User talk:Blaxthos/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Orphaned non-free image File:Ibm 7090.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ibm 7090.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Kinda random...

But do you know of where one can find a downloadable copy of the doa mix? Soxwon (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Message sent, thank you for your assistance. :) Soxwon (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Got it, thnx Soxwon (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you were able to locate it. Let me know what you think. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Awesome :D. Soxwon (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. --TS 14:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OS X image

Sorry about that. I've restored now - consensus here was definitely to keep. I got confused on this one I'm afraid (I closed a lot of them at once... there was another similar image that got me I'm afraid). Thanks for bringing this to me attention! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC

If you have any thoughts on this matter, you might want to participate in this RFC. Gamaliel (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I've added my thoughts, though the discussion seems to have splintered already. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Olbermann and Blaxthos

This isn't the first time that you have entered a claim made by Olbermann as a "fact". Something that you would never allow if subject were a Hannity or an O'Reilly. The reliably sourced fact that should be entered into Wikipedia in the case at hand is that Olbermann has stated that he has spent more time with his father. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, you are complaining about an edit about KO spending time with his ailing father. Now that is truly sad. Not something controversial, but about spending time with his father that could be on death's door step. As AI would say: "Not the game. Practice."--69.209.114.49 (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Community de-adminship

You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment

You posted your comment [1] to Talk:Jim Bunning#Should "filibuster" be in the article? and I think you meant it for Talk:Jim Bunning#Missing Healthcare bill but I'm loathe to move it. ;) ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 23:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Thanks for the notification! I remember wondering why my browser returned me to that section after I saved the edit... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Software Top 100 a reliable source

Dear Blaxthos, I would like to invite you to enter again into discussing Software Top 100 as a reliable source, on my talk page. You once entered into the discussion once before on User_talk:Esoteric_Rogue#softwaretop100.org_is_not_a_reliable_source so I hope you will contribute again. Thanks! --BalderV (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Azalea Trail Maids

Hey, pleasure working with you too! I see you found a photo. I thought that "trip" would be correct because they only made one trip, but whatever you think is fine by me. Altairisfar 02:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Angler

If I had had any real doubts to start with, Kiddo, the random edit at the rather esoteric "Angler" article which was your brainchild (and which no one had touched for over three months) would have dispelled them. It would be almost as if you suspected I was impersonating an Anon and and found that this same Anon had made an edit at Margaret Varner Bloss. Besides, how many Anons engage in your level of fuss-budgetry?? As I said, however, I don't really get upset by sock puppetry. There are all sorts of "pieces of work" floating around Wikipedia and you just happen to be one of them. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: I also do one thing quite similar to you, Blax. I'll see a word that I used months ago in an article and realize that I could have used a better word; much like you did when you changed "states" to "asserts". Anonymous editor, indeed!! Badmintonhist (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha that was me! I was actually just looking at your history and that was one of the sites I found on your contribution list. I checked out the article because I had recognized the name of the book, but forgot what it was about. I'm glad you liked my edit though, I thought it was a lot better. Check out the one I just made. Also, didn't you just accuse me of being a sockpuppet of some other anon the other day? Allow me to interject right here "129.133.206.180". How could I have possibly accused "you" of being someone else's sockpuppet at an earlier time since according to "you" we only became acquainted in this dispute??? That statement only begins to make some sense if. . . well if you are BLAXTHOS, don't you see? Badmintonhist (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC) You make those accusations a lot Badmintonhist, which seems like you assuming bad faith. And honestly, if you need to know, I engaged in that level of fuss-budgetry because I had already seen what a hassle you gave people about Olbermann saying his dad was sick. Finally, I would like to ask you to stop talking down to people with your "Kiddo"'s and to stop calling people names like "pieces of work." You don't know what type of a person anyone is, and you certainly don't know anyone's age. It seems that all you are trying to do is goat people into a response by making accusations while acting like you're superior 129.133.206.180 (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, also, why would you think that my edit to the Countdown page was Blaxthos anyways? You seem to think that he has a liberal agenda, but my edit didn't do anything to make the page seem one way or another. If anything, it made the page more biased against Olbermann because the new quote actually makes a clear criticism instead of just snide remarks 129.133.206.180 (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I rest my case. Like I said, BLAX (This is, after all, Blaxthos's talk page) there are all sorts of pieces of work floating around Wikipedia and you happen to be one of them... KIDDO. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: You don't do the college kid routine very well. Your indelible personality comes through quite clearly. Work on it. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Like seriously man, how dense are you? Check out like http://www.topwebhosts.org/tools/ip-locator.php and enter my IP addresss, it will tell you Wesleyan University (a college campus). I'm not hiding anything man, and I doubt Blaxthos is either (just because you seem to throw around accusations of bad faith all the time). I'm glad you think I don't sound like a college kid though. I hope Blaxthos or someone else sends you to arbitration or whatever its called, because you are really an insulting person. At least you're entertaining with your ignorance/ignorant accusations, even if offensive and detrimental to the Wikipedia project (I was trying to work with you on Countdown, I explained everything I did, and you never even responded after you stopped just reverting everything).

