User talk:BlueSalix/Archive 1

Archive 1

Corrections Corporation of America

I think you're absolutely correct. Your original post never should have been removed.

I think that CCA has paid minders watching and sanitizing the page, but I don't think COLLECT is one of them, since he's only posted one innocuous comment on the page before, going back 50 edits.

Thanks for your persistence. Activist (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Please note my comments on the CCA Talk page regarding the removals of the Sayre and Crowley incidents. Thanks much. Activist (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

A delayed reply, sorry, but I will check and thanks for the note, Activist! BlueSalix (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Innocence of Muslims for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Innocence of Muslims is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innocence of Muslims until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. KeptSouth (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

A page you started (Syrian Emergency Task Force) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Syrian Emergency Task Force, BlueSalix!

Wikipedia editor Mike1901 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Beat me to creating this! Will help out where I can :-)

To reply, leave a comment on Mike1901's talk page.

Hey User:Mike1901, just a FYI, someone connected with the SETF has left a comment on the entry's talk page. I left a reply but I don't know if he's seen it. I just wanted to give you a heads-up in case you were still interested. (I've tried to look for RS to back-up his requests for correction but have been unable to find any so have kept the article as-is.) I believe this individual is the one who was previously blanking the page, though, I think he may just not have known better. BlueSalix (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Don Benton, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Olympia and Agua Dulce (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Frescas!

Thanks for the modesty barnstar. Have a delicious day! |-) Wikibojopayne (talk) 06:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jamie Pedersen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Yale]] (J.D.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Washington State Republican Party may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• on-women-responsible-for-pay-reduction/ |work=The RAW Story |accessdate=24 November 2013}}</ref>[[[[File:Rossi_Sign.jpg|thumb|right|A campaign sign for Republican Dino Rossi's 2010 campaign for U.S.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Rob McKenna - candidate for governor.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rob McKenna - candidate for governor.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sfan00 IMG - it looks like I used the wrong license. It is, in fact, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 (see here). Can you update that for me? Thanks! BlueSalix (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't accept NC images. You couldn't ask the campaign for a CC-BY-SA image?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, that makes sense - my mistake. I don't have any contact with the campaign, this is just a subject of interest to me. I'll look for an appropriately licensed image. Thanks for your direction and guidance, Sfan00 IMG! BlueSalix (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Jamie Pedersen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Norwegian

Montgomery Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Native American

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Uniforms of the United States Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1st Cavalry Division (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

File:U.S. Army All-American Band.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:U.S. Army All-American Band.png

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 04:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Political debates about United States military bands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sacred cow (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States military music customs, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cadence, Blue Room and Retreat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

3RR

You went over WP:3RR at Ronan Farrow before I had a chance to warn you, though from your edit summaries you appear to have been aware. I began a discussion on the talk page about your edits, in which you did not participate before your fourth reversion, and you did not initiate discussion with IP editor 108 on the talk page at any time. You accuse 108 of being a sockpuppet, but that is not one of the IPs at the relevant SPI, as I noted in my talk-page post. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

oh lord BlueSalix (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Chicago Police.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Chicago Police.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 20:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Issues in reporting on North Korea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Eccentricity, New Yorker and Bill O'Reilly

Police uniforms of the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Menlo Park, Truncheon and Ascot

NK News (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Telegraph

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you friend ! --CultureEurope (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome and thank you for your very excellent contribution, CultureEurope! I look forward to seeing your other work! BlueSalix (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BlueSalix. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PernixData (2nd nomination).
Message added 01:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cheers! —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:David Ogden Stiers

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:David Ogden Stiers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duke of Edinburgh's Award, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prince Edward (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Rodgers

I wasn't sure it was settled and now a particular person claims that mentioning it is unaccredited is a "smear attempt." RobinBnn (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your invaluable help

Thank you again for your support and suggestions. :) --CultureEurope (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:LGBT rights in Russia

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:LGBT rights in Russia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

Thanks again, BlueSalix, for everything. --CultureEurope (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Schweitzer?

Hi, saw you created Political positions of Brian Schweitzer. Was wondering why you created it as a separate article, and if you'd have concerns with a merge back to the main bio; it all seems relevant to be put there. Don't want to start an editing dispute over a merge, so thought I'd ask before tagging. Montanabw^(talk) 21:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If you think it's best, I won't object, Montanabw. I created a separate article since adding such a large volume of text to the current Schweitzer article would, I thought, make it rather unwieldy. I normally wouldn't think the level of detail in a "political positions of ..." article is appropriate for an inactive politician, however, created it only because he is a speculated 2016 contender. If he formally announces in the next few months, won't we need to break that off into a separate article again, a la Political positions of Ron Paul, Political positions of Rudy Giuliani, etc.? Anyway, like I said, I'll defer to your good judgment on the question - whatever you think is best!~ BlueSalix (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My feeling is that the "political positions of" articles are kind of content forks unless an article is so long that it is at the level of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and even then her article contains a summary and section link to the "positions of" article. So, my take is that "old Gov B.S." (as some of us out here call him) could have the political positions at least summarized in his main article. I suppose if he really runs, then maybe a separate article is needed if it's going to become really long and involved, but do ALL candidates wind up with these? You did a great job sourcing, by the way. Montanabw^(talk) 21:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw, in answer to your question, over the last two elections all major candidates from the two institutional parties (Biden, Obama, Palin, McCain, Clinton, Romney, Guiliani, Paul, Kucinich, etc.) have had independent "Political positions of ..." articles created. That said, if you'd like to nominate this for speedy deletion I won't contest it; we can always revisit it later if he makes a formal announcement. BlueSalix (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I loathe the dramaboards, I think a merge and redirect is better, preserves the content and the title, can be re-spun out again if needed. OTOH, there is also the argument that Schweitzer's people regularly patrol his bio and have been busted in the past for editing it, so I don't know how the addition of political positions there would stack up. What do you think? Montanabw^(talk) 21:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Montanabw, I wasn't aware his bio was being patrolled; I can't stand that! I've been monitoring Don Benton and Ronan Farrow off and on due to similar and endemic issues with abusive editing by publicists and socks of publicists. You seem to have a better handle on Schweitzer vis a vis Wikipedia than I do, so I will support whatever you think is the best next step (merge, delete, leave, etc.). BlueSalix (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I might merge but leave the other file too, just to see if trouble erupts. His staff got busted while he was still governor, might not be watching so much now. But you never know. LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 02:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

These people are always watching, it's like the Eye of Sauron! BlueSalix (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Like and LOL! Or, as I like to say, SCOMN! (Snorted coffee out my nose)

Please dear friend help me

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Italian_geniuses_%282nd_nomination%29

I have done a great job on this wikipedia page. The article is perfect. Help me ! --CultureEurope (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Lost my words

Every day there are users who would like to cancel my wikipedia page. I feel sad and dejected. Anyway, thank you again ! --CultureEurope (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

CultureEurope - don't be sad, I have had many of my articles nominated for deletion, too. However, I don't think you'll have any more problems - in bocca al lupo! BlueSalix (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This is my hope - ¡¡¡ buena suerte !!! --CultureEurope (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Your kind two notes of thanks.

I share some interests with you. Especially a dislike for PR editors, although my pet peeve is the medical PR types, who are pushing a point of view that is protective of the medical industry, which is not always honest or accurate. That is a far tougher fight than Ronan Farrow.

I also noticed a couple of things on your talk page.

http://www.worldmilitarybands.com/sousas-marches/

I dated Kieth Brion's daughter for many years, and marched with him in the Yale band at the Yale-Harvard game one year. No-one has done more for Military Music then he, and his love was John Philips Souza. Don't have much RS for you, as that was his passion, not mine.

