User talk:-Bobby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AMA Alert posted: There are 6 cases that need Advocacy. Remember to close old cases. The December 2006 Meeting is now open!

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, -Bobby, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Thanks for the warm welcome. →Bobby← 16:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] good faith

Thanks for bringing that to my attention on the AFD article! Speedy was a little to harsh, I should have assumed good faith and at least looked a little closer at the users page! We could all learn a little from you. Chris Kreider 17:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't reformat my comments.

I deliberately have not been bolding the "Keep" or "Delete" or similar single word summaries of my opinion because the single word summaries are unworthy of the emphasis. They are not votes. The sentence following the single word is my true contribution to the discussion, and that is the part that should be bolded, if any. Thanks! Unfocused 17:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

My bad. A lot of editors do not know that it is Wikietiquette to bold the recommended course of action so the closing admin (and other interested parties) can get a quick sense for how a discussion unfolded. When I leave my comments, I tend to try and unify the preceding discussion for ease of reading. In the future I will avoid doing so with your contributions. I should add that most (I hope!) editors do read all of the comments on the AfD pages and not just the boldtext. Nonetheless, your postings are your own, and I will leave them alone in the future. -bobby
Very kind reply; I'm glad you didn't try to push the Wikietiquette at me as if it were formal policy. Lately, I've been thinking a lot about the value of modesty of presentation and doing a lot more anonymous posting. If the content presented is valid and worthy (and in articles, properly referenced where applicable), it will be fine without any special formatting or reputation of the poster attached to it. This is the reason behind my recent actions. I am not trying to make the closing admin's job more difficult. Unfocused 17:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, do you really think "spank the nominator" is a helpful contribution? I don't mind leaving your suggested action unbolded, but from your above comment I kind of figured your edit (which I had trivialised) went a bit deeper than it actually does. Just a thought... -bobby
In the case of the age-old schools debate, it was my rather flippant return to this issue. In hindsight, a more direct reference to corporal punishment or the principal's office would have helped express my view. I do, however, think spanking the nominator of this school deletion debate might be an action that would be help Wikipedia in the long term. Or maybe not. I refuse to be completely serious about this. Unfocused 17:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I just went back to the change I made to change it back to the previous format (which I may have forgotten about incidentally) and was surprised to see your relatively short and terse reply. After reviewing your other AfD contribs, I see that you always (with this exception) supply a well thought out comment which adds to the debate. For the record, I agree that we should spank the nominator :) -bobby

The rationales and the discussion are the important things. There are several editors who, like Unfocused here, focus upon the rationales and the discussion in our AFD contributions. Geogre does. I do. Jayron32 (talk • contribs) wrote on my talk page a while back:

"I merely hope to add some substance to the discussion. I think it does the administrators no good to simply read a series of comments that just say delete per nom. Having a bunch of people concurring without adding anything to the discussion does not help admins make any decision. It's my goal in my AfD comments to add something to the table that will help the admins make a decision one way or the other."

Several editors, including myself, share that goal, too. Uncle G 22:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with you guys and share that goal. As you can see from my contributions, I try and write well thought out replies that are not merely votes. I think of the bold text as my thesis, and everything that follows as the supporting argument. I hope this format works for editors reading my comments, and I'm always open to suggestions from folks who have been here longer than the 2 weeks I have under my belt as a registered editor. -bobby

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen Gray

I think that the references on Carmen Gray now are enough to prove notability. Even if you can't read Finnish, the reference pages are recognizable reviews of the band's album. Could you please take anotehr look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen Gray? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the new citations and changed my vote in accordance with WP:Music: "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." I don't know if any other criteria are satisfied, but one is all they need. -bobby

[edit] Your vote in AfD/Salad Fingers

I have taken the liberty of correcting the link in your vote from Wyvern's history to Salad Fingers' history. Hope that's okay with you. --Releeshan 19:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blerg bye-bye

Hi, Robert. Welcome to the club!

