User talk:BorgHunter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AMA Alert posted: There are 16 cases that need Advocacy (view by date filed). A discussion on how to restructure and improve the AMA is going on at AMA talk page and meeting points are being drafted for the next Meeting. Everyone is invited to help build a consensus as to how to improve and correct issues with the AMA.
Welcome to my talk page. Please leave me a message here! Note that if you leave a comment here, I will reply to it here, so if you want to keep track of my replies to you, you should place this page on your watchlist. Thank you! —BorgHunter

Archives: Greeting | 2005 | Jan–Feb 2006 | Mar–Apr 2006 | May 2006





Contents

[edit] requesting explanation for unfounded, unexplained block (made in violation of blocking policy)

Continuing.

I found the following message when I tried to edit today "Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by BorgHunter for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Pat8722". The reason given for Pat8722's block is: "Gaming of the three revert rule. It is not an entitlement; it is rather an electric fence" Your IP address is 72.131.49.76. I have never gamed the three revert rule, and am entitled to a statement as to the factual basis upon which it is alleged I did, considering that I was reverting unilateral reversions that were made without addressing the outstanding questions stated on the talk page.pat8722 14:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Your block has expired now, but I will indeed give you an explanation. You made 6 reverts in 24 and a half hours. That's textbook gaming of the 3RR rule. As for quote-unquote "unilateral" reversions, check your Request for Comment page. No one has agreed with your summary, but a number of people have agreed with the view opposing yours. I think you might be the one being unilateral here. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
[03]Your "explanation" of the block requires some explanation. Do you know what a "unilateral" reversion is? I was myself reverting a unilateral reversion, so my reversion was permitted under the wiki 3rr rules governing unilateral reversions. So do you agree that blocked me for a non-3rr issue? A reversion is forbidden when the reversion doesn't address the unanswered questions and concerns outstanding on the talk page, particularly where the reversion being reverted by me has been frequently made in the past without addressing the outstanding questions and concerns. Reversions of such unilateral reversions are permitted, which is all I did. My second question to you is: Did you read the full Talk:Libertarianism page before you blocked me? My third question to you is, were you a past participant on any of the talk pages concerning these disputes? My fourth question is, are you an associate of any of those who have previously participated? Your block of me was entirely against wiki policy. pat8722 17:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
You're not blocked anymore, man. Even if I were to somehow admit wrongdoing, what exactly do you expect I would do to rectify it? There is nothing more to be done. The matter is closed, and I have nothing more to add, except: Please don't revert war. Thanks. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
[05]No, its not over. Unless you acquaint yourself with wiki policy and what I did for which you blocked me, you are likely to do the same. Three reverts a day are permitted, when that is the only way to get those who are NOT seeking consensus (by their failing to answer the outstanding questions and concerns) to seek consensus (by answering the outstanding questions and concerns.) If you follow wiki policy, eventually the others will engage in meaningful debate and we will resolve the dispute, or they will "give up" and go elsewhere where they will do less harm. So please assure me that will not block me again for using my daily alottment of three reverts, until paragraphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235] are answered, as wiki policy required them to be. Please also answer my other questions, as it appears to me we have yet to see an unbiased person participate on the RFC page.pat8722 19:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Pat, I strongly urge you to stop this. You are not "allotted three reverts" during the course of the day, you are LIMITED to three reverts to prevent the exact same sort of revert-warring you are engaging in. Furthermore, you did violate the 3RR. BorgHunter legitimately blocked you for a short cool down period- after which you've chosen to violate Wikipedia's civility policy by calling him a "bully" and stating that "he is destroying wikipedia". You need to calm down and realize that you're not in the right here, and cool off a little. Daniel Davis 01:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
[07]BorgHunter, when you added the minor "::" to my comments on your discussion page, you stated in the "edit summary" field the belligerent comment you should have stated in the discussion text, namely "Yes, the matter is closed. Mainly because I choose now to stop replying to it. Good day". That is not a rational response. You (and Daniel Davis above )are ignoring the KEY POINT, my reverts are ENTIREYLY CONSISTENT WITH ALL PRESENT WIKIPOLICY. It is those who revert my reverts WHO ARE NOT FOLLOWING WIKIPOLICY. Consistent with the approach of consensus building, I have posed questions to the reverters, which they are merely ignoring, choosing to make the forbidden unilateral reverts, instead. Therefore they are the ones wiki policy requires you to warn and block, not me. The only reason for the blocks of me have been political and the result of "piling on", where the admins doing the warning and blocking have not actually looked at the facts to determine what has been going on, and who the policies should be enforced against. Three reverts a day of those who are unilaterally reverting my reversions, by failing to respond to the questions at paragraphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235] is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH PRESENT WIKI POLICY? Do you agree that a response to relevant questions is a necessary part of consensus building, and that without it, "consensus" is just the forbidden "vote" wikipedia: voting is evil? I would like your assurance that you will NOT block me for three reverts a day on the Libertarianism page, until my questions at paragarphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235] on its talk page are answered by those who do the reverts.
[08]Without discussion on the points raised, do you agree that there is no consensus building, only bullyism?
[09]Please also answer the questions at paragraph [03] above, as you are looking like a classic bully admin who abuses his powers and should be stripped of that role. Is there any review process in wikipedia, for proposing that you be stripped of your admin powers for bullyism?pat8722 17:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Pat, sorry for the lack of response. Your comment got added at the same time as one by Mel Etitis below, and I looked at his without looking at yours first. I only noticed it when you added the paragraph numbers. My apologies.
You claim that I'm being a bully. Can you please provide evidence of this? If I seem that way to you, I apologize, this was never my intention. However, I would like to note that you have been tossing insults about on this talk page, such as "bully", and also suggesting that I be stripped of my sysop powers. If you plan, as stated in your edit summary, to make a complaint against me, these words will indeed come back to haunt you, and you may find yourself in hot water rather than the other way around. It is generally best, in a dispute, never to let your temper get the best of you, and to always follow WP:CIVIL.
As for some of the rest, I see some misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy. "choosing to make the forbidden unilateral reverts", for example, is one. Reverts are not forbidden, as sometimes an editor or a group of editors may need to alter text that may not fit with other Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NPOV. Sometimes, reversions are the only way to make the text fit with such policies. It should not be taken as an attack on you or your prowess at editing articles. I further note that you make numerous references to consensus. I admit that I have not visited Libertarianism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) in a while, but last I was there, there were two or three editors reverting your changes, while you were the only one adding them or suggesting that the text be changed. To me, consensus would seem to be clearly in favor of the group of editors rather than your side. In my mind, if an editor is truly concerned about consensus, he would not make a large a disputed change, such as yours, once, much less repeatedly, without a note on the talk page and discussion on the proposed wording. Revert wars, such as the one you entered into, do nothing to further Wikipedia's goals, and are extremely detrimental to the project, as it causes tempers to run hot and people to lose their cool. As I have no desire for such behavior to continue, I blocked you for twenty-four hours, attempting to give you and the other side a chance to cool down, as well as hopefully demonstrating to you that such behavior is unacceptable. Your response to my block has been argumentative and petty, which is unfortunate, as I don't think my message has gotten through to you. My main point, which I beg of you to understand and take to heart, is that Revert wars are harmful to Wikipedia. There is no leeway allowed on that rule, nor is there any discussion to be made. Such behavior does nothing but turn Wikipedia into a haven for bickering, arguing, and doesn't help write articles. I would suggest to you that you not make another revert to Libertarianism at all, and instead, that you try to strive for consensus on the talk page. Revert warriors, no matter their cause, are frowned upon here. Please do not continue such behavior. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[13]"Bully" is a perfectly good english language word. It means "to bluster or domineer" (New Webster's Dictionary, Westin FL, 2005). Admins who don't investigate before they block, who don't give explanations for their blocks, and who speak and act without checking the facts, meet the definition and need to be dealt with as such.