I also know quite a bit about North Korea. I would probably have thought the bias article you created was a candidate for deletion, but I am not that interested in doing that kind of advocacy. I am interested in why you believe that North Korea is significantly more functional than the media impression. Having studied both in some detail, I think much of the basic premise of their reputation is well founded, but I do appreciate different opinions.Bob the goodwin (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

bias in reporting on North Korea

Perhaps you might wanna add media coverage of North Korean famine and cannibalism claims. I'd give you a "barnstar" for such awareness, but I don't wanna add too much space. --George Ho (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Happy Easter My Dear Friend !

--CultureEurope (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Perennial candidates from Washington state

Category:Perennial candidates from Washington state, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

I am very sorry if I seemed bitey, my layman knowledge of American history is poor. Again, I am truly sorry that you withdrew this as it would have been a good nomination. Nom again at GA? Thanks, Matty.007 15:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

What's up?

We have two relatively new contributors participating in this article who share a very aggressive editing style. Care explaining what's up? Cwobeel (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You'll need to be more specific. BlueSalix (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, you said the above, and I wanted to know how will your ground that assessment. Who are these "two relatively new contributors", and what was the "very aggressive editing style" that you observed? Cwobeel (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you discuss my edits and not me. Also, your interpretation of WP:BLP is incorrect. The burden of proof means that the content needs to be verifiable, which in this case it is:

 The [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence|burden of evidence]] for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material. 

Cwobeel (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I have been discussing your edits. Which I shouldn't have to; we should be discussing the substance of your content, not your unusual editing pattern. BlueSalix (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You are calling my editing "aggressive" (in several occasions already) and even maybe "relatively new contributor" from what I can gather. Discuss my edits, not your impression of my style, my persona, or my editcount. Thank you in advance. Cwobeel (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I have been discussing your edits; specifically, their aggressive style. A violation of WP:TPOC is virtually unheard of ... further, your rather thinly veiled attempt to ape my comments to Michael with your "discuss my edits, not your impression of my style, my persona" will be unlikely to reflect well when the question of your behavior is brought up for review, as I have a feeling will inevitably occur if you continue along this path you seem determined to travel. BlueSalix (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that WP:TPOC applies here, as changing an RfC framing mid way it is not acceptable. As for the other comments, I hear you. Just please if you have any other comments about me, use my talk page. 21:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

"Displays of triumphalism" .. I must admit you made me laugh (in a good way). Thank you for your patience, and apologies for apparently rattling your cage with that sentence in the RFC. It was never my intention. Cwobeel (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you please stop posting here? Thanks, Cwobeel! BlueSalix (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, will do, but not before I provide the definition of "rattle your cage," just in case it was misinterpreted. Cwobeel (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you please stop posting here? Thanks, Cwobeel! BlueSalix (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Just to let you know that many of the changes you are making really should be strikes, not deletions. If you change the tone or content of a comment that has already been seen, it is expected that you will not refactor it in a way that changes its meaning. Instead you strike through the text using <s>bad words</s>. The reasoning is that changing the meaning will often make the reply to your comment look odd, or even irresponsible. As an unrelated example: imagine if "Bob" called "Alice" a jerk in a comment, but then removed that portion after they replied. Of course Alice would complain that Bob was making a persona attack and call him out on it. But now that personal attack is removed instead of struck, so it looks like Alice is trying to pick a fight where there never was a problem. This is why policy says you shouldn't refactor at all once replied to. Correcting spelling or grammar is fine of course, but not content or tone, as it makes it a huge burden for anyone to go back and reassemble to see what really happened. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this direction, Dennis Brown, I will do this in the future. Up to the present I had made changes instead of strikethroughs if no one had yet replied (or if it was a grammar issue) as I was under the impression that was the policy. In the future I will use strikethroughs exclusively (except for grammar). BlueSalix (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem. It was clear to me that you had no ill intent and I just guessed you weren't familiar with the method of striking. Lots of experienced editors aren't. I think changing something directly after you have written is ok, I will add a sentence sometimes if no has replied, but the rest of the time striking is best. Kind of like I did here :) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Either way, thanks for bringing it to my attention, Dennis Brown. :) BlueSalix (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ta-Nehisi Coates

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ta-Nehisi Coates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International opinion on the South Atlantic sovereignty dispute, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Baird and Vatican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Patience wearing really really thin

I can't believe you wouldn't write a proper edit summary here. Of course an edit like that is going to be reverted and waste several people's time further. Bishonen | talk 14:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC).

Where's the e-mail?

I'm still waiting for the e-mail you promised to send me, that was going to clear everything up. Bishonen | talk 17:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC).

Sorry, catching up. Where do I send it? BlueSalix (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

See below. Bishonen | talk 00:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC).

The situation

Hi, BlueSalix. It has become obvious that there was no substance in the allegations you made against another user. At this time, you haven't edited for a couple of days, nor sent me the promised e-mail. That's all right, everybody always has a right to disappear from Wikipedia, temporarily or permanently. Also I suppose real life may have intervened, so your absence isn't the main reason the facts have become obvious. Don't worry too much, I can understand how the situation arose — I mean, I understand how it became more and more difficult to retract. You certainly have a moral obligation to apologize (I think you know to whom), but I'll say no more about that. I won't try to impose any sanctions on you in absentia, that would be absurd. But you should be aware that if and when you return to Wikipedia, the matter may be raised again. So, you're not blocked, but if you start to edit again, I'll advise with ArbCom, and you may subsequently face sanctions.

Please feel free to blank this page. (I won't count a single edit blanking the page as "starting to edit again".) Or ask me by e-mail to courtesy blank it, if you prefer. Good luck. Bishonen | talk 15:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC).

I'm sorry, I've been out of the country for a few months and just returned. Can you kindly bring me up to speed on what I missed? BlueSalix (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You didn't miss anything as far as I know. I'm still waiting for you to forward the emails "from Cwobeel" (or from Mosfetfaser..?) that you were complaining about here, with full headers, and to explain, if you can, what caused the appearance of evasiveness on your part. Note especially my post here, and the links in it to postsf by you. (These links: [1][2]. I believe those posts of yours had been removed from the thread before it was archived, but that doesn't mean you're not responsible for them.) (Correction: No, these posts, together with your original accusations and more over-the-top attacks against Cwobeel from you are still in the thread, please see the part that was collapsed by T.Paris, and you do indeed remain responsible for all of it. 08:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC).)

About e-mailing me: I'm sorry, but I don't want to put my e-mail address out in public on the site. To e-mail me, please enable wiki e-mail through your Preferences panel. As soon as you've done that, you will be able to see, and use, the "E-mail this user" function in the sidebar on my page, under "Tools". If you prefer not to have e-mail enabled, you can then disable yours again. It wouldn't have to be up more than a few minutes, if that's your preference. Alternatively, if you don't like that, you can forward the e-mails directly to ArbCom, at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Please include the context, a link to the ANI thread, and explanations, if you have them.

You realize that I've already been waiting bootlessly, and without information that you intended to be away, for e-mail from you for a couple of months. Please inform me of your intentions this time, here on the page: should I expect your e-mail, or will you send it to ArbCom? In either case, I strongly recommend you not to edit Wikipedia until this is cleared up. It hasn't disappeared just because you've been away, and you may still face sanctions. Bishonen | talk 00:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC).

I'm happy to see if I still have this email and send it, but I would prefer not to be using my email address for the same reason you've indicated you'd prefer not to use yours. However, as per your request, I will happily email ArbCom (I will be able to do this before 2300 GMT on 22AUG2014) and tell them I will start looking for this email (I have a version I forwarded from my registered account to my spam account, but it does not contain headers - since it wasn't a big deal to me and I never filed an ANI about this I felt no need to keep a trail of evidence ... that said, I feel pretty confident I can retrieve the original from my hard-drive archived emails with only minor difficulty if this is something ArbCom has decided they want to pursue) and also provide them updates on my travel itinerary and schedule for the upcoming few weeks so they do not have to wait bootlessly and an assurance that I will not edit Wikipedia as I am currently facing sanctions. I believe this satisfies the three requests you've outlined (a- email; b- itinerary as to when I will be on WP; c- non-editing until clearance). Please let me know if that concludes our business or if there is something else. (Also, please note, I made two [2] edits to WP since returning but prior to reading your message that I should not make edits without consulting you. In both cases they were to undo IP edits on historically sanitized articles that are regularly maintained by myself and others through undo actions, and neither contained a positive addition of content. These can be viewed in my edit history. Unfortunately, I do not have a way to prove that I did not read your message prior to making those edits. However, I was with another person at the time and, if necessary, I can ask them to sign a testament of what they witnessed during my editing that could be notarized and forwarded to ArbCom. Please LMK if you need me to begin this process as it will take some time for me to accomplish given my current circumstances.) BlueSalix (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

(Please note the addition to my earlier post that I just made above.) So after your entire song and dance about these abusive e-mails that you accused Cwobeel of sending, and the emphasis from me and other editors on the importance of sending the full headers to someone who could take stock of your claims (and indeed after your reluctant provision of partially X'd out headers, with fulsome promises of providing the rest privately to me or anyone who needed it "forthwith", here), you're now saying you felt no need to keep a trail of evidence and may only have a "version" without the full headers? I'm sorry if I sound incredulous. It's because I am. Please do your best to retrieve the original and forward it to ArbCom within the time you have specified (before 2300 GMT on 22AUG2014). (Or rather forward them. You were talking about several e-mails, I don't know why they have now shrunk to one.) It does not conclude our business, as, if ArbCom in turn refers the question of sanctions to me, I will still need to take stock of that. As indeed I will if you should fail to locate your "trail of evidence". But as for making a few edits before reading my messages above, never mind, they were harmless edits, don't worry about it. No need at all for witnesses etc. Bishonen | talk 08:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC).

I'm sorry, this just wasn't a very significant moment in my life that I felt necessary to build a forensic "trail of evidence." I very much enjoy and appreciate Wikipedia but it's nothing more than something I occasionally pop-in to edit or create an article occasionally. After reviewing your link, it appears my only contribution to this issue was a poorly thought-out side remark to an editor in an unrelated ANI a few months back. I never pursued the matter beyond that, nor did I file a complaint regarding the emails, nor did I even remember it occurred until I logged back on after a few months away to edit an article I'd previously written and found your many messages to me. Please understand:

• The "song and dance" is not a creature of my conjuring. I am only following up on this short exchange that I barely recall as you escalated the question and have pursued it over a period of several months. However, as I said, I am committed to doing my absolute best to accommodate your interest in this matter (in point of clarification to your above comment, I have to admit I am unaware of other third-party editors who expressed similar passion to you and seem to recall the others involved (IIRC User:NE Ent, User:Dennis Brown, User:TParis) were differently expressive, but if I am wrong then kindly accept that I should have said I am also trying to accommodate their interest as well). As far as I know, it is your interest in pursuing this I am accommodating and the characterization of a "song and dance" is not one I feel is appropriate to describe my total ambivalence to your inquiry (please understand - the preceding is not intended to be trite, I simply want to unambiguously communicate that the entire matter is one of no interest to me, so as to assuage any concerns of a "song and dance").
• I would like to personally apologize to you for not responding to your interrogatories "forthwith." I can only give you my personal assurance that I did not leave Wikipedia for two months as part of a scheme to evade your investigation. I know you've said you're incredulous to that notion, but I will offer you this personal assurance anyway.
• Kindly accept this post in the spirit in which it was intended - as a frank and direct response to concerns you are expressing - and not as a slight in any way. If I have failed to communicate something here with appropriate finesse, understand it is only because of serious IRL issues I currently face that limit the time I can commit to pursuing online intrigue, and absolutely not because I am trying to scandalize you.

If there is anything else I can help you with, please do not hesitate to let me know, however, in interests of wrapping this up in a succinct manner, I would like to suggest we terminate this back-and-forth and allow ArbCom to do whatever it is their role in this is supposed to be. Best - BlueSalix (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that's too vague, I can't wrap it up yet, much as I appreciate your interest in succinctness. Please be more precise: do you or do you not intend to forward some e-mails to ArbCom before 23:00 GMT today? Yes or no, if you don't mind. Because if you don't intend to do that, ArbCom has no reason to become involved. Indeed, I only suggested ArbCom as the addressee because you have gone back on your undertaking here to use wikimail to send it to me. ArbCom doesn't have any intrinsically necessary role; it is altogether within my admin remit to sanction you myself. Yes or no, please? If it's yes, I'll await developments; if it's no, or if you merely continue to deflect and obfuscate, I'll deal with it myself. Bishonen | talk 11:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC).

As per my message time-stamped 01:36 (above), "as per your request, I will happily email ArbCom (I will be able to do this before 2300 GMT on 22AUG2014) and tell them I will start looking for this email." (Also, I would kindly ask you not say I "gone back" on an "undertaking." The diff you provided is an affirmation by me that I would follow-up with you or ArbCom and I resumed dealing with this matter within 24 edit-hours of making that statement. That's the work schedule I can commit to right now in helping with your project.) Thank you - BlueSalix (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

On a side note, I don't doubt that you've been away, and I certainly don't suppose you travelled abroad as "part of a scheme to evade my investigation" — please don't be so daft. When did I say that? That wasn't at all what I expressed incredulity about, if you'll be so good as to re-read my post timestamped 08:43 above. Bishonen | talk 13:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC).

Do not call me "daft." This tête-à-tête is done. Stop posting here and let ArbCom do whatever. BlueSalix (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hi guys. I just read through this thread, and no bells are ringing in my head about what this is about and how I am involved. Can someone help me out here?--v/r - TP 16:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• What Tom said, and Blue S is more than welcome to email me at entofwikipedia at gmail dot com and I'll forward whatever to Bish. NE Ent 21:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind offers, NE Ent and P. However, it appears that the email may not have been the actual issue as I was issued a lifetime ban from Wikipedia after posting my 13:28 UTC 22AUG2014 message. I apologize for disturbing you with what appears to be an interpersonal dispute. Best - BlueSalix (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for personal attacks, calumny, and trollish evasion, see this ANI thread and the conversation above. Normally, I wouldn't block for abuse and character assassination two months after the fact, but this is a special case. You went on an unheralded two-month wikibreak on 15 June, immediately after assuring everybody that you would prove your accusations "forthwith", send me the supposed e-mails with full headers, etc, etc. And it's become clear that you will still, as of today, neither retract nor substantiate your injurious accusations against User:Cwobeel. You have also still, as of today, not clarified your confusing hints about User:Mosfetfaser. No amount of procrastination and empty promises will make these things go away, and it's become clear that the ArbCom diversion attempt was just more smoke and mirrors. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bishonen | talk 12:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BlueSalix (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

In this thread, Bishonen said I had to email ArbCom under threat of "sanctions." As seen in that thread, I acknowledged and responded to Bishonen's order by informing her I would do that. Subseqeuntly:

• (1) at 23:43 UTC on 22AUG2014 I emailed ArbCom
• (2) at 0112 UTC on 23AUG2014 I was notified by ArbCom that my message "is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval" Here is a copy of that message with full headers (personally identifiable information removed): [[3]]
• (3) At 1328 UTC on 23AUG2014, in response to a post by Bishonen on my Talk page, I replied: "Do not call me "daft." This tête-à-tête is done. Stop posting here and let ArbCom do whatever."
• (4) With no further posts by me since my 1328 one, at 1226 UTC on 24AUG2014, Bishonen abruptly blocked me indefinitely for "personal attacks" (citing the above referenced thread on my own Talk page [bullet 3], as well as an ANI I'd participated in during June 2014) and "procrastination."
• (5) During the entire period of this exchange, I made no content edits to Wikipedia. During the above discussion with Bishonen I repeatedly alerted her that my responses to her questions had, and would continue to be, delayed due to my IRL schedule.
• (6) As of the time stamp of this post, my message to ArbCom - which was the requirement Bishonen set for not blocking me - had still not been reviewed by the committee.
• (7) I am not the "typical" blocked user (IP vandal, serial aggressor, WP-hoaxer, flack, etc.). I have been on WP for 3 years - contributing 42 original articles and editing a number of others. In that time, I had a flawless disciplinary record, aside from a single 48-hour block imposed (also by Bishonen) [[4]] after I undid a revision by User:NazariyKaminski in violation of 3RR (who, himself, is currently under his third block for harassment and edit warring).

