User talk:Bmicomp/Archive4

My RFA

Thank you very much for your vote on my RFA, it is now the 8th most supported RFA ever, and it couldnt have happened without your vote. I look forward to serving wikipedia. Again, thanks. →Journalist >>talk<< 00:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism on my user page - first time I've experienced it, and I'm so proud! :) Ziggurat 23:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism, etc.

Thanks for your message. As I said when we first discussed this, though, I consider the knowing and repeated wholesale reversion of edits that bring an article into line with the MoS as low-level vandalism. It certainly doiesn't count as good faith, I think; the MoS and other documents are clear enough, but editors like BGC (who are particularly common on the pop-music articles) are simply uninterested in Wikipedia policies and guidelines — they want to do things their way, and resist attempts to make changes with stubbornness and hostility. Note that BGC was in fact calling my edits vandalism — yet despite my request at W:AN/I for someone to have a quiet word with him in an attempt to get him to calm down and to lower the temperature of the situation, no-one seems to have done so. I'm a little peeved, in fact, that rather than explaining to him that his understanding of vandalism is incorrect I've had three people reproaching me; even if I'm wrong concerning the nature of (low-level) vandalism, the imbalance seems a little odd to me.

I've asked about this issue at Wikipedia talk:Vandalism; you might want to join in there. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I've found the dispute resolution processes to be completely useless. I did leave a note at W:AN/I, and another admin tried to have a word with BGC, but got nowhere. It looks as though my attempt to discuss the issue of the definition of vandalism has been sabotaged by the little travelling withhunt; perhaps I'll try again another time. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Er, what does not dropping it entail? What exactly are you threatening me with, in exchange for my pretending that I don't believe something that I do believe? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry — it's either tiredness plus a feeling of wading through treacle, or the testosterone in which the pop-music articles are awash that's getting to me. I wish that there could have been a proper disussion of the question at Wikipedia talk:Vandalism, but that looks very unlikely now. As I said above, I'll try again later, and hope that we can sort something out — either by convincing you and others, or convincing me, or finding a compromise. In the meantime (at least the short term) I'm going to bed. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help....

Thanks for helping me off of that unwarranted block. I wanted to let you know that Mel has once again undone my work. His justification is that he started a dispute page: [1], to which I'd like you to give your two cents if you so wish. I have returned my images to the pages (Love You to Summer in Paradise) solely because no one else has weighed in on the matter yet (thus, no consensus reached) and Mel's poor reasoning of "I don't like it" is not reason enough to delete the helpful images. Very subjective on his part. I will not cater to a potential 3RR again, but Mel's power trip reverting needs to be dealt with, especially as he's an admin and he even went over your edits last week. I've stated my case at the appropriate page. I'd appreciate if you could weigh in.

Thanks BGC 13:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Head over Feet

I've just moved this back in line with normal naming conventions (prepositions not capitalised); was there a reason that you reverted my initial move? I know that User talk:Winnermario insists that songwriters are exempt from normal English style, but none of the style manuals agrees with him (see his talk page for discussions). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, you've found an exception to my claim. Still, I've looked at six or seven style manuals, and most of them include all prepositions as uncapitalised, one (or two — I can't remember) specifying prepositions of four letters or fewer. I prefer the usual rule (all prepositions) in my own writing, but on Wikipedia I've restricted myself to the "four and under" rule, in order to minimise conflict. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

What exactly do you have in mind? RfC on the articles is useless — I've appealed for help from other editors, and some of them have come and looked at the articles, and tried to persuade OmegaWikipedia, Winnermario, and now Anittas to change their behaviour. They've all been reduced to reverting (see, for example, the one-sided discussion between User:Hoary and User:Anittas; an extreme example, but the basic pattern is there).

RfCs on the editors is a possibility (and a couple of editors are preparing them against OmegaWikipedia and Anittas, at least), but my experience of them in the past has been that this sort of editor ignores them. That leaves Arbitration. I've little doubt that the result of that would go against them, after a long drawn out process, and perhaps it will come to that — but in the meantime, what happens to the articles? They remain the "property" of a small group of excitable, immature, and aggressively stubborn editors. I don't think that that's a good thing, do you?

(Note, on this specific issue of tables, that three or four editors have argued against (by which I mean: provided arguments against) dividing the tables, and about the same number have objected (I've seen no argument other than "it looks confusing", though no explanation of this has been given). Moreover, those reverting to divided tables have been reverting to contradictory versions; they started by reverting to a distinction between one country – usually the U.S. – and "International"; now they're reverting to "World" and "Billboard" (as though Billboard is other-worldly), so lumping one or two U.S. charts in with what they had been insisting that they be separate from. No explanation has been offered for this. A number of new accounts and IP addresses have suddenly appeared, doing little but reverting and voting in AfDs in exactly the same way as OmegaWikipedia et al.)