[14]"Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another", such as you and the others have been making are what is defined as "incivil" [wp:civil].

[15]Your latest problem as revealed above, is that you consider "voting" to establish "consensus". OF COURSE THAT IS TOTALLY UNTRUE (see wp:voting is evil and wp:consensus). If as an admin you still don't know so, that's more than one reason to eliminate you as an admin.

[16]You also state "if an editor is truly concerned about consensus, he would not make a large a disputed change, such as yours, once, much less repeatedly, without a note on the talk page and discussion on the proposed wording". That is the whole point YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE FOR MISSING - I DID make many comments on the talk page, and I have repeatedly provided the cites to it. I will do so again -,see paragraphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235] on the talk:libertarianism page, which are still awaiting an answer so we can achieve consensus. You just keep proving you did not investigate before you blocked me, and that you have no interest in investigating to see if what you say is true. (Another major reason to eliminate you as an admin.)

[17]You say you blocked me for making "unilateral reverts" (which I have never done). You have then given examples only of unilateral reverts you say are ok. As you unjustly blocked me for allegingly making "unilateral reverts", describe what you mean by "the forbidden kind of unilateral reverts", as you have been asked to do.

[18]Lastly, revert wars happen all the time in wikipedia, and sometimes they are the only way to get others to make an effort at achieving consensus - by encouraging them to respond to outstanding points on the talk page - the only real way to do it. (It's either that, or getting you to block them for their unilateral reverts -which do you prefer?) Your failure to answer the questions of paragraph [03] above, indicate you have something to hide. Combined with all of the above, you definitely should not be an admin. What is the procedure for accomplishing that? pat8722 22:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not put words in my mouth; I've never suggested using voting to achieve consensus. I said that discussion, not voting, is necessary. Also, I am aware that you placed notes on the talk page; however, this does not excuse revert warring, which is not an acceptable method of editing, as you suggest. If you're making edits that are being reverted without discussion, follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. If there is discussion but the outcome is not in your favor, which is what I believe has happened...shoot for a compromise. Don't inflame tempers. I'd be glad to help you out in editing in this sort of fashion, if you wish—doing so creates a scenario in which people are far more willing to work with you. It also doesn't get you blocked under the 3RR.
If you wish more eyes to be on the situation (note that this is not a trial to get my sysop bit flipped), follow the steps on Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. That page states that if discussion has failed, mediation or a request for comment is next. A RfC is less formal, more open, and I would heavily advise against this course of action in view of your own outstanding RfC which has shown relatively few users supporting your view. Mediation is currently fairly backlogged, and I doubt you could get through. I'd like to head off either course of action, though, so as not to create undue work for Wikipedia. Again, I'm not sure what you desire from me...could you please say so? I'm a pretty easygoing guy, and I'm not unwilling to make accomodations for you, within reason. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[19]It is clear that reversions of my edits were unilateral, not the result of "discussion", in that "discussion" must be two-sided, and my questions at paragraphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235] on the talk: Libertarianism page are still awaiting an answer.

[20]If you believe that "discusssion" is what is necessary to resolve edit wars, then we have no dispute. You and I need only to come to a joint conclusion on how that is achieved. Mediation and Rfc's accomplished nothing, in that only the original parties and their associates, took part, consisting of the same unfounded accusations, the same failure to answer my points, and the same ongoing failure of their admin cronies to actually read the talk page to see what had actually happened.

