User talk:Bpeps/archive1
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bpeps. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Slough
ResolvedWelcome to Wikipedia! I have transferred your change to Slough to History of Slough because that is the maain article on Slough's history. The Slough article is getting pretty lengthy, so a while back I stripped the history section down to the essentials and put the full monty in its own article. The stripped out version is clear that Slough was in Bucks and is now in Berks, so the implication of where it moved from isn't needed in the Slough article.
keep up the good work!
Grblundell 19:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Cleanup templates
ResolvedJust to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and "{{Cleanup}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed . See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 09:41 2 January 2008 (GMT).
Have we met?
ResolvedHello, you have left a couple of messages on my talk page over the last few days, but they don't make sense to me. It's seems odd to me that you've found me within your first few days on Wikipedia when we haven't crossed paths (as far as I know) before. Are you sure your messages are not intended for somebody else? I'm not sure I can help you myself, but will try. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I'm still not sure we've crossed paths, but you said I "bully a bit" which worrys me a little, particularly given you've noticed I've been asked about adminship. Accusations of bullying are a little unkind and incivil. I have welcomed many editors into the community and generally have a good relationship with others. If you feel aggrieved at some of my actions in the past, I welcome feedback any time, but Monarchy articles are not ones I visit often I have to say. Simillarly, threats (as I understand) of stalking edits are a definiate no-no; indeed you've got to revisit Wikipedia:Welcome, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF if you're going to have a healthy usership on Wikipedia.
- Slough is a terrible article I agree. I'm very disinclined to help under randsom of edit stalking - this isn't how Wikipedia works. I also have very little (if any) knowledge of the borough; I tend to work from local history books pertaining to Greater Manchester. Perhaps if you visited WP:UKCITIES for ideas on content and layout, this may help? The Wikipedia:WikiProject Berkshire would also be a good page to visit for support. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was implying that a gesture of not-stalking may be appropriate here....????? I don't have boundaries to editting and Slough forms part of my chosen Wikiproject's remit, but I'm not comfortable with the terms of cyber-coercion you've laid out.... that really would be a case of bullying, I'm sure you'd agree! If you could assure me that you've visited the aforementioned policy/guideline pages, and show a desire to work with others, I'd be more inclined to work a little magic on the page with regards to layout. Whether you choose to agree to this or not, I would urge you to understand that good article status doesn't come easy; painstaking review and reporting of source material, copyeditting and style guide conformity can take months of work... work usually achieved only with the help of others. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've been very lucky on Wikipedia, and found a good path to success with articles. I started small and worked my way upwards to larger goals and targets. I also have a medical condition/problem/illness which leaves me housebound, enabling me long periods of time to edit. Sometimes people disagree with my contributions, sometimes I disagree with other user's - this happens on Wikipedia and one should then debate it on a talk page. If things get ugly there are a whole host of options to users to take action though. I am very closely involved with a core of articles, that's clear, but as my userpage says, Wikipedia is open to anyone to edit. Giving and receiving feedback is part and parcel of Wikipedia, and one can generally take it or leave it. Effective networking is also helpful, usually through collaborations and WikiProjects.
- I'm still confused though. Firstly your grammar in your messages isn't standard English, see here and is thus unclear. The edit summaries are still implying that I've bullied you too, which I still find hard to believe. I feel I'm missing something here. I assume by bullying you mean long term abuse, edit stalking, foul language (like you have rather unpleasantly just left on my talk page). Can you provide a diff? Looking through your contributions, there's nothing in there relating to me at all. My second point is why approach me for Slough? I'm far from a major editor, and there are many many greater contributors I could point to. Granted my userpage is grandiose, but in the scheme of things, I've only helped with a few insignificant articles and guidelines relating to local places. I can help, sure, but as I've said, I have very little knowledge about Slough, and thus my contributions would be limited anyway. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Remember you are free to edit wherever you choose, so long as it is inline with Wikipedia's principles and standards; I don't own any articles, nor do you, or anybody else here. Wikipedia is an open source project.