I protected the page from editing. What you're seeing is a template that alerts anyone who tries to recreate it that it's been, well, nuked. Only an admin or a bureaucrat can unlock it, so your average run-of-the-mill vandal can't touch it.  :) - Lucky 6.9 19:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Order of the Briefs

Can you please take this to Deletion Review for me, Bobby, the closing admin was abusing his powers, it's nothing to do with briefsism. Ta, --Llloydfrancer 21:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Hi Bobby, thank you for the very kind comments and offer of help you made on the AfD for Music of South Florida! I see why you earned your "random acts of kindness" barnstar! I don't know why I'm so attached to that article, especially since I know nothing about the rap music scene - I guess the whole "donk" concept kinda grabbed my interest. Thanks again! Dreadlocke ☥ 17:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is growing! Hopefully it will be enough to at least delay deletion for now! Dreadlocke ☥ 00:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Gosworth High AfD / WP:SCHOOLS

You're completely right about my usage of the word "stupid". I feel that I have completely valid arguments, and using words such as "stupid", while they are not particularly harsh, don't add anything positive to the discussion. As far as the proposed guidelines for inclusion of schools, I've made my arguments on its talk page multiple times about why I think the proposal is a terrible idea (again, in this case, saying "it's a terrible idea" doesn't really do much, but at least I have noted why I feel that way multiple times). -- Kicking222 22:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adams Ranch

Could you please take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adams Ranch? I added sources to Adams Ranch. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy keep mistake

I noticed that you mistakenly speedily kept Jason Pierce. I reverted that because that was improper. Please do not speedy keep any pages unless one of the guidelines at Wikipedia:Speedy keep are met. Jesse Viviano 22:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"1. No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion. Also, there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves."
Also, please see WP:SNOW, specifically:
"If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process."
This is clearly the case here, as there is still no support for deletion. I will let the debate run its course this time, but in the future please do not second guess my decisions. I know my edit history on this account goes back little more than a week, but I've been an editor on Wikipedia for the last 4 years and do know a thing or two about the various processes. I would never close a debate early if not supported in my decision by the guidelines. Thanks for your concern, and have a wonderful day. →Bobby← 12:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
This looks like an implied delete to me in the nomination, so guideline 1 does not apply. Nominations are taken as an implied deletion vote unless they explicitly state that they are being nominated for process, for someone else, or explicitly state that they are not expressing an opinion one way or the other in the nomination. Jesse Viviano 14:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I can see how this may have been an implied deletion "vote". I have contacted the nominator to try and get him to expand on his reasons for the proposed deletion, or withdraw his nomination. I would still point to the Snowball Clause in this instance, which is often used as a reason for speedy keeps. →Bobby←

[edit] G11 on Sudanese doctors

Hello, why did you put a speedy-delete tag on Sudanese doctors citing G11 as the criteria? I had already prodded it because I did not think it met any of the speedy criteria, although it definately needs to go because it is clear that the contributer does not understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social networking site. Anyway, why do you think it meets G11? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • From the article:
"The main aim of this page is to give all Sudanese doctors, around the world, the opportunity of getting in touch with one another."
And from the criteria for speedy deletion section on spam:
"Pages that exist only to promote a company, product, or service."
It seems clear to me that the page is blatently promoting the service I cited above. If you disagree, by all means send it to AfD after a decent PROD period. I think it easily qualifies for speedy though. Cheers! →Bobby←
I agree that the article should be speedied, but disagree that it meets the G11 criteria (or any criteria at that)... It doesn't seem to be advertising a "service" to me... but maybe I'm being nit-picky. I don't know... Go ahead and replace the speedy tag if you want. It's just an... odd little page that doesn't quite fit any of the nice little boxes in the speedy criteria. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs)
It seemed to be promoting the service to me. I'm perfectly happy to let the debate run its course however. We'll see if the prod tag gets any response, and if it doesn't the article can be nominated for deletion. I'm sure it will go down over there (since I tend to check in on those pages frequently) and in the meantime it's not doing any harm. Thanks for the conversation to break up my new page patrol! And now, back into the void. →Bobby←

[edit] Jason Pierce AfD

Sure. Obviously, I made a mistake. If this guy is so great and famous it would seem all his supporters would write a decent article. I think the current one is pitiful, but I don't really care about the guy. -Regards Nv8200p talk 03:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know too much about him, but I'm going to try and clean up the article a bit myself. →Bobby←

[edit] Demolition Man (film)

On the point of contention, I'm not sure much can be done. I may resign this issue as it's consumming too much time.