[21]Right now, the only thing keeping a "non-definition" on the Libertarian page is a "majority vote" being enforced by a couple strong-arm admins, who haven't read the talk page and who don't respond to the points I raise in objecting to their block of me.

[22]Discussion is necessary to achieve consensus, and discussion means "debate, examination" (New Webster's Dictionary, 2005, Westin FL), which requires the others to respond in the discussion, i.e. to answer paragarphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235]. As the only party being blocked is the only party willing to enage in discussion on the unresolved points, the problem of the wrongful blocking has got to addressed.

[23]It is only because a cabal of editors have a couple of admin friends who they know will block me for reverting them, that keeps a "non-definition" and "false by implication" "definition" on the Libertarianism page, and which keeps them from participating in discussion. To my understanding, there are only two ways to encourage discussion (dispute resolution) with non-compliant parties under the wikipedia rules - doing three daily reverts and using blocking.

[24]My three dailing reverts did finally begin to work, when Rehpotsirhc made an attempt to respond to my questions (insulting me in the process, but I don't mind as at least he responded) and to propose a compromise definition at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libertarianism&diff=49047925&oldid=49037958, but the others, knowing no attempt at consensus was necessary as long as they had strong-arm admins to enforce a mere majority vote, would not respond to efforts to parse that definition to see if it was the equivalent Rehpotsirhc believed it was, or whether it was an accurate definition if it was equivalent.

[25]If the couple admins involved would just follow present wiki policy by allowing me my three reverts of unilateral reversion (or by blocking the unilateral reverters), the others will either engage in discussion (i.e. answer paragraphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235] on the talk: Libertarianism page, such that the outstanding issues will be resolved, or they will go elsewhere where they will do less harm, and we will finally have a chance to put the definition of Libertarianism on the Libertarianism page, rather than the absolute nonsense they have there now, and which they know cannot survive discussion.

[26]Since you are presently the primary obstacle standing in the way of achieving discussion (i.e. consensus building) on the outstanding points (paragarphs [113], [118], [224] [229], [231], and [235] on the talk: Libertarianism page), and since you have been violating wiki policy in blocking me for using my three revert allotment to encourage consensus building (i.e. consensus-building through discussion on the talk page), and in failing to block the others for their unilateral reversions of me (in violation of 3rr, even though using less than 3 reverts a day) by failing to respond to the outstanding quetsions on the talk page (paragarphs [113], [118], [224] [229], [231], and [235]), the main problem right now to "how wikipedia is supposed to work" is you, and such as the one other admin who also blocked me without investigating ("piling on"). Since "discussion" is the solution, how do you propose making that come about? pat8722 18:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, ceasing to refer to the 3RR as giving you "an allotment of three reverts" is a good first step, because that is explicitly not so. Secondly, I encourage you not to edit war, and to discuss on the talk page. That's really about it; I don't wish to throw my hat into the ring on the Libertarianism dispute. I don't like confrontation. Cheers! —BorgHunter (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[28]No, not good enough. I DO have an allotment of three reverts a day, particularly where those reverts are NECESSARY to encourage the others to engage in discussion, there being no other means to achieve consensus. My use of reverts was ENTIRELY WITHING WIKI POLICY, and you know it. It's not like you don't like confrontation (blocking is a form of confrontation), it's that you don't like investigating before you confront, or engaging in discussion after you confront - you just like to use the bully power. Five votes, and two admin cronies to enforce it, have succeeded in keeping the definition of Libertarianism off the Libertarianism page - not the way wikipedia is supposed to work. So, what is the procedure for stipping you of admin powers?pat8722 15:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There is none; please follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. I've said all I have to say on the subject. If you don't choose to believe me, that's your prerogative, but you really should. Admins only become such when they have a decent understanding of wikpolicy. That's not to say I'm some sort of god at it, but you really, really should believe me when I say that the 3RR is an electric fence and does not entitle you to three reverts per day. It says so at WP:3RR quite clearly. Please read that policy page in depth. —BorgHunter (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
BorgHunter's exactly right here, Pat. You say, "I DO have an allotment of three reverts a day". But that's simply not the case. The point of 3RR is to stop edit wars in their tracks. This does not mean that it's the only way to stop edit wars -- just one of the quickest. Habitual edit warriors very quickly discover that 3 or even 2 reverts will get them blocked. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Yep revert warring is bad, we do not condole it by allowing users to revert 3 times every day. Borghunter acted appropriately by enforcing a short calm down block to stop an edit war. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


[31] Daily 3r's aren't prohibited, or there would be 1rr rule, not a 3rr rule, and because sometimes 3r's are the only way to encourage consensus building on the part of those who make unilateral reverts rather than engaging in discussion before they revert. Which has been my whole point on the Libertarianism page - how ELSE is there to encourage the others to respond to paragraphs [113], [118], [224] [229], [231], and [235] on the talk: Libertarianism page, unless we recognize that there IS an edit war going on, CAUSED BY THE UNILATERAL REVERTS OF FIVE EDITORS, not my 3r's. To suppress the innocent party in a revert war simply because they are "outnumbered" would totally destroy the foundation of wikipedia. You stopped the revert war by blocking the INNOCENT PARTY,by enforcing a mere vote (see wikipedia: voting is evil), rather than blocking the real offenders - those who are making unilateral reverts without responding to the outstanding questions. You say there is no procedure for stripping you of admin powers, but that seems unbelievable. Every rational system has way to strip those who abuse police power of police power, which is what the admin power is. If it is true that "Admins only become such when they have a decent understanding of wikpolicy" then you should know what such a basic procedure is. It will likely be awhile before I have time to adequately address your violations of wikipolicy before the wikipedia community, but I would at least like to get started, by checking out the procedure for stripping you of your admin powers. pat8722 17:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've told you all I can, I don't think this discussion is productive, and I will not be continuing it. The only way to even possibly remove my sysop privs is by WP:RfAr. Good day. —BorgHunter (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patent nonsense