PS: "This is after all Blaxthos's talk page", yeah I found it because you posted a link to this discussion on the Countdown page, remember? And I commented because you were making false accusations against me as well as Blaxthos. 129.133.142.139 (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

PPS: Just so everyone knows, this is the same person as 129.133.206.180, as my IP address has apparently changed again, something out of my control on my campus [actually this change might be because I'm on my ethernet connection and not my wireless one now, although both IP addresses change periodically]. (And it will still show Wesleyan University in the IP locator Badmintonhist, as I still have the same first 6 numbers.) 129.133.142.139 (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to respond to Badmintonhist's claim (that you made in a middle of my post, which is usually not done, especially on talk pages, put your responses at the end of the discussion and please do not edit what other people have said). Here's what you wrote:

Allow me to interject right here "129.133.206.180". How could I have possibly accused "you" of being someone else's sockpuppet at an earlier time since according to "you" we only became acquainted in this dispute??? That statement only begins to make some sense if. . . well if you are BLAXTHOS, don't you see? Badmintonhist (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

We became "acquainted" when you continually reverted changes I was trying to make to improve the Countdown article without discussing them. The first thing you said to me was an accusation that I was a sockpuppet of another anon editor, see here, where you say "This is the second time in recent days that I have run into a familiar sounding, pedantic anonymous editor, with only a handful of quite recent listed edits, but with an authoritative sounding grasp of Wikipedia rules and etiquette. Hmm, seems like this could be form of WP:sock puppetry to me."

From now on (if they let you keep editing that is. Personally, I think they should ban you, at least temporarily, because you obviously assume bad faith, even when people don't disagree with you like myself, and you make ridiculous accusations and personal attacks, which I thought were not allowed. It's improper to accuse people of sockpuppetry, a very serious issue on wikipedia, even if you then say "Oh well I don't care though"), try to remember the accusations you lay against people, especially if you try to make a point by saying you never made the accusations. So in response to your question: No, I do not "see" what you mean at all. 129.133.142.139 (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Badmintonhist

Blaxthos, I'm sorry to have filled your talk page up so much of me trying to defend myself against Badmintonhist. I have had issues before with accusations of sockpuppetry because my IP changes frequently (and I do not feel fully secure creating an account on this network) so I wanted to respond. I don't know if it is proper to make claims on the ANI thing if I am not the person filing the complaint or the one being filed against, but if you need me to, I can put in my 2 cents about his repeated accusations against me (although I think that most of that information can be found above in my posts on your talk page). Anyways, I'm sorry that you were somehow dragged into this whole dispute, but I am glad to see that it is being reported. Take it easy 129.133.142.139 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

pretty hate machine

As u have edited this article b4, would u add to this discussion over the album's genre(s)? Dan56 (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Music

Hey. I see you're a prominent music editor. What's your take on Wikipedia:RSN#Technorati? No one ever wants to answer my RSN questions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I dunno about prominent, but I have posted my thoughts on the matter.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Azalea Trail Maids

On March 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Azalea Trail Maids, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Cirt (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

It's best not to edit war. If people disagree with archiving, work on other methods of handling the problem. --TS 02:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Unfortunately, this is a circumstance where a particular editor refuses to acknowledge a consensus with which he disagrees (even though said consensus was formulated & validated through RFCs, PUMP discussions, etc.). I've left a personal message on his talk page explaining such, and if he continues to try and rip off the scab I'm content with WP:RBI and other methods of dealing with disruption. Thanks for the note and advice! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