Here it is. There is one point of trivia on both Demolition Man (film) and Scott Peterson. Namely, his name appears in the 1993 movie, Demolition Man (film). The name appears for less than 5 seconds on the screen (I think more like two seconds). I have a VHS copy of this movie and I added the information after another had added the entry by an annoymous editor. There are no printed movie guides to this movie as it was a real loser at the box office. The only way to know about this small point of trivia is to describe it at length. I have done as much.

Unfortunately three (3) editors now are complaining that the entry is too long. 1 editor might be a sockpuppet, but that real makes not difference.

I tend to agree with them that the entry is a bit too long, but I'm getting no help from them as to how to shorten it. Hence, one (1) editor has repeatedly removed it and I have reverted as many times. Any suggestions welcome. --meatclerk 07:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've opened a brainstorm session at the bottom of the Demolition Man (film) talk page. Let's try to reach some sort of agreement there and get this matter sorted out. →Bobby←

[edit] Music of South Florida AfD

Just FYI, the Music of South Florida article has been expanded and is still growing. Let me know if it's being cleaned up to your expectations as you indicated in the Articles for deletion/Music of South Florida request. Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 17:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

And the result is keep!. Thank you for your help, Bobby! Dreadlocke ☥ 17:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby I need your help

Thanks so much for helping out with the South Florida Music article, I think we whipped that one into shape. I just finished editing an article for Country Gospel and have put it up for discussion to merge it with Christian country music. I did a huge amount of work on the country gospel article to bring it up to wiki standards as it was a real mess and people were just vandalizing it like crazy. Could you please look at the article and respond to the issue of merging it into the later article. They are both the same genre and I think it would serve better to have them put together. I contacted an admin about it and he agrees with me. I feel we need to just use the name Christian country music and totally wipe out its contents since it is mostly the same data and keep the data for Country Gospel. Could you look at it and weigh in on the merging issue? Thanks Junebug52 3:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the AMA!

Hello Robertbcole, I see that you have decided to join the AMA. I'll be the first to say welcome! We're always in need of more advocates, especially since were backlogged most of the time. Just a few pointers for what we do. We communicate by putting a template on our talk page. The template is {{AMA alerts}} (which you already have). The AMA also has it's own IRC channel which reports new cases to us, and also new alerts. If you'd like to jump right into a case, you are free to check out WP:AMARQ, which is our new request for advocacy system. The instructions for how the technical part works is on it's talk page. You can also use the AMA userboxes that appear under here. If you have anymore questions about the organization, just ping any advocates talk page, including our coordinator, Steve Caruso. Again, welcome to the AMA! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for helping out with my mediation case

You can find most of the beginnings of the debate at User_talk:Plasticbadge#Ruckus and at Talk:Ruckus_Network. We're currently mediating at Talk:Ruckus_Network/Mediation. Basically, an edit war erupted over Ruckus Network between User:Plasticbadge and User:Nroseszu. Nroseszu is an employee of Ruckus, and Plasticbadge is a self-described corporate watchdog who keeps an eye on edits to corporation wiki articles. In any case, the debate has mostly died down and is centered now on making improvements to the article. I suggested a revamp of the entire article at Talk:Ruckus_Network/Mediation which was agreed to by both parties. I operate in another time zone than the two of them, so a flurry of activity often happens when I'm asleep. Nroseszu wanted another mediator there when they were editing, although Plasticbadge thought it was unnecessary. I was hoping you might be able to step in if things get heated while I'm asleep or if the two have a specific dispute that needs to be resolved. Thanks so much, again! Gzkn 01:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are you the advocate for Ramsquire ?

