User talk:Blaxthos/Archive 3

This is the talk page for Wikipedia user, Blaxthos.
If you leave a message, I'll respond on your talk page. Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Always assume good faith Do not make personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers; we were all new at some point!

/2004-2007 2008

Transzap

I've updated the Transzap article with recent, notable events. Created internal linking from pages CDEX, Crude Oil Data Exchange, & ePayables. And I've updated the neutrality of the article. Because of these changes, I have removed the article issue info box placed by you to the page. Thanks much, and please let me know if you have any questions. CLB Courtney L Brewer 18:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CourtneyLBrewer (talk • contribs)

Checkuser

Despite the "not related" result from that new guy, I'm convinced he's the same guy, so we'll just have to keep an eye on him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News

I have found over 30 reliable sources with significant coverage. Schuym1 (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Over 30 was only from the first few pages. There are many more and there is also more in Google Books and Google Scholar. Schuym1 (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

On IBM's dubious patents

Hi Blaxthos,

On slashdot: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."

In any case, there is plenty of material concerning IBM's dubious patents:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/06/ibm_paper_or_plastic_patent/ http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/03/30/ibm-applies-patent-offshoring-math http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/12/ibm_patents_sys.html;jsessionid=4BEPM0NZUXQDAQSNDLRSKH0CJUNN2JVN http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2006/10/ibm-patent-policy-apparent.html http://joi.ito.com/weblog/2002/10/13/ibm-eliminates.html http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/03/ibm-makes-more-money-by-destorying-value.html

I've assembled them all here: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1227341&cid=27885503

But I don't think that a larger number of dubious patents is needed to make the case. I think one is enough. I am not biased against IBM, but I am biased against claims to have record number of patents and no wishes to see the highly dubious exposed in a NPOV. (My opinion: Society is not being improved by these patents, neither IBM.)

˜˜˜˜ Linhares (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

removal of my edit

Hi Blaxthos,

I have read a number of Wikipedia articles about various political commentators, and took note that only conservative commentators have the term "conservative" in front of "political commentators."

In an attempt to make Wikipedia more consistent (and I hope more unbiased), I added "liberal" in front of "political commentators" in a format consistent with what was done to those on the other side of the political spectrum. Anyone who watches Rachel Maddow like I do, knows that she is a liberal commentator, but that is not allowed to be revealed on Wikipedia?

No offense, but your editing reveals YOUR own bias and is not becoming of the Wikipedia community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eobrock (talk • contribs) 04:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That topic was pretty much handled on the talk page itself

Hey you just sent me a message regarding the Bill O'Reilly controversy page. Like I said in the section header that topic was pretty much handled on the talk page itself. You should check it out. That is before I put that tag on. Lighthead ^þ 02:27, 20 January 2009

Keith Olbermann RFC

Thanks for taking the time to open an RfC -- and the notice about it. Hopefully we can find a resolution to this issue -- there's probably "better" wording waiting to be discovered that will satisfy all involved parties. Warren -talk- 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be cute and I wasn't trying to be snarky. I used the level 1 because it assumes good faith, not because I made any assumption about you. I see my error now and I apologize for the edit as well as the warning. Since you are someone who has recently cited Wikipedia's core policies, I would appreciate it if you would assume good faith on my part as well. You have had no interaction with me until now; therefore there was no reason for the harsh tone of your comment on my page. It was, as you say, inappropriate. Henrymrx (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Blaxthos, I got your message to me at my talk page. No offense taken. But I feel really bad about what you said, because I can see that, for perfectly understandable reasons, you completely misunderstood what I meant, and what you took from it was actually the complete opposite of what I intended. I was not referring to your placing the RfC at all. Rather, I was referring to the comments of Badmintonhist that were directly above my second comment, and to which I was directly responding. Thus, when I said "personal arguments among other editors," I was talking about when Badmintonhist had said "Blaxthos!! Good to see you come out of your "I don't like it – the other guys are insane" defensive shell..." and I was not talking about anything that you had said. What Badmintonhist said there to you sure sounded personal to me, without any assumptions about good or bad faith on my part, just taking the words at face value. And you yourself said on the talk page, after I had already made my second comment, that Badmintonhist's comments were "baiting" and "snarky." And when I said that the RFC is "being used by editors already in the dispute to keep re-arguing their same arguments" I was, again, referring to the fact that Badmintonhist had made those comments after already arguing the same things pre-RfC on the talk page. (You, in contrast, had simply and neutrally stated the basis for the RfC.) If you look at the substance of what I said in both my comments (the correct logic of your argument about synthesis, the low relevance of the others' source materials), I was arguing in defense of your position. So, let's file this under no good deed goes unpunished. You misread my comments supporting you as, instead, finding fault with you, and so I unintentionally made you feel bad when I intended the opposite. I came to the page in response to the RfC and was just trying to help, and now I feel sorry for having made you feel that way. Let me close by repeating what I said at the beginning of my first comment at the RfC: that the differences between those two versions are ultimately pretty small and not worth anyone getting too concerned about. Please understand that I mean well and I think that you do too. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I'm glad we got that worked out. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I see that you removed a SPA template on the Olberman talk page. Thank you. I am definately not a SPA. Regards, --72.221.70.224 (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Dude.