AN/I Notification - Edit warring / Possible Vandalism

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Email note

I sent a message to your email yesterday; I didn't notice the instructions atop your userpage until just now, so this is notice to tell you to go check your inbox.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, got it. There's no particular reply other than "that's fine" (: Stifle (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:History of IBM

I refer to your edit of 20:16, 30 March 2010 on this page. Would you consider either striking it, annotating it to say that it is your opinion, or providing evidence to support it? Thanks in advance. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have clarified my comments at your request. I don't know if that's exactly what you were hoping for, but it's the best I can do while maintaining my integrity as an editor dedicated to our core content policies.  :) Thanks for the continued involvement. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Black

I read the article you posted at ANI. An interesting read (but not quite the way I remember things happening...). However, I wish you the best of luck in dealing with the situation and if there's anything I can do, please drop me a note on my talk page. TNXMan 03:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please also note this. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it actually proper for Wikipedia to host links to off-wiki attack articles dedicated to stalking an editor in good standing? They're factually challenged, they provide a completely biased and unbalanced presentation of Black's viewpoint, and there is an obvious unwillingness to comply with Wikipedia policy. Can you help me understand how having those links posted all over talkpages is appropriate? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I checked the relevant policy and there doesn't seem to be anything prohibiting it. Stifle (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the actual relevant policy WP:TALK? I see several points in WP:TPNO that seem directly on point, and I certainly don't think fomenting the sort of behavior we're seeing off-site as being in the spirit of Wikipedia's goals. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see reasons for and against. Perhaps WP:ANI is a better venue, because I'm not certain how to take this forward. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Would it be too much to ask that you bring the concern to ANI directly? I feel that my involvement as the "headliner" in the off-wiki attacks, as well as the intended target of the stalking/attempted outing, may color the request in such a way that it isn't taken as seriously as it probably should. Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, done. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Gussie Clarke war

Hello Blaxthos. Can you explain what is going on at WP:AN3#Self-report & User:208.57.67.57 reported by User:Blaxthos (Result: )? How can anyone tell what is a good edit and what is a bad edit? The article looks like a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I could impose semiprotection, if there were a reason to think the IP was not following policy, but it's just a giant unsourced list of records. How can it get any worse than it is? (What would self-promotion consist of -- just making the list longer?) Thanks for any clarification. EdJohnston (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

History of IBM

While I wouldn't go so far as to suggest a conflict, you obviously have a strong point of view that is reflected in your edits and comments. As a neutral third party I was surprised that such important information was stripped and/or discredited (though not necessarily by you - I haven't checked) as context is insightful (particularly in a "history") article. SFAICT nobody (including IBM) is denying the events and it seems overwhelmingly likely that they occurred, even if the paper-trail is patchy. Unlike people, companies can change completely over time and I'm no more likely to hold IBM responsible for this than I am the manufacturers of the guns that were used. Please just try to focus on the facts and leave the fiction to others. -- samj _in^out 10:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- I think we've had a bit of miscommunication, so I've clarified my comments and provided a response here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to assist any review with copies of the book and/or original Holocaust-era documentation with an eye toward improving the text of the articles under discussion. I have provided this to various other editors and posters and the other people who have been so helpful with their emails today and yesterday. The best way to get this material is to send me a request at inquiry@edwinblack.com. Edwin Black —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.128.247 (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Blaxthos: I have made the statement over on Stifle's User Page: "while I cannot participate in the process, I can serve the process." I think we are getting closer every day. That said, you may feel free to ask any questions of me as matters unfold. I have seen the decision reached on the article title regarding my book IBM and the Holocaust--I and others agree with that. I think the direction as this moment is moving correctly on the IBM History page, although, I repeat that my work need not be mentioned there at all. I saw you added a quick citation on the Edwin Black article that I called to your attention. Thank you for that. Edwin Black.

