Revision as of 23:19, 23 December 2008

This is DangerousPanda's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 45 days

Template: Vague time

I once saw a guideline about this when browsing through the Manual of Style. I am currently reaserching where I saw that. If I cannot find it, I will remove the template. In the mean time it seems Wikipidia is behind me because the template has been semi-protected. So far I have found this and this. In addition, these words make a statement less clear, which is always bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipatrol (talk • contribs)

Why did you redirect CRT rear projection television to Rear-projection television

Why did you redirect CRT rear projection television to Rear-projection television, former one of many Rear-projection television technologies. Vjdchauhan (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

Based on the article content, there was no need for a separate article on its own. Expansion of the rear-projection television article is more appropriate due to the relationship, and size of the attempted article. -t BMW c- 18:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

What dispute resolution you are talking about? It is regarding a comment in[REDACTED] space, dispute resolution applies when the dispute is regarding article mainspace. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to see Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You filed a WQA complaint here (more specific than the link provided in the original friendly notification. As for "templating", it's a personal template that advises a user they failed to follow a specific policy related the WP:WQA, and is far easier than typing the whole thing out every time. You might also want to read WP:Do template the regulars in your spare time. -t BMW c- 12:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, DangerousPanda. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Misplaced Pages:Ani#Firefly322_again. Toddst1 (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery

The state of the article had improved so much that the notability was clear enough. At the time of my closure, the article size had jumped 35-fold from its start; now it has jumped 75-fold from the start. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 18:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Do you want me to reopen the AfD or WP:DRV it? Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 03:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

WQA

Dear Bwilkins,

Thankyou for the advice you have given me on my talk page but I would rather that discussion about the 'silly rabbit and LowKey' affair be ceased (on my talk page). Also, I would rather that other editors stop commenting and explaining to me why my comments were 'bad'. All I wanted to do was to stop silly rabbit from being blocked and now all my edits are commented upon (and the discussion is going nowhere).

Topology Expert (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Calendar days

Hi. I am having a problem with these calendar days pages. In particular, there is the September 11 page. It has four topics on the intro page. I guess someone put up the WTC bombing, and others have said, "wait a minute, the date is important for other reasons too". I put up some key intro material in other days such as June 22 (invasion of the Soviet Union). These have been quickly reverted. My point is that the same rules should apply to all dates. Either allow intros for all dates, or remove the stuff where it is there, like in September 11. Wallie (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As per your talk, I was unaware that this was being discussed elsewhere when you opened a WP:WQA case (which was not an appropriate location). Please do not forum shop. Having seen some of your attempted changes, the weasel words being used, and non-Neutral Point of View are pretty substantial. Please continue your discussions and consensus at WT:DAYS -t BMW c- 18:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Steady on! I was not trying to "forum shop". I approached the forum before someone approached my talk page. I went on to the forum as I simply needed some advice as I am "trying to be nice" and avoid disputes. I was not aware I had raised a "case". As for "weasel words" (whatever they are) are non-Neutral Point of View, this is another issue (about my style I presume). What I really hate is when someone wants a piece of advice and gets trampled on like this. Wallie (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoa to you. Based on timelines, many of the edit summaries that reverted your edits asked you to visit WT:DAYS. You still then opened a WQA file, which as noted is an incivility forum. My offer to help seems to have come well after the first attempts by other editors to engage you in the correct forum. I did not stomp nor WP:BITE, I merely suggested that you accept the help when it was provided to you earlier, and back out of secondary discussions about it. Simply saying "ahh, I found the right place to talk about it...thanks" goes a long way.

OK. I wasn't aware of the significance of WT:DAYS at that time. I honestly feel that some people (not you) are starting to treat this as a political discussion, which I certainly do not want. I guess that I got on to the wrong forum. I did not wish to raise a complaint, and never would. Anyway, thanks for trying to help. Wallie (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, Bwilkins. I hope you don't mind, but I removed the contribution you commmented on on ANI (and, perforce, removed your comment too, sorry about that). You were very right, of course, but.. well take a look here. Let's just ignore it and hope he goes take a nap or something, don't you think? Bishonen | talk 00:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC).

It was just a joke that read wrong. Didn't mean anything. HalfShadow 01:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yer no fun.

I hope you...I'm gonna...I'm... ... ... ... God, is anyone else hungry right now? And who are you? HalfShadow 01:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Meant it for bish...bach...The guy with the Japanese-type name. HalfShadow 01:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Bachonen. :-) I've replied to you on my page. Bishonen | talk 01:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC).