You should archive this page! Timneu22 (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge: POS and HPOSS

I suggested that hospitality point of sale systems be merged with point of sale. I remember seeing you on these articles from time to time so I thought I'd bring this to your attention. Timneu22 (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

NTSC

Could you have a look at NTSC again and see what might need to be done so as to remove the copyedit tag? Your specific recommendations would be helpful. Thanks, --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the NTSC critiques - nw I have a better idea of what attracted the cleanup tag. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

CU

You might want to ask User:Raul654 if he thinks there's grounds to pursue a checkuser request. My guess though is that thing kinda thing brings the Coulter fans out of the woodwork. By now just about everyone has a Wikipedia account... On the other hand, it might be a useful way to ferret out socks. Guettarda (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Unarchiving

The discussion has nothing to do with improving the article. That's not the place for general rants against "liberals in Wikipedia". And it's a magnet for unsourced smears. Archiving discussions like that is pretty normal on controversial articles, in my experience. Guettarda (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the term you're looking for is tendentious editing Guettarda (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Smile

Rsrikanth05 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Seriously?

I didn't bother to reply to Switzpaw's comment because, although s/he was totally on the wrong track, it just wasn't worth arguing about. But seriously...while I appreciate what you're trying to do on the Olbermann article, you really should familiarise yourself with policy before choosing to lecture people about it.

To begin with, policy trumps "convention". An argument based on convention is always weaker than an argument based on policy. If you bothered to read Johno7777's assertion, it was obviously untrue. So there's no need to make the far weaker argument based on "convention". The first requirement is that you pass WP:V. Only after you've gotten past that burden do you bother to talk about other policies like WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, and then you move onto guidelines like the WP:MOS and then onto unwritten conventions. Don't start with your weakest argument. Start with your strongest. Guettarda (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

He said "not the Ivy league Cornell". Quick-fail on any RS. No reliable source would repeat that nonsense. Guettarda (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not new to this. I've dealt with every sort of specious argument you can imagine over the last 4 years at the intelligent design article. You don't win against True Believers by pointing them to convention - you point to policy first, and you shut them down when they start repeating arguments that have been settled. To say that "we don't do that anywhere else" invited "othersuffexists". Saying 'give a good reason why we should deviate from the norm' is a more powerful argument, but it it's an invitation to argue more.

When it comes down to it, disruption at articles like these (or the recent on at the Obama article) can easily be orchestrated outside of Wikipedia - and often are. If you tell people "no", they cry "censorship". If you tell people "provide sources", the average person comeing from outside, with no real clue about the arguments they are repeating, will stop. Granted, there are people (as we say at the KO article) who will misrepresent sources and argue the same thing over and over. But appealing to 'convention' is no better than appealing to policy with people like that (which reminds me...I don't know how many times I've seen an editor, when stymied by policy, start editing the policy page...) But my experience has been that you're best off starting with policies. Even the Cornell issue, when it comes down to it, is more hangs more heavily on WP:UNDUE than on 'convention'...because talking about the college rather than the university gives undue weight to the college, and is likely to leave readers with a false impression. Guettarda (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Praise Olbermann

Hey. I've noticed that you're more biased, annoying and stubborn than most trolls and that you have a clear agenda when editing but still take yourself seriously and present yourself as unbiased. How is possible that you have not been banned and that you're allowed to edit articles?

Thanks for reading.--DystopiaSticker (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You may find my response here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Taking this elsewhere

I'm making a distinction between making a point, and disrupting wikipedia to make a point that's apparently being lost.

I will not answer any more of your accusations of bad faith, as I feel they are unproductive. SDY (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Your input is requested here. SDY (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude...

I have no idea wtf you're talking about. Read my comment before posting crap like like this. You know what - if you can't be bothered to figure out what I'm saying, find somewhere else to post. Guettarda (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I think I misunderstood what you were saying. Withdrawn. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

DystopiaSticker

I saw your ANI report. You might be in his most recent bullshit here. Ward3001 (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed his comment per WP:BLP. Here it is in the edit history, along with my comments. Ward3001 (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The only BULLSHIT on Olbermann's article comes from Blaxthos himself. Dude, quit trying to make wikipedia a platform for spouting your far left viewpoints and censoring anything that doesn't comport. 68.40.123.217 (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't around for a bit, missed all the fun. I see that Dave has blocked the anon. I don't know if a CU request would be taken up though - while the anon has commented on DystopiaSticker's user page, there's no evidence of ban evasion or troublesome socking. If DystopiaSticker were to edit while the anon was banned (or the other way around), there's be justification for an RFCU. As is though, I suspect that the request would be declined. Guettarda (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Criticism of Bill O'Reilly