- If you really wanted to improve Slough, I would recommend buying a good local history book, and report to Wikipedia what that says. That's how I work. Remeber, all material must be attributable to a reliable source, we don't write article according to our own beliefs but what source material says. I don't own anything on Slough (nor have ever been there) which is why I maintain I'm not the best man for this task. You could join the Berkshire WikiProject and ask for input, and take a look at WP:UKCITIES which is a great guideline for British settlements too. If you made a start on some aspects your not happy with I'd be happy to jump in and convert some of the templates and add some more advanced layout to the article. Until then, I wish you luck with Wikipedia and your A-levels. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
RfR
ResolvedHello Bpeps, can you please fix your rollback request by using {{subst:rfr|Your Username|Short reason for wanting rollback}} ~~~~ please? Thanks. Acalamari 20:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome for my help, and thank you for fixing the request, but unfortunately, the admin who answered your request didn't grant you rollback (for now). The reason for this was that you only had about 45 edits. However, looking at your edits, they seem to be good quality. Might I suggest you read Wikipedia:Vandalism to read about vandalism, do a bit of vandal-fighting, and maybe re-apply for rollback in a couple of weeks? It's up to you: I believe you'd benefit from having rollback after gaining a bit more experience. Acalamari 20:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind, you've been granted rollback, by J-stan, and by me as well (didn't realize he was doing it as well). Good luck with rollback. Acalamari 20:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw that. I kindly suggest you do wait some time before applying for rollback again: I do not believe it will be a good idea to apply right now. Acalamari 21:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I have revoked your rollback permission. Your recent comments on User talk:Jza84 and the like are not the kind of contributions that make me confident in your ability to use rollback appropriately. I hope you can understand. --Merovingian (T, C) 20:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Jza84's comments on this page itself make it clear that you may need some more experience on Wikipedia before being granted automatic rollback again. He did call it cyber-coercion after all; not a good sign. --Merovingian (T, C) 20:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nobody's calling you a terrorist or anything of the sort. --Merovingian (T, C) 21:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is little I can add beyond what these other users are saying I'm afraid Bpeps. We don't know one-another and have barely shared a few points with each other. You have to remember that all your contributions are in the public domain and easily traceable. Your edits will speak for themselves. If you've acted in good or bad faith, this will be clear to everyone. If you feel you have behaved appropriately and inline with community standards then you've nothing to fear. As Merovingian has spotted, I do think you need to spend some time learning more about Wikipedia. I'm also not the right person to come to for a character reference; we haven't worked together at all on any articles, nor do I have the status of an administrator to overturn any of these decisions.
- I would say that I agree with Merovingian on your lack of experience; it is unlikely you will be granted rollback status until you've spent more time editting articles. A glance through your contributions shows very little activity on articles which certainly justifies Merovingian's actions in my opinion, at least for now anyway. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not disabled I suffer from an illness. Even so, you should have the maturity of mind to know that a disability need not be a factor in anything and it isn't social norm to bring it up mid-conversation or assume it's something to be sorry about. Also, Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion. Talk about your mum, dad what you drink isn't going to help move Wikipedia forwards, which is what I'm interested in. I'm not really comfortable with you singling me out from millions of users for purposes unknown. Whilst I'm always happy to help new users, they should show a commitment to learning about and applying Wikipedia's principles and as I've said, you've yet to show this in your article edits. There are some descrepencies in your edits too; sometimes you right in perfect diction and point to Wiki-conventions, whilst other times (particularly with me) you seem to dumb down. You are aware that the '84 in my username isn't my year of birth, but my first son's; I'm approaching 60 years old. I don't appreciate you using my talk pages to use obscene language too and then say I swear at others. This type of unhelpful commentary is exactly why Merovingian was reluctant to grant you additional editting privileges. I don't think it is right that we give these circumstances between us anymore oxygen now. Other than what I've already done, there is little scope for me to help you, and so not a great deal of point for us to have any further discourse. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Your VandalProof Application
ResolvedThank you for your interest in VandalProof, Bpeps. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. βcommand 13:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Rollback
