User talk:Bbagot

Welcome!

Hello, Bbagot, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Sophia 21:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving messages for users

Hi Bbagot. Each user has a User page (home page) and a User talk page which is where you leave messages. If you click on my signature it takes you to my user page where you will see a tab marked "discussion". Click on that and it will take you to my talk page. This works for every user and on the articles clicking the "discussion" tab will take you to the talk page for that article where we discuss what information to include and how to place it in the article. Have fun here - but be warned - it'a addictive! Any other questions then just message me. Labs and lab X are the best! My dogs are currently staring at me meaningfully as it's walkies time. Sophia 07:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR and edit warring

You have just violated the 3RR rule on Christian views of Jesus. Please try to resolve differences and reach a concensus on the talk page. You also may want to review: Wikipedia:Edit war, WP:3RR, and WP:1RR. Thanks for your cooperation. Also, your last edit removed my formatting of the see also section, and you are adding a disclaimer to the top of the page that is unnecessary and against the MOS. Please try to be more careful in the future when reverting. Thanks.--Andrew c 00:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to discuss the content of the article itself outside of the talk page. I'll respond in more detail on Talk:Christian views of Jesus.--Andrew c 01:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:Edit Wars Matthew and Luke

I have left comments on both talk pages, so hopefully we can continue discussion there. I will attempt to cover some of your concerns more generally. You asked "What information do you feel was removed unfairly?" and looking throught the page history of Matthew and Luke, the only thing that jumps out at me is deleting 2 sentences describing the Codex Bezae. On some of the other pages you have edited, you have removed important bits of information, like the two edits on Jesus that removed other religious POVs, etc. I clearly wouldn't say your edits are all destructive or anything close to that, but I will say a few of your edits raised some warning flags in my mind.

You said "I'm not a big fan of the need to label majority and minority views". Well, part of the NPOV is stating who exactly holds what POV, and how popular that POV is. That is the heart of being neutral. We don't say which POV is better, we don't paint either in a better light, but we need to make sure not to give undue weight to minor views. I think a compromise that has been creeping into these pages has been to use words like "liberal" vs. "conservative". There may be a better solution, but we need to make sure that we don't paint a minority view as holding equal weight (such as giving a million and one reasons why conservative scholars date something early, when the majority of scholars accept a later date).

You said "It has seemed to me that you are following me." Well you have been editing a number of pages on my watch list. I will say that your editing patterns made me curious about what other pages you edited, and I butted in on Messianic prophecies, but mostly, I guess we have similar interests in topics :)

So I hope that we can work things out on the talk pages. Please try to minimize article edits during a content dispute. It can be seen as edit warring. The better user is always the one who walks away from editing the article to discuss things on talk, even if that means leaving in content you'd rather edit. And I will admit, I have been a little trigger happy on the reverting, but I think I have tried to compromise and keep in a number of your contributions as well. Cheers.--Andrew c 02:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said It was not prudent to change the venue. I am not sure what you are talking about, or what you meant by there are reasons that people negotiate behind closed doors. You can see that your long message to me was dated 01:21, 20 May 2006, where my concerns on the talk pages were 21:12, 19 May 2006 and 20:58, 19 May 2006, both hours before your message. If anything, you are the one who took a content disupte off of the article talk pages (where anyone can comment, and where a community consensus can occur) onto the user talk pages, that basically involved two people. I am wary of this conflict involving just myself and you as it is, and would rather involve a number of other editors. I hope you understand. --Andrew c 12:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on May 23 2006 (UTC) to Christian views of Jesus

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 3 hours. William M. Connolley 07:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - re your mail etc. You have 4R in 24h and 7 mins - this is enough to trigger the 3RR, depending on the whim of the admin. Read WP:3RR carefully, and adhere to the spirit of it. As to the length of your block - thats a bit arbitrary. 27 may be a bit heavy, but you'll have to ask SV about that, not me. But the advice, always, is don't get *close* to 3RR if you want to stay away from trouble William M. Connolley 17:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:3RR and blocks

I'm sorry you feel I am trying to censor your view. I said in my report that I thought a block would probably be premature at this point, and you have shown an effort to work out some concerns on talk pages on the gospel articles. However, I think you still need to learn about edit warring. If you add something to an article and it gets reverted, it should make you think twice about adding it back without a deeper concensus. If you get reverted by multiple editors, this should throw up red flags that your additions are controversial. While 3RR is policy, I advocate in most circumstances, WP:1RR. You aren't simply going to win by forcing your controversial edits back into the articles every time you log on. This is the heart of edit warring, and counter productive to community involvement and wikipedia. Please try to reach a middle ground, or be willing to compromise or work with others or make a case for your edits or what ever it takes to avoid excessive reverting.--Andrew c 13:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring right after a block