Heads up. A new editor (new to the page) is butchering entire, longstanding sections of the article.Jimintheatl (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Pace. Understand that I have been/can be a loose cannon, and appreciate your tolerance...Jimintheatl (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Dermatology

Do you have a specific interest in dermatology? If so, I am always looking for more help ;) ---kilbad (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I did not realize it had been listed at DKY. Perhaps you could direct me to the article entry at DKY with a specific link? Thanks in again! kilbad (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

lable[sic]

Do you try to act like an ass or does it just come naturally? Arzel (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Just Curious

Blax, have you ever calculated the number of these "personal attack" warnings you've issued during the course of your Wikipedia career? It must be one hell of an impressive number, kiddo! Between these and other kinds of warnings you issued, and actions you've taken against other users, you've built up quite a portfolio of litigiousness. All to good effect I'm sure. By the way, I've never issued a single one since I started editing in 2007. Have never felt the need. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly

I answered you already. "Feel free" not to be patronising. Regarding #1, I agreed with you, but also pointed out your inconsistency in arguing between the two pages. I don't grant your #6, you're just trying to make a point. Fences and windows (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing the "instead" from my edit of May 5 is fine. As for the other comment on the O'Reilly talk page, I expected as much. As you've noticed, however, I'm far from the only editor who has been unfavorably impressed by your inconsistent argumentation. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Olbermann

Let’s be honest, it not a personal view: Olbermann is a liberal. Your argument doesn't make sense. It's like saying Bill O'Reilly isn't a conservative, O'Reilly is a conservative. B64 (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It not what I believe, it what is true. He is a liberal. Just like you belive he isn't your Injecting your believes in wiki. B64 (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The truly verifiable was just an extra. Olbermann's interview with a college newspaper is not the strongest evidence that he actually was rejected by Harvard but offered a full scholarship to B.U. However, the main reason for the deletion is that the info is gratuitous. Who cares if he was rejected by one college, or given a scholarship to another, or put on the waiting list for a third? Including it makes the article look silly. Wiki bios rarely detail a middle aged man's college application record. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

With regards to SPA...

Is there someone in particular on the Bill O'reily page you were referring to? Soxwon (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope; if I had any idea who I would have approached it differently. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note

No offense taken, even before your explanation. Yes, we've had some pretty harsh words, but I've never doubted that you've been sincere (maybe sometimes too sincere) in your efforts. By that I mean that you approach this unpaid job very intensely and meticulously. I can get intense myself when it comes ideas I feel strongly about. Perhaps both of us should keep this in mind as we go forward. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Blah, Blah, Blah

1. Don't template the regulars
2. Check the warning given on the user's talk page. It was about adding unsourced info, not vandalism.
3. Twinkly adds the edit summary about vandalism.
4. Any person who automatically assumes good faith is too naive to survive in 2009

Blah, blah, blah. --WebHamster 10:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Better late than never

I've left a reply to your query at Template talk:See also#Section link. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 11:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

RE:DemocraplypseNow

The feeling is mutual my wikiquaintance, I look forward to misrepresenting your arguments extensively in a vain effort to bring my credibility down to that of NewsBusters.org. Take care boss. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Kiss my ass

What the hell? I asked for one WP:RS, and you two gave me a hell of a time trying to get it. I looked through that list, thoroughly. And you know what, the UPI link wasn't in the top 50 for that particular G-news search, and after 50 or so, I guess I wasn't paying as close attention. Sorry, I'm human. So instead of a condescending, accusatory post like this one, you consider that I might actually be here to help the project. Throughout the entire discussion on both pages you made at least 8 accusations of either bad faith or me completely disregarding Wikipedia policy. So instead of an intelligent, beneficial argument, we had a heated discussion that accomplished little. Maybe if you weren't such an asshole more might actually be accomplished. Soxwon (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering your experience with me is limited at best, I'd love to see what these "established users" had to say. Soxwon (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to apologize for this little episode. I honestly did miss that source, and I was probably more than a bit unreasonable for sources. I hope we can edit in a way that doesn't resort to this kind of disagreement again. :) Soxwon (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Frank Schaeffer and Blaxthos

Since this is only tangentially related to your recently proposed O'Reilly edit, I'm putting it on your talk page. Frank Schaeffer is most certainly neither a "conservative" nor an "anti-abortion activist" as those terms are currently understood. He hasn't been for a long time. He is utterly disaffected from both the religious right and from the Republican party. He and Keith Olbermann would probably be near soul-mates at this point in time. Though Schaeffer claimed to be "pro-life" in the title of a fairly recent Huffington Post article, when one reads the article it is quite clear that he is not. He asserts that abortions "are not only inevitable but logical" in contemporary American society, and that "hearts but not the law" concerning abortion need to be changed.