I saw that you might have agreed to advocate a case for Ramsquire against me. He is already in a group led by an administrator named Gamaliel who want me banned from Wikipedia. Since this is probably the most severe sanction that can be sought, I was wondering whether I should have an advocate?

I also found out that there is something called a "cabal" that is going to be involved, and apparantly the cabal and Ramsquire are going to handle me "discreetly." Are you going to be the advocate in this discreet undertaking?

Are this types of actions normal?

Thank you in advance for any help and direction that you can supply.RPJ 10:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I have agreed to advocate for Ramsquire. Obviously, I can't say anything beyond that. I would definitely recomend getting an advocate to help explain various WP processes to you. The Cabal in question is a form of informal mediation used to try and control a situation before it gets out of control. You can obtain an advocate by requesting one through the AMA. Regards, →Bobby← 14:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Hey there. You asked me to leave information on the RfC about possibly resolving the dispute your client is involved in. I'm afraid I don't have any constructive ideas - my involvement was limited to responding to a WP:PAIN report. Per later discussion, RPJ seems to feel that everyone who has warned or blocked him is in collusion with those he has a dispute with - I've been unable to persuade him that this is not the case. Best of luck. Shell babelfish 18:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cfr

Hi! I just renominated the category rename at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_16#Category:Finland-Swedish --Espoo 16:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Checkuser list

Hi, just wanted to point out, in the event that it was an oversight, that you missed adding the ip 67.190.61.6 to your checkuser request. I have never really paid attention to checkuser prodcedure, so I don't know if it's too late or bad form for you add that IP now.--67.101.67.107 20:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the heads up. The case hasn't opened yet so I'll add it now. →Bobby← 21:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

Could you reduce the brightness of your signature a bit? Its too bright, lol. Happy editing. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Sigh* I guess so. How's this? →Bobby← 14:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMA Case for Spylab

Hi - based on my comment on the case page, Spylab has posted this, which you may like to read. Just to let you know =) Martinp23 14:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It's hard to keep track of my wikilife! →Bobby← 14:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I mistakenly thought User:Martinp23 was the advocate assigned in my case, and the following is part of what I posted on his talk page, in response to his comments and questions.

Ideally I would like User: Mitsos blocked and the Hrisi Avgi article semi-protected, so new and anonymous users can't edit it. I know there is are very specific (and sometimes confusing) policies for dealing with these kinds of problems on Wikipedia, so I will accept any good faith decisions based on non-biased application of these rules.

However, I do not consider inaction to be an acceptable outcome. If the Hrisi Avgi article becomes unprotected and user: Mitsos is not restrained from editing it, he will continue to revert it to inferior versions. And if the article remains protected as is, the article will continue to be in a state that is not as good as it could be. Any help or advice will be much appreciated.

I was drawn to the article mentioned above because of that editor's factually incorrect edits to other articles, the blatant bias he has displayed in those articles, and the personally abusive and racist language he has used in talk pages. Here's a summary of some of his offenses:

*deleting ‎information in articles that doesn't fit with his obvious political agenda.

  • adding unverified opinions and factually incorrect claims to articles, in order to promote his obvious political agenda.
  • deleting other people's comments on talk pages that make him look bad, or that don't fit with his political agenda.
  • repeatedly deleting a Neutrality Disputed tag on the article mentioned above, even though I have clearly explained why I dispute the neutrality of some of the sources in that article. Now I even question the reliablity of some of the information from neutral sources like Greek newspapers, because they are written in Greek, and have been translated and filtered by users like him.
  • repeatedly reverted mundane, yet necessary improvements to the article in question — such as the correct verb tenses, appropriate categorization of similar topics under one section, and the unwikifying of a name with no Wikipedia article.
  • Making widescale reverts without clearly justifying them, and then denying the extent of those large reverts.
  • expressing racist views on talk pages, such as proclaiming that whites are superior than other people, and using the word nigger to describe black people.
  • personally insulting other editors on talk pages, including using profanities.

