User talk:Revolving Bugbear/Archive 5

Signature

Che, I got your message. No problem. I removed the line break out of my signature. Thanks! KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 19:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Hull

I'll forgive your unfamiliarity with the English language. He does not have gigantism. Dave Hull has been compared to GB international Paul Wellens. Will source his good kick returns. Few getting past him in the defensive line is indicated by the few tries conceeded, but once again that will be sourced. Londo06 12:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll allow you latitude due to your unfamiliarity with the subject matter at hand. Being compared to Paul Wellens, one of the worlds best rugby players of either code, is indeed high praise from both his peers and writers. I shall source this in time. The use of the term giant in front of his position indicates that he is indeed a large player. This is common throughout the English language as means to explain what features he exhibits. Londo06 12:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider myself tired. Londo06 14:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NCCC reply

Personally I would love to see you get involved, but I would hope that the conversation could be done on the article talk page rather than my personal talk page. Dbiel ^(Talk) 13:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat. Multi-sport

Ich darf also dies nehmen. Und wenn der User Wiggy wieder alles löscht?--Kay Körner 20.12.1983 17:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Da ich eigentlich nicht viel über Sports Clubs weiss, kann ich nicht unbedingt sagen, ob so eine Kategorie in der Tat in Ordnung ist. Es scheint mir aber vernünftig. Hat er das tatsächlich gelöscht? - Che Nuevara 17:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ich hatte hier bei Wikipedia immer gutes gemacht. Der User Wiggy hatte das nicht gern gesehen und war mir feindlich eingestellt. Dann wollte der den Artikel Sportvereinigung Dynamo löschen, was er nicht konnte. Mir sind logos gelsöcht worden, die ich hochgeladen hatte. Das durften die Administratoren nicht, aber hatten es trotzdem getan. Dann tat ich den Vandalismus rückgängig machen und bin dann von denen, die die seite kaputt machen wollten gesperrt worden; für immer. Die Begründung war, dass ich sinnlos sei, als Mensch! Dann tat Wiggy immer andere Categorien aus der SV Dynamo löschen, wie aus Links. Dann sagte, der immer, dass dies spam seien, obwohl es eine Lüge war. Dann sind weiter Links gelscht worden und wenn ich dies dann wieder einfüge, was keine Werbung, sondern nur wissen war, wurde ich wieder gesperrt. Beim Rudolf Harbig Stadion hatte der die ganzen Quellen mehrmals gelöscht und ich bin gesperrt worden.--Kay Körner 20.12.1983 18:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sportvereinigung_Dynamo&oldid=141238058

Das sind aber Logos gewesen. damit haben die Administratoren gegen Wiki verstoßen, weil die Dynamo nicht als Rekordverein sehen wollten. --Kay Körner 20.12.1983 18:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Der hatte nichts verändert, sondern nur gelöscht!--Kay Körner 20.12.1983 18:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Das wäre sinnloses Geschwätz, wenn bei mir die Vorschriften außer acht gelassen würden. Und auch ungerecht.--Kay Körner 20.12.1983 19:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help me...

Lol, I was kidding! If you look at my userpage, you'll see my whole user page is based on transclusions! Plus, I had the {{helpme}} template transcluded in my sandbox. :) Thanks for helping so fast though. have a nice day. :) *Cremepuff 222* 22:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings. Thanks again! *Cremepuff 222* 22:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Righto. See ya around. *Cremepuff 222* 22:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Chitnis AfD etc

Just to say thanks. ps: If you like take a look at Indian Rebellion of 1857 for some strangely tendentious editors that dont think they are tendentious at all :) srs 12:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD/Jack Franklin

Sorry I misunderstood. Please continue to preach common sense on wikipedia as much as possible; I'm a big fan :) Faithfully, Deltopia 21:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bindi and Manda

lol...excellent call on renaming the ariticle, I was so focused on aiding a new, obvously young editor that I completely missed that part! Smooth..! Dreadstar † 01:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NCCC article

Thank you for your continuing support of NPOV and trying to work with User:Coterminous. I am at a loss much of the time as to how to get through to him. He likes to double or even tripple post most things in the article, the article talk page as well as my personal talk page, apparently thinking that I am some sort of expert on policy. Anyway, I just wanted to say thank you. Dbiel ^(Talk) 23:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may have cross the line