Why do I bring this up? Because I have no doubt that you basically already know this, and I want to point out to you the ill-will that disingenuous, polemical "offhand" remarks such as the ones you made about Schaeffer engender. They don't help the process, Blax. They do help to drive good editors such as Ramsquire and Switzpaw into hiding. They get tired of the nonsense. I think you really need to decide whether your role in Wikipedia is that of an encyclopedia editor or that of a liberal polemicist. The two roles are not compatible. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

My usual reasonable self

I was thinking of saying something like "Much as I hate to do so ...I have to go with Blax and Croc on this one" but decided that the preliminary wouldn't make me look very objective. Actually, the debate at the Criticisms of O'Reilly talk page pretty much seemed identical to the earlier debates about accusations of bias against MSNBC, so consistency dictated my position. Speaking of being reasonable, however, what the hell was up with your attempt to pass off Frank Schaeffer as a conservative? That's like calling David Brock a conservative because he used to be one. I realize that it was just an extra comment on a talk page, but still ...! Badmintonhist (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Eckstasy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. [1] [2] Thank you. Tothwolf (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Enough

Really, now, enough of your bullshit... When someone I know from outside wikipedia, who hasn't made a substantial contributions in two years (save a 3 day period in 2008), who has a personal animus towards being fired from bash.org, shows up out of nowhere to participate in an AfD discussion the canvassing is pretty obvious. Couple that with several other IRC-focused editors who all show up to give no other rationalization than a faux ad hominem appeal, and your repeated anachronously incongruous misrepresentation of fact smacks of bad faith and more of a concern for your interest in IRC than it does with following policy. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm thinking you're talking about DigDug, FYI he found the deletion article himself. and then he said, and I quote: "I'm surprised Blaxthos is still going on with his shit, even after several years", You're now making it worse by accusing me of canvassing and badfaith. This whole nomination is just bad faith. Eckstasy (talk) 06:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Also, thanks for sending a massive amount of Spambots out to Quotebucket, It's like I have nothing better to do than edit the .htaccess Eckstasy (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• The nomination of List of quote databases was a good reasoned nomination. Ignore bad faith claims when they are flawed. Keep up the good work. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:WQA

Please note, I have brought our little discussion] to Wikiquette. Soxwon (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

JkDefrag

You reverted my changes in the article of JkDefrag [3] as spam. Why? For me it is an important information that JkDefrag (which is open source) is discontinued and that its successor is continued as a closed source product. --Dwi Secundus (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI

I have opened this discussion regarding your conduct. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding MY conduct? I believe you were the one accusing people of canvassing [4]. we have every right to accuse you of bad faith, You only have to take a look at this or this to notice. and what Tothwolf said about Bash.org here is in my opinion 100% correct. Thanks. Eckstasy (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Close in "The Shield"

Glenn Close was billed before the opening title all throughout Season 4, along with all the other main characters. While her stay may have only been for one season, it's only an opinion that she shouldn't be included in the infobox. It's a fact she was credited in top billing (unlike two-season character Forrest Whitaker, from Season 5-6). Unless you can direct me to a discussion about which actors from the show should be included in the infobox, I'm reverting Glenn Close back into the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeky Randy (talk • contribs) 06:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. It wasn't intentional. Geeky Randy (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

John Gibson page

If the page for John Gibson wasn't so pathetic, I'd take your words to heart a little more. However, it's blatantly non-POV and has been as long as I've observed it, with the near screeching anti-Gibson bias enforced by a kabal of liberals who don't know a reliable source from an opinion blog (or they know the difference, but don't care).

The entire page is an insult to the credibility of Wikipedia. Sorry for pointing out what a pathetic page it is. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Information repeated

The Fox edits are really no different. I'm deleting a repitition that's it. Why do you keep reverting? (respond here plz) If you are talking about the Afghanistan war, that's not mentioned in the source, but rather "which in March featured a group of pundits taking turns trashing Canada and its reliability as an ally, caused a national uproar, with the Canadian government calling it `despicable' and `disgusting.'" (perhaps that should be added instead). The rest is already mentioned as far as I can tell. Soxwon (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

One, Soxwon, STOP running to Gwen and seeking her opinion... Show some respect for your fellow editors on the appropriate talk page instead of selectively seeking an opinion from someone.

I didn't mean for the convo to start up there and I respect and trust Gwen as a contributor. Per WP:NAM Solicit feedback and ask questions. This can be done without any formal procedure on article and user talk pages.

Take note that her opinion has seems to match that of the experienced editors with whom you seek to war.

I did take note of what he said, replied, he responded, and we both got something out of it that was productive. There was no war. Also note, she said I had a fair point as well.

