User talk:Bakersville

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I noticed you are known only as an IP address; that means you are not signed up. To sign up, you only need to click Create account and choose a username and password. You don't need to provide any personal information. If you sign up, you'll have a username that others can use to recognize you and leave you messages on the wiki. You'll be able to sign your name just by typing four tildes (~~~~) when you leave someone else a message. Plus, you (and others) will easily be able to see a list of all your contributions to Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, ask at the Village pump, or feel free to ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

WikiProject Argentina et al

I see you've been editing pages about Argentina. We've been having some discussions on certain current issues, and I thought I might point out to you that there's a group of editors (Argentine and others) working on those articles and trying to make them as verifiable and neutral as possible. I've reverted or changed some of your additions and wanted to suggest that you spend some time reading about editing policies; in particular, controversial or high-profile comments should be inserted very carefully and with good sources. There are unfortunately a lot of things going wrong in Argentina that we'd like to denounce in the loudest possible manner, but Wikipedia is not the place for that.

With regards to the changes I've made to your changes, please see the histories and talk pages of the relevant articles, and consider discussing in the talk pages before making extensive editions.

If you're an Argentinian, I invite you to categorize yourself as one by inserting [[Category:Wikipedians of Argentina]]. This is completely optional, of course. I'd also like to invite you to check the Argentine notice board and, if you're interested enough, to join WikiProject Argentina. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Kirchner chavez morales.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kirchner chavez morales.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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World of Warcraft

Hi there,

I saw you removed this sentence from the World of Warcraft article:

It has also been confirmed by a Community Manager on the general forums that the epic raid dungeons in the expansion will have a cap of 25 people, including the raid to defeat Illidan.^{[citation needed]}

..with the comment "Not true - Check blizz website". I was wondering if you could point out where Blizzard have said this claim is incorrect? I haven't had much luck finding a source for the original claim, given how hard it is to find anything more than a couple of days old on Blizzard's forums, but a CM (Eyonix I believe) absolutely definitely did state that all raids in the expansion, including Illidan's Black Temple, would have a 25 man cap. —Stormie 14:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. see [1] and [2] for an offsite archive of Eyonix's posts in a couple of threads. I'm not sure that this meets Wikipedia's definition of a "reliable source" though. :-) —Stormie 14:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought i read that there were 40 people dungeons in the Outland map in Blizz site, but actually the map only states raid dungeons. I don't think however that the original claim is right, all dungeons added in the last versions had been either 20 or 40. Anyhow, probably leave it without the claim if it's only hearsay. [[user:bakersville]

Yeah I think the Outland map just marked things as "raid dungeons" without mentioning a player cap. Anyway, rereading over that section, I think the whole 40 -> 25 man thing is best left to the World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade article, where it is well covered. --Stormie 00:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Argentina, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.

Robert Mugabe

Regarding your edits of the Robert Mugabe article, please take note of the three-revert rule. Would be a pitty if you were blocked. --Ezeu 22:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Salesians of Don Bosco

About the Salesian article ... I stated my reasons on the talk page. --evrik ^(talk) 22:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since one of the edits was to change an anonymous vandal ... that shouldn't count ... but have been counting. --evrik ^(talk) 20:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The policy states that reverting vandalism doesn't count. In any case, I thought I was being reasonable by only changing the title. I'll fix that right now. --evrik ^(talk) 21:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going AFK soon. Maybe we can resolves this tomorrow. Do you want to start a straw poll? --evrik ^(talk) 21:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of effort because of the title of the section ... please put your changes on the talk page first. --evrik ^(talk) 22:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just keep it to the talk page. That's where I will answer you. --evrik ^(talk) 15:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Bakersville. I happened to see the article in question, and support your addition of that paragraph. I find it to be neutral, and have said so on the talk page. I have also removed the neutrality disputed tag. It is clear to me that it was not added in good faith. Jeffpw 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to point out WP:CANVASS. Arbcom weighed in with this statement: "Briefly, a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." Is that what happened on the Don Bosco article? Jeffpw 09:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, this issue (abuth the Salesians) is settled? --evrik ^(talk) 20:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Consider the issue settled. Bakersville 21:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at WP:CANVASS it says limited posting that is neutral and bipartisan is acceptable. I got tired of the back and forth and hoped that bringing in some other ediotrs would resolve the difference. It worked didn't it? --evrik ^(talk) 21:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red link

I hate the fact that your user page is a redlink ... here is something to fill it ...