That's just what I can think of off the top of my head. I realize that all Wikipedia editors make mistakes, and not all of my own edits have been correct, but I believe it is clear that the negative results of allowing user:Mitsos to alter content on Wikipedia outweigh any positive results. His editing pattern has been a detriment to the factual accuracy, grammar and clear readability of Wikipedia articles. His behaviour on talk pages has been a detriment to civil interactions within the Wikipedia community. Spylab 14:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Given enough time, I can dig up specific examples of offenses by User: Mitsos if that is required, because he has had a long pattern of improper behaviour. Thanks for any advice or action you can take. Spylab 16:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to what you said on my talk page: I'll try to do that stuff tonight or tomorrow. I want to ensure I make a strong case. Spylab 18:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the rough draft of the notice you put together, and you have provided a good cross-section of the kinds of offences the user has committed. I will try to set aside some time very soon to compile more examples. Spylab 02:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I just noticed the message you left on my talk page on Nov. 27 . Let me know what you want me to do, because I really have no idea how the administrator bulletins work, and what they should include. Spylab 13:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with your recommendation. I think it's a good idea to get the opinions of other editors. I will contact the other editor, but it might be a good idea if you did too. Spylab 14:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have read what you recently wrote on my discussion page, and I have no hesitation about going forward as described. Just keep letting me know what I need to do, and I will try to do those things as promptly as possible. Spylab 19:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In response to your last message, Yesterday I added examples of the most recent incidents to the rough draft page. The editor in question is currently under temporary suspension from Wikipedia. Spylab 14:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Reponse to your Dec. 7 messages: I signed the RFC, sent a message to SandyDancer about signing in the section for people directly involved instead of the "other supporters" section. I also posted a message on the talk page of Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Keltik31, and I will try to think of other places to post messages. Spylab 16:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Vacationing anonip that is usually in 67.101.x.x here. An FYI on response from Dmcdevit - User_talk:Dmcdevit#Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Shortcut.road. Sounds like he did just mean "confirmed" status for the user accounts, although *some* of the IPs may have also been Shortcut.Road. Anyway, I am far less peeved now with that clarification. When I return from vacation (so that I will be on 67.101 again), I will probably alter the mediation page to fix the comments of mine that were "reattributed" to Shortcut.Road, and uncross my vote. In the meantime feel free to conclude your mediation because A) Schortcut.Road et. al. were the main roadblock (assuming Cowicide remains civil) and B) I think am going to need to destress my wikilife with a long break from living persons biographies, anyway.--68.158.40.162 15:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I noticed the comments on Dmc's talk page. Sorry about the mix up. As I mentioned on the mediation page, I was quite surprised when it was (seemingly) determined that your account was another sock. Your contributions to the debate have been more reasonable than just about anyone elses, and it just didn't seem right to me. However, in most cases on the checkuser page, Dmc notes exactly which accounts hold which status. Thus, when I saw "confirmed all" I assumed he meant both ips and usernames. I feel ok about leaving the debate to the remaining editors (since Shortcut et al was the main disruption) but I'll still check in on it from time to time. Again, sorry about the false accusation, and I hope your partial wikibreak goes well; I could use one too. Regards, →Bobby← 15:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Advocacy

Hello! Thank you for your reply. Waiting until after the holidays would be better for me, too, so that's no problem. I'd like to do most of our communicating either on the Request page itself or through email. And I can certainly find those others who have had similar bad experiences; I do think he was broken official rules, namely WP:CIVIL, WP:EQ, WP:AGF, and WP:POINT, and it shouldn't be too hard to find those diffs. Thanks again for your help. I'll talk to you next week. --Masamage 19:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A message from SupaStarGirl

I am sorry about my "vandalism" of the Afd page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States). However, I never intended to become a vandal, and just wanted to play a joke once.

I never intended to hurt anybody:

  • It was an obvious joke, and I only did it once.
  • The joke was done with intention that the entry was not serious, and that the article would not be deleted. Only true vandals would really want to delete the article on the United States.
  • The sentence "Non-notable place. Too few people." was not meant to be serious either. In fact, I'm from the USA!
  • AfD is part of Wikipedia, but not part of the Wikipedia encyclopedia. It won't give people any misinformation.
  • The most important reason: On Special:Contributions/SupaStarGirl, the joke is surrounded by real AfD votes and vandal reversions. I would never convert to vandalism.