Two, stop playing the personal attack card -- there is a clear difference between a personal attack and pointing out when you're misinterpreting or misapplying policy. WP:KETTLE? Soxwon (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). 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 "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/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (3rd nomination). 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) 01:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, see: [5]. It looks as if the article might be deleted, and trimming the content down so that it can be merged looks like the only option left. Could you look through my edits and see whether you think the information could be cut if the article is indeed merged? Soxwon (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get the memo

I guess I missed it when Random House changed the definition of "alma mater" from "a school, college, or university at which one has studied and, usually, from which one has graduated" to "a school, college, or university at which one has studied and, always, from which one has graduated". Niteshift36 (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ownership?

You know what? I think that was totally uncalled for. First, templating me? Riiiight. Then you are talking about ownership? You and another editor come up with your personal definition of a word and want to talk about ownership? You haven't cited a policy that justifies removing the sourced material. And maybe you haven't noticed, but I'm not the only one who disagrees with you two trying to redefine the term. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• First, let me start by saying that you claim of me having a "right wing agenda", I see nothing more than a carefully personal attack. Second, your example of a "snarky comment" is a factual representation of what happened. I don't believe it belongs in his bio but in his show page and certain editors did show a willingness to edit war over it. While you concentrate on the negative, you fail to observe that I have worked to compromises in the past and that I'm not the only one who opposes these things. But you seem to feel you know everything about me and my "agenda" because you saw some user boxes. I've stated before that I rarely even listen to Hannity's show more than about an hour a week. He just isn't my thing. But have observed a pattern of people trying to paint him in a very negative manner and tried to keep it fairly neutral. Yes, you see my name (and a few others) because I keep the same account. I don't use sockpuppets or IP addresses like some involved do. And was it not me that came up with the simple solution to this that others are seeming to agree with? But no....Niteshift has a "right wing agenda" and must be stopped. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette

Since you refuse to discuss anything on your talk page, discussing your incivility here seems pointless. Instead, if you have anything to say about it, you can do so here: [6] Niteshift36 (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you really understand what WP:WQA is for, nor what constitutes a personal attack. Regardless, I have no doubt I can provide to John Q. Editor's satisfaction enough evidence to substantiate a strong case against your ownership of Sean Hannity (including your proudly-displayed userboxen, which tend to support that assertion). Let me know how that WQA turns out... :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Like BWilkins, you seem to think that a personal attack is the only way to be uncivil. That would make both of you wrong. I know how it will turn out already. You and the user box crap again? Whatever. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this response says everything that needs to be said on the subject... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, I didn't actually expect him to look at it fairly. It just reinforces what I have long thought about that process. Bottom line: You were uncivil, whether or not your buddy thinks so. Apparently I'm not the only one who has "enjoyed" your incivility before. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Calling out your inappropriate ownership and the flagrant agenda you serve isn't incivility... though you may find it unflattering, I wouldn't have said it if I couldn't make a pretty strong case of which I believe any reasonable uninvolved editor will agree. You're not the first person who's raised a complaint about me at WP:WQA (or elsewhere), and it's always this same sort of circumstance, and it always turns out the same way -- the community points out that their assertions of NPA/CIVIL violations are without merit, and the editor making the complaint ignores this and makes an accusation of a cabal or some other such nonsense. Why do you think I've never been blocked, reprimanded, warned, or even approached about these things? It must be all my cabal buddies, right?  ;-) After your Wikibreak when you've calmed down, please take a moment to re-read what I've said and try to reflect on the existentially -- I think you'll see my point if you give it an honest go. Best of luck! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• After I've calmed down? Wow.....that doesn't sound condescending at all. Cabal? Who said anything about a cabal? I didn't. You just invented that.....much like you invented your own personal definition of alma mater, dictionary be damned. You can skirt it all you want and dance around the wording all you want. Calling my response "smartass" was not civil and then repeating it twice afterwards was simply baiting. You can't honestly expect me to believe that you didn't do it intentionally, just to try to bait me. Well, maybe you can hope I would be that easily duped, but you have the wrong guy. As for your accusation of "ownership", well you ignore the parade of sockpuppets that a few regular editors (myself included) have put up with. It could look like ownership because we don't change names everytime someone catches on to who we are. But if anyone bothered to look, they'd see housekeeping, not ownership. Maybe you're used to people who won't stand up for things they believe to be right. If I was trying to "own" it, I'd have done it without all the debate. I'd have simply sat back, waited for Doug to violate the 3RR and report it. Your agenda accusation.... well, believe what you want. After all, you've seen user boxes, so obviously you know everything there is to know about me. Are those who agreed that it was a proper use at the Village Pump part of my cabal? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Deaf ears... best of luck to you. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

New?

Just out of curiousity, I have almost 4,000 edits and 1 and half years of editing. What does it take to no longer be considered new? Soxwon (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No offense was intended. It was more intended towards the other editor (who appears brand new), though in my experience it's not uncommon for new users to argue about "truth" and "proof"; editors who've been around the block usually distinguish that from "verifiability" and "weight". My apologies. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I meant verifiable proof (though you have a point, proof probably isn't a good word to use), no offense taken and no need to apologize. Soxwon (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. You disappoint me Blax, and here I had some snarky comment about visiting a veteran editor like you in the nursing home ;) Soxwon (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...