Thanks, do you happen to know what category the other stuff would fall under, taking a look thats the only thing that seems to fit -- Tawker 04:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

To what other stuff do you refer? Failed and misguided policy pages generally do not get deleted; they're marked rejected and left alone. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Favorite Songs

My survey has changed. I am now continuing my mission for the best songs, but now I am accepting all genres. I'm giving you a chance to revote for your top ten favorite songs of any genres (not just classic rock which is still the best). I've made a executive decision to keep the existing survey results and just add on to that with the new entries. My feeling for doing this is because classic rock is the most influential genre in music currently so it should be expressed more in the survey. Thank you for contributing in the past, and hopefully in the future. ROCK ON. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 03:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semiprotected

I have semiprotected your user page after a sockpuppet attack. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Marine 69-71

Stop editing and reversing my user page! The image of Obed Gomez's (Who is my friend and whose Bio I wrote) painting was uploaded with his personal permission as stated. I consider it disrespectful that you reverse my edits in "my User page" without even consulting me in my talk page. Tony the Marine 05:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read the link in my original edit summary, as well as Wikipedia:Fair use. It doesn't matter if you have permission to use it on your user page, Wikipedia policy is very very clear. Here's a quote of the relevant policy for you:
"Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page)."
I'm surprised that, as a sysop, you were unaware of the policy, but I hope you're duly informed now. I shall remove the image one last time now; any further additions of unfree images to your userspace will result in a post on WP:ANI. Thank you in advance for your understanding. If you wish to continue your use of the image, you could always ask your friend to license the image under the GFDL or rough equivalent. Cheers! —BorgHunter (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You are right and I was wrong. Thanks for clearing the situation for me. Youirs truly, Tony the Marine 06:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MiB

i've been an architect for years now, and this is the first i've seen of MiB and GiB. i gather from your comment on your modification on the intel core page that it is that Mi and Gi are to represent 2^20 and 2^30 respectively, whereas presumably M and G represent 10^6 and 10^9. what's Mi stand for then? if million, it should be the 10^6 that gets it, not 2^20. what might Gi stand for? Gillion?

in any case, in architecture itself, both in the academic literature and in industry, nobody ever refers to quantitites of memory as MiBs or GiBs, and it was confusing to see the core article using this largely unknown and arguably inaccurate terminology. i propose you or i shift it back, so that those who are familiar with architecture don't waste time figuring out what is going on here, and those who aren't don't start off learning terms which architects will not understand.

if you really want to distinguish between powers of 2 and 10, then do what some hd manufacturers do: say e.g. '10 thousand million bytes'. or do what all engineers and academics i know do: call them all MB and GB, understanding that there is a 2% difference, and in the rare case where it might matter, put a footnote saying, for example, 'we have assumed for simplicity that 1MB=10^6 bytes'

if you've got questions, please write.

--hamstar 18:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

update: i've found the wikipedia article for mebibyte. given that's there, i propose changing at least the first reference to it on pages where this terminology is used to a link to this artice. i can't speak to whether it is a legitimate abbreviation or not -- wikipedia does tend to confer an imprimatur of authenticity on whatever it speaks -- but i do know that if anyone should be familiar with this terminology, it would be an architect, and i, an architect familiar with architecture literature, have never seen it.

perhaps when we are working with quantities of data such that for units 2^10k in common use, 2^(10*k) and 10^(3*k) diverge by more than a few percent, the literature will begin to change. but until then, it seems to me that MiB and GiB are distractions that should at least be clarified with links, if not just omitted as unecessary pedantry.

