User talk:DangerousPanda: Difference between revisions

This is DangerousPanda's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 45 days

I once saw a guideline about this when browsing through the Manual of Style. I am currently reaserching where I saw that. If I cannot find it, I will remove the template. In the mean time it seems Wikipidia is behind me because the template has been semi-protected. So far I have found this and this. In addition, these words make a statement less clear, which is always bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipatrol (talk • contribs)

BMW, discussion moved to User:Montanabw/Peter's Sandbox. FYI. Montanabw^(talk) 23:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Mare and the recent history at User:Montanabw/Peter's Sandbox. I believe at this point the issue is over as I have no interest in providing a forum for a single individual to harass me and make personal attacks. I think it's time to shut this "mediation" down now. If I am at fault here, I welcome constructive comments. But I am tired of the rest. Montanabw^(talk) 20:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and your attempt to resolve the situation. It was worth a shot. Montanabw^(talk) 06:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, he's not stopping. See sandbox and the article in question. Help?? Montanabw^(talk) 08:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did my best ... I'm not a fan of his parting shot, and I let him know that on his Talk. ►BMW◄ 17:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. Peter apologized and I'm glad to let it drop. I explained my positions enough, I hope, I didn't want to go on and on. My basic position, as outlined on my talk page, is that I am open to Trout-slapping if I either cross the line between quality control and ownership or if I get too snarky to the innocent bystander. (grin) Beyond that, differences of opinion need to be worked out in good faith. I tried to figure out what was mine to "own" up to when I get the bit in my teeth (pun intended), but I drew the line at being dogpiled (if I may mix equine and canine metaphors). ;-D For now, can you continue to watchlist Talk:Horses in warfare and possibly the other two articles that were at issue here? It might be possible that the underlying issues are not resolved, I hope they are, but who knows. Third party eyes are often helpful. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 01:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost I would like to sincerely ask you for your help. Your input and patience is appreciated. I want to bring to your attention this. HD86 has made numerous comments such as "The Assyrians are EXTINCT people of ancient Mesopotamia whose name was stolen by some modern politicians and used in reference to the modern Syriacs. To label the modern Syriacs by "Assyrians" and to claim that "The Assyrian people trace their origins to the population of the pre-Islamic Levant" is indeed stupidity in its purest form." These comments are inflammatory, racist, unhistprical and outrageous. This user continues to deny that a whole race even exists. He needs to be wiki disciplined. This is unacceptable inflammtory denialist behavior. The equivalent of his statments would be that jews or arabs do not exist. Do you not see the point. His languge is very hateful and dimeaning to those of us involved in the project. If you take a look at his history he has similar incompetent statemetns regarding other controverisal topics. I ask for assistance in order to remove this hateful user from this discussion. He has denied the existence of an entire race that through ample ancient and modern evidence has existed for thousands of years. I will be waiting for your response. I must stress this is only one of many disturbing comments this user has made. Thanks for your input my friend. I have left similar messages to other admins for more input.Ninevite (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of The Irish Descendants at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Art LaPella (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what is wrong with extra-curricular? [1] DoubleBlue (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The preferred spelling in most dictionaries and languages as a minor example includes it as one whole word. The built-in dictionary in AWB/TypoScan flags it every time. ♪BMWΔ 17:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I ask it to be removed from AWB as per ENGVAR. My mileage varies from yours.[2] Cheers! DoubleBlue (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the issue with my edits to Matt Windman's page.

I understand the need to not get into an editing war, but how do you prevent others from simply editing back what you have done each time. Do you immediately move to dispute resolution?

Further, why is making a factual statement about someone (that is backed by a citation) in an article about that person deemed a "personal attack?"

I do appreciate your kind introduction - I look forward to getting a better understanding of things around here.

SlyFrog (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, your actions led you to be the topic of a civility report filing, which was then escalated to noticeboard for admin action. The "fact" that someone edits articles about themselves is not notable, nor encyclopedic. I have made dozens of edits to a number of articles - is that encyclopedic? Wikipedia is also not considered to be a valid reference inside Wikipedia, so your citation was invalid. If more than one person reverts your edits, that's when YOU the editor need to stop and rethink...Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS, so obviously, your edit was not a consensus edit. ♪BMWΔ 19:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was not editing articles about themselves, the issue was resubmitting following a prior discussion and deletion. I posted the statement because it reflected on the character of the subject of the article.