I was looking up some sources and noticed that wikipedia doesn't have an article for the newshounds website. Considering how often it gets hits from g-news and google whenever a Fox article is searched, do you think it deserves an article in its own right, or should it be somehow integrated into the Fox article? Would you be interested in helping to write it? Soxwon (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to search for sources, I had seen them when I was looking for sourcing on Glenn Beck. I looked them up on Alexa and their ranking may suggest they're not notable enough for their own article, but I figured they could be added on to the Fox Article or on a sister article. I got the idea from the Drudge Report article, which feature its own parody, the Drudge Retort. Soxwon (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources for an idea about what the cite is: [7], [8], [9]. Soxwon (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible indications of notability: [10], [11]. I also e-mailed them asking for information on any awards or additional coverage they may have received as the G-news search is being rather uncooperative. Soxwon (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Fiorina

I summarized your opinion regarding the "Worst CEOs" commentary on Talk:Carly_Fiorina; if I mischaracterized your view please correct me. Rvcx (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I resent your offhand comment that I am "serving a polar viewpoint". To be honest, I don't have terribly strong opinions about Fiorina, but I am convinced that the article about her I found on Wikipedia was nothing but a press release to serve her political ambitions. I was, in fact, the person who added the information to the article that serves as her main source of notability: the fact that she was the first woman ever to lead one of biggest 20 companies in the world. It is the case, however, that she is also notable for the criticism her tenure received. I've never tried to add non-notable criticism, and have bent over backwards to avoid injecting negative connotations (even where they may be merited)---see, for example, my endorsement of "stepped down" as a euphemism for "fired" in the lede. I don't think arguing that an article currently violates WP:NPOV should be equated with "serving a viewpoint". Rvcx (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

My apologies

I thought I was reverting an earlier edit. For some reason I didn't see the later vandalism and your revert. I'm sorry for the posting the warning, which was certainly undeserved and a big mistake on my part. -- Donald Albury 16:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible for us to start from scratch?

Look, you and I are wasting way too much time on this back and forth silliness. I'm fully willing to admit that I haven't been as gracious as I could have been or even should have been all the time. I think both of us have let this go further than it should have. Are you willing to try to bury the hatchet and see if we can find some common ground somewhere? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your response. Believe it or not, I really don't have an agenda. Yes, I'm a conservative and, like everyone who has any kind of a believe, I tend to sympathize with it. Sympathy and agenda are very different things to me though. If you notice, you don't see me editing articles about Limbaugh, Beck, Bush, Cheney, Iraq war etc. I made a couple of edits at Ingraham, only because I happened to be there for another reason. I sort of ended up at the Hannity article by accident and observed some POV pushing towards the negative and jumped into it, not out of an agenda, but just to try to be part of what I saw as the missing balancing view. As I mentioned before, I probably only listen to the guy no more than an hour a week. I'm not exactly a fan.

Like you, I tend to be blunt and I tend to respond to people in much the same manner they respond to me. I think that's probably where we ended up going astray. In any case, maybe we can pick a non-political article and collaborate on it to improve it. Or not. That's really up to you at this point, I'm good with it either way. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It was all in fun – pretty much

Sorry if you felt that I was making a serious charge of "sockpuppetry" (what a name!) against you, Blax. Actually, for me, there is hardly such a thing as a serious charge of sockpuppetry because I really don't take the practice, or the prescribed procedures to remedy it, very seriously. While I would prefer to see Wikipedia editors behave themselves, and I sometimes admonish them to do so, I have never started or participated in an official action against anyone. I's just not my style.

However, I was (and still am) rather curious about MichaelLNorth. He describes himself as a long time user (but not as a long time editor) of Wikipedia, and his first edit came on August 11, 2009. It seems to me, however, that only an experienced editor would have his obvious familiarity with Wikipedia's editorial guidelines and its customary editorial debating points. Right from the start he assumed the rather pedantic style one often sees from experienced Wikipedia editors. You can be that way at times, Blax; I think you'll admit to that. Noticing at least a superficial similarity (and the fact that you two were the only editors bedeviling Niteshift36 on the "Hannity Freedom Concert" issue), I made a little joke of it with my "You wouldn't have any idea where he's been the last couple of days, would you Blax???" remark. It was not meant to be serious. Indeed, if MichaelLNorth really is a sockpuppet for some other editor (he could, after all, be a law abiding former editor who decided to "reinvent" himself), it will take somebody with more time on his hands, more patience, and more zest for strict Wikipedia policy enforcement than I have to make the case.

By the way, it's good to see that you and Niteshift have "buried the hatchet". With any luck you should go at least a few weeks before you'll be burying hatchets in each others skull. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, let's be fair.