--hamstar 22:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the first instance of mebibyte and gibibyte in an article should be wikilinked. As for you not seeing it, it's a fairly new term, mainly because, yes, the difference between 1000 bytes and 1024 bytes is all of 24 bytes, a whopping 2.4% difference. As we move past hard drives measured in gigabytes into terabytes, though, it definitely begins to be noticeable and a problem. Personally, I think that it makes a lot more sense to use MiB instead of putting a footnote at the bottom saying "1MB = 1,048,576 bytes", especially considering that scientifically, Mega- means million. As for its being pedantry...is computer science a science, or isn't it? I sure hope so, otherwise the degree I want to get won't be worth much. Science should always be pedantic, and when it isn't is a cause for concern. —BorgHunter (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It's both new AND it's stupid. But I don't dare speak up about how absolutely horrid it is for a commonly used scale like kilo, mega, giga tera to be ripped to pieces on account of a whole 24 bytes. Oh well. :P -- Daniel Davis 01:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
i will make a link of MiB wherever i see it. to address your other points, it is a balance between precision and accessibility. as the exponent grows, the divergence increases: between 2^20 and 10^6, it is 4.8%, between 2^30 and 10^9 7.3%, between 2^40 and 10^12 9.95%.
these differences are not inconsiderable, and it's clear they're trending upwards. however, the binary and decimal versions of relevant quantities in the forseeable future will clearly remain within an order of magnitude of one another, and that's really the key. having said this, let me make three points:
  • whether decimal or binary units are being used is clear from the context. when applied to frequency, it is decimal; when applied to bulk storage it is generally decimal; when applied to physical or virtual memory it is binary. this specialisation of units is nothing new: when measuring iron, standard ounces are used; when measuring gold, the troy ounce, 4/3 of a standard ounce, is used. even in the US, in some pubs, beer is measured using the imperial pint, 570ml, while bottled water or milk is measured in the standard pint of 470ml. generally, the gold unit is called simply the ounce, the beer unit called simply the pint.
  • how important is this precision in the places we're seeing it used? for example, in processor specifications, the variance between 2^10k and 10^3k is a significant fraction of the difference in frequencies between components in the product line -- but, frequency comparison between different product lines is meaningless, and within a processor family, relative frequencies can be gauged without being aware of whether the GHz is a power of ten or of two. core frequency by itself is such an irrelevant value that AMD even marketed chips for years tagged with an 'intel-equivalent' frequency -- i once had an athlon '2000+' which ran at 1.6 GHz. this should show that the precise frequency is inconsequential, but even were precision meaningful, it wouldn't be relevant information for, i think, virtually all consumers. similarly, consider disk drive capacity. when the filesystem overhead and internal fragmentation can significantly affect the stated and actual capacity of a disk, a few percent aren't crucial. when thinking about network bandwidth, are you carefully subtracting all the tcp overhead?
  • computers are increasingly vital for effective living, and the steep learning curve already provides a barrier to many people. i argue that to the average consumr, the difference between 10^9 and 2^30 is not only irrelevant but not immediately comprehensible, and the presence of two terms seeming to fill the same void a serious distraction. think back, how many times have people told you that they have 120 gigs of memory on their system? how many times have you explained the difference between ram and fixed disk? overzealous precision can disenfranchise such people, who have made no mistake except for having other hobbies than studying computers.
having said this, there are still certainly places where the difference is vital. the space probes which have crashed due to metric/standard confusion come to mind, and of course medical applications. so, a clear terminology should be available. should it, however, be ubiquitous?
good luck to your degree ambitions. most of the year i am downstate from you at UIUC, perhaps i'll run into you sometime. --hamstar 18:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do I work at Staples?

lol...why yes, I do. I was bored one day and I decided to update the Staples page. Thanks for the sugesstions.

[edit] Baseball bios

Hey, can you try to expand the baseball bios some, other than a sentence, a stub tag and a infobox. Also can you do a infobox for me in David Clyde please if you can. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

When all I know about the person is a sentence and an infobox, it's difficult. —BorgHunter (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for an advocate and mediation

Greetings,

I need an advocate who will walk me through the medation application.

I am trying to get the following added to the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

I am having problem with an editor by the name of Lethe who follows me around Wikipedia reverting all my edits without commentary.

I have tried reasoning with him on discussion pages, but he refuses to read what I write.

Advantages of MWI

If Hugh Everett's theory was just another interpretation of Quantum Mechanics it would have no followers, especially since it proposes the existence of countless other unverses which theoretically can never be observed. Because it is not falsifiable it seemingly violates Popper's criteria for a good scientific theory. The reason it has so many adherents is because it offers numerous advantages over the Copenhagen Interpretation, among which are the following:

1. Quantum mechanics becomes a deterministic theory making it more compatible with the theory of relativity and all other physics theory to date which are all deterministic. The Coppenhagen Interpretation introduced indeterminacy and randomness into science. Aside from the Coppenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics there is no scientific theory that includes indeterminacy or randomness. Einstein particularly objected to this aspect of the Coppenhagen Interpretation. In response to it, he said, "God does not play dice with the universe."

2. It eliminates the "measurement problem."

3. It eliminates Von Neumann's "boundary problem": where to draw the line between the micro world where quantum mechanics applies, and the macro world where it does not. Shortly before his death in 1953, Albert Einstein wrote: "Like the moon has a definite position whether or not we look at the moon, the same must also hold for the atomic objects, as there is no sharp distinction possible between these and macroscopic objects."

4. It eliminates the special place for an observer and human consciousness.

5. It restores objective reality of the universe between measurements. Shortly before his death, Albert Einstein also wrote: "Observation cannot CREATE an element of reality like a position, there must be something contained in the complete description of physical reality which corresponds to the possibility of observing a position, already before the observation has been actually made."

6. The wave-particle duality paradox evaporates. It simply and naturally explains the double-slit experiment. Richard Feynman said, "[the double-slit experiment] has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery." David Deutcsh wrote: ". . . the argument for the many worlds was won with the double-slit experiment."

7. Schrodinger's Cat paradox evaporates.

Based on the above advantages, it seems Einstein's main objections with quantum mechanics had more to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation, than with quantum mechanics itself[citation needed]. While MWI does not quite generate the kinds of worlds necessary to justify the anthropic principle, it is a step on the way to Stephen Hawking's No Boundary Proposal and Max Tegmark's All Universe Hypothesis which do justify the anthropic principle[citation needed].

Michael D. Wolok 17:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My (Mtz206) RfA

Thanks for supporting me in my RFA. My Request was successful with 41 supports, 12 opposes and 5 neutrals, and I'll do my best to live up to your expectations. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line. -- mtz206 (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agent Sparks

I was not aware that this article had gone through AfD. Had I known, of course, I would not have speedied it. How can I see the AfD record? I fail to see how it could have survived, given that there is no assertion of notability in the article. ---Charles 18:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agent Sparks, which had been listed on Talk:Agent Sparks. Cheers! —BorgHunter (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
That is one of the shortest AfDs I've ever seen. Has the article changed since then? It is now exceptionally short, and I see nothin it that indicates notability or any significant achievement. ---Charles 01:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
It was even shorter then. Hm...you can always re-nominate. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not that worked up about it, really. But, I decided to take a look at it again, and when I opened it to make a minor edit, there is more text there than shows up when the edit box is not open. Someone must have edited the page, and hidden some of the text. How is that possible? I had no idea something like that could be done. ---Charles 15:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

This thing with the article was really frustrating. Bob Athayde is probably one of the most deserving people and I'm friends with the person who wrote the article and the guy who hosts the non-profit site it's on. I got permission from the author to copy it over and to use the photo, but then the site guy (now former friend) yanked the plug.