Should I have simply reported the newly posted article? SlyFrog (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article had already been tagged as "Criteria for Speedy Deletion". Smart-arsed comments about the person who continued to create it is considered to be a violation of WP:NPA. There is plenty of time to comment on the ARTICLE (and never the editor who created it) on the Talkpage of the article, or at articles for deletion. ♪BMWΔ 20:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are assuming good faith or being reasonable to me in saying "smart assed" comments.

That said, I understand now that it should have been referred through the articles for deletion process and the talk page.

Thanks much for the clarification! SlyFrog (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of your attempts to belittle the person who continued to create the articles can be remotely considered as "good faith". They were both personal attacks AND vandalism to the Wikipedia project as a whole. ♪BMWΔ 20:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously disagree. But I do again sincerely thank you for the introduction, and the clarification you have offered. SlyFrog (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to your user page, you aren't an admin but hope to be one some day. If that is still accurate I would suggest, first, that you stop responding to a bunch of ANI threads as if you thought you were an admin already and, second, that you not post highly uncivil comments, especially under the guise of trying to suggest that someone else should be disciplined because he is uncivil. You're coming across as exactly the wrong kind of person to be a good admin. If you do manage to get nominated those actions will no doubt be brought up as evidence that you are not ready. DreamGuy (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. There was nothing uncivil in my comment on ANI. As "preparation" for possible RfA's, full participation in ANI is recommended, and I ensure I remain civil in my commentary there. I've made a clarification on ANI, but the few e-mails I got thanking me for how I dealt with that situation says a lot right now. Cheers ♪BMWΔ 10:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what guys, it's yet another person who tries to be what they're not. Well hello to you too BOSS.
EdmOilers023 (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if actually giving a sh|t about how people interact while building an encyclopedia (as ALL editors are required to do) is considered "being what they're not", then I suppose I'm guilty... ♪BMWΔ 10:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By "being what they're not" I meant trying to be an Admin which you obviously are NOT. (even the blind can see that) Obviously, you have some self conceited issues about that. Not the first to state that, others think you're "being what you're not" too. Learn how to read. EdmOilers023 (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You read right, I'm not an admin, and have never pretended to be. That said, all editors on Wikipedia are supposed to attempt to maintain/enforce the policies and protocols. ♪BMWΔ 11:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor EdmOilers023 has created a page called Y2J. It is nominated for deletion. --Lawe (talk) 10:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow really?! I created that page?! How come I didn't know I created such a thing? And nominated for deletion hey? HmMm why is it still there? That's quite strange..I must be seeing things. I better make an appointment with my optometrist...and it looks like not only BMW needs to learn how to read. AND HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU TOO BUDDY. EdmOilers023 (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you're asking me on my own talkpage about a message left by someone else (note: User:Lawe advised of the AfD). From what I can see, although EdmOilers023 did not create the page, they were involved in a number of edits, plus did actually create 2 pages that spawn from the Y2J article. Let me also add a note about the deletion process: any article can be "nominated for deletion". They are then discussed by the community, and consensus to delete or keep generally occurs based on merits. This specific article had no consensus to keep or delete, therefore by default it was kept. I can obviously read quite well, thanks. ♪BMWΔ 11:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm the one that can't read then. But someone here can't distinguish sarcasm from realism. Whatever, end of discussion. Quit wasting my time arguing with ****** like you on wikipedia. TTYN EdmOilers023 (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd leave a note - I prefer your old colour-contrast personally. Any reason for the change? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, I prefer the black/white version too (for many reasons), but the green and red is more..."festive"?? LOL ♪BMWΔ 09:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh...lol! I think the green background was clashing before, but it looks very festive now. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bwikins. You made a comment on WP:ANI that I found interesting here it is: "Steelerfan-94 is mentoring *blink*." could you please tell me what you meant by that comment. As it could mean a number of things IMO. SteelersFan-94 06:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd recommend you have a read of your own Talkpage - some comments by editors I respect state quite clearly why you should re-think mentoring anyone at this moment. I've even been asked to mentor a few times, and I have respectfully declined. ♪BMWΔ 10:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but in ANI you made a really bad comment telling me to stop editing because of a consensus. May you please point me to what that consensus might be? I really try to assume good faith, I have no idea where that evil comment would come from. Tavix (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy drama. When every editor in ANI says "stop", you've found your consensus. ♪BMWΔ 00:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, I'm sorry but only two people told me to stop. That is hardly any consensus. Please be civil about things, seriously. Its just a little MOS dispute, there is no need for you to go overboard. