User talk:B

Resident Mario (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're not big on reviewing FACs (at least from what I've seen ... I may be mistaken), but I've submitted another in the line of Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games articles for FAC. 2006 Gator Bowl is now awaiting reviews and comments, and any questions, concerns, or support you'd care to add would be appreciated. I'm planning to submit the ACCCG article once this one passes or fails, and that likely will be followed by the Orange Bowl article, hopefully. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 2006 Gator Bowl passed and is now an FA, but I just wanted to give you a heads-up that I've submitted a new FAC. 2003 Insight Bowl is waiting for comments when you get a chance. Thanks again! JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Florida does not copyright their state photos, but do you know if any other states do the same. File:Arnold Schwarzenegger bio.jpg and File:Governor-huntsman-headshot-1-.jpg probably mean California and Utah do not copyright, but I wanted to double check. Rockyobody (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it claimed about California, but I don't think it's true. I searched awhile back and couldn't find anything confirming a claim that works of California are PD and their own website (ca.gov) claims copyright. --B (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To you too! Resident Mario (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, although my holiday isn't until the 2nd. Go Utes! Cool Hand Luke 20:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking forward to that one too - that one should be an exciting game. This year, for the first year in a while, the BCS matchups really look enticing. I watched a few Utah games this year and they certainly look like the real deal. It should be a good matchup with Alabama. --B (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back atcha! JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Sugar Bowl. What else would I watch?OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miami-Cal interests me as a good yardstick game. Oregon-Okie St should be a nice shootout. The Rose Bowl and the MNC should also be good games. I watch all of the bowl games, but these are probably the ones that most interest me. I also had Notre Dame on my list, but somewhere around halftime with the score around 500-0, I lost interest. --B (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking Sim12's Ip, but while the IP was unblocked she created a sock-puppet account: Tddmoines. Could you block that account too? Elbutler (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, the sock-puppet was blocked.

Please see the Talk:Horn_speaker page. There is a disagreement between me and another editor about the page, and I think he convinced you to lock it. I think it would be appropriate to at least put a {POV} tag on the section in question. Rather than repeat the details here, I encourage you to read the Talk:Horn_speaker page. Zyxxy (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, that guy never quits. I figured I'd be reverting him for days :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per my private civility policy I will gladly refactor the comment that I made about your support for User:Profg. Obviously, you were never running a real protection racket for him, and I'm suprised that you took it that seriously. I thought the comparison apt since your support for him extended way beyond what I normally see in administrators. I simply do not have very high tolerance for administrators who try to support editors with agendas that extend to whitewashing, defacing, and destroying the best writing we have about scientific material.

In the future, if you ever have any civility complaints about me, take them directly to my talkpage and follow the recipe I outline there.

ScienceApologist (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is extorting money from Profg (what you accused me of) an "apt comparison" with unblocking a user whom not a single uninvolved editor even supported blocking? At the time, in [1] this thread, I expressed this concern:

“

Something is really bothering me here. The diffs above don't seem particularly bad and I've seen far worse from a number of admins. The article talk pages in that topic area are largely a cesspool simply because emotions tend to run high. Pick out a few diffs from anyone who edits controversial topics and you'll find some things here and there. It looks like there was a previous well-earned block but since then, the only diffs provided are that he has opined on an arbitration case. Good grief, should we go block everyone who does that for "stalking"? Unless there is something more, I oppose this ban. I'm not saying there isn't something more - just that I haven't seen it.

”