I have probably gone a bit too far. See: User talk:Coterminous#Paid editors?, but the following just pushed me over the edge:

"...nor have I received a check from Wikipedia, for that matter. I am committed to the success of the program, for reasons I do not feel it wise to discuss. ... Knowing a great deal about this program makes certain statements seem simply obvious to me that others take as biased.... Meanwhile, I have done an extraordinary amount of unpaid work"

It is becoming clear that getting him to back off from his extreme POV may be impossible, but I guess it is still worth the effort. He definately has no understanding about Wikipedia and how it works based on the following: "nor have I received a check from Wikipedia", "have done an extraordinary amount of unpaid work"

Sorry, just had to blow off some steam. I also resented his comments about you "When someone unknown jumps into the discussion without those steps and assumes the posture of "expert" who is going to give directions, that is less likely to succeed; their possible agendas are unknown" It seems to imply to me that he has no idea what mediation is all about.

I hope that you will be able to hang in there and continue to mediate. Also please note the replys (of course posted on both talk pages) User talk:Coterminous#Paid editors?

Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I was happy to see that his last post to the article talk page was broken up into separate topics. That is in itself a big step forward. Dbiel ^(Talk) 18:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal Case Closed

It has been a pleasure working with you as well. Since you have closed the Mediation Cabal Case, I went ahead and removed the tag on the article talk page. Thanks for all of your hard work in the mediation process; just too bad it resulted in one user getting mad and leaving Wikipedia. I know that was never your or my intent. At least we can feel good that we tried our best. Thanks again. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amherst College comment

Hola che, I've re-inserted the comment into the article text. I fully agree that this comment belongs onto a talk page, but the specific author seems to ignore talk pages (including his very own). So I'd rather keep the comment in the article until he deletes it--so there's no discussion later about "did he really see it? Shouldn't he have been given the chance to discuss? blablabla...". I'd rather have a crystal clear procedure: He knew what was going to happen, didn't object... and so there's no reason to fuss later on. (And yes, if he shouldn't ever delete it, eventually I will. Or you can, of course.) Does that make sense? - Cheers, Ibn Battuta 01:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:I hadn't realized that you had already tried contacting him on his talk page. I've seen a lot of people new to WP do stuff like this, so I didn't realize what exactly you were getting at. My apologies. - Che Nuevara 16:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :o) I guessed you couldn't know, and it's kind of awkward to have the text in anyways... Well, it's out again now. I'll see how the Bridgewater author reacts once he gets back to the page. Though he seems rather busy with college celebrities by now... Cheers, Ibn Battuta 04:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

I haven't had time to answer your notes till now - I see from your page you are at Amherst - I hear that is a great school - If you have specific suggestions about how to improve the NCCC site - not only what's wrong with it (or me or my attempts), please communicate. For example, Dbiel has saved material at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbiel/ScratchPad/NCCC_accomplishments - Do you think any of that could be reworked and salvaged for the page?Coterminous 19:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette Tag

Good suggestion. I don't know how to add this. Can you explain how this is done, or let me know what the tag is? I read the Wikiquette article, but, like many other Wiki "procedure" articles, there are 20,000 words that delve into philosophy and give templates yet not a single, clear heading that outlines how to initiate the process for those of us who aren't wiki-wizzards. Thanks again for your help with the NCCC article. --LoverOfArt 02:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following link may help Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Procedure for this page Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked

I'm blocked now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.55.6 (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Thanks for the advice. Sincerely, Onnaghar _{Editor Review} 20:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask a favor?

I was wondering if I could impose on you to take a few minutes and review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional diseases. I seem to be of the minority point of view and maybe you could either add support to keeping the list or help me see where I might be totally off base in my thinking. Thank you in advance.

Secondly I think I am slowly understanding what you meant by the moving the article that was attached to the sub talk page. But more importantly I would like to know it you support Philippe's POV that all discussion should take place on the main article talk page.

