must be entirely incomprehensible to think that showing that Dalai Lama's ties with CIA and Nazis would possibly hamper his credibility on human rights. After all he must be the nicest slave master in the world. One must be dying to get his bones picked out to make horns or cannibalized . Those human skull and human skin on Tibetan artifacts (same reference) must be only from quality rotten corpses. You are right that Dalai Lama doesn't even come close to CIA and Nazis in torturing and killing, as evidenced by the torture chambers and equipments . Where are the gas chambers and water boarding? Thank you for pointing out that "allegations" is a credible source while various books with photos etc are totally unreliable. After all, the 1959 failed coup, funded by CIA, didn't make Dalai Lama stating biased views. Thank for you for making Wikipedia a WP:POV place.

Coconut99 99 (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:AN3

I have removed the discussion after my request to stop, although it is accessible in the page history. I recommend that if you want to continue the discussion you use User talk:Matt Lewis. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

72.229.35.220

Six? I count eleven: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. Seems like the problem might be on the IP's end, not Ragib's. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The KKK fiasco

If you feel she is correct, then open a petition for recall at User:Hersfold/Recall. By the way, it is generally considered polite to inform someone when you've opened an WP:ANI discussion about them. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ummmmmm

She? I'm going to guess you just thought I was a female, or was that intentional? I disagree with you on tons of issues, but I've never known you to intentionally insult anyone, so I'm now worried about my sexuality if you think I'm a woman.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. I could have sworn that I have seen multiple times that you are female. --B (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? I'm now going to have to see a shrink. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, on a whole different topic, I know you are a Hokie, and I heard that BBC World Service is running a program on the anniversary date (is it tomorrow?) with readings from professors and students who have written short stories and poetry. I've looked at the BBC website, but I cannot find a link. If you have XM or Sirius radio (or I suppose a shortwave), you can listen to it. I heard an advert, and it sounded emotional. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The anniversary is 4/16. Today's paper had a long piece on Nikki Giovanni - I haven't had a chance to sit down and read it yet, but it may be related. --B (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I still cry when I read the story about Liviu Librescu. I know each victim has his or her own story, but his touches me as a Jew, as an American, and as a Human Being. I hope that in your own way, and despite our disagreements, you can understand why what Hersfold did offended me in a way that many cannot understand. I know that Wikipedia is a small part of the world, but what line do we allow to be crossed that leads to a story like Liviu Librescu. Anyways, I appreciate what you said to Hersfold and others. I just read the article here about LIbrescu, and it again reminded me what is important. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Real Quick Question

Hey, could you read this and tell me what you think? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 18:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I read it. I'm not sure what I'm looking for. The passage would be more accessible if somewhere it told what a Medabot is. Is "Medal" a proper noun (ie, a product brand name)? If so, it should always be capitalized. If it is just referring to a generic medal, it should not be capitalized. The passage slips into and out of in-universe style a bit too freely. "The beings that we now know as Medabots were the rulers of the Earth", for example, doesn't really flow. You may want to not be so worried about telling things in the same order as the series. Define Medabots and Medals first, even though they aren't introduced until later in the actual series. --B (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I was assuming that you haven't heard of the series, so I wanted to know if a person that hadn't seen the series could understand it. I'll keep working on it. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 19:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

How's this? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 16:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mykungfu = Armyguy11

Your friend MKF/Armyguy11 is back, but this time he is at articles relating to NPHC organizations. miranda 01:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing GomabWork? He does remind me a bit of them, but has a checkuser been done? From edits alone, I'm not confident enough to block him without checkuser confirmation - he reminds me a lot of him, but he could just as easily be someone else with a similar ... umm ... style. --B (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. He has some sleepers too. He has socks editing from 20 miles apart. Here is the CU case. Cheers. miranda 05:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This made me laugh for ten minutes, too. It's from one of his socks. miranda 05:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support in this mess. Toddst1 (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

NFCC 8 revisited

I believe you may be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia:NFCC Criterion 8 debate. howcheng {chat} 18:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, thanks

I appreciate your well-stated comments at the AN/I regarding GSTS. I think I'm too passionate about the topic, but those comments where it appears I'm supposed to be nice to someone like him is incomprehensible. Maybe you have some advice. Trust me, I'm listening to you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Even though it failed with 28 supports, 42 opposes, and 15 neutrals, I am grateful for the suggestions and advice I have received and I do hope to improve as a Wikipedian. If you ever need my help in any endeavor, feel free to drop me a line. --Sharkface217 19:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The standard for community blocks and bans