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You're probably right that my experiences with these editors had lessened my patience with them. On the other hand, three or four other (experienced) editors aside from me are involved in reverting to the unified table form, and my experience has taught me that OmegaWikipedia et al. don't understand the notion of compromise (I mean that literally. OmegaWikipedia has used the term twice to my knowledge: once in a dispute with Extraordinary Machine, in which by "compromise" he meant "if you don't change these articles from x to y, I won't change those from y to x", and once in a message to Boa, in which he praised the creation of a differently divided set of tables as a compromise). You might be interested in the suggestions at Talk:The Trouble with Love Is, though.

I don't see the relevance of the out-of-context diff from Language, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

My talk page

Thank you for reverting that for me. He's promised to harass me and made personal threat awhile ago. I've reported him on the intervention page. Maybe you can follow through there, as an admin. Thanks again!Gator1 20:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

BartCop Help, if you would, please

Greetings! I am (imo) a newb here to Wiki, and have ran into some difficulty vis a vis the "BartCop" Wikipedia entry. It seems that this sole Wiki page, in opposition to every other page I have either read/edited/created, is being allowed to be hijacked, slurred, revert-vandalized and extremely non NPOV'd into a joke. If you have the time, please review the "BartCop" pages (article and talk/discussions) and tell me if I am correct, or if I just need to take a break, let those who would cheapen Wiki by attempting to insert half-researched or whole-cloth backed info as fact win, or if indeed I have a leg to stand on. Thanks, in advance for your advice. Lone Odessan 06:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I've briefly looked over the article and the discussion. I see that you have issues with the revealing of Terry's name, but before I take a closer look could you tell me which other specific parts (of the article) you have issues with? I found some of the sections of the article itself to be somewhat unencyclopedic, and I'm incredulous to the validity of some of the statements in the last three sections. Anyway, could you clarify/elaborate? Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 06:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's see. Name assignment without proof strikes me as bad form, as I've listed the WHOIS info in the discussion page, and "Terry Coppage" does not appear there. I mean, we might as well assign a name with some stature here, if we're just going to glom onto a name rather than the one that shows up in the WHOIS info, right? Personally, I like putting "Albert Gore" as BartCop, but I have NO PROOF of this (much like those who assign "Terry Coppage" as the identity........) You're right as far as the unencyclopedic style and content and the validity of some of the statements, but the hubbub seems to be the identity issue. Thanks again! Lone Odessan 06:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

What about [2]? This appears to be who the person who the WHOIS is registered to, Marc Perkel. If he claims it is Terry..... Also, please note that the WHOIS does not necessarily prove who controls the content on the website, it is merely who the domain is registered to... -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 06:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The page you link to on perkel.com has only 1 date on it past 1994. It (the page) seems not to have been updated in over 10 years.....10 years. I understand it is Perkel and it does list "Terry Coppage" as being BartCop, but, the page hasn't been updated since 1995..... ten year old information is VERY limited as to validity in out ever-changing world, would you not agree? And in the entire 1600+ pages of BartCop the person writing the actual page as of and including up to 3 Oct 2005 doesnt identify himself not even once. At all.

It seems kinda skewed to take a 10 year old webpage as canon over 1600+ pages of info including current information. And, as before, thanks for your time.... Lone Odessan 07:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, it really shouldn't stay out of the article just because he wants to remain anonymous. If there are credible sources stating that Terry is Bartcop, then it should stay in the article. I haven't seen what I'd believe to be a credible source , yet , so far it seems to be moreof original research, but we'll see how this plays out. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 07:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I will begrudgingly agree with you that "Terry Coppage" shouldn't be deleted for the single reason of "he doesn't want to be identified", but, it seems as the perkel.com page is 10 years old we can't simple cut-n-paste that name (Terry Coppage) as if it were carried down from the Mountain by Moses himself.

I also agree that all "proof" so far pushed by those eager to assign a name to BartCop is woefully insufficient to justify assigning Coppage as BartCop. Thanks again! Lone Odessan 07:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Would you also agree that this: [[2]] is vandalism? Can nothing be done to prevent this anon user OR sockpuppet, whichever, from popping in and vandalizing legitimate edits? Isn't the user guilty of the "3RR" rule? Curious..... Lone Odessan 07:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

150.176.239.178

Heya, you blocked User:150.176.239.178 as an open proxy; it is a shared proxy, but not an open one (though judging from google you're not the only one to be fooled by its contributions). It's a shared cache for the schools in Alachua florida, and like with all schools their contributions are at best a mixed bag. I've unblocked them and since they weren't at test5 yet I haven't short-term blocked either (as it's a school, anything longer than a few hours won't do much good anyway). Is that ok? --fvw* 17:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I noticed this on a driveby of Fvw's talk page and tagged User talk:150.176.239.178 with {{sharedip}}. Just a note to say what I did. no need for a reply. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Clemson