Question though- isn't anything created by someone technically copyrighted? FWIW the content was never published anywhere in print- only on stanleymusic.org.

One other question, how would I go about promoting a site like mine? Would you want to do double duty as an admin there too? (right now there's nearly nothing to administer but am hoping that will change) btrotter 18:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, copyright is automatically created at the time of the piece's creation. It can, however, be reassigned to a publisher if that's in the contract. If it's not explicitly reassigned in some sort of contract, to my knowledge the copyright still lies with the original author and they, of course, can choose to alter the provisions of use of their works, including relicensing. For the record, IANAL, and I also don't want to be an admin anywhere else, but thanks for the offer. :) —BorgHunter (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The site owner stated that they had no written contract nor even an agreement. So his rights are questionable. The site is run by a school and is non-commercial- there was no real reason for a contract, just content being written by someone who knows the material and being added to the site. He told me in email that she has the right to approve use of the content but he would hope she wouldn't.. so the content was removed anyway so as not to step on toes. I'm setting about creating a new article using the other as a reference. BTW- I removed the links to my site so as not to spam. Once you read this, feel free to yank the section from your page. Thanks again for your help, this mess was rather embarassing. - btrotter 19:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:List of Shuffle! Ep TV

Why did you revert me? --Cat out 19:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I could find no criteria for speedy deletion that could be applied to the redirect. —BorgHunter (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is not used... And this is not in article namespace. --Cat out 16:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Share Webpages

Hi! I recently created an awesome subpage where you can share your favorite websites with other Wikipedians. Just click HERE. Thanks! If you liked that page, remember to check out my other subpages! --S-man 03:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My New Stories

Hi! I am S-man, and I have recently created a series of books which can be read on a subpage I created. Just go to User:S-man/Stuffed Animal Stories to read it, or if you want to join the fan club, go to User:S-man/Stuffed Animal Stories/Fan Club. If you do join the fan club or you like the series, you can choose to add this userbox to your page :

this user is a member of the Stuffed Animal Society.

Thanks! --S-man 11:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting Pages

Ok. :( I respect your decision. I am in love with my stuffed animal stories, though. I hope that dosen't get deleted. But I respect your thoughts, and will let you go ahead with the nomination. --S-man 16:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA comment

I wasn't planning on commenting to anyone regarding my RfA until it ends, but I just wanted to thank you now—not just for your vote of support, but especially for the reasoning you provided. I happen to share the same feelings on the "warning" incident as you do, but felt that to voice them myself would come off as desperate. In any case, the RfA still has almost a week to go, but in the event it fails I can at least take heart in the fact that no other major objections have been raised thus far. Thanks again. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Dear Borghunter, let me address the points raised on my talk page:

  • "your edit summary had me extremely upset"
I am sorry to hear that, especially since it is based on a misunderstanding. My edit summary consisted of two parts: a) "revert substandard pov pushing" and b) "date warring" - the former referred not to your edit at all, but to this edit, which is substandard for many reasons. Only the latter wording refers to your making the dates consistent. If you were offended by the former, I am sorry for the misunderstanding (I might have made two separate edits), if by the second I am sorry about that too.
  • "And finally, some unsolicited advice: Pick your battles."
I pick my battles and this was none of them. I don't go around changing the dating format on other pages. In this case I only defended the status quo.

"Does it really matter if the article uses "AD" or "BCE"? As long as it's consistent."

No, in the end it doesn't matter and WP policy rules that we should keep the original choice of the article. This always has been an "AD article", there is no reason to change this, and the only occurence of CE was in a passage currently warred over. There, the CE only appeared because another editor, who has been repeatedly admonished not to post it, disregarded that advise. I am sorry if his brazeness misled you into thinking that there was some inconsistency. To preclude that in the future, I have removed his insertion of CE.

I hope you understand this. So no hard feelings? Str1977 (smile back) 10:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMA Roll Call

There is currently an AMA Roll Call going on. Please visit the page and sign your name to indicate whether or not you're still active. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

I've recently replied at my RfA.--Andeh 12:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your RfA support!

Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA!
To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations!
To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well!
♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 03:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your confidence in me! ~Kylu (u|t) 03:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization Question

  • Seeing as you were an involved party, I thought it best to ask. Can the Theodore7 pages be removed from Category:Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines? Didn't know if they were there as an 1) example, B) official policy or 3) just a simple cat mistake. -- MrDolomite | Talk 19:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I've no idea why they're there. —BorgHunter (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, took me a while to find them, but I did remove the cat from both those pages. They were buried in the middle, both of the text and of the edit history. I left (hopefully) clear edit summaries -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Odd. Was there any context as to why the cats were added? Not that it matters, but I'm curious. :) —BorgHunter (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pat8722

Hey, I know you have been keeping track of Pat8722 since his edits on water fluoridation controversy, but I just wanted to bring to your attention a comment posted by Davidruben on Pat's RFC that he again seems to be stirring some trouble by making personal attacks--- of which the most ridiculous example is this. I know there are probably proper channels to go through in a situation like this, and Davidruben just placed a warning on Pat's talk page, but I thought you would be interested in knowing the current developments nonetheless. - Dozenist talk 03:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, sorry to bring you news about this user again, but continuing trouble on the TMD article brought Jersyko to post a complaint at WP:AN/I here. Pat is making constructive edits to this article extremely difficult, but I hope you can comment on WP:AN/I so that something can be done about Pat's actions. - Dozenist talk 00:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Birthday

Wishing you all the best on your birthday! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee.