ResolvedYou are more than welcome to submit a new application for rollback permission. --Merovingian (T, C) 12:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- One can only hope! Things can get drowned out in the crowd here, but all you have to do is keep up the good article contribs. It's easy to forget that in the community foibles and policy wonkery. --Merovingian (T, C) 15:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Wiki-Stalking
ResolvedIt's a pretty generic description and thus may be treated as such. Trolling and wiki-stalking are both generalised terms that can mean a lot of different things. As such, the term wiki-stalking can be attributed to your behaviour. Leave that contributor alone please. ScarianCall me Pat 12:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Talk Page Help
StuckThanks for your help on my talk page. Things seem to have settled down a bit. The editor with whom I was having the most difficulty has been issued a warning (by another ed) and hopefully will take it seriously. The other eds have toned down their attacks and personal comments as well, so the issue appears to be resolved. Thanks again. --AeronM (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is one of the "other eds." The issues are far from resolved, Aeron has simply worn us out, and some of us have things like jobs and a real life we have to go to and thus spend some time away from wiki. People have indeed gotten tired, snarky, frustrated, and generally fell into some Angry Mastodon behavior. And, to her credit, Aeron is getting the hang of things a bit and is a much better contributor than she was two weeks ago. (Feels like it's been a lifetime) But the issue here is that Aeron is a promoter of a somewhat alternative philosophy of horsemanship, whose adherents tend to be a bit fanatical in their devotion to their movement, and though her soapboxing has also toned down (she is growing as an editor), AND I am glad to report that she is no longer trying to promote her own personal invention that she sells for $32.99 on eBay, AND I think she has stopped confusing all the talk pages by inserting her answers in between every other sentence, she still insists on perpetuating her views as mainstream across several different articles and it is absolutely exhausting trying to keep up with her. I hate to crank this up again, but I didn't even know her proposal was out here until today. Further, my being "issued a warning" by the other editor was not official in any way, and it was very close to a problem, as that editor accused me of several things I didn't even do, which came quite close to bullying and a personal attack. I chose to let it go and just tossed it off my talk page (you can find it in history if it matters later) because, quite frankly, I am sick of the whole thing. Another editor who has issues with Aeron had to take a wikibreak for a few days because this thing was so stressful, a third was run off entirely, and at least two other editors who support my position don't want to go near this fight with a 10-foot pole for fear of getting dragged into endless edit wars and so on. I have been on wikipedia now for almost two years, have lots of edits and have significantly contributed to five Good Articles, have successfully collaborated with any number of other people, and I have to say this is the worst editing spat I have ever seen. It has made me just sick at heart and more frustrated than I have ever been while on wiki. Sorry to go on and on, but I couldn't bear to put up with any more of this nonsense. Montanabw(talk) 06:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Since she herself has brought it up (I didn't want to reveal an identity without approval), montanabw is indeed the editor who was issued a warning. Apparently the pattern is ongoing, and started long before I joined wikipedia. She responded to the warning with an ugly attack on in the issuer, who I feel was not out of line. Since then, montanabw has deleted the warning, and all references to it, from her talk page. It does not seem she is taking either friendly advice nor gentle warnings seriously, instead choosing to lob ad hominem attacks (like the one above) against other editors who are trying to help. --AeronM (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh. Well Aeron, if that's how you see it, well see also User talk:Orlady-- I see you feel this way at other topics as well. I was not "issued a warning," I was (mildly) threatened by a user with whom I regularly spat from time to time. The "warning" accused me of a number of things I didn't even do. (sigh). And as a longer-term wikipedian, I know I cannot delete page history and when I deleted the discussion, I tagged the edit with a summary that will make it easy to retrieve if needed later. We mere mortals can't delete anything forever from wikipedia; I was just getting sick of looking at it, and per talk page rules, we can delete personal attacks from our talk pages. Sorry to have weighed in here, Bpeps, of course Aeron would reply. What I wrote above was most certainly not an ad hominem attack; it was a good faith attempt to explain my side of the story. Montanabw(talk) 07:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help
