User talk:Bramlet Abercrombie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Bramlet Abercrombie, 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!  -Will Beback 20:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] External link rules

Dear Mr. Abercrombie,

Could you please tell me your basis for accepting or rejecting links in the external links section of any given article? Every time I add a link to a relevant website you have taken it upon yourself to remove it. I really would like to hear your view on this. Bomdeling 05:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not relevant, it's spam. Bhutantimes.com is essentially a Google News scraper with ads, its original content is negligible. People can type "Bhutan" into Google News themselves. Bramlet Abercrombie 10:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

So according to you the thousands of page views BhutanTimes.com receives everyday is by people who come to read spam? The most active Bhutanese forum which just happens to be on BhutanTimes.com is spam, of no value? Mr. Abercrombie, people prefer to visit the BhutanTimes.com rather than enter a search for "Bhutan" on Google because the BhutanTimes.com has content not just from Google but Yahoo and other sites and it makes Bhutan news very conveniently available. They also like to visit the BhutanTimes.com because the Forum there is one of the few places they can express their views freely. As a site, it adds considerable value to its many visitors, so please get off your high horse about what you consider spam. Keep editing it out, and I will continue to edit it in. Bomdeling 16:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The site barely registers on Alexa and the forum has 814 members. Furthermore, even if it were a useful site, you are not supposed to add links to multiple articles, especially when that is your main activity on the wiki. See WP:SPAM: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." Bramlet Abercrombie 17:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding and engaging in this discussion. I do appreciate that as well as the effort you made to look up further information on bt.com. On the Alexa ratings I am sure you are well aware that Alexa ratings for sites below a ranking of 100,000 are unreliable, so that should hardly count. In fact, with an aggregation site like bt.com where most of the clicks point OUT of the site (basically clicking on links to stories on other sites), Alexa is totally unrepresentative.

On the issue of membership, a more relevant measure might be the site traffic. If you don't take my word for it, go check the site statistics which are openly available. In 2006 BT recorded 59,025 yearly unique visitors and 73,686 monthly unique visitors. I hope you will be reasonable enough to agree that these numbers substantiate the claim that many Bhutanese see considerable value in bhutantimes.com.

Further, your assertion that my "main activity on the wiki" was to "add links to multiple articles" is quite off base. First of all, it was I who added the update on the revised relationship between India and Bhutan, which I'm sure you will agree is not only germane to this article but probably constitutes the single most important change in Bhutan's external relationships in recent history. Secondly, the references to the two treaties (1949 and 2007) were not just relevant, they are a requirement of Wikipedia in terms of properly documenting sources. Thus making the 2 external links to the BT articles that carry them is no more an infringement of Wikipedia rules than are the 2 external links you made to the Government of India website which carry the same articles.

In view of these arguments, I would sincerely request you to kindly consider the situation more openly and at least accept the one link to bt.com. As I have shown, I am neither a sock puppet as you have alleged in one of your comments, nor a spammer, and in fact have contributed meaningfully to this Wikipedia article. Bomdeling 04:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You added the update and just happened to link twice to bhutantimes.com, when a link to an official government site would be more appropriate for those documents. It appears very clearly that your primary purpose is to promote that site, and as such you're probably a sockpuppet of User:Atakhawjey who shows the same pattern, as well as those 202.144.139.* IPs. I might let one link stand in Bhutan if the attempts to link to it everywhere else stop. Bramlet Abercrombie 11:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

My explanation on the links to the two treaties are already covered. I would just add that I've only seen the treaties on the BhutanTimes.com and as far as I know they don't exist on any Bhutanese government website. Since you've added the address to the mea.gov.in site, I have not touched those links. I have no idea who User:Atakhawjey is and I do take offense that you continue to consider me a sock puppet on very circumstantial evidence. However, I agree not to add any other links to bhutantimes.com unless justifiable from Wikipedia's policies and would appreciate if you will let the one entry in Bhutan remain without need for this editing skirmish. At the same time, please do not attribute to me nor take actions against my contributions on the basis of the actions of any other persons. Bomdeling 02:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes in the Macropædia