At the time, not a single uninvolved editor weighed in to support his ban. The admin who had blocked him was clearly involved and should not have made that decision. (He was later desysopped, although I strongly disagreed with that decision and supported his effort to regain his adminship and will do so again if he applies again.) With 20/20 hindsight, we knowing now that Profg would not avail himself of the opportunity that he was given, I would not have unblocked him, but nobody can predict the future. After I unblocked him, he had all of SEVEN mainspace edits for the rest of eternity and, as we would find out months later, he started socking immediately upon being blocked [2] and continued to use that sock so it didn't even matter that the block on the main account was lifted - had he remained blocked, he still would have evaded it with a sock puppet anyway. So the action I took was to remove a wrongly placed block that no uninvolved user supported and which wound up making no difference. There is nothing whatsoever similar between this action and a protection racket, an extortion scheme in which someone extorts money from the victim. Your "refactoring" [3] is taken in exactly the spirit in which it is done. --B (talk) 12:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we have our differences of opinion on the matter. However, your claim of the "spirit" in which I refactored not only does not assume good faith, it actually is dead wrong. I wasn't being sarcastic at all. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SA, I was also upset with B regarding Profg. What I've realized about B is that he's a legal absolutist rather than a constructionist, so even though many of us despised Profg, B correctly determined he was more annoying than anything. But once Profg socked, you can see that B changed his opinion on the editor. I'm not 100% sure I know B's background and POV on various topics, but I know he's an absolutist with regards with things like racism. This is all IMHO. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy is determined by consensus; there is no such thing as a 'private' policy. Dlabtot (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey B. :) User:Ed_Fitzgerald requests to be unblocked. Your comment would be appreciated there. — Aitias // discussion 08:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explain this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_sciences&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therascal99 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're out of line. Do not revert my edits without proper cause. Discuss any reverts in the talk page of the article or on my talk page. Beware of the 3RR, you are dangerously close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therascal99 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make worthwhile edits and they won't be reverted. --B (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't say anything for fear of jinxing them, but yes, I am very happy right now. Not even the fact that it's -50F outside right now can bother me. Well, not very much. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was getting nervous. When we kicked the PAT on that last TD, I had visions of an ECU-like ending where Cinci scores 2 TDs at the end and wins it 21-20. Having a team that finds a way to win close ones is a great thing. --B (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was more interested in the Rose Bowl today, what with my living in SoCal. I just saw the highlights of the Orange Bowl, and I'm sure I'd be drinking heavily.  :) Well, glad you go the win. Tomorrow is my alma mater up against Alabama. Not sure I'm going to be on the edge of my seat. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Utah is going to keep it close - it is not going to be a blowout. Alabama doesn't really have it in them to blow out anyone who is well-disciplined. (I thought you went to SU? Or is one your grad school and one undergrad?) --B (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undergrad, Utah. Graduate school, Syracuse. I also went to medical school in Syracuse, but not SU, since they don't have a medical school. Because I spent more years at SU than I did at Utah, I tend to wear orange rather than red. Utah actually has a strong athletic tradition, recently in football, but they have a lot of basketball victories and a few final 4 appearances. I think my heart is more at SU than Utah. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

…for your assistance on the User:CoreEpic matter. Hopefully, he will use this as a means to improve his editing skill and style. Happy New Year! - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 14:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning. However, in the interests of administrator fairness and objectivity, you may also want to leave a warning for User:Taivo since he too exceeded 3RR (actually, even more so than me). Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting the page, however I believe that we will be able to come to a fact based compromise before 9 January. I presume we can ask you to review the talk page and then unprotect at that stage. As for our friend, I would observe that Taivo was merely implementing a compromise regarding Malta that, on facts and modern linguistics, was entirely defensible. Given the large and aggressive convo in the Arabic Talk Page (now removed, see history) about Swahili, it would appear the above user is playing a little wikistalking. (collounsbury (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Sure, if everyone is happy before January 9 say something here or if I am not readily available, you can ask on WP:RFP for another admin to unprotect it. "1 week" was just an arbitrary time from the drop box, not a firm date. --B (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well understood, no worries then mate, thanks again. (collounsbury (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Seriously, the best way to resolve the issue is for both sides to walk away. You have archived the offending section - just let it go away. --B (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone can come up with a darned good reason not to, I'm inclined to delete this thing under G4. There is an ANI discussion going on now about this, by the way. --B (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it, and I will happily withdraw the 3RR complaint.travb (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've reverted the article to an older version of the article, but am asking for input on whether or not that version should be kept.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I g4'd it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of it should be deleted. If there is a single stereotype worthy of an article, make an article about it. Otherwise, it's just a collection of random opinions about white people. And the same goes for any of the "stereotypes of ..." articles. In the now deleted revisions of this article, you can see that Deeceevoice's original reason for creating them was anger over Stereotypes of black people not being deleted. Well, two wrongs don't make a right - that article should be deleted too. --B (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still going to move the Nazi article? You locked it without making the move. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Nazi ideologues the target you want or List of Nazi ideologues? --B (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello B,