StuckThanks for touching bases with me. There are actually several issues here, and an article where I am more comfortable with the content is under attack as part of it, see hackamore. RFC is such an involved process, and indeed, given the nature of this dispute, would just be more of the same. Bottom line is that there seem to be three main points of contention, and they may be unresolvable other than by a mutual agreement to stay out of each other's way. 1) Threats to make hackamore into a disambiguation page, treating the term as a general catchall, or worse yet, as synonymous with mechanical hackamore, when it is not. (Ignoring multiple citations in the process) 2) Treating Bitless bridle as if that is the only proper term for all headgear without bits, when it is actually a neologism as a proper noun (the patented Bitless Bridle showed up in 2000, similar early designs go to the 1980's, with some patents for "bitless bridles" of different styles dating to around 1890, but they were very different from modern ones), though it certainly has been used as a simile or descriptive phrase to explain what a hackamore is or does (especially to explain that a hackamore is not a halter). 3) A failure to reach agreement that the word bridle, according to the OED and common usage, normally implies bitted headgear, and when people say "bridle," without referencing a bit, they are actually talking about a "headstall" (the part that goes behind the ears and holds on the rest). A couple people have proposed the phrasing "bitless headgear" or "headgear without a bit" as useful when an NPOV expression is used. I'd be OK with that. I really, sincerely am trying to find a middle ground here, and it has been frustrating to be accused of having assorted motives and beliefs which, in fact, I do not. I just know the topic and am trying to work toward as factually accurate, NPOV articles as possible given time constraints and resources. I have been particularly troubled to have my edits about hackamores attacked as POV, when I am citing the most respected sources in the field and doing no original research. (And, ironically, am more of a snaffle bit person anyway; I don't use bitless stuff much.) Sorry, just wrote another book. Just want my position to be better understood. Montanabw(talk) 07:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
SU WikiProject
StaleI'm starting a WikiProject for students' unions and thought you might be interested in seeing the proposal. GreenJoe 16:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Rollback
ResolvedHey, i saw your comment on WP:ANI, and I just wanted to ask, doesn't WP:TW come with rollback? Kimu 01:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm. OK. Kimu 02:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Does rollback really matter? I think rollback gets in the way of Twinkle myself. --Onorem♠Dil 02:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Noble House
ResolvedThanks for fixing that for me, it's late and I've been playing tennis all day. Out of curiosity, what do you use to fix that so fast? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LonelyPker (talk • contribs) 05:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Your VandalProof Application
ResolvedThank you for your interest in VandalProof, Bpeps. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that:
You do not yet have enough experience (usually over 250 edit) in the main namespace.
Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. Ale_Jrbtalk 15:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
ResolvedHi, "James stewart recieves academy award 1941.jpg" is a filename. If you change the spelling of the "filename", you can't see the photo.CDChen (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
ResolvedI just reverted that article back through several versions, which included taking out your edits. Your edits were constructive, but the section you edited had been added just before that, and was not encyclopedic, so I took out the whole mess. BTW, in edit summaries, if you're just correcting spelling, I think a simple "sp" in the summary is sufficient to let other editors know what's up. Thanks for helping clean things up! - Special-T (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
ResolvedI have corrected your correction on the Ruth Ellis page. The mother of Ruth Ellis and her sister Muriel Jakubait, according to Ms Jakubait's book RUTH ELLIS MY SISTER'S SECRET LIFE, was Jewish.Charlton1 (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi -Ruth Ellis - sorry about that. I'm not quite sure why I thought it was your comment! Best wishes.Charlton1 (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
April 1, but
ResolvedI hope the edit summary is automatic =D (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Three-revert rule
Resolved
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Greg Glienna. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 14:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the warning to my talk page regarding WP:3RR on Greg Glienna. I made to edits to the page, both annoted in the edit summary as I believed that the situation was due to April Fools day. A simple google would show that the guys correct year of birth is 1963 and not 1973 see for example Trailerfan. It was me who raised the quest at WP:RPP Please don't tag regulars, or for that matter jump to conclusions without looking into the matter. Regards -- BpEps - t@lk 14:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I do not believe in WP:DTTR. Sorry if you were offended.
- Vandalism reverts are exempted from WP:3RR only if they are for simple and obvious vandalism, i.e. edits which someone who had never seen the page before would recognize as vandalism. Your edits didn't qualify for this exemption. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 14:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
ResolvedOkay, I'm going to take you at your word here. I've granted you rollback. FYI your rights log does show you have been granted and had the right removed. It doesn't matter now. Please use the tool responsibly, and remember it really isn't a badge of honour or anything. After your hard work yesterday you have certainly prooved you can get some use from it! If you have any questions let me know. Pedro : Chat 21:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Good stuff! Please hit me up on my talk page if you need anything else. Pedro : Chat 21:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)