Dear Mr. Abercrombie,

I think there must be a nicer way of resolving our differences than reporting you for violating the three-revert rule. Try to consider the situation from my point of view. I've been doing weeks of work in my local library, collecting sources and making photocopies; I have the original documents before me, which I'm trying to digest for Wikipedia. Things have changed in the Macropædia since 1985 and that warrants some discussion, no? I'm trying to be fair to the EB; imperfectly, I know, but I do welcome the salutary correction of friendly editors more impartial and higher-minded than I am. Please be that sort of editor; in particular, it would help me to appreciate your point of view if you cited reliable sources when you make assertions, as I have tried to do. I thank you for holding my work to a high standard, in both the past and future, Willow 12:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Where have you cited reliable sources for those "deletions"? Bramlet Abercrombie 12:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have the original documents, the Tables of Contents for the 1989 and 1997 Macropædiae, before me. Later today, I will have the Indices of those EB's before me as well, along with perhaps those of a few other editions, and we all shall see together whether Adhesives, etc. have been moved, shrunk or deleted. Once we have the data, I'm sure that we can agree on a fair wording. Willow 12:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The tables of contents cannot possibly prove that something has been "deleted", only that something is no longer a top-level heading. Bramlet Abercrombie 12:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right; it's conceivable that the EB's editors reorganized the material of Adhesives, etc. into different articles. That in itself merits discussion, no? BTW, we do agree that the EB Index is the ultimate reliable source for determining the fate of the material from the no-longer-top-level articles, right? You're welcome to help in checking the Index — thanks! :) Willow 12:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bramlet, I analyzed the changes in the Macropædia's coverage of Adhesives from 1989 to 2007 (see Talk:Macropædia) and would welcome your suggestions on wording. I also opened a discussion about "authoritativeness" on Talk:Micropædia which you might want to contribute to. I think I represented your position fairly, but you should probably check that I did. Thanks! Willow 02:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encourgement towards discussion and mutual respect

Please take the time to discuss and justify your reversions in detail, and do not revert wholesale. I have laid out my reasonings and tried to meet even your smallest objections, but you have not generally reciprocated in kind. That is — ungentlemanly of you. I hope that you are a Wikipedian who sincerely wishes to produce the fairest, most accurate article and I encourage you to be more understanding of our differences of opinion. Willow 22:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Head's up to comment I left on QG's page re: co-founder

==Head's up to comment left on QG's page re: co-founder Hi there, I added a comment to QuackGuru's talk page under the "Thank you, Thank you, Thank you" section that I thought you might want to take a look at. Basically, I feel a proprosal that was on the 'Essjay controversy' talk page might be a good compromise and would like to see it become policy if possible. -- Kavri 04:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV problem in your latest edit to the CZ article.

Greetings. I see you have changed the article to state as a matter of fact that Sanger was co-founder of Wikipedia. Our sources, however, do not support making the claim in this matter. The first source is headlined "Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia" the second story preface Sanger's claim of co-foundership "What happened next is disputed by Wales and Sanger" and the third is entirely about the controversy over this. It's pretty unfortunate when the mass-media gets NPOV right better than we do. I hope that you will revert yourself on this point or at least propose alternative language which does not misrepresent the claim as uncontested fact. Thanks. --Gmaxwell 13:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a matter of fact, as shown by Wikipedia's own press releases and reports in the media. It was 100% undisputed before 2004 and has been disputed by a single notable person after 2004. See my comment on Talk:Larry Sanger - if you want to continue discussing this, you may want to reply there. Bramlet Abercrombie 13:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I see that you were previously blocked for 3RR related to a very similar editing pattern on a different article. I hope we can avoid that here. --Gmaxwell 13:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I see that you were previously blocked several times. I hope we can avoid that here. Bramlet Abercrombie 13:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh no! you found me out! :) --Gmaxwell 14:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essjay controversy