The move of this page to Nazi Ideologues or List of Nazi Ideologues was the outcome of an ongoing attempt at consensus on the talk page but just the idea of Richard and a partial idea of ChildofMidnight, most editors have not expressed agreement with this move, these DGG, Shoess, and myself. Nor did others agree to a move, though they were less involved: Colonel Warden, -Cerejota. During the Afd the overwhelming choice was Keep and not Move nor Keep-Move, this had the support of Shoess, Totnesmartin, Celarnor, csloat and myself. The only name change suggestion in the Afd was to lower the case of Philosophers to philosophers. The original request for deletion of "nazi philosophers" was made by ChildofMidnight who in his application for deletion specifically asked regarding the category "Nazi Philosophers", the majority thought it a valid category.

thanks 84.203.45.65 (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Discuss it on the talk page and get agreement there. --B (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But couldn't pull off the upset. But UNC went down. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I turned off the television midway through the second half - it was terrible. We're a young team this year, but I really think we've taken a step back with the talent level. We had a lot of really good players come in Seth's first year, but they are all gone now and we're kinda out of phase in recruiting. We lost most of the team two years ago and then our best player - Deron Washington - last year. Now it's a very young team that has a long way to go. --B (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Va Tech is just not a basketball school. Kind of like Syracuse is just not a football school. A few programs can win in both games (Florida, for example), but most major programs just don't have the wherewithal to win in football and basketball. I wonder if it's a money thing. USC has all kinds of money, has been a power in football since I was a kid, yet never makes major strides in Basketball. I think I can name maybe 8-10 programs that do well in both (and I'm wondering if I'm ready to add Utah to that list, although they've dropped off in BB since Rick Majerus left. But they're the 10th most winning team in NCAA basketball.) One of the reasons VA Tech joined the Big East (a sore point for me) was to upgrade its basketball, although the ACC is maybe a nano-step above the Big East (and much better as a football conference). But we'll see. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Tech, joining the Big East was about getting back into a major conference. We used to be in the Metro Conference, which had some really strong basketball programs in its day. When Loserville and their allies decided they wanted a football conference, Tech wasn't interested because we were already in the Big East for football (with an automatic Alliance Bowl bid, now the BCS). So they came up with the scheme of kicking us out of the conference, then "merging" with another conference to avoid having to pay exit fees. Virginia Tech and VCU both sued the other members and each received a settlement of $1 million, so they made t-shirts at the time that said, "Thanks a million, Metro". In 1995, when this all happened, the football schools all threatened to leave the Big East and form their own league if the basketball schools didn't let everyone in. But they compromised with just taking Rutgers and West Virginia (both of which were potential Big 10 expansion targets - everyone assumed that they would quickly go to 12 teams) and left Temple and Virginia Tech out (nobody was beating down the door to invite us into their league). We joined the A-10 after that snub. While our article Mid-major#Basketball may say they are a major conference, most people recognize there's a huge dropoff between the BCS leagues and the others. When we were in the A-10, our profit sharing was something under $500K. In the Big East, it would have been around $1.3-1.5 million for non-football sports, except that we never actually saw any of it - part of our entrance fee was no revenue sharing for the first five years and then we left during the fifth year. --B (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loserville. LOL. I'm almost certain that Va Tech was a Big East football school too? Didn't the get rid of that weird system where some schools played basketball, some football, etc.? Now I have to read the damn articles. Grrrrrr. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I understand what you were saying. Va Tech was a football only school (in the Big East), until 2001. I am getting old, because I thought it was earlier than that. As an aside, Temple was a joke in Football...I hate to see you lumped with them. Anyways, I was hoping that SU would join you, Miami and BC in the ACC. SU vs. Duke and UNC every year would have been great to watch (no offense to the other teams). BC and SU have had an incredible football rivalry, so I'm sad that's gone. And honestly, Miami and Va Tech were the only reasons why the Big East rated a BCS slot, although I think today it's still worthy (but just barely). OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little more history - the Big East started as a basketball league in the 70s. They were mostly small Catholic schools with no football teams and the few football schools they had (Pitt, Syracuse, BC) were independents in an era when major independents were common. (Penn State, Florida State, Virginia Tech, South Carolina, East Carolina, and Miami were all major east coast independents.) Two changes drove teams to join conferences. One of them was television - it used to be that the NCAA controlled all television rights and then the College Football Association controlled TV rights. Either way, there was no advantage to being in a conference. But in the early 90s, conferences started handling their own TV rights, so if you wanted to be on TV, you needed to join a conference. Also, it's not like today where most 1A games are on TV somewhere, even if just local TV. Back then, ESPN was in its infancy. The second thing was bowl tie-ins. It used to be that it was a free-for-all, but bowls were starting to pair off with conferences, so if you weren't in one, you weren't going to a bowl. The three Big East football schools realized they needed a football conference, but they weren't about to leave their basketball home. Penn State wanted to join, but Pitt wouldn't allow it - they didn't want their in-state rival in the conference. In hindsight, that was a terrible decision, obviously. Penn State in the Big East probably would have resulted in the Big East football schools breaking off and gobbling up ACC schools to get to 12, instead of the other way around. Anyway, they wanted Miami - that was the marquee team, so they were allowed in for all sports. Beyond that, they needed bodies and those bodies were Temple, Rutgers, West Virginia, and Virginia Tech. East Carolina narrowly missed being picked - again, that was a bad decision. ECU has a rabid fanbase and was actually very good at the time. With major conference status, they would have grown like Virginia Tech did and would probably be a perennial powerhouse right now. Anyway, the basketball schools did not want to dilute their conference, so the four expansion teams not named Miami were in for football only. So that's where the split conference membership came from. In 2003, when the realignment happened, one of the court documents that became public record was minutes from a Big East meeting. They all but said in that meeting that their intention was for the conference to split up after five years (which would be July 2010 I think). There is an NCAA rule that in order to get autobids to a sport, you have to have 6 teams playing together for 5 years. So after BC/Miami/VT left, they picked up enough teams to have 8 football schools and 8 non-football schools. That lets them all play together for 5 years, then get a divorce. Each new conference can then keep its NCAA tournament bids and the football league could expand to 12 teams. Whether they will still go through with that or not, I don't know, but the mixed conference has never worked very well. I'm sure it is working much better now that it's only one way - when there were football-only schools, there was a lot of resentment and there were institutions that really just had incompatible goals. Every school wants to be in a major conference and for the football-only schools, there is no loyalty whatsoever to the conference because if any major conference ever came calling, we were gone. That's not a way to run a business. At least now, though, there are no football-only schools so I'm sure everyone gets along better than they used to. --B (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One correction to the above - Penn State wanted to join the Big East when it was originally formed, not when they created the football conference. When they were rejected, they went to the A-10, then eventually to the Big 10. --B (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't follow the Big East during the 90's very carefully, so your history is very interesting. I wonder about your theory of 2010 however (I won't quite label it WP:FRINGE). A school like SU must have some conflicting issues, which probably existed in '03. SU has longstanding rivalries with non-Football Basketball institutions like St. John's, Villanova, and Georgetown. The SU-Georgetown basketball games are almost always have the highest attendance at the Dome (which is hard to sell-out, so the definition of highest attendance varies from year to year). So if they split off with Loserville (LOL), Pitt, UConn and the other football schools, some of which have powerful basketball programs (Loserville