Blaxthos: Message received. Appreciated. All better. I have no way to further comment personally but will find a way through someone--perhaps Stifle. Take care in your trip and thank you. More when I can figure out to communicate privately. yours, Edwin Black —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.128.247 (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is Edwin Black. Before you left town you sent me a message. If you wish to continue that dialog, contact me at inquiry@edwinblack.com. I can answer any question you may have. If you wish to call me, that can be arranged and your number will be blocked.Edwin Black Washington DC (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Conservative memes and WP

I don't edit nearly as much as I used to, but we've both been around here a while and dealt in some cases with controversial and political topics. I don't know if this is a new phenomenon, but based on the last two controversies at the Media Matters article, it seems that some editors are very determined to push memes from conservative media into the encyclopedia. The Hillary Clinton/George Soros thing is such an obvious non-issue to the mainstream press. I suppose that in a lot of ways, this isn't really new--there will always be stuff like this going on in one form or another. What troubles me is that these editors then claim that anyone who does not go along with their conservative meme is a liberal and therefore it's just some sort of political squabble. I don't know if this is happening with left-wing memes; if it is, I haven't seen it.

My fear is that editors who don't recognize right-wing memes for what they are (Rapier at the NPOV board seems like he may have fallen victim to this) or editors who buy into the notion that this is just a political battle will end up unintentionally supporting these right-wing memes. For some people here, the notion that in any dispute, both sides should be forced to compromise is a powerful one. That has obvious deleterious effects when one side is just making shit up. Croctotheface (talk) 09:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Your concerns are well grounded. I've used your comment as a starting point for (hopefully) a community-based discussion at the pump. I am hopeful that the community will recognize the meat of the points you raise (along with mine), and will take the time to put some rigor into the discussion. Please feel free to join the discussion. Also, sorry I didn't ask for permission before reposting your words; I figure since Wiki is a public forum the permission is implicit.  :) Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I did not see the page in question. Can you point me please. Edwin Black Washington DC (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

John Gibson (political commentator) ‎

Hi, do you intend to move to discussion? Off2riorob (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hiren's BootCD

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Hiren's BootCD. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiren's BootCD. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

My "attack"

Apparently, I spoke too quickly. You still haven't learned how to take a compliment. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about your comparison to me, that was hardly a compliment. Even other editors on your side called it snarky. PrBeacon (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

considering COI/N for THF's posts on RS/N

Do you think it's worth opening a COI/N thread on User:THF, for his admitted COI at that older RSN (Archive 59):

• "Disclosure: In reading these articles, I learned that a MRC affiliate asked me to write two op-eds for them a few years back. I didn't realize at the time that it was associated with MRC. Go know."
• "COI disclosure: I'm going to pitch friends at MRC an article about bias in Wikipedia, so I'd make more money if Wikipedia continues to have a double-standard."

Not only does it seems like his real-life ties to MRC would discredit his ability to participate, let alone open & direct an RFC -- but that the second comment might actually influence the way some editors consider the case. Perhaps he thought by admitting this ahead of time he would be absolving himself of prejudice. But is that really allowed? I know it was two months ago, but still.. PrBeacon (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Gold to Go

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Far less obsessed . . .

than you are, Sir Blax, in turning articles about conservative political figures into attack pieces. I've said and meant repeatedly that I don't find the connection between Hillary and Media Matters to be scandalous, but I do find it to be interesting, significant, and worth concisely placing into the article. It is certainly more significant than the lengthier speculation as to whether Bill O'Reilly was stretching the truth by saying that he grew up in Levittown rather than in a neighboring area that was built by Levitt, was once considered part of Levittown, but is now called something else. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

So you're being pointy there because you didn't get your way at the Bill O'Reilly article? Not sure what the Bill O'Reilly article has to do with this discussion, other than tit-for-tat seems to be your preferred modus operandi and de facto justification. Like I said, if you spent half as much effort actually researching and improving articles as you do obsessing over right-wing memes we'd have a dozen new GA's and FA's. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Gee, I thought was going somewhere else. I don't really know how to get the watch list activated or deactivated, I only looked because someone referred me to it. I get about ten of these per day --check this and check that-- and I simply pinged that I have noted it. I am not sure where this message is going either. Feel free to remove it for whatever innocuous value it has or does not have. Now I cannot even see the comment.Edwin Black Washington DC (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters for America mediation

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Media Matters for America was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation should request to the talk page.