Please stop edit warring. Take it to the talk page and suggest a description of Sanger that does not include the word "founder". If you make further reversions to the article, I will be obliged to report you to 3RR. Risker 00:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a reason not to include the word "founder" for Sanger, although I'd agree to it if it's not used for Wales either. Unfortunately Tjstrf insists on just that asymmetry. Anyway, I'll leave it for now. Bramlet Abercrombie 01:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As requested before, please stop. The continued edit-warring over the POV position of Sanger's role in founding Wikipedia is precisely the reason the article has been protected multiple times. This article is not the place for asserting your personal preferences. --LeflymanTalk 16:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not a "POV position" but a well-sourced fact. If Wales says 2+2=5 doesn't mean 2+2=4 is suddenly a "POV position". Bramlet Abercrombie 16:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, no; the well-sourced "fact" is that Sanger refers to himself as "co-founder". The simple equation is this: Wales + intention + money = Wikipedia. Sanger was hired by Jimmy Wales for the job of being editor-in-chief of Nupedia which led into developing Wikipedia as a "feeder project". After he became increasingly annoyed with dealing with what he described as "trolls" and the funding for his job ran out, he left the project after one year in March 2002. Even according to his own account, at the time, Sanger described himself as "chief instigator" or "chief organizer", and admits that it was Wales who had the ultimate say-so. He has acknowledged that it was Wales who wanted an online encyclopedia that anyone could edit. His exact words: "To be clear, the idea of an open source, collaborative encyclopedia, open to contribution by ordinary people, was entirely Jimmy's, not mine, and the funding was entirely by Bomis. I was merely a grateful employee; I thought I was very lucky to have a job like that land in my lap." [1]
It doesn't make one a "founder" to suggest what software achieved Wales's intention. (And it was, in fact, Wales himself, not Sanger, who installed the Wiki software, ran the servers and paid for the domain.) As much as it may gall you to imagine, Sanger is pumping up his very short stint as an employee of Boomis into "co-founder of Wikipedia" for promotion of his competing "expert" encyclopedia, Citizendium (as likewise he did at his previous attempt, Digital Universe) -- even though he hasn't even been tangentially involved in Wikipedia in five years. No matter how many times Sanger may want to repeat it, as an employee, he gets no "founding" or "originating" claims. See Work for hire. --LeflymanTalk 18:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Who had the "ultimate say-so" or who paid whom or who installed some software doesn't matter at all to who was a founder. You are taking an entirely misplaced "business point of view" to the matter. Nor does it matter how long Sanger stayed at Wikipedia. As much as Wales tries to use "founder" as if it were an ongoing job title (in order to obscure his real position as dictator), "founding" refers only to the origin of Wikipedia in 2001 and who did the actual creative work to get it started. That was Sanger - it is what "chief instigator" and "chief organizer" means. Wales merely paid the bills, given that he happened to have an internet company, and as such he was legally in control. If you read the September 2001 New York Times story it is clear that they both agreed to the view that they were co-founders, and that of course was what all Wikipedia press releases said until 2004. You're apparently pretending not only that Wales failed to read all of those documents at that time, but also that Sanger was preparing the promotion of Citizendium as early as 2001! And what's this about not getting originating claims for works for hire? Mozart also did many works for hire, and it's still he that is remembered as originator of his works; no one cares today who paid him. Bramlet Abercrombie 18:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • What is your point here? Let's do a thought experiment: could Wikipedia have existed without Jimmy Wales? (Hint: no.) Could it have existed without Larry Sanger (um, yes-- and it has been doing quite well without him for the last five years). Wales didn't "merely pay the bills" -- he came up with the whole idea of having a free "open-source" encyclopedia, including the core principle that it be open to anyone to edit-- even you. He started the non-profit that keeps it going. In short, Wales is the reason there is even a Wikipedia now. Larry Sanger was just a guy lucky to have a job drop into his lap that he's been milking for Internet street cred ever since. You don't see Sanger's friend Ben Kovitz going around saying "I'm the guy who came up with the idea for Wikipedia" because he educated Sanger about it. I'd even put User:The_Cunctator up as a founding organiser -- he created the first logo for Wikipedia, played devil's advocate on policy and was one of the main reasons (as a "wiki-anarchist") that LMS ran off. At least The Cunc is still around. --LeflymanTalk 19:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the Cunc, like anyone who was there at the time, will confirm to you that Sanger was co-founder. And no, it wouldn't exist without Sanger. It didn't organize itself. An idea is not enough - and the idea itself was not particularly creative. You couldn't have patented the mere idea of "an open-source encyclopedia that anyone can edit". The only thing you might credit to Wales (as Sanger does in his memoir) is that he was the first to have the foresight to invest in this idea (although, if he hadn't done it, soon enough someone else would have anyway - it was an obvious idea whose time had come). But that only makes him a good investor - indeed he's reaping handsome profits (via Wikia) from the clout of his Wikipedia position. But it was Sanger who actually implemented the idea and as such is a founder in a more meaningful way. And I don't know what the starting of the non-profit in 2003 should have to do with the founding of Wikipedia in 2001. That was only a shrewd move by Wales to get rid of the financial burden (people wouldn't have donated money to Bomis, after all) while retaining full control over Wikipedia (by appointing himself and his business partners to the Board, which even today has only a token community representation [2 out of 7 members have won elections]), and the whole "sole founder" myth serves that same goal (he knows if he'd put his position up for election, he wouldn't win, so he has to present himself as THE FOUNDER whose role it is simply unthinkable to question because "without him the whole thing wouldn't exist"). Bramlet Abercrombie 20:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for clarifying your position in the matter. It's clear where your opinions lie in regards to Wikipedia. Best, --LeflymanTalk 20:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Hi Bramlet, Just wanted to thank you for your efforts in dealing with the Sanger, Wales, Wikipedia, ect articles and other editors. Keep up the good work! Cheers! --Tom 14:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Likewise reciprocated! Bramlet Abercrombie 15:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natalee Holloway