"It is our accepted practice that a ban either needs to come from a neutral authority (arbcom, Jimbo) or it needs to have the unanimous consent of those with the ability to undo the block." Unanimous? Where did you ever get this idea? This is certainly not the case and never has been at Wikipedia. People are blocked and banned through community discussion all the time at AN, AN/I and AE with no more than a simple or super majority. Frankly you should have known the community's conventions long before becoming an admin, but being this mistaken on such a fundemental process after a number of months as an admin is troubling. Until you demonstrate a better grasp of the project's conventions, you should not expect your opinions to find much traction with those who are. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:BAN#Community ban. "There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she has been blocked long term, usually indefinitely, and there is no longer any uninvolved administrator who proposes unblocking them." A user is community banned when no administrator is willing to unblock them. In other words, the ban requires the unanimous consent of all administrators. Note, I didn't say agreement - just consent. This is the way it has always been and anything else allows editors to be AFD'd. --B (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, your reach has exceeded your grasp here. There being no administrators willing to unblock a banned user is clearly not the same as "the unanimous consent of those with the ability to undo the block" that you originally wrote overstating the level of support needed to sustain a community ban. The latter implies that all admins are aware and have passed on the opportunity, a process Wikipedia clearly does not have. And you're also mistaken that this the way it has always been: The policy on community bans was only codified in November 2006 after having been an unwritten convention for years, and it originally only called for "widespread community support" [20]. It changed to its present form (any administrator willing to unblock them) relatively recently in October 2007 [21]; so this is hardly "the way its always been." Again, you should consider getting better acquainted with the not only the policies but the foundational issues behind them and their history before stating how things are and how they've always been and weighing in on matters that you're clearly not well versed on. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In July 2005, the text "Some editors are so odious that not one of the 500+ admins will unblock them" was added as an explanation for the community ban. That's further in the past than 2007. As for the word "consent", there's obviously no explicit consent given, nor, obviously, was I referring to explicit consent. I'm assuming that you realize that I'm well aware that I have never signed a form consenting for someone's ban. I was referring to implied consent, perhaps a somewhat poor use of the term - I am not a lawyer. If you are aware of a block, have the technical ability and the authority to overturn it, and do nothing, then your consent is implied. --B (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, but just to be clear: Though it may not be apparent reading the policy pages whether the a community ban requires unanimous administrator agreement as opposed to a strong consensus, the latter has always had the widest acceptance amongst administrators and is considered the convention. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Username blocks

Hi, I get a bit confused by username blocks. Here's one example: [22]. I only managed to see one edit they had made before it got deleted. It was a long, reasonably well written, bit of fun about his colleagues. (Daniel Roberts") Clearly not suitable for an encyclopedia entry, but not vandalism. It was speedy deleted, along with a few other articles. Did anyone put a {{welcome}} template up, and tell him what was wrong with what he was doing? Nope. They speedied the articles (fair enough) slapped big warning boxes on his talk page (reasonable, but a bit bitey) and then indef blocked him. It baffles me why users who are new and (inappropriately) sandboxing get insta-bans, while other editors can call BLP article subjects "dumb ------- whores" and get admins quibbling about appropriateness of the block length. I'll watch your user page for responses, cheers.Dan Beale-Cocks 14:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This person is not a serious contributor and has an inappropriate user name. It is a block, not a ban. If he wants to return as a positive contributor, nothing is preventing him from doing so. --B (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [23] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ingrid Newkirk

Your edit summary on Ingrid Newkirk--"She wasn't impressed with the quality of some of the questions at the beginning, but that's not "uncomfortable"--Is incorrect. The clip you are hearing, as this transcript makes clear, was at the end of the interview, and Newkirk simply doesn't like to analyze herself or talk about herself outside of her work because she has humility. It had nothing to do with the 'quality' of the questions. Indeed, Newkirk thought the interview with very good, we remain in contact, and she arranged to have me interview Bill Maher. Instead of hearing a clip and making assumptions, may I suggest putting a little more faith in the words of the person who was actually there, and being a little more careful with your edit summaries? Thanks. --David Shankbone 12:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

She said several times at the beginning, "that's a horrible question". I listened to it straight through and she did not at all sound uncomfortable. --B (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Dustihowe