The application of a perma-block for "procrastination," particularly after I had met all of Bishonen's demands for avoiding such a block and by the deadlines she had issued, and in consideration that the matter is the subject of active inquiry by ArbCom (at her request) seems both capricious and peculiar. Further, I very respectfully question the notion that asking not to be personally attacked, itself, constitutes a personal attack. If you have additional questions, I will be happy to answer them, however, (and as I have repeatedly noted in my Talk page) I am not a full-time WP contributor and, due to my current schedule, my response may be delayed by as much several days to a week or more. Please do not construe such delays as procrastination by me or disinterest in what you have to say. Thank you. Best regards - BlueSalix (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I don't understand why you waited so long to email ArbCom. If you had emailed shortly after the discussion on the incident noticeboard, this could have all been resolved by now. I suggest you wait until there is a reply from ArbCom. PhilKnight (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

BlueSalix (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I erred by making an accusation without having, and providing, the necessary evidence. I therefore retract the accusation and will not make an issue of it again. Further, I declare my sorrow. BlueSalix (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Right, BlueSalix, I'm going to unblock you. You have retracted the accusation, I'm pleased to hear that. There were many other reasons for the block, which all come down to "you're spending too much time trying to weasel out of the situation". We are trying to build an encyclopedia here and your evasiveness has wasted a good amount of volunteer time, if you'd been upfront and clear long ago, you'd have been unblocked long ago. Let this be a lesson. Now that you are unblocked, get on with something useful.