I am truly sorry. Thank you. SupaStarGirl 14:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I understand and assumed that you were just joking with the nomination. However, on the off chance that you had been lured to the dark side, I decided to drop a quick line. I would also point out that a proper AfD listing includes a template on the article page which mentions that the article in question is a candidate for deletion. If somebody came to wikipedia looking for info, and saw that an article such as USA was being considered for the trash, it could very well affect the credability of the encyclopedia. In retrospect, I see that you did not add the aforementioned template to the article. However, from my perspective (which may be a bit skewed since I volunteer as a mediator and advocate; positions that me in contact with a plethora of disruptive users) it is better to be safe than sorry. →Bobby← 14:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hwacha

I would like to ask you if you knew about Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-11-13_Hwacha_popular_culture, since you havent been active in it, yet seem to be assigned to it. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 11:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I opened the case and then went on vacation. I'll be dropping by today when I get to work. Sorry for the delay! →Bobby← 12:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's your problem?

Why do you want me blocked so desperately? Mitsos 15:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I 'm sorry then. And why do you think Spylad is right about the dispute? I use the talkpage, but he doesn't want to discuss. Mitsos 12:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your response. You did went too far, however. I mean, you have created a subpage accusing me of violating Wikipedia's policy at other cases, which has nothing to do with the dispute in Hrisi Avgi. Also, you said in Spylab's RfC: "This area is intended for communication between Spylab and his mediator. Other editors are welcome to post here, but it is not really the place for debating Spylab's position." Where can I debate Spylab's position, then? Thanks Mitsos 13:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the edits in your subpage are not violating any WP policy. For others, such as personal attacks, I have been blocked from editing. Mitsos 14:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just one more question. You said:"Spylab is disengaging (part of the DR process) from you in order to try and avoid exchanges that may be uncivil or unproductive." When is the "DR process" going to end? I want to work on the Hrisi Avgi article (mainly provide sources), but I can't because the article is protected. Mitsos 15:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advocacy on Martin Johnson article

Thanks for the prompt reply. Rugbyball is a new user and isnt scared of being bold so thats why I came to advocary, so the 'dont bite the new users' credo could be implemented as Im a tad hot headed myself. Hopefully he will see the issue plainly and continue to contribute. For the record I happen to agree with most of those statemnets but they do need citations. Adam777 19:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • If you can find sources, please throw them in there. In the interim, I have removed the statements to keep the article NPOV. It's good Rubyball is bold, so long as he doesn't break policy in his edits. I'll keep an eye on the page in question, and I'll also see if I can get a mentor to check up on him. Let me know if you need anything else. →Bobby← 20:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting My Edits

I don't understand how removing comments about "white emo jews" and "the running of the jews" is censorship. The article is practically patent nonsense. I'm going to at least remove the PAs. If you have an issue with this, kindly take it up on the article's talk page. Thanks. →Bobby← 16:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to why the issue is not obvious. Blanking out an article to which you have personal objections so that it can not be read by others is clearly censorship. Yes I do see that those specific comments are offensive. — RJH (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned with the integrity of the encyclopedia as well as the personal attacks. In my mind, nothing was lost from the encyclopedia by removing the blatently false prose. Anyone on the AfD debate can easily check the history for themself. I've no taken the time to remove comments that could be seen as personal attacks from the article, while leaving the non-offensive nonsense in tact. →Bobby← 16:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the removal of individual, unconfirmed and clearly false statements that are not backed up by references. I do have an issue with the an entire article being blanked in the middle of an AfD just because you took offense. But no matter. I guess we just have different views on censorship. — RJH (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I admit that I was probably a little brash to blank the article. After reading through the first few paragraphs and seeing nothing but outright lies and two personal attacks against jewish folks, I decided to cut the whole thing and let editors participating in the AfD check the history for themselves. In retrospect, I should have just taken the extra five minutes to filter only the offensive comments out. I apologize for my overreaction, and thank you for calling me on it. →Bobby← 16:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for that and I don't doubt but that the article will be summarily tossed once the votes are in. (Or else that it will be heavily re-written.) — RJH (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry, but I protest...