What is the first thing you do after you get unblocked? You make a 9th and 10th edit. Please take note of what the editors are telling you in their edit summaries, and please take concerns to talk before re-adding your disclaimer again. Also, the controversial Jewish POV paragraph is commented out (a reasonable compromise), so for the time being there is no reason to delete this information (because it doesn't show up in the article view). Like I said above, you can't force controversial edits into an article by simply reverting and reverting again. This isn't how wikipedia works, and I would hope you'd learn how to work with the community, instead of against it. Finally, keep in mind this aspect of the 3RR policy: In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. --Andrew c 20:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the first thing I did was eat a sandwich, then when I chose to post again it was to the Wikipedia administrators site followed by the TALK section of Christian views of Jesus, with one of those writings telling YOU I was going to try to rework some of my edits based on what YOU had pointed out to me -- AND I DID. As far as what the editors are saying, I'm the one trying to do most of the talking and explaining. In many ways I'm met with silence.

I'm not playing your game of painting a picture of me using hyperbole and exasperation and trying to make it reality. Can't you be pleased with the strong changes we have both made to the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke? Quit trying to make me out to be a monster and focus on the positive.

Bbagot 04:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot[reply]

Regarding edits made on 02/07/2007

Thank you for experimenting with the page Dungeons & Dragons on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Regards, Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 14:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pls read and think twice, and help in editing

Dear Sir, I am Dr. Mohammad Samir Hossain from Bangladesh. I was and still am too poor like my country. I was desperately searching for support for my research and seeing my desperate wish some educators from the so called non-accreditated university Bircham International University became too kind to buy me books and appove me 100% fund. I had to beg to many but got only one. So I jumped on my dream topic - Philosophy of Death and Adjustment and start working on the Impact of different philosophies on different bangladeshi people. I did it because in the science of death such research was never conducted, but if I can do or at least raise some point for it, may be some richer and more qualified people will find their interest in it and may proceed. My back ground thought was that remedy to many mental health problem might come out from this new branch. But who would raise me with it? Cause I did not have money even to buy papers or my daily food, let alone doing vast correspondences or take help from any accreditated university. Though fortunately I enrolled at Harvard Medical School with full waiver, but that was too small period for me to do any good job. Finally I thought may be Elisabeth kubler-Ross herself might find interest in it and togather we will proceed. But my luck did not support me, cause I found the news of her funeral on the very day I found her organization's web site. So temporarily my research work stopped upto which Bircham International University helped me. So till now I dream of proceeding more on the research with supports of knowledge from all over the world, and I do not even have a web site to introduce my thoughts. So the only light of hope became this free encyclopedia, and for reference I only had Bircham International University web site. So I desperately tried to promote the introduction of the university in this encyclopedia so that the research reference gets its better base. I know my letter is big and annoying, but sometimes we do annoying things for something better, and please believe me I tried to promote Bircham International University or any other that you all object, just to facilitate the birth of a new branch of a science. Please help me in every way, you do not need to ask me anything for editing or changing. If you all fail to help in a rational manner, I do not mind and will take it as a fate. I will see my reply through the condition of the article "Philosophy of Death and Adjustment". I will love to see this baby of mine alive, but if dead, I will follow the branch of science that I am holding on.

Regards Md. Samir Hossain MD, PhD Assistant Professor of Psychiatry E-mail: hmanjur@bttb.net.bd 203.112.197.18 15:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is spamming users by posting this same posting on various User:Talk pages. His "philosophy" falls under geriatrics. --Otheus 01:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UltraRogue

Hello, I've seen you give input under Articles for Deletion, and you appear to be fair and knowledgeable. I was checking up an article, UltraRogue and found the following:

07:56, 16 February 2007 Lectonar (Talk | contribs) deleted "UltraRogue" (A7)

Yet, I am unable to find the trail of where this deletion discussion took place, nor can I find any record of this action being taken under Lectonar's history. If you could please help me to follow what occurred and point me to wherever the log is, I would appreciate it.

Thank you Bbagot 20:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

It seems the article was speedy deleted per criterion A7: "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." The action does not appear in User:Lectonar's contribution history I assume because edits made to articles which are deleted are also removed from users' histories (I know this to be true for regular users and it also seems to apply to admins). If you wish the page to be restored, you may ask the deleting admin on his/her talk page. If they refuse, you may list the page for deletion review.