To those who are demanding an apology, that's not how things work on Wikipedia. We don't demand apologies - they're worthless unless unforced. I'm hoping this person has learned from his time out - if he hasn't, feel free to come back to me with evidence. Worm^TT(talk) 09:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Moot discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note: I've requested a member of the committee address the email question at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#email_received. NE Ent 23:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your question, PhilKnight. In response to your request for clarification, and as I explained to Bishonen in the referenced thread here[[5]], I emailed ArbCom less than 36 "edit-hours" after she ordered me to do so (note my absence from WP 15JUN2014 to 21AUG2014). As I apologized to Bishonen, my IRL schedule (a serious accident involving several immediate family that I did not receive advance warning would occur) limited - and continues to limit - my access to Wikipedia. Still, on my return, I immediately sought to rectify the inconvenience I caused Bishonen by attending to this matter prior to doing anything else, as my edit history shows. In my email to ArbCom, I further offered to provide a full description of the nature of the personal crisis that precipitated my two-month absence, as well as my travel itinerary, copies of travel receipts, and other details. However, as Bishonen explained, I did not adequately provide "information that [I] intended to be away" and my absence was "unheralded." Both of these statements are correct, it was my choice to immediately attend to my personal business instead of continuing to follow-up on WP boards business. I accept, without evasion, responsibility and will abide by your decision to uphold my life ban. Thank you for your prompt determination. Respectfully - BlueSalix (talk) 11:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC) WTT has confirmed BlueSalix emailed the committee [6] NE Ent 11:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC) And have expanded to confirm that BlueSalix's email was effectively a holding email. What's more, it's really not an arbcom matter. WormTT(talk) 11:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Blue, there is nothing here to excuse the behavior. The target of your attacks suffered because you failed to retract or substantiate them. Instead of trying to excuse yourself with long stories that may or may not be true, and are in any case your own private business of no concern to us, please do what is necessary to make things right if you want to be unblocked. Jehochman Talk 11:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC) NE Ent has asked me on my page to unblock BlueSalix, with reference to the confirmation from WTT that he had e-mailed arbcom, and I have responded (and declined) here. Bishonen | talk 11:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC). Blue, you have painted yourself into a corner here. I kind of saw this coming way back when you made the original claim, in a discussion I was participating in. You made some pretty serious claims. Either you have to back them by providing the emails, or just say it was all BS and you made it up. If the case is that you did make it up, I'm not sure a forced apology is particularly helpful (although a sincere one would be). Based only on instinct, my gut says you made it up or made some kind of mistake and thought it was something it wasn't, and regretted it soon after. If that is the case, take your lumps now so we can move on. It isn't like you're the only person that has screwed up or had to eat crow. And if I'm wrong, then we WANT the emails, and all this was unnecessary delay. Either way, I'm sure you want to get back to editing, and frankly I would prefer that as well. But the power to end this is actually in YOUR hands. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Can there no simply be a path of "mistakes were made" don't do it again, and let's get back to resume editing??? We should be looking for the path of deescalation here, not accusations of malfeasance. The AGF explanation is someone spoofed some emails as coming from Cwobeel. (See also the magnanimous statement by Cwobeel [7] NE Ent 02:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I think a lot has been said, and now is time to hear from you, BlueSalix. And no, no one is asking for a Sacrament of Penance; plain, simple, and honest words would do. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Is there evidence BlueSalix has ever been dishonest? Being mistaken about the source of the abusive emails isn't dishonest, merely wrong. NE Ent 10:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I don't think people are trying to extract a pint of blood here. The block is unfortunate, but not unreasonable. As for whether or not BlueSalix has been dishonest, I don't know of any particular instance, but let's not lose sight of the fact that Blue was quick to make a claim when it might have benefited themselves (during an ANI report), and quick to evade the issue once the claim was held to reasonable scrutiny; the same scrutiny you or I would expect to be held to had we made such a claim. As to the email source being wrong or mistaken, I haven't seen Blue make that claim. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Forgive me for any ignorance, but having read the details of this case surely, just forwarding the alleged emails with full headers to a third party would settle the question in an instant, wouldn't it? And if it's just a mistake, fine. It seems to me there's evidence that BlueSalix has made allegations of serious abuse against another user - and my personal approach to justice suggests that BlueSalix should provide the evidence or withdraw the accusations Neatsfoot (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Thank you User:NE Ent, User:Dennis Brown, User:Jehochman, et. al. To clarify again, I am not seeking to have my life ban overturned, will not file another appeal, and respect the decision. However, two replies to questions asked here and one request for assistance: As I've previously and consistently explained several times, I deleted the original email as I had no desire to make it an issue beyond the my chastising comment in June (which I've admitted was an error to bring up if I wasn't going to pursue). I have also said it's *very likely* I have the original email archived on my hard drive. I have, thirdly, explained (in response to a direct request for an accounting of my activities) that the reason for my 2 month absence was due to a serious family crisis. Unfortunately, I cannot commit the time or finances to make a special return trip to the United States to search my hard-drive by the deadlines set, and - as I explained to ArbCom - could only have done it in September. No severity of punishment will be able to change fundamental realities of time and space; I simply can't produce what I don't have in my possession at the moment. I fully accept that my decision to prioritize personal affairs over WP does not absolve me from sanctions for violating WPs policies against procrastination. I cannot, in good faith and honesty, commit to proclaiming I lied about receiving an email as a condition to avoid a sanction. I'm not even sure it would do any good as it appears Cwobeel has been blocked again so may not even be able to acknowledge such a contrition. I would like to kindly ask a volunteer to take-over monitoring this entry, which requires a brief scan every 6-8 weeks due to persistent sanitizing. Thank you again for your understanding. To again reiterate, I am not filing further appeal and will respect the decision of my life ban from WP. I will not be checking this page again so please accept my advance apologies if I don't reply to subsequent questions. Best - BlueSalix (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC) “He that is proud eats up himself; pride in his glass, his trumpet, his chronicle; and whatever praises itself but in the deed, devours the deed in the praise.” Agamemnon in Troilus and Cressida. Godspeed. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC) I think you are hurting yourself by telling a long story that cannot be distinguished from dissembling, though it might be completely true. You should simply say something like, "I erred by making an accusation without having, and providing, the necessary evidence. I therefore retract the accusation and will not make an issue of it again." End of controversy. Jehochman Talk 10:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC) BlueSalix appears to be a mature individual who considers real life -- especially when his family has been hurt -- to be more important than the Wikipedia drama of the day. He stated in reply to PhilKnight that he 'accepts his life ban.' So how, exactly, is he hurting himself? Biggest Joke NE Ent 00:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC) User:BlueSalix, you are under a mistaken impression here. What you refer to as a "life ban" (technically a block, not a ban) is actually not for life - it's an "indefinite" block. Indefinite does not mean forever, it means for an indeterminate amount of time. An indefinite block can be lifted, if the blocked user requests it in a way that 1) shows they understand why they were blocked, 2) agrees to rectify any outstanding issues, and 3) commits in a credible way not to repeat the problem in the future. And there is no deadline; you can try to deal with this after you have dealt with your offline issues. --MelanieN (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your feedback, MelanieN. In my email to ArbCom I offered to provide the email Bishonen required I provide on Sep. 22, when I returned home. I was then immediately given an indefinite block for procrastination. So, the "no deadline" option is obviously not one that is open to me to pursue. I missed the deadline of "immediately" and I was perma-blocked. I have made, and I make, no excuses and accept the decision to terminate my participation in WP. Regards - BlueSalix (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC) As an outsider to these previous discussions, I have a couple of thoughts: 1) MelanieN said it's not a lifetime ban, that the ban can be rescinded, 2) bans are generally placed in situations where a user is resistant working with WP users and within guidelines - and often are temporary to allow for a fresh start, and 3) If you would like to be a member of the community, I am not seeing this as an unworkable situation and I recommend rereading MelanieN's post.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Also please note that although you are blocked from posting elsewhere on Wikipedia, you can still post here - and you can still send email. When you get home and back to your computer, whenever that is, you can decide if you want to send Arbcom the email in question. Nothing stops you from doing that. Your block (not "lifetime", just indeterminate) stops you from any general Wikipedia editing until you carry out your promise to provide evidence of your accusations. When you do that, your block can be reconsidered. (BTW with regard to your repeated claim that you were "blocked for procrastination": please reread the block notice; it says you are blocked for " personal attacks, calumny, and trollish evasion". Those problems are what you need to respond to. The "empty promises and procrastination" comment simply explains why the block was being imposed at that time rather than later, and it will become moot if you carry through with your promises at some future time.) Various admins and/or Arbcom may reconsider the block after you either provide the evidence, or else admit you don't have or don't care to provide the evidence, and explicitly withdraw the accusation. I am not an admin, but I suspect either approach will be accepted if offered in the proper spirit. --MelanieN (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Thanks, MelanieN and CaroleHenson. As previously noted ArbCom has said the matter is not within their bailiwick ([[8]]). I only contacted them because I was ordered to do so after being told I would be blocked if I didn't (though I was blocked anyway). So, there's no point in me sending them a second email as you suggested, but I appreciate you taking the time to offer input. (Also, just to clarify, I was blocked for procrastination - here's the log: [[9]]) But, that's all fine, water under the bridge. I'm actually just trying to wrap some things up and what I was wondering, is if I could kindly ask one of you to take over patrolling Don Benton? If you check the Talk page and History for the article it will give you a quick background on the sanitizing issues that need to be monitored for every few weeks. Thank you very much for your consideration. BlueSalix (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC) BlueSalix, the article Don Benton does not appear to be in need of your special protection or anyone else's. The last time you touched it was in February. Since then it has gotten only two problem edits, one in March and one in April, both of which were promptly reverted by others. That is actually way below average for a Wikipedia article, especially about a politician - and it appears that Wikipedia's routine monitoring/patrolling is handling any problems. Meanwhile, I see that you are still talking about your supposed "life ban", and since you appear to have your fingers in your ears, I think the rest of us might as well stop offering counsel which you are not listening to. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC) MelanieN, I know we all have different approaches and I apologize in advance for chiming in on this discussion (I cannot even remember the reason I first started "watching" this talk page) and for being blunt, but based upon the tone of the request to watch the article and the benefits of letting things calm down, I might have moved past (i.e., ignored) the repeated language especially in light of NE Ent's suggestion, expressed that the Don Benton article is being watched and dealt with... and then allow some time for the rest of the posts to be read. At this point, is there a problem with a civil, patient approach that doesn't prod defensive responses. Or, is the issue that you don't think that NE Ent's solution resolves the issue adequately. --CaroleHenson (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC) I apologize for the way that was worded. What I was trying to get at was: Based upon NE Ent's suggestion, which seems to hit on previous key points, I propose moving past / ignoring the circular conversation prior to his suggestion and allowing more time for a response to the suggestion. That is assuming that you're ok with the suggestion.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC) Thanks, Jehochman. I have said on two separate occasions I should not have brought the matter up in a public forum unless I intended to pursue it. I have also never made an issue of the accusation (I filed no ANI regarding it and have not initiated any conversation regarding it outside of the original 6 hour period two months ago when I mentioned it to the editor in question [I let my emotions get the better of me in response to his posts that were viewed by some as taunts [[10]] and his ongoing posting on my Talk page after repeated requests to stop (see my Talk page and, in fact, this very thread)]; 100% of my subsequent posts outside of that 6-hour window in June have been in direct response to interrogatories given to me under threat of sanctions for non-reply - so I'm blocked if I don't talk about it, blocked if I do). I just wanted to clarify for you that I did already follow your suggested path of saying something like "I erred by making an accusation without having, and providing, the necessary evidence. I therefore retract the accusation and will not make an issue of it again." and that my life ban is - as stated in the block - for engaging in procrastination. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC) At this point you're still blocked because you're choosing to stay blocked. While as I've attempted to explain here and on my talk page, I personally think the block was hasty, that's water under the bridge. There was never any intent by anyone to "lifetime ban" you -- the intent was to uphold the standards of the community in that we don't make accusations against each other without presenting evidence. If you simply repeat what you've stated inside an unblock template, hopefully that will be sufficient (I can't promise that it will, unfortunately ... it's non-deterministic). This is all you have to paste onto your talk page: {{unblock|reason=I erred by making an accusation without having, and providing, the necessary evidence. I therefore retract the accusation and will not make an issue of it again ~~~~}} NE Ent 00:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC) Well said and a very good suggestion!--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC) NE Ent, I agree with CaroleHenson -- that's a great suggestion and I appreciate the wording you have kindly offered me. It is essentially what I've said previously on three separate occasions (prior to being banned anyway) but in a more succinct and eloquent phrasing. I can, honestly and in good faith, repeat it again and stand behind it. Thank you for providing this constructive and helpful assistance. BlueSalix (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC) No, you did not previously make the sort of statement suggested by NE Ent, or you would have been unblocked. On previous occasions you used obfuscation and delaying tactics. The comment you made just now is a continuation of obfuscation. Binksternet (talk) 06:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your feedback, Binksternet. As per User:Worm That Turned's directions I'm not going to continue a debate here, but I just wanted to let you know I did read your message.BlueSalix (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC) I have to agree with Binksternet. It's not essentially, or in any way, the same. BS previously undertook to send the evidence he claimed to have to ArbCom on September 22. Then he offered reasons that I can only call extraordinary for changing his mind about sending them anything.[11][12] He has never before admitted that there is no evidence, but always implied he had it. But even disregarding the way this last unblock request has been extracted as if pulling teeth, I also don't think it's good enough, nor a proper retraction, no matter who suggested it. (The first time it was suggested was on 28 August, btw, by Jehochman, but it seemingly wasn't kindly or eloquent enough back then.) It's miserly. "I erred by making an untrue accusation and hereby retract it" would cut it for me, even now, though saying it in June would certainly have been better, and not promising to send the evidence to ArbCom by September 22 would have been better also. That's my opinion, but I won't insist; I'm leaving this to the uninvolved reviewing admin. If they're prepared to accept the existing request and to unblock, I won't stand in the way. Bishonen | talk 09:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC). Personally I would have like to see a word of apology to the unjustly accused person - rather than just repeating words that were suggested to them, probably while gritting their teeth. But maybe it's time to move on. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC) MelanieN, I do think you raise great points. I am not editing my unblock request only because I think it would be confusing if I started editing it every time the target is moved and I think what was suggested, and what I have posted, meets the qualifiers set out by Worm (to wit: "either retracting or substantiating the accusation") and several others. Also, it appears - from a perusal of his Talk page - Cwobeel is dealing with a variety of other issues right now and in respect of his edit time, I'm not certain it would be constructive to drag him back in here. Anyway, as per Worm's instructions, I won't debate the question but I did want to acknowledge your message so you didn't think I had ignored it. BlueSalix (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC) There was no need for the mean-spirited jab at Cwobeel. A proper unblock request focuses not at all on other editors, but on oneself, or in rare cases on improper procedure by the blocking admin. And my impression of the general atmosphere here is that if you do not post an entirely new unblock request, composed with an eye to NE Ent's offering plus MelanieN's suggested apology, then you will remain blocked. It's your choice. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC) First, Saying "in respect of his edit time, I'm not certain it would be constructive to drag him back in here" was not intended as a "mean-spirited jab;" if you or he construed it as one, obviously I offer my unconditional regret. My English is pretty good but I sometimes miscue on idioms or social subtlety and if "in respect of his edit time, I'm not certain it would be constructive to drag him back in here" is generally considered to be a "mean-spirited jab" then I can only assure you it was not my intent. Second, I offered an unblock request exactly as per the directions of admins User:Jehochman (You should simply say something like, "I erred by making an accusation without having, and providing, the necessary evidence. I therefore retract the accusation and will not make an issue of it again." End of controversy.) and User:Worm That Turned (it's been suggested that he does this either by either retracting or substantiating the accusation. Either... or.), and editor NE Ent (This is all you have to paste onto your talk page: I erred by making an accusation without having, and providing, the necessary evidence. I therefore retract the accusation and will not make an issue of it again). If I begin editing it to meet the evolving requirements of every new participant who joins this discussion it would show that I do not take it seriously, and that I was simply regurgitating the "unblock formula" - this would be the ultimate in disrespect to all involved. Thank you - BlueSalix (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC) I know you don’t want me posting on your page, but what the heck, I am in the middle of all this and you keep mentioning me. Look, a simple “I am sorry” will do for me, and we can all go back to more constructive endeavors, shall we? Enough drama already. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC) I erred by making an accusation without having, and providing, the necessary evidence. I therefore retract the accusation and will not make an issue of it again. BlueSalix (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC) So, are you sorry or not? Why is so bloody hard to say that? This is my last comment here. Good luck, and happy editing if you get unblocked. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Thank you, Cwobeel. I have updated my unblock request, as per your requirements, to include a public declaration of sorrow. BlueSalix (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Please note, my public declaration of sorrow has been unconditionally "accepted" by Cwobeel. (see: [[13]]). BlueSalix (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Your "unconditionally" is an overstatement. On my talk page at Obviously, he is not sorry, Cwobeel later figured out that sorrow and sorry are not equivalent. English is not his first language. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Nor is it mine (see my note in this thread timestamped 19:07, 17 September 2014, among many others). BlueSalix (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Request I see this page is being editted regularly, up to yesterday, so I'm going to put in a request that the editting is stopped. BlueSalix has the option to put forward an unblock request, it's been suggested that he does this either by either retracting or substantiating the accusation. Either... or. Further discussion on the matter is not helpful for any parties, not least the person accused. If necessary, I will remove talk page access for BlueSalix and protect the page. BlueSalix is also welcome to contact the ban appeals subcommittee if he would prefer to request an unblock in private. In short, I see no need for further discussion here. WormTT(talk) 08:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rebecca Bardoux