You are correct that an anonymous IP editor doesn't mean sock. Sometimes it means they weren't signed in. However, when the editor denies multiple times, on more than one page, that it was him (without even trying to give the old "someone used my computer" excuse), we might be wading into WP:DUCK territory, don't you think? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet confirmed

Check the SPI, found here. Also check Furious' block log, found here. As you can see, his block was extended for abuse of multiple accounts. He was, as you can see in the SPI, confirmed to be the one in the same as the IP. So yes, he was abusing multiple accounts and yes, he was blocked(had his block extended) for that.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, your post to an article talk page announcing this "news" is offtopic and inappropriate, as he didn't influence any vote, proceeding, or process. Reverted (again). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

He tried to influence the view that a majority existed on the page. If you check there, you will see he tried to pass off the sock as a separate editor that counted towards his preferred version of the article. Please, please read his block log, it clearly states: Abusing multiple accounts.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

How much more proof do you need? What is it going to take you to admit you were wrong?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

For Real!?

I wasn't going to do this, because think it pointless, but I honestly don't care anymore. Even in your attempted retort to me you can't be intellectually honest. You know as well as I that my history here has been one of concilliation and attempting to reach consensus, not petulant outbursts (but whatever). Do you think my retirement was some sort of temper tantrum? Is that where that's coming from? Because it wasn't and if you want to know what happened, I'll tell you. If you wanted to know, you could have asked instead of leaping to conclusions. Fine our "friendship" is over. But I'll speak my last words to that reasonable dude I met about four years ago if he's still around. Please look in the mirror and try to find out that why is it wherever you go, discord follows. It can't be everyone else? Just look at the number of editors on your talk page chewing you out. It ain't normal. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 04:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

For this edit, I hit the wrong button. Sorry Soxwon (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for the notice. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hannity / edit war

I'm sorry you felt the need to template me. I had given up on the obviously pointless reverts and was trying to take the matter to Talk. Thanks in any case for your weighing in though. JohnInDC (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

NM, saw your comments on my Talk page, all set now. JohnInDC (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of History of IBM/Sandbox

I have nominated History of IBM/Sandbox, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of IBM/Sandbox. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I saw your "keep" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of IBM/Sandbox. Would you agree to have it move to your userspce? Something like User:Blaxthos/History of IBM? Debresser (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann talk

Need your response to proposed FAQ. Soxwon (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please discuss...

I would be grateful if you returned to reply to my response to your coatrack concern. Similarly, I think I already explained why Shona Holmes was not a BLP1e. (1) Precedent-setting court case; (2) ad used in the US health care debate. And I would appreciate your explanation why you discounted this argument.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

References

I added a reference section to your user page, as it had a screaming red warning about broken references. Fences&Windows 20:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahem

Greetings Blaxthos, and thank you for volunteering to defend the encyclopaedia against vandalism. One thing, however; if you're going to use powerful automated tools like Huggle, it's imperative that you review your edits before saving. Regards,  Skomorokh  05:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Response here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You've got mail™

I just sent you a message using Special:EmailUser. Please take a look if you have a moment. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Fiorina at AN/I

Note that there's a thread (ostensibly with me as the offender) at [12].

Fox News talk page

Hello, you look like a regular contributor at the Fox News article. Could you look at this:

Talk:Fox_News_Channel#Conservative_positions_and_Republican_Party

Your input would be appreciated. Resolving the contradiction between the source and the article text would seem to be uncontroversial, but two editors have reverted the correction without leaving substantive edit summaries or Talk comments. IndyObserver (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you

Been aware of Media Research Center? -- Hroþberht (gespraec) 03:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:EWSD.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:EWSD.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Tân (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Michele Bachmann

Hey, Why not join the discussion rather than just follow me around, revert, and threaten me with blocks on my talk page. You woul notice in the talk that the second act you did has been discussed and the general agreement was that it DID NOT belong in that section. Arzel (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

FNC

It has not been agreed upon on the talk page, which explains why several other editors have reverted your edit. If you want to write, "Many observers say that Fox News Channel's programming promotes...the Republican Party", then you need a source that says that. In other words you need a source that says "many observers" not many examples of individual observers. While your conclusions may appear obvious to you it violates no synthesis. Unfortunately it is more difficult to find sources for general perceptions than it is to find individual examples. You will probably have to use a book as a source. Also when you write to me please do not use terms like "pretend", "did you just not look?", "Please don't pretend you didn't hear it." The Four Deuces (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong on several points -- see my response. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I did not assert that you did not discuss your reversion on the talk page. I merely wrote "Please discuss on talk page" in my edit summary.

2. I have made numerous comments on the talk page,including:

You really need better sources than news reports. There is a book written about The Sun, Stick it up your punter,[2] that made a detailed study of that newspaper. You really need something similar for Fox News. Obviously any 24 hour live news network will make countless errors and some coverage will be biased. Putting these examples in to support a view of FN as biased is original research. You also have to distinguish between news reporting and talk shows. Most networks have talk shows similar to those on Fox. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

3. Your assertion "News sources are always preferred over "books"" is not supported in WP:RS and in any case is wrong. (Your edit in fact challenges the neutrality of a news source, Fox News Channel.)