WP:CIVIL

Hi. I noticed you accused me here of mounting a "jihad". On the contrary I am trying to enforce a very important rule here called WP:BLP which prevents users from presenting unsourced negative information against living people. You may wish to read this before participating further in the discussion. WP:CIVIL may also interest you; it describes how it is best to focus exclusively on the merits of a discussion rather than commenting on the hypothetical motives of other editors. Best wishes to you, --John (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

John, User:Bwilkins is one of the main contributors at WP:WQA. Lecturing them about civility as if they were a newbie is not a civil thing to do. Jehochman 16:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, that surprises me. In that case they should certainly know better than to call my good-faith efforts to remove this abusive link a "jihad". Wow. --John (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

John, thanks for your comment/concern and I appreciate your support Jehochman. John, you will notice that my comments were clearly directed at your actions in that thread, as opposed to you as a person. When anyone whether in real life or on Misplaced Pages pursues something in what appears to be an extremely (and increasingly) strong fashion, it often raises suspicion about other possible motives. In politics we get the "pitbull with lipstick" type of comment. Having read your increasingly vitriolic posts and strong argumentative approach with DC, I was concerned both about your motives and the relationship with DC. As you were not getting consensus, you appeared to be "turning up the volume" instead in multiple posts, which means you quite possibly abandoned "good faith" attempts long ago. I understand WP:BLP quite well, and yes although it generally applies to articles, and can also apply to any page on WP. Now, to my POV on the issue: when Mr B was an editor on Misplaced Pages, he made some public comments both on Misplaced Pages and elsewhere - an attempt at WP:OUTING of DC (which is, as you know, a blockable/bannable offence). Those comments are available for anyone to find, and indeed appear as an archive on DC's webpage (and indeed on Mr B's own pages). As such, there is no direct violation of WP:BLP ... the comments by both parties are easily referenced/citable. In fact, I commend the fact that although DC would be well within their rights to post the inflammatory/WP:OUTING comments on their Userpage for permanancy, they actually hide the comments via a cryptic link from userbox. It is not by any means an attack page, it is a defence page based on easily findable information. I hope that helps explain my line of thinking on the entire sequence of issues. ►BMW◄ 17:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I am sorry to see that you are concerned about my motives. This would certainly explain, though not excuse, the "jihad" comment. I was rather hoping you could have apologized for that, but a forced apology is no apology at all. I guess you are standing by your right to characterize my actions as a "jihad" and maintaining that this falls within WP:CIVIL, and that you are defending DC's attack link as "defence" rather than attack. I could not disagree more strongly with your opinions as raised here; to me this is the "two wrongs make a right" or "he hit me first" argument that we normally let go of prior to puberty. If you are interested, I noticed DC attempting to introduce poorly sourced negative material to the Bellinghaus article, then saw the link on the user page and asked them politely to remove it. You might perhaps profitably ask about that user's motive; me, I am just trying to do my job here. It would have been great to have had your support and I am sad to see such a left-field view from someone who claims to work in this area and be an expert. --John (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Jihad is an emotionally charged word. It is fine for you to suggest that Bwilkins replaces it with something more objective. Jehochman 18:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good step forwards if Bwilkins could do that. I am pretty sure that using this word to describe my actions contravenes WP:CIVIL, but in any case it seems unlikely to progress the substantive issue we are discussing. Thanks, as usual, for your constructive approach, Jehochman. --John (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There are 2 general meanings of the word "jihad" Encarta. I will assure you completely that I was using it in meaning #2, and definitely not meaning number 1. I have amended my original post, and apologize if it was taken to mean the more extreme version. I never play the "two wrongs make a right" game - if you have read my userpage, you will see that I use a specific (ABC) model for investigating civility, which I also use in other situations. I will admit, some time ago when I first came across DC's custom userbox, I was taken aback. I then did my research, and came around to a new way of thinking about the situation. It is a creative, mostly hidden way of defense. I would never say I'm "left field" - I'm more middle ground, and expect people/adults to get along. In that, I feel I'm also doing "my job" here on Misplaced Pages, and it's one that I am actually used to taking some abuse for (I think User talk:Samuel Webster still calls me a racist, even though he does not know my ethnic background - ironically enough, his complaint was around a mistaken definition of a word as well - although in his case there is only one meaning, and not the one he thinks!) ►BMW◄ 21:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the qualified apology and for clarifying that you meant "relentless campaign: a relentless campaign against somebody or something" rather than "a campaign waged by Muslims in defense of the Islamic faith against people, organizations, or countries regarded as hostile to Islam". I feel that this was not a good choice of language if you wished to move the situation forward productively. Thanks too for striking the comment at AN/I. To risk drifting off-topic, while I am sure you are not a racist, it is perfectly possible for someone of any ethnicity to be a racist; there is no connection at all between racism and ethnicity. Most people of most ethnic backgrounds will be offended by having their actions characterized as a "jihad" however. If you wish me to talk to Samuel Webster I will be happy to. Would you like me to do that? --John (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I was dropping by to say thanks for your unexpected but welcome support at ANI, but I see that John is making insinuations about me here which I don't care to leave unanswered. Anyone is welcome to look at the material I recently attempted to add to Mark Bellinghaus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and decide for themselves if there are problems with the material or sourcing. I believe there has been some overly heavy-handed and selective enforcement of policy and I fully intend to revisit the edits when I have time. See the discussions on the talk page. My motivation is very straightforward: the article is largely a self-written promotional piece which lacks balance. After the unpleasantness during and following the last AFD, I left the article alone, but a new two-part article features which features Bellinghaus prompted me to revisit the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Then let's find some middle ground