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rebecca Bardoux. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:New Israel Fund

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:New Israel Fund. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ed Miliband

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ed Miliband. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Joni Ernst

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Joni Ernst. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Marital rape

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Marital rape. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nofel Izz

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nofel Izz. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alex Jones (radio host)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alex Jones (radio host). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tom Ridge

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tom Ridge. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Derek McCulloch

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Derek McCulloch. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Debito Arudou

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Debito Arudou. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Steve Daines

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Steve Daines. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Joni Ernst

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Joni Ernst. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:S. Truett Cathy

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:S. Truett Cathy. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boyd Bushman

I don't know what you did to muck up the AfD formatting, but it was preventing other editors from signing their comments so I removed it. Did you follow the instructions for filing the AfD? Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it was an anon IP, not you.[14] Sorry. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem, Viriditas. BlueSalix (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sigmund Freud

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sigmund Freud. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia as of 25 November 2014.

NOTICE OF INCIVILITY AND DEMAND FOR HONEST AND CITED REBUTTAL

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

User:BlueSalix, I think you breached civility guidelines in discussing the deletion of the Boyd Bushman wiki entry.

Here are some examples of what you wrote:

"You keep repeating this Nick Cook bunk"

"still became the most brilliant scientist in American history before being assassinated by a Martian butt probe"

"that alien nutcase"

"He had a WP article that should have been purged long ago, but no one got around to it. Anyway, I don't care. This article is going in the trash bin where it belongs. C'est fin."

"he was a self-aggrandizing nutter." this was written repeatedly after being asked to be more civil by others.

"I didn't have time to go through the rest of this laundry list, but I feel it's safe to dismiss the rest of them if you weren't able to distinguish between RS and non RS in the first few instances."

"'I could call Bushman a pedophile if I wanted"

"'He had no career achievements" this is a blatant lie.

I didn't include the instances BlueSalix contradicted themselves. I didn't include the way BlueSalix pushed new editors around by posting several things for them to read while ridiculing the subject matter,, seemingly attempting to infer them to be ridiculous for their efforts in keeping this particular scientist's entry. Since Wikipedia is a public forum and this discussion is open to the public, I think BlueSalix was inconsiderate of the possibility that family members of the deceased could be reading such cold and heartless comments about their relative. He does not know if one of the editors is in fact a family member of Boyd Bushman. There is more vitriol at the page in question, this is merely a preview. Thank you for your help administrators! --HafizHanif (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

NOTICE OF INCIVILITY

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

User:BlueSalix, I think you may have breached some civility guidelines in the manner in which you discussed the deletion of the Boyd Bushman wiki entry. I think you may have contradicted yourself, may have instigated others and also projected your own hysterics / frantic dialogue while pointing to others to have become hysterical and frantic. You seem to desire a speedy deletion process to an entry which had been on wiki for seven years without reading through the comments and concerns of editors, regardless of their tenure or lack thereof. Here are some examples:

"due to the increasingly hysterical/frantic tone being taken by the new editors, I think immediate closure is warranted to protect both the encyclopedia and our editors" The reading of the entire dialogue would reveal who was hysterical and frantic in their colorful use of words.

You wrote "You suppose wrong. Wikipedia is not a democracy" while you are counting votes to delete the entry.

You wrote "You keep repeating this Nick Cook bunk" This is one of the main sources written by a journalist who also made a documentary which was broadcasted worldwide. Why the need to call this man's work 'bunk' and yet fail to acknowledge it as RS?

You wrote "still became the most brilliant scientist in American history before being assassinated by a Martian butt probe" in speaking about someone. This is uncalled for and obvious incivility.