Hey there B, Dustihowe, a user I've worked with extensively in the last few months, just had his rollback feature removed by you. He posted on my talkpage in this thread of my talkpage. I haven't looked very far into this, and I'm assuming that your removal of that feature was likely warranted. I've asked Dusti to stop doing RC patrol for the moment. From the surface, it appears that he was attempting to prevent the edit warring that was happening in real time and stepped into a mess, probably not knowing the history with that particular article (I don't believe he edits football/soccer articles often, he was merely doing RC Patrol). If you have the time, could you let me know which diffs of his were inappropriate uses of rollback? I would appreciate any feedback that you would be willing to give Dusti so he can improve and reapply at a later date. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencia_CF&action=history and look at his edits on April 16. He had three edits, all reverts, two of them using the rollback button. RC patrol is not a problem, but edit warring is. --B (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect sir, I was trying to handle the situation until an Admin could get there, as I attempted to explain on both users talk pages and in my custom edit summary's. If you read this, it shows that other users (non admins) have tried and failed in working with these users. If I may, I would like for you to consider allowing me to have access to the Rollback function again. This is my first issue with the tool, and I swear to you I will never use it again for a situation like what happened yesterday. If I do, you may not only remove it, but block me for repeated misuse of the tool. Dusti^{speak and be heard!} 01:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You have it back. "Handling the situation" by participating in an edit war is an all-around bad idea. If you want to help out as an unbiased third party with an edit war, the #1 thing you can do is try to start up a conversation on the article talk page and invite all parties to join. Invite them by posting a message on their talk pages, not by reverting and mentioning talk in an edit summary. If nobody is interested in talking it out, you can ask at WP:RFP for the page to be protected or if one or more have violated 3RR, you can report it at WP:AN3. Once you take a side and revert more than simple vandalism, you are involved, not a neutral observer. --B (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding and willingness to replace the rollback function on my account. I was lost yesterday without it. You never know what you've got until you lose it. :) Cheers, Dusti^{speak and be heard!} 14:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

UEFA Cup and Valencia CF

Hi:

My argument with the other editor (Fadiga) revolves around if the Inter Cities Fairs Cup results belong on Uefa related articles. I have tried to discuss the subject and posted my references several times on talk pages. But I find it hopeless to engage into a discussion with someone who lacks a basic grasp of WP: Civil. I requested for someone to arbitrate the impasse a while ago, but none of the admins made an attempt. If you're familiar with the subject, could you read the above linked discussions and give an outsider's opinion. That may help resolve this deadlock

See you, --Ultracanalla (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I know almost nothing about soccer beyond watching Virginia Tech Hokies soccer this fall (we made it to the NCAA final four). WP:FOOTY is a large project with multiple admins so I would strongly suggest seeking their intervention. I would certainly be willing to look/read/offer an opinion if there is a clear question to be asked, but I don't know that I know enough background to be helpful beyond determining whether someone has violated 3RR. --B (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me????

A little bit of courtesy wouldn't go awry, instead of changing the block without asking. I was already in discussion about the block here and I only put 24 hours in straight away to stop any further disruption, to give me time to examine the issue. ^Khukri 12:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Point missed entirely, it's not whether it was correct or not and I never said you were incorrect, there was no urgency to change the block. It's about due courtesy to other editors/admins and their actions. But this can go nowhere as my concern and raising of this was 'pointless'. ^Khukri 14:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

ok, what did I miss?

I see that there was quite a discussion at ANI last night regarding some attacks on me and I was curious what happened? I mean, I've never been a celebrity before. ;) Just curious. Thingg^⊕⊗ 16:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My username change

Done, done and done! --Wiki-page-protector (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Michellecrisp

Can you take another look at your 3RR block of Michellecrisp (talk · contribs)? She has requested an unblock on the basis that she was removing simple spam from the article and looking at the content + website that she removed, I'm inclined to agree - it's pretty much just spam. --B (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. I missed the bit where reverting spam was made 3RR-exempt, but I'll have to give myself a "nobody's perfect" exemption. Stifle (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Michellecrisp (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback request

Hiya; about a month ago you said that you'd restore my rollback after my going a few weeks without revert-abuse... The said request is now being made! Cheers, —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