John, I don't believe that you have issues with DC defending themselves. Can we all work out something that gives both sides a positive, viable solution? If yes, let's work here and hold off the ANI (for now). I'm happy to mediate, but everyone has to be open and in agreement to some changes here, whether slight or major. If you agree to work on this, then say so...I can't force anyone. ►BMW◄ 15:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your good intentions, but I fear offering mediation when you have been arguing against the consensus in a fairly uncivil way at the AN/I thread is not likely to be a winner. The best thing you could do would be to help the majority of editors to enforce policy. At this stage DC has rejected a good-faith compromise and probably should just have the userpage attack link removed according to policy and the consensus at AN/I. Maybe you could do that; it might look better coming from you than from Ty or me. That would be a help. Failing that a short block for disruption may be in order. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground to solve off-wiki disputes, nor is it a soapbox for advocacy. The drama caused by this user's insistence on retaining the link is not helping anyone. --John (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on so many levels, I once again have concerns about your motivation here. Have you yet acknowledged the abuse/difficulties that DC has been put through? You're right though, nobody can force you, the complainant, do actually do the right thing when it comes to your fellow editors/humans. ►BMW◄ 20:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

And I have concerns about yours. I acknowledge all the difficulties faced by everyone here; I disagree with your contention that mediation from an involved party who disagrees with consensus is in any way a viable way forward or the "right thing" to do. --John (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am so glad BMW also can see the page being linked to is not in fact, an "attack" site. This word is being thrown about like a weapon on all possible occasions by John. It is the strongest negative word possible to describe a page and surely should be reserved for far more extreme writings. Thus I feel the page is unfairly characterised to support John's POV. John may object to the word jihad, but I strongly object to the use of this word "attack". Restawhile (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This has been resolved hopefully to everyone's satisfaction, by Mr Bellinghaus himself who has removed his blogs linking myself and DC, so no defence is necessary and I have taken down the page, in fact, the entire site Restawhile (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I do hope this is closed for good. As you can see I marked the ANI as both resolved, AND added the archive tags around it. I'm thinking of doing it to this discussion as well, as I'm truly saddened by what I've read above and in the ANI. We need to to remember that every editor is also a living, breathing person too. ►BMW◄ 01:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I can indeed see that. I also noticed your comment "Good luck with your future interactions with the human race". And you want to be an administrator, and consider yourself an expert on wikiquette and dispute resolution. I shall follow your future career with great interest. --John (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it this way John: anyone who questions my neutrality, and anyone who at the same time fails to at least attempt to take the high road when it comes to the emotions of another human being might get the occasional touch of polite snarkiness. You really took the low road on this issue, and that was unfortunate for everyone. ►BMW◄ 17:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and one I seriously differ with. I will give you a free clue; mediation only works with an uninvolved mediator. Happy editing, --John (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

WOW a clue, a clue! You seem to have a difficulty with the word "uninvolved", my comments in the ANI came from being neutral and wholly uninvolved...something you missed out on. Anyway, you were out of touch from the start, you remain on a pitbull like continuation towards me now, probably because you didn't get the satisfaction of what you really wanted out of the DC situation. That situation is done, and me, the neutral party although disappointed in the actions of a few, really doesn't give a crap one way or another on how it came out. Your continued attempts to bait me are noted. Thanks again. ►BMW◄ 17:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. So tell me, what did I really want? --John (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know John, and I no longer care. I'm off fixing typos in Misplaced Pages where I can be of some use. ►BMW◄ 17:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