4. It makes no sense that "none of the objectors participated in the discussion". Otherwise there would not have been at least four discussion threads set up.

5. I see nothing in the FAQ that says FNC has a Republican bias.

The Four Deuces (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You're obviously very confused. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I really need advice on good Wiki citizenship from you

I think our comparative talk pages indicate pretty well which of us gets along better with fellow editors. The last couple of statements that Ramsquire directed your way were spot on. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hannity Reception Workspace

Hi. Thanks for creating this reception workspace for the Sean Hannity page. I noticed no one seemed to care, so I've made a contribution to it. Am I supposed to do anything else now? This is my first dispute, so I am unfamiliar with protocol. Do these issues ever get to a final arbitrator or is this just an endless shouting contest? FuriousJorge (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration notification: Niteshift36 incivility and article ownership

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Niteshift36 incivility and article ownership and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,Stargnoc (talk) 05:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quotation

Hey Blax, Thanks for quoting me. I think this is a first for me on Wikipedia. We have to continue our efforts to fight extremist POV pushing editors in Wikipedia. Particularly on articles like FNC. Hopefully we will be able to assist each other in doing so.NickCT (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Help with wording

Could we get your opinion on this matter? Soxwon (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I just took a quick glance and that certainly seems tricky. I would like a little more time to read the references & points in question, as I don't think I adequately grasp both sides of the discussion. Thanks for the inquiry! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Next cabal meeting

Just remembered I forgot to drop you a line back. I'm seriously bad at this shady cabal thing.  ;) For what it's worth, I was surprised that the Fox/Obama AfD was closed as delete, and if it were up to me, I'd probably have closed it as no consensus. Croctotheface (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Realclearpolitics

Please keep an eye on your old friend Arzel at Talk:RealClearPolitics#NPOV. Compulsive edit warrer. ► RATEL ◄ 05:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be a pest

Would you make a simple statement of your interaction with Tothwolf here? Even one sentence that says the characterizations of your existing statements are correctly representing your opinion would be helpful. Miami33139 (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. I was seriously considering passing, as Arbitration is not a task undertaken lightly, but in the end I just couldn't be one of those guys who does nothing -- the number of editors to which Tothwolf has caused problems seems frighteningly high, and if any case is worth the effort and Committee's time I think this one is it. I made a brief statement of my past experience -- I hope it is helpful. Best of luck. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: FNC

Hey Blaxthos, no that edit is what I wanted to do. I had already inserted the self-description earlier, and when SeanNovack inserted an extra self description at the beginning of the paragraph, I was getting rid of the extra descriptor. No need for there to be two descriptors in the entry. Right? DD2K (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Blaxthos. The other editor probably should have read the entry before he re-edited, eh? In any case, there is a line in descriptors that has to involve some sort of consensus, along with reliable sources. We can describe an organization like MMFA as liberal in the same way we can describe the Media Research Center as conservative. Have a good day! DD2K (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Blaxthos. You have new messages at Mazca's talk page.
Message added 15:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~ mazca ^talk 15:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Since we both agree....

How dare you be helpful and provide others assistance! What were you thinking??? :) Seriously though, thank you and feel free to comment as freely as you like. Soxwon (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

mainspace categories on a user's page

i think that tothwolf believes that because the article is being stored in his user space, that he owns it. he's wrong. furthermore, this is a misuse of rollback. i hope that an uninvolved admin will take notice of this. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

His other WP:REFUND request articles (User:Tothwolf/List of quote databases) are also in mainspace categories. I'm staying further away from this, as is User_talk:Jehochman. Someone uninvolved in the arbitration needs to noodle his wrist. Miami33139 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

this brings up a point that i've wondered. so an article gets deleted, and someone has it userfied... and it just sits there. no new sources are added, and there are no major changes to the article. the problem with this is that the userfied article still can be found by google or other web searches, which is how most people find wikipedia articles (i'd assume). this defeats part of the the point of deleting it. it's not good enough for wikipedia, so it's deleted, and yet it still is on wikipedia, and can be googled. and then since it's been userfied, one person can take real ownership of it and rollback anything they don't like? this makes no sense. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:MFD regularly deletes WP:FAKEARTICLEs. As in all deletion discussions, there are people there who think it is totally ok to violate WP:WEBHOST with userspace content. MfD needs more participants and usually only sees one or two entries per day. Miami33139 (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Leave me alone

I've already warned Miami33139 and you are aware of it. [13] [14] Consider yourself topic banned from my userspace User:Tothwolf and all associated talk and subpages. FYI, rolling back edits in my own userspace made by someone who is intentionally harassing me [15] [16] [17] is not abuse of rollback. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)