		The Minor Barnstar
		just because evrik ^(talk) 21:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mugabe

I would like to see some sources for Mugabe's "anti-Homosexual" campaigns. Otherwise do not revert as you are violating WP:BLP. KazakhPol 17:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the bit about his anti-homosexual campaign with sources from Google Books. If you wish to re-add the other content I suggest getting sources from there. KazakhPol 01:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Zimbabwe

Hey, Mangwanani started a Zimbabwe WikiProject. If you are interested, please join us. Perspicacite 17:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwe

User:The idiot reverted your edit to Zimbabwe. Perspicacite 19:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ark La is making the same bad edit to Zimbabwe he was making a month ago. Please revert. Perspicacite 19:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bosco

Ciao! Thanks for help... he's truly full of Catholic crusaders there which are soooo hampered by the fact their beloved saint had such a lurid backside (btw, he was probably also homosexual and somewhat pedophile, but Evrik was able to deleted any reference to this probable side. Of course, no one of those blackmailing prophecies ever realized. Just some rude words by Cavour and - miracle!!! - all menacing dreams disappeared.... :-) --Attilios 15:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalising the article

Stop vandalising the Critisicm section in the Lukashenko article. The paragraph suppurting Lukashenko you keep on deleting is completely referenced. There ain't a law stating only English links can be used. Russian links can be used to as long as they give the information (P.S. One of the phrases you deleted included an English link). This paragraph is needed for the NPOV of the section. "Critisicm", is not only bad but also positive criticism. If you would check other articles you would see that the Criticism section must feature both Negative and Positive criticism, for the good of NPOV. If you want, create a sub-section in the Criticism section: "The response of Lukashenko supporters to the criticism" and move it there. But thats all you can do. So stop deleting the section. Otherwise, it is vandalism. M.V.E.i. 21:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you have other questions, ask them here. I will check this user page and see if you left any questions. In a period of 24 hours you will recive an answer. M.V.E.i. 21:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check answer in talk page. Bakersville 22:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block

I have blocked your for 24 hours for 3RR on Alexander Lukashenko. See {{uw-3rrblock}} for more details. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzania

I read in a Time-Life history of East Africa that Mafia Island was the source of the -ia in Tanzania. Unfortunately I no longer own the book, I am looking for another reference. How is it "obvious" that mafia is not part of the name? And Mafia isn't part of mainland Tanzania, it's an island. Capmango 23:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner

I'm trying to make the article more neutral, as it was subject to several POVs and blatant vandalism. In this spirit, I removed several statements that were not backed by sources. In addition (and I explained this in my edit summary), I removed the first mention of the suitcase scandal because it simply does not need to be mentioned twice in separate sections. As it stands, the suitcase scandal dominates the article. If you object to some of my edits, please discuss it in the talk page or revert only the part that you object with, but don't revert my entire edit without even reading it! --201.252.102.242 (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph I read that you deleted was well sourced. Taking into consideration that the article has been subject to vandalism from anon editors in many ocassions, I went ahead and reverted your whole edit without further reading. I will encourage you to get an editor id to make things easier. Regarding to the particulars of the article please take them to talk so everybody can contribute. Bakersville (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mugabe

You are making the same edits repeatedly at Robert Mugabe, and calling any edits that disagree with yours 'vandalism'. This begins to look like edit warring. I have examined the edits and it is not clear to me that they are vandalism. Please refrain from further edits but instead explain on Talk:Robert Mugabe why you think that the edits you revert are a problem. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response in DJ Clayworth Bakersville (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested that the material you are adding at Robert Mugabe is copyright. I trust you are aware that adding copyright material to Wikipedia is not permitted. Please comment at Talk:Robert Mugabe. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted the article Robert Mugabe 4 times in 24 hours. You will be blocked for 24 hours unless you immediately revert your own edit. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The four edits are: [3] [4] [5] [6]. And be aware that this warning is me being generous. Policy calls for an immediate block. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be judge and part in a blocking dispute?

3RR is an automatic penalty. No judgement is required. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO you have a conflict on interest in the issue. Because you have an opinion on my edit and you are usint the 3RR rule to revert a paragraph that wasn't involve in the 3rr dispute Bakersville (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you stop this. I have no opinion on your edits except where there are too many of them and where they violate copyright rules. I came to this article to stop an edit war. I also suggest that in the future you discuss changes with your fellow editors and not engage in blind edit warring. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What should I stop? I am just expressing my opinion. Personally I do not appreciate threatening language. I have contributed to many articles in WP and I believe I don't deserve that treatment. Bakersville (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not a place for expressing your opinion, they are a place for cooperatively building encyclopedia articles. I'm not sure what 'threatening language' you are referring to. If you discuss changes with other editors rather than simply reverting them you will have no further trouble. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was refering to your suggestion that "I should stop this". Anyhow, no hard feelings. I'll try to refrase the alleged copyright paragraph when the block is over. Bakersville (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mugabe

Hi. As a previous editor of this article your input on improvements for the article is actively sought. See Talk:Robert Mugabe. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]