You wrote "that "alien nutcase" Bushman is a different man who simply shared a similar name and used it as part of his UFO con" in speaking to a real scientist, with real credentials, a real likeness to the name and the name matching a likeness. You seem to be the only one who disputes this man's existence, and believe a recently opened account on LinkedIn to be the 'real' Boyd Bushman. An account with no connections, a fuzzy picture and no business references. I don't think you are serious but this you use as argument.

You wrote "Bushman was not notable before this. He had a WP article that should have been purged long ago, but no one got around to it. Anyway, I don't care. This article is going in the trash bin where it belongs. C'est fin" I think you should care as to why the article was around for seven years and why it is under attack and scrutiny now. It passed guidelines with the same citations and independent sources for seven years.

You wrote: "Our guidelines establish that notability is not achieved by a single event." The single event you may be speaking about is the many recent news articles mentioning Boyd's testimonial this past summer. However, he had been mentioned in a book years prior, two documentary and several other places. The argument regarding his scientific work is debatable only because it isn't cited elsewhere, but his almost 30 patents are not in disrepute.

You wrote "If you can't find any reference to Boyd Bushman in any of these hundreds of thousands of places spanning hundreds of billions of pages of text, then he doesn't get in WP." I don't think you are the only person to choose what does qualify, but the Wikipedia guidelines. You mentioned certain news outlets besides the ones Boyd was featured in, but I don't think you get to choose which news articles to use if they are all legitimate.

You wrote the following phrase several times after being asked not to use such language "he was a self-aggrandizing nutter." This also seems to fall under incivility.

You wrote "The patents simply show he paid a $130 filing fee and establish absolutely nothing else." This is your opinion and not true. A filing fee is one thing, the process of citing sources, writing a claim and all the rest that goes into actually having a patent is more than a small filing fee. This seems to be another unfounded argument used to simply detract from constructive reasoning. None of the news outlets denied Boyd being who he and others said he was... they in fact wrote he was a scientist working for Lockheed Martin and the many patents are all assigned to Lockheed Martin. It is clear but you seem to desire to further instigate and argue against these facts.

You wrote ""Significant coverage" and "reliable sources" are not two separate standards that have to be met, they are the same standard: significant coverage in reliable sources." This scientist was written about in over ten newspapers worldwide recently, albeit for an unusual story. These newspapers were not yellow papers like tabloids, but actual news outlets that write about daily news events... yet you seem to ignore this fact. This recent notoriety shouldn't shadow his standing the his place for seven years in wikipedia.

You wrote "I didn't have time to go through the rest of this laundry list, but I feel it's safe to dismiss the rest of them if you weren't able to distinguish between RS and non RS in the first few instances." It seems you are quick to respond but not quick to read what others have to say. Here you seem to admit you ignore and quickly dismiss what the others are sharing with you.

You wrote "I could call Bushman a pedophile if I wanted." You seem to exercise your freedom of speech while disregarding guidelines and considering others in conducting a serious debate.

You wrote "This article could only serve as a magnet for UFO weirdos. It should be salted to prevent recreation" It seems you have a strong opinion about a niche interest, but this is no basis to support your arguments. You seem to have repeated this theme throughout your arguments / responses.

You wrote "He had no career achievements" in regards to the scientist in question. This seems to be either a blatant lie or your method of convincing others be speaking down about someone's career achievements.

You wrote "You can't slander a dead person under U.S. libel law, which is the jurisdiction that presumably applies to Boyd-O since that's supposedly the dirt in which he's buried (along with his B.A. from BYU [his highest educational credential]). And "slander" is a legal term; it has no colloquial use. Ergo, I have not slandered anyone." It seems here again you were fell into incivility. It seems your tasteless and uncivilized remarks about someone that contributed to U.S. defense systems, the several companies he worked for. The man had a family which most likely is reading along the discussion about their dearly departed relative. You may express a bit more concern to the public reader. I don't find any bit of consideration for the world audience. This brings a bad reputation onto Wikipedia and the many editors who do their best to make viable contributions and not be insulting. You seem to follow the letter of the law without having consideration for the spirit through which you speak and defend your manners and words. --HafizHanif (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

cool story, bro @HafizHanif: BlueSalix (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I am responding here, for the record, to respond to your explanation at the other page:

• responding to respondent's response

Firstly, the "background" written by BlueSalix is categorically false and misleading. The scientist in question didn't make such bogus claims of "Martians" nor "death ray" nor "government infiltration" nor "enslave mankind" nor "space invasion." These are all false and instigating statements made by BlueSalix here and now. Please do a "control F" at the entry in question, talk page and deletion discussion and you will find no such foolishness. These seem to BlueSalix's attempt to draw attention away from his INCIVILITY and is yet another example, thus why I have requested a review. --HafizHanif (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

shouts from the Peanut gallery

Hey no offense but I'm not sure the eventually closer really needs your editorial on the status of the AfD [15]. Maybe with all the current drama you could step back a little. Anyway, Martian butt probe, that was brilliant.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No offense taken and you raise a good point, -Serialjoepsycho-. I'll disengage. BlueSalix (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No I wouldn't say you would have to disengage. It's more in the way you say things than what you are actually saying that seems to be what's up. But honestly when it comes to fringe (so I've seen) you are trying to "cencor" wikipedia if you don't support the fringe side.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to disengage. Even though bait continues to be thrown in the water, there's no reason you have to snap at it, since at this point, the DRV is pretty much a SNOW, and additional beating of the horse comes off as unkind. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Hi. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Artw (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic. BlueSalix (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: strike

I just meant anything about Artw being a crank, into woo-woo topics or whatever. It's a little ridicule-y. Andrevan@ 00:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Noted. While I never used the word "crank" and, in the AfD, did not name-call Artw at all - simply noting the type of topics he typically edited - I will, in the future, endeavor to treat discussion about things like alien-hybrid colonization and pyramids in Bosnia built by ancient astronauts in a more serious, thoughtful, and reverential manner. I promise to do a better judge of not dismissing the sources that back them up just because they start with members.fortuncity.com/user/... or youtube.com/... . Thank you for addressing this, Andrevan. I guess we'll talk again in whatever ANI gets filed against me tomorrow. Until then - BlueSalix (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hahahah. Your comments about the sources are fine, but you can make that argument without accusing Artw of being especially interested in paranormal woo-woo topics. Generally you're fine, but in the interest of preventing more bullshit ANIs, you might want to be a little less blatant about accusing individual users of being in the Bosnian pyramid camp. Andrevan@ 00:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not an accusation, it's a statement of fact, Andrevan. Should I have provided diffs of his edits at Bosnian Pyramids? BlueSalix (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I've edited George Bush, doesn't make me a Republican. The point is you can be smoother with your interaction since you appear to be provoking some people into getting upset. No need to go out of your way to feed trolls or cranks, if that's what they are, and I'm not sure that they were in this case. Andrevan@ 03:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I would say if you edited the George Bush article to insert a claim you found in the New York Times that George Bush is directly related to Jeb Bush that would be a little different than if you edited the George Bush article to insert a claim you found on Freakzill49.blogspot.com that said George Bush is directly related to Jesus Christ. If you had a history of doing the latter I'm certain it would be perfectly reasonable for me to raise issue with your ability to meaningfully contribute to WP.

We're not talking about routine edit discussions, we're talking about a tightly coordinated group of editors determined to insert information into WP that space aliens from 500 light years away are infiltrating humanity as part of a plan for global conquest. These editors are willing to take no prisoners in their single-minded drive to insert this insanity, including going through and editing/deleting the comments of other editors in Talk pages or block-shopping editors who cross them with ANI-cudgeling. Had it not been for me, the Boyd Bushman article would still be the cherry on this shit sandwich. I'm concerned by the total disinterest and lack of support for my commendable efforts to protect WP when I'm faced with aggressive stalking and kneecapping efforts by objectively unhinged people.