From looking at your contributions, I'm still a little concerned about reverting without appropriate edit summaries. This, for instance, doesn't seem to be obvious vandalism, nor does this. For something like this, there may be a reason to blank that caption other than vandalism - it's better to assume that the user might have been trying to do something useful and use an edit summary like "rv unexplained blanking, please use an edit summary if there is a reason for it". I know that the twinkle "rollback vandal" button is right next to undo when looking at a diff and it's possible to accidentally hit it (I've done that a few times) so I recognize that the last one may have been a mouse slip. I'm going to go ahead and restore it, but please remember to err on the side of leaving an edit summary if there is any question. --B (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - in reference to the edits you cited, the first link was vandalism as it simply messed up the grammar... The second and third were vandalism as it deleted valid material; but in future I'll try to be more descriptive even so. Cheers! —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are not familiar with the series, the first edit is not obvious vandalism. A good faith user could mistakenly believe that "Pyrovile" is the correct way to refer to a group of Pyroviles, much like we might say "the witch turned the ducks into cattle" (rather than "cattles"). --B (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - actually [nerd hat on!] the only episode featuring the Pyroviles was the episode in question, in which the word was pluralised numerous times. Presumably the editor had watched the episode and thus knew better... but I do take your point. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33

Regarding my prior arbcom case, see [24]. Only applied to Democratic peace theory. Those involved also thereafter solved this and produced a version all agreed on. On the other hand, please note that Giovanni33 is on a 1R per week. Check out his block log.Ultramarine (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the actual ruling link:[25] It clearly says, not mentioning it being limited to any one article:"If any of them persist in sterile revert warring, admins may block them for a short period (up to a week) for each revert. Passed 7-0"My block log is not relevant.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, I've pointed out to you on your talk page that the focus of the arb-comm ruling was clearly on one article. The full remedy reads as follows:

Ultramarine, Pmanderson, and Robert A. are directed to work together to produce a consensus version. If any of them persist in sterile revert warring, admins may block them for a short period (up to a week) for each revert.

Note working together "to produce a consensus version". Note "a consensus version", not consensus versions on articles they edit. Given the "findings of fact" only mentions one article I don't think you can honestly interpret the arb-comm ruling as being extended to any page. John Smith's (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Btw, despite this notice he has continued the sterile edit war:08:52, 23 April 2008 Perhaps his response will be to list the block logs of all the other editors with whom you keep reverting? I note its several editors now and he has not been able to convince a single other editor (over 5). Doing 3 reverts, waiting a week, followed by another three reverts, and so on...is sterile edit warring and tendentious editing. Perhaps arbcom enforcement needs to weigh in on this question although I think given the violation of the spirit of 3RR, its actionable on that basis too.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The proposed findings of fact only talks about the democratic peace article: [26] Nothing else. It is you have been repeatedly edit warring and violating your arbcom ruling as can be seen in your block log. You recently came very close to being permanently banned for suspected use of sockpuppets.Giovanni33 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). I have not. Recently Giovanni33 has started wikistalking me and reverting my edits in several articles he has never edited before. Regarding the other editors reverting me on the page Giovanni33 now cites BernardL also has never edited the article before but has a long history of editing similarly with Giovanni33 on other pages. DrGabriela is another editor with a very short edit history who have recently also started wikistalking me. The only long time editor is Cronos1. He disagreed with me regarding if material should be deleted but complimented me here for adding opposing views: [27] Regardless, to resolve this I will now only add disputed tags and invite Giovanni33 and others interested to mediation.Ultramarine (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, red-herring, and flat out falsehoods. Are you seriously claiming that all these editors are puppets? Is that your serious argument for edit warring with over 5 established editors? That is rather absurd, and without foundations. You say these are new accounts? False. Editing since 2005 a new account, with thousands of edits?29 May 2005 Dr.Gabriela has edited since July of 2007:[28], and this editor since May 2006:[29]. So lets drop your fallacies of irrelevancies. The only thing you said that was relevant to the issue was that you would stop edit warring on these articles. Good! That would solve the problem. Sterile edit warring is not a solution. Discuss and get more opinions and come to an agreement about the issues. When you can't convince anyone, walk away and let the issue rest--dont edit war endlessly. Calling others names and making false statements and accusations is not civil.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