Sorry, but I protest the handling you are giving Talk:Hwacha/Mediation, you seem to be ignoring HappyApple's side of the discussion. see Talk:Hwacha/Mediation and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-13 Hwacha popular culture User:Pedant 21:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry you feel that way. I'm still trying to get caught up on where folks stand. Shortly after taking the case, I went away for a while and it slipped my mind. Eventually OrbitOne reminded me about it, and now I'm trying to get caught up. The talk page at the Hwacha article is quite a mess, and my attempt to start a fresh discussion fizzled rather quickly. As it stands now, I just saw OrbitOne make a pretty amicable (based on his previous position of "no inclusion") offer, and I wanted to see where that would lead. I'm trying pretty hard to get caught up on the particulars, but it's tricky since the debate is ongoing. If you want fresh eyes I won't complain, but I am going to try really hard to get on top of this thing. →Bobby← 21:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I posted it there, but seriously, it was posted here right at the top of the compromise section on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-13_Hwacha popular culture#Compromise offers. I totally don't understand why discussion doesn't occur at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-13_Hwacha popular culture, the original page. Please read that page at least, since it has a lot of info pulled from the original discussion.

Wikimachine was banging on HappyApple about his contributions being in bad English and unproffessional, he called him a game maniac and literally told him to "Go Away". He and Orbit concocted a vote twice to support their position and were voted down twice. I suspect, but haven't any idea how to prove, that one or both of them are behind creating the policy at the wikiproject that they are citing as 'law', and I believe they are trying to use this case to make sweeping policy changes 'under the radar' and without concensus. Please take your time and really dig on this case, as it is likely more important than it seems on the surface.

If you need help, drag in some more mediators, because I think HappyApple is completely in the right here. He has been insulted, his content deleted without discussion, he's asked for help and has respected the advice given him, he's refrained from reinstating the valid, true, referenced info these two have kept deleting. Pop culture sections are a well-settled part of wikipedian reality and there is no policy that says they should not be. The guideline they are using to have it deleted is obscure and has limited support. Wikiproject military history claims jurisdiction over the article but surely their small group does not override community-wide consensus. User:Pedant 22:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salted and blocked and whoo that feels good.

All taken care of. I'll be on the look-out for any future incarnations of it. (I do so love New Page Patrol.) Cheers. -- Merope 17:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I'll also be looking out for these new age schools. Whatever happened to plain old vanity articles? *sigh* →Bobby← 19:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hwacha/Mediation

As the mediator, I feel I should come to you for requests in mediation, such as roping in the "all the other users insulted HappyApple", because the statement put me in the catagory that I insulted him, when in fact I strongly feel I haven't. It is a roadblock to mediation and I feel it is your job to step in between me and Pedant at this point.
--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 15:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] RfC on Mitsos

To be honest, I don't remember the interaction I've had with Mitsos in the past. Could you show me where you saw that me and him had interaction and then I could possibly comment on the RfC? Thank you, Cla68 23:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, u are right. I've moved my view in the main page. Regards Hectorian 15:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment in my talkpage. I haven't edited other user's comments on the RfC. When is the RfC process going to end? Mitsos 16:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It happened during an edit conflict, as I said on the RfC. Mitsos 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Im the same as Hectorian, i had a look on the talk page history and the archive, and i cant see any interaction. Any ideas? Reedy Boy 18:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wringer Magic Trick

Why has this been proposed for deletion? It's a legitimate trick, performed by many magicians. Czolgolz 18:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. I have some books on stage magic, I'll work on it this weekend. While the wringer is not a hugely popular trick, some of the other magic tricks listed were single performances. I'll try to update everything. Czolgolz 14:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../-/b/o/User_talk%7E-Bobby_2c83.html"