To quote the source, that isn't needed in the first place, "Holloway, of Mountain Brook, Ala., vanished May 30 while on a five-day trip with more than 100 classmates celebrating their high school graduation on this Dutch Caribbean island."[2]. Maybe English isn't your first language, but that "of" indicates where Holloway is from. Please try discussion on the talk page, rather than edit summaries. - auburnpilot talk 14:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither "of" nor "from" means "born in". It only means that was her residence before she went to Aruba. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
So find a source. If my memory serves me correctly, Holloway was in fact born in Mississippi, but we work on sources, so I'll attempt to find one as well. How about you do the same? - auburnpilot talk 14:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I did, I couldn't find one. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I've listed a few sources on the talk page, but there doesn't appear to be anything conclusive. Thanks for pointing out this issue. - auburnpilot talk 00:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your vote at AFD

What would it take to convince you that Angela Beesley actually does want her biography deleted? I've been in direct contact with her. Without that request I would never have made the nomination. DurovaCharge! 19:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does she have to go through you? She should make the request openly. You could have misinterpreted her or something. Bramlet Abercrombie 19:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm very sorry not to have responded sooner. I thought I had watchlisted your page and I neglected to; my bad. Her desire to have the biography deleted is pretty well known. There's no particular reason she needs to go through me. There's a diff in the AFD where she did post onsite not long afterward and confirm she wanted off. I've been making this type of nomination for half a year for anyone who wants it, if they satisfy an objective standard I've proposed. I came here this morning because I also noticed a comment you made at Jimbo's talk page. To have neglected you for a week and a half--I suppose that's what comes of it. I apologize and I'll try to respond to your concerns better from now on. DurovaCharge! 16:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I have gathered meanwhile that she confirmed she wants it deleted, although she also denied having made a request. Apparently you took the initiative and asked her and she said something like "well, ok". I still think she should make the request herself and give her own reasons. Given that there was no negative information there, and she is publishing the very same kind of information on sites under her control, one wonders what her problem is. Could it be that she just doesn't want to have to watch it constantly because it might attract libel or other nonsense, and that kind of thing isn't always as quickly removed as the party line otherwise suggests? Would be interesting to hear that from the former Wikimedia board member herself. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I posted a full explanation when that came up. Basically I had expressed it in stronger terms than she intended, as an honest misunderstanding. She got in touch with me a couple of days later. I apologized and offered to correct it any way she liked. She decided to leave it as it was because the article would have a better chance of deletion that way. So I honored her wishes. I wasn't aware she had posted to that effect onsite or I would have discussed that with her also, and I would have asked her to allow me to address that proactively. If you want I suppose you could ask her yourself. DurovaCharge! 23:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overstock.com