-Have a good one -Ladybirdintheuk 08:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


Hungry? Here's a little snack for you on your birthday, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day, BorgHunter!

Have a good one. Mr. Turcottetalk 12:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick question re: Rush

Do you know the history behind the loss of the Rush trivia/Rush in popular culture articles? They are re-directing back to the main article. In my memory the content for those articles was removed from the main article during FA process. No Rush trivia or Pop culture content exists in the main article so these redirects, in effect, erase all the original content for both. I thought discussions about merging were leaning towards "no". Did I miss something? Anger22 12:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If you did, so did I. I have no idea what happened to the articles; have you looked at their histories? —BorgHunter (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
It was User:Philwelch that turfed it. His edit summary said the info was available in other articles?? As I recall, it is made up of information cut from the main article. Some tidbits of trivia are available in a few of their album articles. But I still feel the "pop culture/trivia" article stands well on it's own. I got it back. Anger22 23:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Athlon64 x2 logo.png)

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Athlon64 x2 logo.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Godammit...

Look, regarding the PVP change I made (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PvP), I wasn't trying to commit "Vandalism". I was just having a little joke concerning the latest strip (http://www.pvponline.com/). I mean, come on! You seriously weren't expecting that or something? I just changed it so that the fans could have a quick laugh for a bit! Hell, I even already sent off a link to Scott Kurtz himself! I bet he would've enjoyed the little tribute! Now I already had to send up a follow-up stating how you have no humor! Thanks a lot...

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 02:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zezima

We want the Zezima page back. (check the talk page) Thanks! - User:Merlin Storm

[edit] Re: Pat8722

I am sorry that I was away from Wikipedia for a while. I'll take a look at the case if it is reopened. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Excellent work

Thanks. I hadn't intended to do so much work on L station articles—I just seem to keep on coming back to them. —JeremyA 21:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Special elections to the United States House of Representatives

Thanks for catching the "tooth" typo. I can't believe anyone is really reading that article!—Markles 21:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Association of Members' Advocates

Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! Martinp23 20:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Upon returning to active editing, Pat8722 is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from any page or set of pages for disruptive editing. Should Pat8722 violate any ban imposed under probation, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 such blocks the maximum block period increases to one year. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 22:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi BorgHunter

You may have noticed that Theodore7 is back again, despite being banned.

Could something be done about it urgently, please, before he wrecks the astrology and Nostradamus pages again?

Thanks. --PL 15:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with user's personal attacks/dispute

Hi, kinda new to reporting problems so I just selection from the members list. I have an ongoing problem with a user who is doing original research and then making a personal attack against me on my talk page. See my talk page for more information - user:Pzg Ratzinger

[edit] Image Attribution

Thanks for your note about removing attribution. Since having my images themselves "edited" by re-uploading the initial image while removing the attribution requirements and then having attributions removed from the articles themselves I have decided that the donation of my work in this manner does not suit my needs since all attribution quickly disappears. No doubt this also explains the extreme sparcity of decent images available here. I read through the guidelines quickly before I began contributing my work and apparently missed the statement that attribution would not be made each time the image or a derivative was used which I thought was clearly stipulated in the licensing agreement. Dwightmccann 05:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with a post

This guy keeps deleting my posts for a term that I use and a lot of others also use. I am unsure how to deal with it, and figured I could use a little help. The term is "needer" and we use it in our martial arts. I saw that you were obviously a trekie and figured you may be my best bet. Also, I did what the other guy requested but it seems that he just wants the term removed. What can I do?

[edit] needer

sorry I failed to post my Elitemagroup 06:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking Assistance with Repeated Link Spam Reversions by OTR Spammers.

This is an ongoing issue, which I doubt can be resolved now without further intervention. There's been a longstanding spam linking war within the various old time radio related article proponents. The most egregious abuses are in the area of self-promoting external links from both commercial and simply self-promoting sites. I've tried several times in the past six months to remove the hundreds of spam links IAW the Wikipedia Guidelines on external links, to no avail. No sooner do I remove them, then they're reverted by one or more Yahoo Group, OTRR Group, or commercial or self-promoting site owners themselves or their agents. Since they post anonymously, and libel and slander the messenger each time their spam links are removed, we're at an impasse regarding any kind of rational resolution.

It's become a fiasco, and won't be resolved unless someone weighs in to resolve these issues once and for all. The most egregious abusers are www.otrsite.com, www.freeotrshows.com, www.otr.net, and libsyn.com (libsyn.com has over 270 self-promoting links within Wikipedia any given day). To otrsite.com's credit, I'm acquainted with Jerry Haendiges and his unparalleled contributions to Golden Age Radio over the years from his site. I can't for one moment believe that he'd sit still for his site being used to spam on Wikipedia. Rather, I'm convinced it's simply either otrsite.com fans or others doing the spamming. Libsyn.com's motives are rather more naked. They're clearly using Wikipedia as a link farm to their benefit. As for freeotrshows.com and otr.net: I'm aware of their sites, and they do offer completely free golden age radio content, which is commendable, but commendable or not, the practice violates Wikipedia's External linking guidelines by being both self-promoting and self-serving.

If the easiest way to resolve this is just to declare any an all link spam abuse as acceptable within Wikipedia, then I'm more than prepared to abandon the effort. But if, in fact, the Wikipedia External Linking policy and guidelines should be enforced, then someone's going to have to either ban www.otrsite.com, libsyn.com, freeotrshows.com, otr.net, and the several others, who continually, through their agents, repeatedly revert link spam removals.