again), they're going to lose the Catholic school rivalries (my terminology). BTW, I agree with you about ECU. Although South Florida has had a few good years of football, it's still a commuter school without a rabid alumni base. ECU fans are nutters!!!! (Said in all good faith.) I remember reading about Penn State back in the day. Although hindsight is 20/20 from today, back then Penn State had a lousy basketball program. In other words, Penn State needed the Big East much more than the Big East needed Penn State. My secret dream is that SU joins the Big 10, but I don't think it's the quality of research institution (although it is a member of Association of American Universities) like Ohio State or Michigan. So, I guess in a couple of years, I'm going to see a new conference with Pitt, Uconn, SU, Loserville, Cinci, USF, Rutgers, and West Virginia. That's not bad, I guess. But it's not the PAC 10 or Big 10, which are more than just athletic conferences, they kind of represent Academics too. Saying I went to a Big East (or Mountain West) school has less cachet than say Big 10 or Pac 10. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a quick question about your block of 154.20.40.205 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). You set the block at 3 months, but noted it as indefinite on their talk page. They're petitioning for an unblock with the "It was my sister" defense, so you may want to have a look and clarify the length of the block. Thanks, caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 04:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simulation12 is banned from editing under any name or IP. We don't indefinitely block IPs because they can change over time. 3 months was an arbitrary period of time - if that person returns to that or any other IP, they are still banned and should be blocked. --B (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two things then. 1) There was a request to protect the talk page based on the unblock request silliness. Do you want the honor of yanking their talk page privileges? 2) You noted in your block summary that it was likely a static IP. Should we consider a longer IP block then? Cheers, caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 05:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I was asked about deleting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of white people per G4 because the article up for nom was a somewhat different nom and the august 27th version I had reverted to was not the same article nominated on August 28th. I've reopened the debate and invite you to put in your two cents concerning the reverted to version. The version as of Jan 3 was a clear G10.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any good can come from that especially given deeceevoice's stated intention of disruption. But regardless, of that, if this article is going to exist, there's some history merging from a copy/paste move that needs to be done. See Special:DeletedContributions/Deeceevoice to get the article names where half of the history is. --B (talk) 04:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This gave me a chuckle. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Therascal99's edits appear suspiciously like those of blocked users Sgt. Dizzle Guy and Lou Pepe, discussed in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/96.247.37.61 (3rd), i.e., editing beer-related articles, pointing out who is Jewish, editing sports-related pages, etc. Plus, she appeared as soon as Sgt. Dizzle Guy and Lou Pepe were blocked. Plus, some of her puppets have nearly said the exact words "Beware of the 3RR, you are dangerously close." Johnelwayrules (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this. He's a loose cannon. But on to more important topics. Who's winning tonight? I'm calling my bookie based on your answer. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Between Tulsa and Ball St? A better question might be will the total number of points exceed the number of people watching? ;) Tulsa is favored by 3. Ball State isn't going to stop Tulsa - they hung 77 on UTEP. Tulsa played Bowling Green out of the MAC last year in a bowl game and throttled them. Ball State's schedule was atrocious and they really weren't all that spectacular. I'd say take Tulsa and give the points. Tulsa wins by 20. (For entertainment purposes only.) --B (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duh. I meant Thursday night. But, I'll take this information.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to Friday night, I would have said Florida in a blowout. I'm still saying Florida, but in a tight, lower-scoring game ... maybe 24-21 ... a Texas-OSU range score. --B (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense - unless I am missing something, there are four possibilities and I shall use my mad wikisyntax skillz to demonstrate them:

	FT2 requested that the edits be oversighted	FT2 did not make a request
The edits were correctly oversighted in accordance with policy	Good!	Good!
The edits should not have been oversighted	Bad!	Bad, but not FT2's fault!

Answering the question of which of the four possibilities is the case here should not be that difficult. --B (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there some odds on this guessing game? I mean from a strictly random statistical POV, there's only a 25% chance that he's bad. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's the general suspicion of "if there's nothing to hide, why hide it?" --B (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read his most recent comments? He seems to be reading Blago's speeches. Yes, I dislike corrupt D's as much as R's. And your call on Tulsa was right on. If only I really had a bookie.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you would be so kind as to remove your comments and place them in discussion. This simple straw poll WILL get quickly cluttered if everyone adds comments...responds to others...retorts...responses...etc. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

You know, you and I seem to disagree a lot, but you are always so cordial and respectful. Thanks a lot! — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't pick on Virginia Tech. Just saying.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a user who responded to the straw poll regarding non-free images in sports, your further input is requested with regards to the Straw poll summary and proposed guidelines on image use — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...has been pushing this same paragraph for nearly two years now. [4] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking through the contributions of his IP addresses now ... I'm considering whether to just go on and upgrade it to indef - if he were staying logged in on all of these edits, he would have been indeffed long ago. On the other hand, incentivizing him to edit from IP addresses that can't easily be tracked/blocked isn't a great idea either. --B (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This issue showed up at WP:AN, I think it was. The guy had been editing from IP addresses for awhile, then went back to his long-dormant logon once semi-protection was put on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you've been trying to counsel SmoothFlow but he/she continues to edit war here. There are a lot of things suspicious to me about this account including being a SPA on something that I worked on, intentionally editing in spelling errors and irrelevant section titles, and the fact they started their account on January 6. SU students don't come back until January 13 (I know, because my son is a student there, and he's home annoying me). But I digress. HELP. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting my userpage. :) RainbowOfLight ^Talk 06:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello B. I notice you issued a short block to 83.254.20.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who signs himself as Mats (i.e. Mats Envall = Consist). See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Consist for some of his past accounts. Since Consist (talk · contribs) is indef blocked for disruptive editing, isn't a long block justified? E.g. 30 days at least? I didn't do this myself because I occasionally edit articles such as Cladistics. Thanks for considering this, EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the user based on a request at WP:AN3. Nothing in the report mentioned this user being a reincarnation. Obviously, had that information been available, I would have taken blocked longer and with a different message. I've hard blocked it for a week. If the user is hopping IPs, blocking this one for a month isn't going to do anything as they will be long gone. They seem to be semi-static IPs. I don't know if he has control over when they change (ie, turn off the cable modem to get a new IP) or if they just auto-rotate every week. In any event, a hard block for a week seems a reasonable step. dnsstuff says that this IP range is 83.248.0.0/13 ... but that would cause a heckuva lot of collateral damage and is really a bad idea if it isn't absolutely necessary. Anyway, prohibitions against involved admins taking actions are out the window when you're dealing with a banned user. Rather, it's a really good idea for involved admins to take action, because you have all of the background information. --B (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply! After I looked at the article histories, I saw that he has changed his IP even in the past month, so my idea of blocking is more for poetic justice than anything useful. (People have had to revert him dozens of times even in one article, so he is quite a pest). I semi-protected four of the articles and closed the AN3 report that way. The next step (not yet taken) is to start semi-protecting talk pages. I have read that Wikipedia is not the only website where he is blacklisted for being a nuisance. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted a user page without warning. What reason had I to know that this was even a remote possibility?

Please restore the removed text so that I can profit from the error you have now brought to my attention. If I don't understand, then your action was both pointless as well as intrusive.

I do not perceive this as either appropriate or laudatory; but since I don't understand well enough to be more specific, it is difficult to know how to express my dismay. --Tenmei (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear, based on the following, that you have identified a niche in which you hope to improve Wikipedia:

One of the worst policy decisions Wikipedia has made is to allow user and user talk edits to be indexed by search engines. (Note that even though they can be blocked from Google with , mirrors can still pick them up.) This creates a space that is largely unmonitored for libel and nonsense, but is nonetheless a top g-hit for any relevant search term.

The whatever-it-was which led to you to do whatever it is you're doing is opaque. The policy which informs your edit is similarly opaque. In my view, you now have an obligation to explain and to mitigate the awkward consequences which now ensue.

One thing should be clear: I have been heedlessly unsettled by your actions. Two questions are now implied:

• 1. How many others have been caught up in your novel tactic?
• 2 Am I the first, or only one in a strategy of edits which could have been handled differently?