Thank you for all your continuing assistance with National Civilian Community Corps Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replies, it help to understand what is going on in AfD. Dbiel ^(Talk) 13:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MIDDLETOWN HIGH SOUTH

HI! I saw you posted on the Middletown High South page and have a question for you if it is not to much trouble. I currently live in Bergen County NJ and am looking to move do to overcrowding & extreme high cost of living. My wife and I were in Middletown this weekend and loved it. However, I work in NYC.........currently it takes me 1 hour to 1 1/2 hrs to get to work round trip and I only live 28 miles from where I work!! If it is not too much trouble can you give me any advice from your own personal expierence of living in the Middletown area, the difficulty of commuting to NYC, the high school, and maybe a basic overview of Middletown. I would greatly appreciate it!! Thanks in advance!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kbdank71" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvumountie1 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya see, the problem is...

"you bring it to the proper person's attention and let their actions stand for them."

I have "brought this to the persons attention". So far, their inappropriate actions have been 'standing' and 'standing' and 'standing' and 'standing' for themselves and no one is doing anything about it. Ya know, the point of 'good faith' isn't being indecisive. There does come a time when drawing a definite conclusion about someone based on their own actions is appropriate. No, two wrongs don't make a right, however, one wrong continually perpetrated by one person without action by anyone else is quite likely to receive a "response". In your efforts to be "balanced" in the criticism, you've misapplied your efforts all together. I'm not the problem here. You know it (even though you know better than to say it out loud), I know it, everyone else knows it. It's about high time someone did something about it. We've "started over", again. Lets see how long this one holds out before the "Coterminous" reply occurs and we have to start over again, for the billionth time (what with good faith, ya know) You can't move forward if you're continually forced to "start over". You can't stop the need to "start over" unless you directly address the person who is the retrograding force. --LoverOfArt 18:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This is not a conversation that needs to be had, and your attempts to straw-man my condemnation of a clearly unacceptable incident do not change the fact that it was clearly unacceptable. What you said was clearly inappropriate, offensive, and undeniably against Wikipedia policy. You would do well to remember that the rules apply to everyone. - Che Nuevara 18:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)"

Oh, it is most definitely a conversation that needs to be had and there wasn't anything 'straw man' about my reply. Whether we have this conversation now, or fifteen "start overs" from now resulting from Coterminous replies, it's a conversation that not only must be had, but it's a conversation that will be had whether we want to or not. Thankfully, we seem to have an administrator who is at the point of not putting up with much from anyone anymore, so I can continue to productively work on the article as I have all along and in time, the inevitable will occur with Conterminous based on his/her own actions. When this is all done and over with and the article strikes its appropriate, natural balance, take from the experience this one lifes lesson... There comes a point when enough is enough. There are people who refuse to follow the rules yet similarly refuse to be reasoned with to make them contributory and productive. Prisons are full of such people and Wikipedia ban logs are full of them too. Your desire to engage them with a seemingly endless stream toothless chastisements doesn't bespeak "good faith" ... It bespeaks of indecision and unwillingness to take necessary action. Let me add- I will admit to and apologize for any missteps I may have taken by speaking too strongly or saying things that could be construed as insulting. Nevertheless, my own 'tactical missteps' aside, it doesn't change one single thing about the facts at hand. --LoverOfArt 18:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beware LoverOfArt that we have gotten to the point where action will be take and at this point in time both you and Coterminous are subject to being blocked. Try not to do anything stupid that makes you the first one to be blocked. Dbiel ^(Talk) 18:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty and the Beast (Disney song)

Please see the comments above your comment in my talk page. Thanks. BritandBeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hevstaf

No worries! Zagalejo^^^ 01:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's now a deletion review

Hello, CheNuevara. I'm alerting all of the editors that took part in the the deletion debate for the article Adult-child sex that it is now a deletion review, as seen in this link. I felt that you may want to lend your voice about this topic in its deletion review as well. More on what may happen concerning this topic is discussed here. After reading that, I'm sure that I won't have to tell you to watch for it being put up for deletion again, if this deletion review doesn't come out as Overturn and delete. I'll see you around. Flyer22 20:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Less pomposity

Are you not familiar with sites/ article pages closed to new or unregistered users? Are you not aware of the exhortations of people to become full-fledged users. A civil society requires a measure of acknowledgement of one's identity. Please address your comments to the topic page, not to my user page. Dogru144 23:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]