John has acted entirely properly and conscientiously to enforce WP:BLP, which is one of our most important policies. Your lack of recognition of this is a serious error of judgement, as are your accusations against John. You were the only editor on the AN/I discussion that failed to see the inappropriateness of that link. Delicious carbuncle then had an even more blatant violation of BLP on their user page. The next time you choose to close a discussion, I suggest you do not do so immediately after you have had the last word. That does not come across as a neutral action. If you wish to be in any position of mediation in future, it will give others more confidence in your abilities, if you do not start the process by expressing which side of the debate you support. That is advocacy, not mediation. Ty 18:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a point that I have to say "bugger off", as opposed to what I have already said? Try re-reading the ANI before making such remarks - I was not the sole opponent, so get your facts straight. Retract your very off-base statements, or you'll find them removed from my talkpage. Learn the difference between someone expressing a "neutral, non-interested" position on a subject and "advocacy". I find this "ganging up on the neutral guy" to be a very interesting game, and one I'm not enjoying being a part of. Off you go now...Misplaced Pages has more need of good editors than non-neutral bullies who honestly failed to read before attacking at this point in time. Have a day...not a good one, just a day. ►BMW◄ 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Try to stay civil. If you choose to engage in a discussion, you cannot dictate the responses. Maybe there's something to take on board. Ty 18:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm being fully civil...although the baiting is starting to work. You're right, I can't dictate responses, but I can expect intelligent/seasoned editors to read instead of posting complete fabrications such as "You were the only editor on the AN/I discussion that failed to see the inappropriateness of that link" as an attempt to discredit or bully me. I also expect seasoned/intelligent editors to read the entire sequence before accusations of a "a serious error of judgement" (sic) because your comments are not based on where the disagreement has come from, which is a serious error in judgment on your part. Please, re-read the entire ANI then come back and modify your post/rethink your commentary or I'll edit it on your behalf. I'm giving you some benefit of the doubt here, and I have been nothing but polite to John and suggestions otherwise are unwise/unfounded. I desire no reply to this, merely a modification of your fictional posts above. ►BMW◄ 19:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Tisha Campbell-Martin

I have re-added the African American category. Sometimes things are a little too obvious for sourcing purposes. Please do not initiate confrontation over obvious edits. ►BMW◄ 19:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I acknowedge your good faith, but the last time I checked, ethnicity and ethnic identification were not identified in WP:V as exceptions. Please do not edit war. Please discuss on talk and wait for consensus before reverting. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I continue to disagree that the BET award justifies ignoring WP:V. Because you are a regular and acting in good faith, I will not template you. But please stop edit warring. Ward3001 (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Consider it closed before you go any further: If you mean the ANI is closed, I suppose you are correct that no admin plans to take the false accusations against me any further. If you mean the WP:V issue is closed, no that's not correct. No admin has stated that WP:V does not apply, nor is there a consensus on the talk page to bypass WP:V. Thank you for your civility, but I think you are wrong. Ward3001 (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Mercenary2k

He's apparently had time to log in and delete the entire thread of commentary directed at him on his talk page, warnings and all. And yet, he's had no time to retract his ridiculous personal attack on User:Ragib's talk page, nor to visit and comment on others building consensus on the Inter-Services Intelligence talk page, nor to visit WP:ANI and present his side. And, why should he? He's already indicated he's just going to edit it as he sees fit when the protection is up. And, the article is protected now just as he likes it. There's been NO incentive for him to seek consensus, no repercussions for his behaviour AT ALL. The only administrator interventions gave him, frankly, just what he wanted. If either myself or anyone else makes changes when the protection is up (lotta good that's doing us now), he's just going to revert. It's his modus operandi. Just FYI. Exasperated don't begin to cover it ... CSHunt68 (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

WQA

Thanks for the heads-up in regards to advising me to tell the user about the WQA here: . I must have overlooked that, as I have never done a WQA before. Also, thanks for supplying the user warnings to the editor. Atlantabravz (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I actually have a little polite template I usually used on those who forget, but I was too lazy this morning :-) Hope it helps ... I really think he was having a little fun with a real life buddy ►BMW◄ 20:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Suck me.

Since you're not an admin, SUCK ME. You won't shut my user page down. You people tried to do that last year (cough cough) and it didn't work. You can't take it down and excuse me.