Your thoughts one way or the other? If I'm all wet, so be it. But if in fact I'm following Wikipedia's External linking policies--correctly, or incorrectly--I'd love to know one way or the other. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.170.239.56 (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Request for Assistance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/December_2006/Gary123 Hey I read your describtion at the AMA listings and I feel like you could best help me in my dilemna. I'm not exactly a newbie, I've been quietly editing adding links and making stubs for nearly 2 years with very little trouble. But I ran into a particularly vindictive user over a dispute on the Mao unknown story pager and I've been afraid to use wikipedia for a while, since I fear he'll just jump on any edits I make as he already has. I did my to avoid going for outside help but now he has another guy helping him out. They tried to delete the Frank Hogan article I created without merit and now they're going after other articles I've wrote.

I began noticing between 2005-2006 the steady growth of Mao the Unknown story over wikipedia. While most historians acknowledge Mao's flaws that particular work has not been accepted by mainstream scholars and can best be described as pophistory with an extreme POV. I was disturbed when I saw how the Red Star Over China book had more devoted to the UK story's attacks on Edgar Snow than on the classic work itself. Hoping to promote a chnage I posted my objections on the talk page of Red Star and the talk page for unknown story. John Smith's and me had a debate about the merits of the source at the talk page. I then noticed that shortly after our dispute John Smith's removed several links from China-related articles and from the People's Volunteer Army article. Initally I was willing to accept this as a coincidence, but when I discovered comments on the Red star Over China page I realized that John Smith's had pursued theese articles vindictively. When I saw his nomination for deltion on Frank Hogan a NYC prosecutor he knew nothing about and far out of his range of expertise I was outraged. Thankfully users with more knowledge about NYC backed me up basically ending the dispute.

However crazyeddie rekindled the dispute after I made anedit to PVA. Initally I assumed that crazyeddie was trying to help and was jsut upset by the way the dispute had dragged over into other pages. However his nomination to delete Frank Hogan was completeley unmerited as revealed by the results of the VFd. This dispute began in early October and I have done my best to solve this problem without requesting assitance, after the Frank Hogan debacle however I feel I have no other choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frank_Hogan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/December_2006/Gary123


Please see the following pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crazyeddie#Frank_Hogan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Smith%27s#Frank_Hogan


ttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Star_Over_China&oldid=81886006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Volunteer_Army&oldid=90390582 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mao:_The_Unknown_Story/Archive_1#Unknown_History_VIRUS_INFECTING__wikipedia_one_article_at_a_time http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Hogan&oldid=81822987

Johnsmith's bullying has made it very hard for me to contribute and I've made several important contributions to wikipedia including the 1911 encycliopedia, countless Victor Hugo articles and many military and political articles. Many of the stubs I have created have vbecome major articles. This all would have been impossible had Johnsmith's been immediateley there to remove any of my contributions! Please help

--Gary123 12:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


Not to be a nag but since I've contacted you for help as an AMA my case has been moved from NEW to Pending which means I probaly won't be getting help from anyone else. I'd really appreaciate some feedback. I completely understand that you must be busy and everything, but like I've said earlier I've been completley unable to edit wikipedia. I have made countless minor improvements to wikipedia several of which have been wikied into major improvements and I'd had to ahave to abandonw wikipedia because of the vindictiveness of one user. So please help as soon as possible. Thanks for the help.

P.S. If you are busy and can't be of assitance I completley understand, but would appreciate if you would inform me since as long as my case remains in the pending status nobody but you can help me out.

--Gary123 15:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] newbie article dispute

How do I begin the process to resolve a dispute over an edit I attempted to make to an article?

[edit] Vandalism at Free Republic

BorgHunter, I must advise you that FAAFA is continuing to use an unreliable source in violation of WP:RS. He is opposed by a consensus, yet he keeps making these reverts to include material by Todd Brendan Fahey, a person who brags about the quantity and variety of illegal drugs and alcohol her has used. This is not a RS. Please make a ruling regarding the use of Fahey as a RS. -- BryanFromPalatine 20:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just saw this

Lol, that made me laugh[1]. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luckyluke RfA

Hi there BorgHunter,

I'm not sure if you remember or not. If not, the quick backgrounder is that I entered into a Request for Adminship candicacy in January 2006; and you were one of the editors that supported my run. At that time, the failure was arguably due to my inexperience indicated through my edit count. Since then, I have not been deterred from continuing to contribute to Wikipedia. At this time, I'm considering another candicacy - a little over one year from my last run. When you last supported me, you indicated that I could contact you for any future advice; well here I am. And the question goes, if you wouldn't you mind, can you please take a look at my Wiki-history and provide a brief overview of my potential this time around? If not, just let me know and that'll be fine too. Thanks for your time! :) Luke! 00:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Login name problem

Sorry to make a request like this, but I wanted to use the login name "V" but apparently its already been taken. HOWEVER, the user "User:V" has not edited anything in over a full year (and only made under 100 edits before that) and I suspect that the account name has simply been abandoned. Could I somehow get this username, as it appears to have been abandoned? If so, how?--130.64.137.195 20:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Uglyhill.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Uglyhill.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sandstein 07:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the scripted themplate above. I'll forgo it for the AfD. I've put up the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ugly Hill due to an apparent lack of notability; you're invited to comment. Sandstein 07:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
As part of a project to improve said article, the image in question has been obsoleted and replaced with a newer, licensed image. If you need help, feel free to contact me. Thanks! MostAwesomeDude / Be excellent / Party on, dudes! 01:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 01:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/o/r/User_talk%7EBorgHunter_76ea.html"