Thank you, AGK 13:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI re: Mediation

Just checking back in, and came across the dust up. As a a veteran of the mediation process, I can tell you that I think it is a great idea to have a referee for these discussions. But just so you know, the mediator is only there to get you guys to meet in the middle and won't issue any kind of rulings, so be aware of that. Also I saw an editor thinking the next step could be arbitration-- Bad IDEA. Arbcom doesn't do content disputes, and if you guys do get before them based on your conduct, you all risk topic bans at best or suspension at worst. Good luck! (I am posting this identical message to Badmintonhist (sp?), lest I get accused of taking sides). Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ramsquire, I was JUST thinking about you like yesterday-- I hope it was good thoughts. :)

...the notion of "compromise is always good" is incorrect -- purposefully injecting bias, and standing up to disallow injection of bias are not two sides of the same coin.-- Since the end goal of this project is to arrive at consensus, I don't see how you can get anywhere without looking to make compromises where available. However, reasonable minds can differ I guess. Also, they may not be the same, but you run an awful risk hoping that outside editors, especially Arbcom can or will make that distinction. I do wish you guys well, and in that vein, if there is some version that you (meaning both sides of the dispute) can live with, I hope you find it through mediation. Don't go down the rabbit hole of ArbCom if you can avoid it. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. read the discussion on Village Pump, and DavidWBrooks hit the nail on the head. Without some sort of topdown editorial control, this place can never be taken seriously, and will be a breeding ground for trolls and endless ideological warfare. It's also the reason ANI doesn't work because who wants to get involved in disputes they have no expertise in, and why important topics wither on the vine, since even if you came to a reasonable solution, there is no way to really implement it, so I can understand editors asking, "why bother?" Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for mediation concerning Media Matters for America, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 14:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Things...

How are things going with you? Just saw your name pop up on my watchlist and realized we hadn't crossed paths in quite awhile. I hope all is well! --auburnpilot talk 00:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't contribute nearly as much as I used to, but I'm still around for the most part. Between work and other obligations, I rarely have much uninterrupted time on my own to spend on the computer these days. That's probably why I steer clear of almost anything political, as it's a time sink that I just don't have a desire to get into anymore. I'm no longer at Auburn but am still around the area working (more in Georgia these days than Alabama). If its been a few years since you've been on campus, you likely wouldn't recognize it. Much of the campus around the stadium has been completely rebuilt within the last two years or so. You should drive through next time you're in town; it's amazing how things have changed. --auburnpilot talk 01:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Current ANI

Please see this thread WP:ANI and let me know if you think I've crossed a line in the sand. Arzel says I should be reprimanded, an admin wants to close it as minor content dispute. Thanks for any feedback you can provide. -PrBeacon (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

About my talkpage

I suspect that this is simply the latest IP from a less than pleasant sockpuppeteer. Soxwon (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

no?

yay? :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha; yes... I was just trying to figure out why the link didn't work, and then it did. I was thinking some cache was stale... thanks!  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, friend

I'm reopening an old can of worms. Your input is welcomed... Talk:IBM_and_the_Holocaust Carrite (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Weasel Words

Hey, I'm not too familiar with the 32X article, but since you know where all the weasel words are...wouldn't it be more helpful if you fixed them??--SexyKick 18:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

The usual suspects are trying to gut John Gibson (political commentator) again. Gamaliel (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't go rounding up people to support your position, and we are good faith editors and not the usual suspects, thanks. . Off2riorob (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ynot4tony2's been on a crusade against this article for years. So he posts a rant and then all of a sudden consensus changes? I don't think so. Should a cogent argument be presented by someone (yourself, perhaps?) on talk, I will engage. Gamaliel (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I will report you pair for tag team edit warring if you continue to insert the disputed content. Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What? We both independently disagree with your version. Who are you going to report us for that? Wouldn't a talk page discussion outlining your objections be preferable to nonsensical threats? Gamaliel (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for editing assistance was placed here and two minutes later a revert was editing , its tag teaming that anyone will agree. Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, so what? We both support the same version, we are free to support whatever version we wish as you are. Since you reverted to Ynot4tony2's version, you could be accused of the same thing. Gamaliel (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The irony here is astounding. Off2riorob, I suggest you read up on cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Regardless, my support for inclusion of sourced material is because I support inclusion of sourced material, not because someone asked me to support it. I appreciate the fact that Gamaliel advised me that you guys are trying to gut the article, and I'll respond on the article talkpage with more detail at a later time (I'm quite busy at the moment). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