Anyway, obviously we have to agree to disagree. Thanks for your feedback and patience in discussing the situation, Andrevan. BlueSalix (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

As a final note, I think your concerns about reliable sources are totally valid. I think that is an entirely different thing to say than something that more or less means, you're into crazy shit. So focus on your RS concerns and if you can produce recent diffs of refusal to follow RS, some action can certainly be taken against those users. Andrevan@ 03:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. BlueSalix (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I've got to say, I'm pretty unimpressed on this BlueSalix. You've spent a large portion of the year blocked for making accusations without evidence. It seems now that along with making ad hominem attacks at AfDs, you're accusing people of 1) pushing fringe topics and 2) conspiring against you. Neither of these accusations hold up to any scrutiny. Given that this is very similar to the previous behaviour - I'm going to ask you outright, is there any reason why I should not re-block you indefinitely? Worm^TT(talk) 15:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Worm, just to clarify, I was blocked for a single accusation (not accusations) for which I provided the apology demanded using the wording required whereupon I was immediately unblocked. (BTW, the other party in that dispute has, since that episode, continued to be blocked for combative editing [16].) In respect of the current issue, every uninvoled editor with an account older than 60 days at the AfD has proactively declared my comments were not ad hom. Still, I explained to Andrevan, Hell_in_a_Bucket, and others, I fully expected I would be blocked eventually as I realize that four ANIs in 24 hours becomes a numbers game, regardless of whether they are sustained or dismissed. This is why I was particularly desperate yesterday to seek some assistance or help, which, I was told was unnecessary as it "wasn't a huge deal" and I shouldn't panic. I was skeptical that WP:OTHERPARENT behavior was something I didn't need to worry about, which is why I tried to be exceedingly nice and offer fig leaves to the editors in question, though as you can see my overtures were rejected.

I'm certain I will be unable to offer any reason you should not block me indefinitely that would successfully avoid such a block and will accept this as fait accompli. The only thing I could say is what I have already pledged to the editors in question, that I will treat the topic at the heart of this dispute (shape-shifting Pleiadian space aliens infiltrating the U.S. government in coordination with the Illuminati) with greater seriousness and reverence than the flippant attitude I have been guilty of displaying toward it in the past. Further, I will stop my essentially single-handed efforts to try to get this information deleted from WP on non-RS grounds. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, let me try to add some useful remarks here. I appreciate your crusade against poorly-sourced fringe stuff, but you have to realize that that is what this has become: a crusade. For your own good, you should take a bit more distance and trust WP and its processes (and admins) a bit more. The Bushman article did get deleted, after all, and the way the DRV is going, it will remain deleted. But you would be far more effective if you took a little bit more distance. It is not necessary to argue every single point brought up in an AfD or DRV. If they're obviously crap, the closing admin certainly will see that. Don't make any comments about other users. When I close an AfD, I simply ignore comments like that, because they are not pertinent to the issue (deleting or not). What counts is not the motivations people have, but whether their arguments are policy based. Keep your cool, stay friendly, do not react to personal attacks. I realize that you can only do that up to a point, but if it gets too bad, warn them and if they repeat, take it to ANI. Do not discuss it in the AfD/DRV, it just clutters up things and drowns out the points you really want to be making (about the notability or lack thereof of the subject). By not responding to every little detail (and not repeating and re-hashing arguments), you'll save time and save yourself a lot of aggravation. It also minimizes the risk that you get carried away and go overboard and get yourself blocked. Hope this doesn't sound too rambling and is of some help. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

First, it's not rambling and it is appreciated, there is most certainly no need for you to apologize, Randykitty.

I note you said I should not engage in "personal attacks." This is something I see a few editors have come to accept as true since it's been repeated enough by a couple fringe theories editors across the whole of the Wikisphere quite loudly in a very robust WP:OTHERPARENT effort with no diffs (on 24NOV2014 I had three separate ANIs filed against me for CIVIL in 24 hours, all of which were closed by separate admins within 30 minutes as frivolous filings); I know you can commiserate a bit with that considering you have been forced to apologize, by my count, 9 times so far for a minor clerical error ... for me it's a little bit more raw as I'm staring down the barrel of an indef block. Each time I ask for examples of my "personal attacks" the other line of the phone goes dead silent until, a few minutes later, the cacophony continues. And, as I've exhaustively noted here with actual diffs, no less than three uninvolved editors have proactively stated I did not engage in any "personal attacks." I, however, have been meticulous in offering diffs showing fringe theories editors calling me a "raging asshole," "jihadist," "bozo," "worse than a rapist," declared I'm part of a conspiracy with "my little friends" (?) to eliminate Boyd Bushman and have been editing/deleting my comments. Anyway, this isn't my first tango with the core fringe theories team and I know I'm just treading water to an indef in the next few hours, but thanks for your kind farewell. BlueSalix (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say you had been engaged in personal attacks and did not even want to imply that. I said "do not react to personal attacks", meaning attacks on you... :-) And I'd be surprised if you'd get indeffed, I have not seen anything yet that would justify even a temporary block. I'm going offline now for a couple of hours, but ping me if any block gets mentioned. My above comments were just intended to make you stop feeding the trolls. Let others do the goading and just don't react to it. You'll sleep better and your stress levels will go down! --Randykitty (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, Randykitty. You're the fourth editor who has said you haven't seen anything "that would justify even a temporary block" (or something to that effect) but, as per WtT above, I will be blocked indefinitely once he logs back in unless I've been able to show cause why I shouldn't. Since I haven't been able to prove I shouldn't be blocked indefinitely, I assume I will momentarily. (And, even if I'm not, since the editors in question have a carte blanche to WP:OTHERPARENT to infinity, it's - honestly - only a matter of days before I'm benched.) Thanks again for both your kind farewell, but most especially for your five-star work holding the line of sanity at WP from the UFO editors. BlueSalix (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Small suggestion keep those opinions to yourself or sugercoat them just a little more, it may not be meant that wway but it drips contempt for "those" people...I don't see this leading to an indef block and a wise admin once told me...an indef block is only used for as long as it's needed whether that's five minutes or 3 years. As a response to your message if I hadn't made that ANI thread into one thread they would have anyways, it happens all the time. If you are worried about a block take a breather break and come back, blocks are preventative and not punitive so if you take yourself out of where the problems are at then come back when cooler heads (yours or theirs at your pleasure) then an admin would have no cause to block you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, here's another reason I should not be "indefinitely blocked" for making the fact-based observation that another editor - who the day before had been cautioned for editing/deleting other editors comments - has a penchant for pushing for inclusion of not notable fringe theories. BlueSalix (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi BlueSalix. I'm afraid I've been away from Wikipedia for a week - I really didn't mean to leave an indefinite block dangling over your head like the Sword of Damacles. I'll look into the situation as soon as I can. Worm^TT(talk) 09:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, Worm That Turned. Also, just a FYI, I anticipate receiving another request for my indefinite blocking in the next few days in re this. Based on the broad pattern of periodic indefinite blocking requests I get it usually starts with a declaration that I have a "questionable" or "suspicious" edit history by an IP editor or recently reactivated account, followed by a flurry of ANI reports and then direct appeals to admins for my blocking. Anyway, just a heads-up. If you want to wait to block me on this one until the next one comes down the pipe and make it a two-fer, I have no problem with that. Whatever is easier for you. BlueSalix (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mahatma Gandhi

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mahatma Gandhi. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Succession box

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Succession box. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hedwig of Holstein

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hedwig of Holstein. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bibi Aisha

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bibi Aisha. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Rolling Stone November 2014 issue.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rolling Stone November 2014 issue.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. GRuban (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft article in your sandbox

.. I had to suppress that, sorry. As the article is mainspaced now, it should be okay, but if you need a redacted copy restored, just let me know. Sorry about that - Alison ^❤ 02:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Alison - no worries, thank you for doing that! Also, thanks for catching that Jezebel and Slate didn't use the last name when they reported on GotNews - that was an error on my part. BlueSalix (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1