Would you mind protecting Clemson University for a while? It's been getting some pretty heavy vandalism. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC on Mel

Hey, I was just wondering if I could add my case to your RfC on Mel? Or do you want me to keep out of your case? Also, do I have the right to reply to his statement where he mentioned by nickname? Either way, I signed the petition - or whatever you guys call it. Thanks. --Anittas 21:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

How can I add to the warning templates auto signature. so that you only have to put it there and it does your signature

---

☺Adam1213☺|talk 03:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

24.122.51.203

A quick note to let you know that I removed the same links inserted by this user again today. Your last block and unblock is referenced here after his assertion on IRC that he would stop. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Further to the above, the same user posted the links again from 24.122.135.99. He also posted a legal threat at Cold Cutter is a not, though somebody has already tagged this for speedy deletion. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Macedonian Slavs

Why did you protect the article on its POV version? This is against wikipedia rules. Do you know who the people depicted supposedly as "Macedonian Slavs" are? It's a disgrace to wikipedia to promote such POVs, even when it's about a content dispute. That would be like protecting the article of Israel under the name Palestine until Arab-Jewish conflicts are solved in Talk. Articles should be protected in their original version, until the disputing party makes a valid point in discussion, not the other way around. Miskin 12:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: IP Address Warning

10 minutes ago (as of 13:55pm 11/10 GMT) a message was received to this IP address, demanding the cessation of the editing on an article titled 'Vandalism', with the offending user being prevented from editing said article

Address: 212.135.1.57

The IP address is for a school network, therefore the banning of said IP address is not recommended, as this is a valuable resource. However, I recommend that you ban this IP address from editing or placing new topics

Regards

Intervention

I need to know something. When editing a page on Wikipedia... As it is an actual encyclopedia, should decisions by contributors be made on their opinions or on printed, concrete facts? You can see the problem we're having if you visit the Avengers (comics) page. Certainly a reverting war going on. It seems to be me against two people, so they've declared me a vandal. The only problem is that the facts are in favour of my point of view. If every printed publication didn't agree with me, I'd gladly back down, but their opinion differs from the facts and they are constantly reverting -- and even resorting to stalking me around Wikipedia to revert any edits I make.. Is it possible that every printed publication is indeed wrong and that these two people are right? Avengers fan 11:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Avengers fan

How is it not when it clearly goes against a merge vote? It's a refusal to accept consensus, and is disruptive, creating a fork when a fork was voted against. I don't know about you, but I think that disruption is a blockable offence. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Fascio Siciliano

Why did you speedy delete this article? I think it really had some merit. I was just wikifying it a bit and then I found out you had deleted it. Aren't admins supposed to explain a speedy deletion in the edit summary, i.e. write more than the first sentence of the original content? (that's not a rhetoric question, I really don't know)--Carabinieri 19:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Fotherington-Thomas

Brookie here - I see you have jumped on and deleted this which was being worked on - are you not aware of this famous cissy (as linked to Nigel Molesworth)?

...en passant! 19:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Hoping not to fall out with you,and as an admin' I have restored and updated the article. ...en passant! 19:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Me again -thanks for the post - the context is now hopefully there now - keep up the good work! :) ...en passant! 19:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

I will promise very hard not to let the community, especially you, down.  Denelson83  21:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Ketchup on hot dogs

BMI-

I noted that you have placed a NPOV warning on Ketchup on hot dogs topic. I read through the article and, although the people quoted do not favor ketchup on hot dogs, I don't believe that the article has any sort of bias in the presentation. Can you suggest revisions that would remove the label? Unfortunately, there are no quotes that I have been able to locate that are pro-ketchup since, quite frankly, I don't think that it matters all that much to them. A little assistance would be helpful. Jtmichcock 22:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I've responded on the article's talk page. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

NONSENSE

DIR SIR, MY ARTICLE IS NOT NONSENSE. IMPORTANT TAMIL TOPIC, MAYBE COMPUTER NOT SUPPORT TAMIL? DOWNLOAD TAMIL FONT, YOU SEE, IMPORTANT IN TAMIL. PLEASE TRANSLATE.

From Salva31

Thanks for fixing my archive. I had a feeling I wasn't doing it correctly. Salva 00:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:203.26.2.2

I noticed you gave User:203.26.2.2 as final warning for vandalism (on that user's talk page. I have reverted two items of vandalism, Kevin Johnson and Inca Empire.

-=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 13:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've gone ahead and blocked the user for the persistent vandalism. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism of my userpage...

It must mean I'm doing something right.  :) Wikibofh 17:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 18:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

User talk:203.222.134.242

You blocked this user, but only for 1 hour. That seems very generous, given that the user was warned 7 times before, given 3 "last warnings", and blocked twice. Would you consider a longer block? The user clearly seems to have malicious intentions. Superm401 | Talk 04:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I them blocked for that duration because their hostname is: "gateway.staloysius.nsw.edu.au", which implies it may be a proxy for a school. I was hesitant to block for longer because of the possible collateral damage.. despite the fact I've only found one non-vandalous edit made by that IP. If they vandalize again after recieving Canderson7's warning, i'll block them again. Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 04:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

your mommy wears army boots

OOH i'm scared.

I was not vandalizing your userpage, I was simply voicing my opinion on the subject. I realize that this kind of free speech may be contrary to your belief but not to our current US patriotic judicial system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.28.157.199 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 21 October 2005

Well, I actually didn't say anything to you about vandalizing my userpage at the time... -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- case. →Raul654 02:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

2005 Atlantic Season

I only reverted actual material 3 times - the other reverts are removal of tags by the people who I have a dispute with. I've decided to just avoid the page, since there is a clear revert gang, and no possibility of good faith discussion. Since it is a reasonably active page, and will (eventually) get to a reasonable state without my participation, I'm just going to drop it from my watch list. Stirling Newberry 06:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Not wanting to chase anything here, but just as a side note, [3] shows 5 reverts. (Let it be known this is my last comment on the whole subject.) -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 06:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I've got no further comment other than to say I dispute NSLE's version of events, and note that two of the reversions were to restore tags. It is long standing wiki procedure that dispute tags should remain until there has been discussion. There was no discussion, at least as far as anyone reading the talk pages can see. This is a gang revert case, but since the article - which is the important thing - will eventually moot the discussion, there's no further point in pursuing this. Stirling Newberry 07:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ben Kim

Not sure why you deleted this page. I placed the {{deletedpage}} there to protect it from the vandal who was constantly re-creating it. Have you been aproached about using this page for a legitimate article? Owen× ☎ 19:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned this on WP:PP and in the unprotect summary, but I unprotected it because it was only re-created once, it was not really an attack page, and protecting pages is considered somewhat harmful. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 01:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

My fault; I didn't think of checking on WP:PP. In any case, that vandal seems to be gone for now. Owen× ☎ 01:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

White Sox infobox

Hello,
This message is in addition to the message I left you on the White Sox talk page. Here is the White Sox infobox for your perusal that will be implemented this weekend after the Series. Mind you, it is part of the ongoing project so changes are always welcomed. Feel free to update the info, but any wholesale changes to the infobox that would affect the other teams should be discussed first. Have a good one!--CrazyTalk 19:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello,

I am posting here rather than the article since I am off the intial topic. You stated you had issues with the "categories". Well, spill your guts, let's see if we can improve on what we have. (You can post your reply here as I have your talk page on my watchlist.) Have a good one!--CrazyTalk 23:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It just doesn't seem like it's something that should go in the infobox, it seems like they should go in the "external links" section. Also, I'm curious, why are they called categories? -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 04:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

COTW (GO SOX!)

Hey-I just saw your message about changing the COTW from awhile ago and agree 100%. Sox fan all of my life an NOTHING can describe how big this is (WORLD SERIES!!!). It hard to image that this is REALLY happening after so long, I'm taking my 94 year old grandfather to game 6 if they play-hes been a sox fan his entire life and has never seen anything like this. Sorry I haven't been around much, I've had a lot going on and I have decided to go back to school to so I've been quite busy, but I hope to come back full time pretty soon. C ya around!

GO SOX!!!!! --Gpyoung ^talk 04:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Monobook menus

I'm using your copyvio and menu system, but am having a problem. When I mouseover the talk messages menu, it lists the items one-by-one horizontally, rather than vertically. Any idea how to fix this? Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 00:37

Firefox extension

Would you happen to know how to make a firefox extension using Javascript? It would be very simple and used to fight vandalism. The basic idea is to feed RC diff's into firefox, and let it determine which pages contain text (such as an obscenity) listed in a file. For pages that don't contain anything on this list, the tab is closed. The others remain open and ready to be examined. If you can't figure out how to hookup the IRC RC output into firefox, then it could be used with WP:CDVF to open new tabs in firefox to be checked. I found a guide to making extensions, but it says you need to know Javascript. Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 03:50

AFD

Feel free to vote on the Frank Davis AFD as well. The anon creator has been manipulating both AFDs and has been deleting votes.Gator(talk) 18:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)