These questions are not merely rhetorical, but substantial. --Tenmei (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm ... yeah. Your subpage contained word-for-word copies of four New York Times articles. That is copyrighted material and not appropriate to use here. Deleting copyright violations is not awkward, novel, or anything else. --B (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B -- Let's move further development of this thread to my talk page. I suspect I will want to archive this for future reference. --Tenmei (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was fairly amusing. Don't hold it against the editor, I just thought you'd get a chuckle. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow ... that one lasted for a while without being noticed. Now if we had flagged revisions ... --B (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks B! You fixed it. I appreciate that. Invertzoo (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks B for your comments here on the domestic terrorism template. I was on the verge of just deleting the whole thing myself as a BLP vio but figured that would likely lead to drama and deletion review so a TfD made more sense, though maybe I should have gone with my first instinct. If you are inclined to nuke it feel free and I would obviously support that, though if you want to let the TfD run its course that's obviously fine too. If you decide on the latter I may, as a stop gap measure, go through all the articles of living people and remove the template as we just can't have that thing hanging around on BLPs - a point which I'm trying to communicate to the editor who created what we became the template, I'm sure fully in good faith but without thinking about it in terms of BLP.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for taking care of that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 13:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --B (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B, its now more than three months since Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WereSpielChequers, and I'm contemplating running again. As you were one of the oppose votes last time I wondered if you could give me some feedback as to what you'd like to see change before my next RFA? WereSpielChequers 17:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I said on your RFA was about it - your tone didn't sound like you were taking it seriously. You don't have to be rigid and formal, but Wikipedia is one of the largest websites and before you are granted the keys to the kingdom, there needs to be a demonstration that you are sufficiently mature for that responsibility. --B (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks B, point taken. WereSpielChequers 19:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B, please reverse your change. The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion that admins are not to revert other admins in ArbCom enforcement matters. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin#Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity. Let's just let the ANI thread run its course, okay? --Elonka 00:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That rule only applies when you get reverted, not when you're the one doing the reverting. Thanks for clarifying. --B (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rule means that once an administrator is taking actions pursuant to an ArbCom ruling, that other admins (such as yourself) should not reverse those actions. By deleting that section off the article talkpage (including the list and all the related discussion), this was interfering with arbitration enforcement. So could you please restore the information, at least while the ANI thread is active? Thanks, --Elonka 02:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FloNight makes it clear in her comments this is about administrative actions, and I think you're smart enough to recognize that was the intention of the ruling - it certainly wasn't about giving a blank check to admins to declare themselves unrevertable. I see that you tried the same nonsense with KillerChihuahua, with whom I have probably never agreed about anything up until now [5]. You have been attempting to claim ownership over that article for months. Adding the list was not an effort to resolve any problem, but, rather, to intimidate your opponents and to declare by fiat the very thing you are trying to prove. --B (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, "opponents"? Who do you see me as opposing? And what ownership? I've never edited it. My goal here is stabilizing the article, towards lifting the indefinite page protection that is currently on the article. I've been issuing warnings to all "sides" of the dispute. So what are you talking about? --Elonka 03:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apologies for the intrusion, but I came here due to a post by B mentioning this, on ANI. B, I believe I have agreed with you at least once in the past before this - it had to do with a BLP if I recall correctly. But as you have noticed we virtually never agree, I wish to say that I do always respect your position. You are temperate and clearly think things through. Our paradigms are different, I think. But I respect you as a person and an admin of integrity. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. --B (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly kind! I tend more towards the blunt than the kind, I think. But certainly honest. A sincere compliment. You are more than welcome if this little statement of mine was in any way pleasant for you to hear. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B, now you're officially prohibited from recalling Elonka per her tendentious recall requirements that were a bad faith revision of her original promise. I think even Jimbo would be prevented from participating. This is too funny. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking a look at the ElectricRush situation again? He created an article about the site just an hour ago. Additionally, he added a "script" for the intent of sending out invites to the site around the same time as well. either way (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your willingness to get involved at Talk:Chuck Missler. The discussion between Hrafn and me reached a complete impasse, so we need others to participate.

My question doesn't relate directly to that dispute, though. One of your edits to the talk page had this ES: "I knew there was a reason we don't randomly subst templates for the heck of it". I couldn't see what was wrong with the former version, though. Would you elaborate? There's nothing wrong with your version, either; I'm just trying to increase my understanding of the substing of templates. Thanks for any light you can shed. JamesMLane t c 06:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the previous version of the page in the history. The two deletion templates are formatted differently because one of them was substed. When you subst a template, it does not get updated when the template changes. With rare exception, only deletion templates and user talk templates should be substed. The former is because they contain date information {{subst:prod}} expands to include the date that the article was nominated, and that date would be changed if the template weren't substed). The latter is because if you leave a warning template to a user and they reply to it, if someone looks at the page history 6 months later, they need to see the message that the user replied to, not whatever the template currently says. With very rare exception, nothing else should be substed. The worst and most painful to cleanup is when people subst infoboxes, eg {{College coach infobox}}. Infoboxes are changing constantly and substing them results in the articles where they were substed not getting updates ... also, for the most part, it is undetectable since it will no longer show up on special:whatlinkshere. --B (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you prodded this article for deletion. For now, just for now, I have removed the prod. Currently, I'm attempting to contact the publisher's editor-in-chief so that the article will observe Wikipedia rules. (I go to the same campus as this group, so I'm in the better position to understand and communicate with the creator.) If there isn't any improvement after awhile, please contact me first before prodding it again. Thanks. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, there are no issues to resolve with the article. It is a non-notable student group - the issue to resolve is that they need to become notable. --B (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are information in intranet that supports its notability. You don't have access to the intranet so I don't blame you for getting a low Google hit-count. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What resources on your school intranet would qualify as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? --B (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I just had to comment on it. So true... ;) TheAE talk/sign 05:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huckabee's fair tax would be a great way to fix this economic mess we're in. It would be a whole lot better than tax+spending like there's no tomorrow and hope some of it trickles down to people who are economically hurting. (Still waiting for my bailout) --B (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he would be good in a lot of ways. Let's hope for 2012. :) TheAE talk/sign 05:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]