(A CHOO)

bad day to you SIR. HPJoker 21:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: I'm not sorry if this offends you.

I think the block you recieved from someone is a sufficient response to this. ►BMW◄ 13:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link

at ANI; I also provided a diff of the original complaint under frivolous charges. Cheers again :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolution attempt with Montana

I've started a thread over at User talk:Montanabw#Concerning ownership to discuss the concerns I had with Montana's protection of article over at the AN/I filed by Una Smith. Your help in resolving the issue would be much appreciated.

Peter 12:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching the discussion and will comment when appropriate. Good luck, and thanks for the invite! ►BMW◄ 13:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Help, see here. Never was a disambiguation page, before see I wanted to add more information to the word Never, about funny sayings which express the notion never in different languages, like for example: When hell freezes over.

The page would looked complicated otherwise.. I thougt I create a separate article for the word and keep the rest as a disambiguation page

About the article never, people agreed on that it was ok to expand it, see my talk page. I did not wanted to make a dictionary of it, I just wanted to add funny sayings. .

Warrington (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've also taken a look at the AfD ... I think I actually have to agree with the decision on the AfD: WP is not a dictionary, and "funny sayings" would be like adding "trivia sections" to other articles, which are all in the process of being removed. I appreciate the overall attempt, but I can't agree with the purpose of this specific article. ►BMW◄ 13:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason was this article , I agreed with the author that is very hard to find information on this matter. I thougt Misplaced Pages is a perfect place for an article like this.

Warrington (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

While there may be a way, right now WP:NOT would point otherwise. ►BMW◄ 13:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: While there may be a way. What did you mean? Adding it to the Wiktionary?

Warrington (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. You were right, but everything worked out nicely. We found some "flying pigs" at the Wiktionary, so my pig climbing the pear tree in yellow slippers will join them.

Warrington (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter's stuff

BMW, discussion moved to User:Montanabw/Peter's Sandbox. FYI. Montanabw 23:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Mare and the recent history at User:Montanabw/Peter's Sandbox. I believe at this point the issue is over as I have no interest in providing a forum for a single individual to harass me and make personal attacks. I think it's time to shut this "mediation" down now. If I am at fault here, I welcome constructive comments. But I am tired of the rest. Montanabw 20:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and your attempt to resolve the situation. It was worth a shot. Montanabw 06:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, he's not stopping. See sandbox and the article in question. Help?? Montanabw 08:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Did my best ... I'm not a fan of his parting shot, and I let him know that on his Talk. ►BMW◄ 17:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's OK. Peter apologized and I'm glad to let it drop. I explained my positions enough, I hope, I didn't want to go on and on. My basic position, as outlined on my talk page, is that I am open to Trout-slapping if I either cross the line between quality control and ownership or if I get too snarky to the innocent bystander. (grin) Beyond that, differences of opinion need to be worked out in good faith. I tried to figure out what was mine to "own" up to when I get the bit in my teeth (pun intended), but I drew the line at being dogpiled (if I may mix equine and canine metaphors). ;-D For now, can you continue to watchlist Talk:Horses in warfare and possibly the other two articles that were at issue here? It might be possible that the underlying issues are not resolved, I hope they are, but who knows. Third party eyes are often helpful. Thanks. Montanabw 01:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Uncivility, Hate speech

First and foremost I would like to sincerely ask you for your help. Your input and patience is appreciated. I want to bring to your attention this. HD86 has made numerous comments such as "The Assyrians are EXTINCT people of ancient Mesopotamia whose name was stolen by some modern politicians and used in reference to the modern Syriacs. To label the modern Syriacs by "Assyrians" and to claim that "The Assyrian people trace their origins to the population of the pre-Islamic Levant" is indeed stupidity in its purest form." These comments are inflammatory, racist, unhistprical and outrageous. This user continues to deny that a whole race even exists. He needs to be wiki disciplined. This is unacceptable inflammtory denialist behavior. The equivalent of his statments would be that jews or arabs do not exist. Do you not see the point. His languge is very hateful and dimeaning to those of us involved in the project. If you take a look at his history he has similar incompetent statemetns regarding other controverisal topics. I ask for assistance in order to remove this hateful user from this discussion. He has denied the existence of an entire race that through ample ancient and modern evidence has existed for thousands of years. I will be waiting for your response. I must stress this is only one of many disturbing comments this user has made. Thanks for your input my friend. I have left similar messages to other admins for more input.Ninevite (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know problem

Hello! Your submission of The Irish Descendants at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Art LaPella (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Extra-curricular

Um, what is wrong with extra-curricular? DoubleBlue (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The preferred spelling in most dictionaries and languages as a minor example includes it as one whole word. The built-in dictionary in AWB/TypoScan flags it every time. ♪BMWΔ 17:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I ask it to be removed from AWB as per ENGVAR. My mileage varies from yours. Cheers! DoubleBlue (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Matt Windman edits

I do not understand the issue with my edits to Matt Windman's page.