Please don't edit war over the paragraph in question, particularly with regard to edits by administrators (JzG) relating to issues such as WP:WEIGHT. Also please be mindful of the three revert rule. Cheers,--Samiharris (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrators have no editorial privileges. Other than that, I say the same to you. Maybe you should seek consensus first before removing sourced information. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that definitely more talk page dialogue on that paragraph would be desirable.--Samiharris (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OMG

I was doing research to expand the Larry Sanger biography. Then I noticed something interesting. Someone may be deleting all references to co-founder wherever it is mentioned. Check it out! Quack Guru 20:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, SqueakBox has been doing the same here. Might have to keep an eye on es.wiki. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Bueno, hazlo. Is this a conspiracy to promote the Sanger as co-founder issue? I notice it is in many articles where it shouldn't be ebcause they just happen to mention Wales, take a look at User:SqueakBox/wikipedia founder‎. This issue is not sorted and if you are conspiring to promote your POV on wikipedia (both of you) I think we can guess what will happen. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
You are the one promoting a counterfactual POV. Sanger and Wales being co-founders is a documented fact, and it's natural for articles mentioning them to describe them as such. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Documented means it can go in the relevant articles, maybe, ie wikipedia, Sanger, Wales. Indeed having identified wherever co-founder occurs I have divided the list into relevant and non-relevant, you simply cannot push this fact into articles in which it has no relevance, basically those I mention in my sub-page, its blatant POV pushing that fails the notability test. I am happy to reach an agreement but only on the basis that co0founder is removed from all relevant articles. And I am definitely speaking to both of you, welcome back Quack. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Readers cannot be assumed to know who Wales or Sanger are. It's almost always relevant to give a description like "co-founder of Wikipedia". Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
These articles are not about Sanger, and indeed any article about or including mention of Sanger is not included in my list of irrelevants. People who are reading August 7 do not need to know anything about Sanger, even that he exists, or about the dispute. The logical conclusion to what you say si that 5the dispute and sanger are the most notable things in Wales' life. I don't think so. Why do you wish to inform people of this dispute in articles that have nothing to do with it. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
No, they do not need to know anything about Sanger, and describing Wales as "co-founder of Wikipedia" does not say anything about Sanger or about any fictional "dispute". It merely says what he is. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the most telling comment Jimbo has ever made recently. He wrote in November 2007: "I do not think Sanger has ever claimed to have had the idea." Jimbo originally stated in October 2001: "Larry had the idea to use Wiki software." Wales says a lot of things but that does not make it true or NPOV. Wales never disputed, when Sanger was part of the project, his co-founder title. The claims Jimbo has made happened after Sanger left the project. Per WP:SYN, it is a fake dispute. SqueakBox, what do you think of the comments by Jimbo after reviewing the links. Oh. Its nice to see your still having fun.Quack Guru 07:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Classic. And of course no one has ever heard of this Jeremy Rosenfeld, who according to Jimbo gave him the idea, and who even Jimbo himself never mentioned before 2005. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course there are historical references that cite the commonly known facts. Quack Guru 21:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