FNC "Controversy" on DKOS

As an editor currently involved in the FNC Controversy RFC, I believe this post from DKOS warrants your consideration. This appears to be off-wiki canvassing and may warrant identification and notification within the RfC. (cross-posted to User talk:Arzel) JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. The velocity of vote uptick this morning had me wondering how all these people suddenly "noticed" the RFC. I don't think this is canvassing from an involved editor; it reads more like commentary from an observer. What do you propose we should do about it? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe your application of the {{Not a ballot}} tag is an appropriate and adequate response. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Arzel is now attempting to set the stage for an argument that the "RFC is now totally worthless", based on the off-site commentary. I believe policy prescription is to consider the merits of the content of the !votes, not ignoring the RFC. Thoughts? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The editor that started this is very likely SemDem, and in any case it is an involved editor, thus the current RfC is pretty worthless. I also brought this up to ANI and you will notice that I said that I don't think you had anything to do with it. We may not agree on much, but I think we both agree that bastardization of the process is not the way to go. Arzel (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you're jumping to conclusions needlessly. As I said before, it could certainly be just as plausible that someone planted that post to preemptively "taint" the RFC that wasn't going his way. I'm not saying you did, but I'm saying it doesn't matter in the slightest... policy says to consider the merits of the arguments, not to ignore the results of the RFC! The only way your logic ("RFC = worthless now") could be valid is if you're counting votes (which we're not). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Responded at the ANI. Won't be online for most of the rest of the day. Arzel (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Just putting my two cents in, I think that, while the RFC isn't worthless, we should probably protect the article page and wait for the DKOSers to go away before hammering out the version that will go into the article? (This is under the assumption that there is more to come as I doubt this will be the end of it) Soxwon (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That horsetrading will likely occur at the end of the RFC, after the swarm dies down. It's an obvious snowball, but I'm not willing to start considering potential language until all of the pointy objections have ceased. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can't vouch for the actions of other editors, but I am willing to work for a neutral wording of the event when the time comes. Soxwon (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I may have a go at it but I've not yet even looked at the purported citations offered to justify inclusion and I think believe it a bit presumptious at this point to assume there will be. However, I think I'll wait for the dust to settle as well. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems they're all using the same language, which shows it. Blax, I'm surprised that you'd think a conspiracy theory where Arzel posted this on the Daily Kos to fuel things counter to his belief to discredit it. That's just crazy. Oh, and let me nip your response in the bud by saying, no, this is not what Glenn Beck does. PokeHomsar (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I stated explicitly that I don't think it was Arzel, but rather we can not know who it was, or what the intent was. In either case, the actual point is that it is completely fucking irrelevant. Please take a moment to try and actually understand what I write rather than jump headfirst into a reply that shows you're not really paying attention. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

So, in essence, you're just asking questions? That's not worth our effort. Unless you got the ear of Markos Moulitos, we can't get the question answered. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if you were in fact Markos. PokeHomsar (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not think I can communicate my point in terms you can understand, PokeHomsar. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for proving an earlier point I had. You just called me ignorant. Thank you for your failure to assume good faith. PokeHomsar (talk) 08:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Bolding

The comment was directed at JamesMLane and others who denied that meat-puppetry had occured, I made no reference to concensus and still believe that, when the dust clears, the material should be added. Soxwon (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries; I am occasionally bitten by the bold and/or underline bug myself. However, I don't see how it is at all useful to give any thought at all to the "meatpuppetry" drama. Two editors with a committed agenda are trying to discredit an RFC that has clearly shown that consensus is the material is relevant. They are incorrect on three points:

1. cum hoc ergo propter hoc - There is no way to know if and/or how many of the respondents commented based solely due to an offsite article. Furthermore, it is entirely possible that someone from the other side made the post in the hopes of creating a chance to discredit an RFC that wasn't going to go his way. In the end, it does not matter anyway.
2. Only by lawyering can one use the "meatpuppet" claim in this context. WP:MEATPUPPET intends to stop people from going to their friends and having them commit a proxy vote with no involvement -- going to school and asking your best friend to go !vote on something. In this case, an offsite post simply pointed out the RFC and did not include any sort of instructions of what to say or how to participate. There's a big difference between "hey, do this" and "hey, look at this".
3. The only way the cries of meatpuppetry could possibly be relevant is if this was strictly a vote count. RFCs are not evaluated based on the number of votes, but rather by the quality of the discussion. WP:NOTVOTE and other polices state "this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Given all this, I don't see why there is any utility in getting in an argument about an irrelevant point. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

*shrug* Probably right, just wished to address James' pointy behaviour regarding the title (inserting alleged), but in hindsight it probably wasn't worth the trouble. I think that hollering will die as this story fades from the current news cycle, then real work can be done. Probably will see this again during election cycle though. Soxwon (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, is there a template than can be left on the main Fox News article directing editors the RFC on the controversies page? Soxwon (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering that earlier. I am not sure, but you can always make a custom one using {{divbox}} :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Added, not fancy but it gets the job done. The Reboot was an attempt to give succinct arguments for newcomers and a chance to bring things under one header. Soxwon (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I've been around Wikipedia for a while (wow, almost 5 years now), and seen it a bit before. You wouldn't believe the arguments that were proposed for the paid editing guidelines (An organization which pays a person, contingent on specific copy or ideas being included or excluded, does not create a conflict of interest because the paid editor may actually believe it... ugh.) There it was clear there were some people who already drew a salary from editing and wanted to continue; here the motivation is unclear. But thanks for the support. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

DTTR

Hi Blaxthos, I see you left a templated message for User:Unicorn76, and whilst I do understand why you reacted like that, WP:DTTR applies, and you should really have given a personal message. It's much more likely to be accepted in good faith, and not be seen as an attempt to intimidate (those higher level messages are pretty loud). Especially when you don't have a good relationship with the recipient, don't reach for WP:Twinkle - write something personal. regards, Rd232 ^talk 21:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Response here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering

What led to your policy of calling bullshit whenever you see it. I'm sure I'm not the first editor to suggest it can come across as being a personal attack, but it also feeds countless trolls. Soxwon (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Temporary response here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Assistance with OS/2 article and related

Hi Blaxthos, I am willing to assist on the OS/2, SOM, DSOM, and WPS articles. I have been using all versions of OS/2 from v2.0 beta through v4.52 CP2 PF, eComstation and Warp Server 4 onwards, including having worked on the closed alpha/beta testing for various releases. I also have experience with obscure OS/2 product/addon releases such as Directory and Security Server for OS/2 (and some experience on CM/2). Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 19:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice; I actually !voted before this notice.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI - Courtesy Notification

I am soliciting comment on your recent World Net Daily citation deletions from the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" article at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

RealClearPolitics

"Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to RealClearPolitics"

This is a sourcing issue? As in the stated editorial positions of The Weekly Standard and The New Republic? .. in any case, anyone interested in cleaning up some of the misleading language from the article, might start with "RealClearPolitics describes itself as a non-partisan (etc)." It is frankly laughable that the article - as it exists today - would pretend that Bill Kristol and Martin Peretz don't share a common foreign policy vision. In short, the reverse-edit (counter-edit?) enshrines misleading language, language that - yes - reads like an ADVERTISMENT for the product "RealClearPolitics." I would likewise direct your attention to *this*:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_New_Republic#1980s-1990s

.. being familiar with contemporary political commentary, you will recognize that the list includes not only regular Weekly Standard contributors, but that publication's executive editor as well. Shockoegrind (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI - Courtesy Notification

I have asked User:Jclemens for a second opinion as to issues related to your participation in the World Net Daily RSN. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

ircII

The OR tagging [2] wasn't related to any of the text I was working on was it? You are right too, it is very difficult to research these. Due to their age and existence before the web and archive.org, a lot of material has just gotten lost over the years. It is even difficult to find old versions of software in cases such as this since the main archives like the cs-ftp.bu.edu ftp server and so on are long gone and few people thought to archive them. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

AWB edit hiding

Did you see my reply? Will you be able to do this? It would be very useful! Rd232 ^talk 02:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4