I hope this helps. Cheers, Black Falcon 20:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning UltraRogue

Sorry to have you kept waiting...and be sure, every action by an administrator is easily reversible, so don't be to miffed about me deleting it :)).

Articles on wikipedia have to conform to certain standards (the ones pertaining to this article would be notability, veriafiability. The article was deleted following the guideslines for speedy deletions, under A7 (article did not ascertain the notability of the subject). If you got more questions after reading the whole stuff, feel free to pester me. Lectonar 12:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Couture and your edit summaries

Regarding this edit, your edit summary may be taken as uncivil by some. Please keep your edit comments civil. Also, you seem to imply that you wish for those unfamiliar with the UFC to not edit these articles. There are many editors can help improve an article, regardless of their familiarity with the UFC. For example, the removal of un-sourced comments, removal of non-neutral points of view, and removal of material given undue weight don't require knowledge of a topic. Any editor may be able to help improve an article in this manner. Sancho (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. I found the removal of my edit with the label in all caps of vandalism to be uncivil, especially since the information presented was factual and true. This occurred because he was unfamiliar with the subject matter. If he wishes to look for spelling or non-neutral points of view that is understandable, but the reversion he made was inappropriate. Bbagot 06:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry,I didn't see that you responded and I just reverted your category addition... I don't mean to start a revert war though. It's just that the procedure to deal with a contested reversion (such as VegaDark's previous removal of this category) is to take it to the article talk page. I think the main argument that you will face is that you haven't attributed this additional category to a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Attribution). (At least this is the only one that I can think of.) We should continue this discussion at the article talk page, since this will be worthwhile for the other editors to read. Sancho (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I also found the removal with the all caps of vandalism to be uncivil and actually left a message for the editor that left that edit comment, since the statement was true (although un-sourced). He did admit that he was hasty in his categorization of that edit as vandalism and will be more careful in the future. Sancho (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while, but I replied again at Talk:Randy_Couture. Don't know if you had this on your watchlist, so I thought I'd let you know. Sancho 13:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Gift deletions

Hey -- I liked your rewrite of the section outlining the funding of the movie. But I disagree with deleting all the reviews. Can you explain why you did this? Maybe one or two that come from less than reliable sources could be deleted, but I left a few positive ones in there that came from these said sources. Maybe we should revert this last edit and we can take this to the talk page of the aricle? Therefore 18:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I can see why you would think that this was a "war of reviews," as it were. In fact, I added in most of the reviews. At the time, there were only a couple of glowing reviews which didn't reflect the preponderance of negative reviews the movie received. If you don't object too strongly, I will return this part of the article and keep your notation about IMDB. Therefore 18:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about the reviews -- I will work on a rewrite incorporating your suggestions.

As to IMDB, this is not a proper gauge of the popularity of a movie. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Reception:

In the case of what the general public thought of the film, tend towards the expression "money talks" and provide a summary of the film's commercial success, consulting sites such as Box Office Mojo and Box Office Guru.

The section explicitly prohibits the use of IMDB reviews. I think I'll replace the IMDB reference with a discussion of the commercial stats. Thanks. Therefore 18:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, it does not explicitly prohibit user ratings from IMDB -- that is an inference I made from their statement about IMDB reviews. However, it clearly states that "money talks" is the gauge to be used about the popularity of a movie. IMDB is not a statistically accurate source -- as I'm sure you can appreciate. Therefore 18:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on the discrepancy on Rotten Tomatoes. I can't explain it except to guess there is a lag between the number of reviews and the calculations. 35% could mean 18 fresh out of 51 reviews. Therefore 19:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the criticism section and added in the user ratings. See what you think. Therefore 23:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this discussion to the article's talk page. Please come and discuss. As it stands now, the page is in violation of WP:UNDUE and includes several reviews that shouldn't be listed. I would appreciate this matter to be addressed with all due speed. Thanks. 00:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the note!

Yes, unless someone leaks the news that I am a robot from the future sent to destroy all knowledge, my RFA is in the bag. I hope things are going smoothly for you. Drop by my talk page if you ever need any help. — coel acan — 20:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB User Ratings

Bbagot -- I have initiated a discussion about using IMDB User Ratings at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#IMDB User Ratings. Please come and read and participate. Consensus is that IMDB user ratings are inaccurate gauges of audience reception. Thanks.Therefore 22:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of UltraRogue

I have nominated UltraRogue, 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/UltraRogue. 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. D. Brodale (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Tahash Timeline

Please look at the article Tahash, and on the Discussion Page: "Consensus on Timeline" give your opinion about the Timeline. Thank you. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2011 (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) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]