DrGabriela has only made 100 edits. Recently most of them wikistalking my edits. Giovanni33, BernardL, and drGabriela only started edited the Church Committee article two days ago. That what I meant with Cronos1 being a more long time editor.Ultramarine (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith and stop with the false accusations. As you know other editors who you have been editing warring with on the pages we have a long history with have noticed your spreading this dubious material to the other pages and posted on the talk page a list of all of these many articles. I'm surprised that not more editors have followed this POV pushing of yours to the other articles, as well. These are all related topic, and its the same issue. This is not wikistalking, it's joining the discussion that makes clear you have no consensus for adding this dubious material everywhere. It has a place in some articles, related to the subject, but not in any article about Guatemala. I also point out you are guilty of copy and pasting large amounts of information from globalsecurity.org, and pasting it in articles in violation of copy right.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Source(s) regarding the last please.Ultramarine (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Email evidence

Sent. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

R00m c

Thanks, B. The disruption was my main concern too...and I see the discussion has only gone downhill. Should probably keep an eye on the situation after the block expires. Dreadstar † 20:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:African American football players

Could you post the related discussion behind your speedy deletion of Category:African American football players? You had included it in your edit summary on the editor's talk page, but for some reason it doesn't work when I paste it into my address window. Please link to it from here or my Talk page. I'd just like to refamiliarize myself as to why this category is "retarded" and "sucks" and cannot exist. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If you click on Category:African American football players, you should see the deletion log which gives links to the two WP:CFD discussions where it was decided to delete the category. (If they don't show up, that's a bug that needs to be fixed.) The discussions were at [30] and [31]. --B (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I must say I personally don't see any compelling arguments to delete. But the decision has been made. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to ask for the decision to be reconsidered, you can make that request at WP:DRV. But as a general rule, if something once deleted is recreated, we delete it immediately so that we don't have to keep having the same discussion over and over again. If you do decide to ask for it to be reconsidered, consider one thing. Does that category refer to "African American" people who play "football", which could mean American football or soccer? Does it refer to people currently residing in the continent of Africa who play American football? Obviously, we know that it is intended to refer to "African American" people who play "American football", but it may be confusing to people outside of the US. A second thing to consider is that the category doesn't really serve any purpose. There is no internal maintenance purpose (Category:Living people, for instance, exists so that BLPs may be easily patrolled). It's not useful for research because it would contain probably half or more of the American football players on whom we have articles. That's too many articles to use it for research purposes. So I would suggest against the existence of the category, but if you would like to bring it to deletion review, that avenue is open. --B (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I won't try to bring it up for review. The second point you raise is, I agree, really the key issue. The semantic stuff could be resolved and is not in itself a reason to delete. But yes, there are so many Black players now that they're in the majority, so one can rightly ask, what's the point? See, I got interested in this topic by editing articles on African American quarterbacks in the Canadian Football League, who were banned from the NFL because of systemic racism as recently as the 1970s. I'm almost 50 years old, so this was during my lifetime. This isn't ancient history; at least not to me. But things have obviously changed so much so fast. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

User:217.87.83.146 reported by User:Fnagaton (Result: 31 hours)

Thank you for your time and help. I will have to get some sleep soon but I will keep an eye on the situation and post a message on your talk page if someone editing from a similar IP starts editing in violation of the block. Good night! :) Fnagaton 01:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No sooner do I write that than another "anonymous" user from the same ISP has just made another edit. Fnagaton 01:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

User:217.87.75.168 and User:217.87.112.155 is now editing on someone elses talk page now. A range block may be needed. :( Fnagaton 01:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And User:217.87.123.75. Fnagaton 01:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. I'm really very sorry the user has now started on your talk page as well. :( (It's why my page is semi-protected due to this user from this ISP). This tends to happen quite a lot with this user. I hope the abuse report Wikipedia:Abuse reports/217.87.x.x will help to get some action from the ISP at some point over the next couple of months. Fnagaton 01:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made a request at ANI for someone who knows what they are doing to set a range block - I have no idea what numbers to use to get the right range. --B (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, and good luck! Fnagaton 01:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, the user has started to come back again Special:Contributions/217.87.66.230 and is doing the same abusive style of editing. Fnagaton 22:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks this time. --B (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that was quick! :) I had hoped the user would have realised their edits are not productive the first time around. Fnagaton 22:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry to trouble you again, another IP has just appeared. Obviously the same person. Special:Contributions/217.237.150.208 Fnagaton 22:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've blocked that range too. Please let me know if another pops up. --B (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, I will. That should do it for another two weeks at least. Fnagaton 22:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)