I understand the need to not get into an editing war, but how do you prevent others from simply editing back what you have done each time. Do you immediately move to dispute resolution?

Further, why is making a factual statement about someone (that is backed by a citation) in an article about that person deemed a "personal attack?"

I do appreciate your kind introduction - I look forward to getting a better understanding of things around here.

SlyFrog (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

First, your actions led you to be the topic of a civility report filing, which was then escalated to noticeboard for admin action. The "fact" that someone edits articles about themselves is not notable, nor encyclopedic. I have made dozens of edits to a number of articles - is that encyclopedic? Misplaced Pages is also not considered to be a valid reference inside Misplaced Pages, so your citation was invalid. If more than one person reverts your edits, that's when YOU the editor need to stop and rethink...Misplaced Pages works on WP:CONSENSUS, so obviously, your edit was not a consensus edit. ♪BMWΔ 19:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue was not editing articles about themselves, the issue was resubmitting following a prior discussion and deletion. I posted the statement because it reflected on the character of the subject of the article.

Should I have simply reported the newly posted article? SlyFrog (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The article had already been tagged as "Criteria for Speedy Deletion". Smart-arsed comments about the person who continued to create it is considered to be a violation of WP:NPA. There is plenty of time to comment on the ARTICLE (and never the editor who created it) on the Talkpage of the article, or at articles for deletion. ♪BMWΔ 20:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you are assuming good faith or being reasonable to me in saying "smart assed" comments.

That said, I understand now that it should have been referred through the articles for deletion process and the talk page.

Thanks much for the clarification! SlyFrog (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

None of your attempts to belittle the person who continued to create the articles can be remotely considered as "good faith". They were both personal attacks AND vandalism to the Misplaced Pages project as a whole. ♪BMWΔ 20:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I obviously disagree. But I do again sincerely thank you for the introduction, and the clarification you have offered. SlyFrog (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion

According to your user page, you aren't an admin but hope to be one some day. If that is still accurate I would suggest, first, that you stop responding to a bunch of ANI threads as if you thought you were an admin already and, second, that you not post highly uncivil comments, especially under the guise of trying to suggest that someone else should be disciplined because he is uncivil. You're coming across as exactly the wrong kind of person to be a good admin. If you do manage to get nominated those actions will no doubt be brought up as evidence that you are not ready. DreamGuy (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. There was nothing uncivil in my comment on ANI. As "preparation" for possible RfA's, full participation in ANI is recommended, and I ensure I remain civil in my commentary there. I've made a clarification on ANI, but the few e-mails I got thanking me for how I dealt with that situation says a lot right now. Cheers ♪BMWΔ 10:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

O-M-G

Guess what guys, it's yet another person who tries to be what they're not. Well hello to you too BOSS.
EdmOilers023 (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if actually giving a sh|t about how people interact while building an encyclopedia (as ALL editors are required to do) is considered "being what they're not", then I suppose I'm guilty... ♪BMWΔ 10:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Signature

Just thought I'd leave a note - I prefer your old colour-contrast personally. Any reason for the change? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Heya, I prefer the black/white version too (for many reasons), but the green and red is more..."festive"?? LOL ♪BMWΔ 09:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ohhh...lol! I think the green background was clashing before, but it looks very festive now. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on ANI

Hello Bwikins. You made a comment on WP:ANI that I found interesting here it is: "Steelerfan-94 is mentoring *blink*." could you please tell me what you meant by that comment. As it could mean a number of things IMO. SteelersFan-94 06:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd recommend you have a read of your own Talkpage - some comments by editors I respect state quite clearly why you should re-think mentoring anyone at this moment. I've even been asked to mentor a few times, and I have respectfully declined. ♪BMWΔ 10:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Excuse me, but in ANI you made a really bad comment telling me to stop editing because of a consensus. May you please point me to what that consensus might be? I really try to assume good faith, I have no idea where that evil comment would come from. Tavix (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Delicious_carbuncle#Proposed_text_for_your_user_page