I'm not commenting on the article itself, but Anglea Beesley is clearly controversial. I have no particular reason to object to your reverting of the redirect, however using rollback is not helpful [3]. Rollback leaves no edit summary reason, and is generally only for bad faith edits. Using it with a regular wikipedian tends only to inflame situations and encourage edit wars. Can I suggest when you are reverting regular users, and especially in areas that are likely to be heated, you use edit summaries? Something like "rv, there is no consensus for this - please discuss it on the talk page" might prove more helpful.--Docg 17:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It was pretty bad faith from SqueakBox to go against the result of a recent AfD like that. He knows what he's doing. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It was not bad faith, it was being bold as I explained in my edit summary. And actually the afd was to delete, it only got overturned on drv so you cannot claim that it was a non-consensual decision in the sense that there is any proven consensus to keep. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Uh, the DRV precisely established that the AfD was not to delete. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You assume good faith - however misjudged you may think he edit is. Regardless of that, using rollback is not likely to resolve any dispute. Keep is for vandalism please.--Docg 17:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reagan edits

Hi, I'm writing in the hopes of clarifying something for you, in regards to the article Ronald Reagan. I don't have to explain anything; the article is featured and well written. You feel that the additon of two quotations (which were removed many months ago per WP:V) are necessary, and you insist on adding them. Therefore, I do not have to explain why they should be kept out; you need to explain to the rest of the page's editors at the Reagan talk page why you feel they are beneficial. I can't revert your edit again or I will be in violation of WP:3RR; please consider this message a helpful piece of information. --Happyme22 (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? Who says I have to get any edit to a featured article preapproved? They can be edited like any other article, which means it is up to the one removing sourced information to explain himself, not to the one who adds such material. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
You are correct in saying that you do not have to have them "pre-approved", although if an edit of yours is reverted, it is a very good idea to begin a discussion and say why you feel the reverted edits are necessary. Also, I have reported User:CyberAnth at a Wikiquette alert discussion here and your name has come up. Happyme22 (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, since you removed that material a year ago and I restored it, it means an edit of yours was reverted and by your own logic you should begin the discussion. I'll ignore your gratuitous sockpuppet allegations. I saw CyberAnth commenting on the article's POV problems, which I found to be real and for which you seem to be largely responsible. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Nice try with the "you should start it" thing because "you removed it a year ago". I suggested it to User:CyberAnth and now I will to you as well: you will greatly benefitted by reading WP:NPA. And I'm also amused that you suggest I am responsible for the article's "POV"; let's just disregard that it is featured, meaning that many editors has to approve of the content; let's also disregard the fact that I work with a editor who aligns himself with the Democratic party (User:Arcayne) almost every time a dispute arises. Your ignorance to accept this is why we are hostile to each other. I'm sorry if you are not a sockpuppet and have been wrongly accused, but actions speak louder than words and I will wait until that can be conclusively proven. Thanks. Happyme22 (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't patronize me, I've been here longer than you. FA means many editors approved the content at the time it was featured (in this case, months ago); afterwards the quality can easily degenerate again, and you seem to be doing your best to insert the POV which is evident from your userpage. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to argue with you any longer. I'm sorry if I'm incorrect in my sockpuppet assertions, and I'm truly sorry that you think the Reagan article is full of POV. Happyme22 (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User access levels

I've started a thread at Wikipedia_talk:User_access_levels#.27founder.27_group regarding recent edits, please feel free to join in the discussion. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 13:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo talk page

Jimbo has a nice, tight little team of sycophants who make sure his "bad side" doesn't stay in the light for long, huh? -- Fawn Lake (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
That kind of justice worries me, abercrombie, do you have email i can email you, just put it here, then delete it once i email you, i have tons of info exactly on jimbo's messed up talk page, i will only reply there, is fawn lake on your side? Talk about freedom of speech on wiki... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blocknew (talk • contribs) 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
M8R-wxwefy@mailinator.com Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
To answer your email, no I don't. What are the "tons of info" you have? Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
For the record, far from being a sycophant I actually despair at times of Jimbo's lack of strong leadership and firmness. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)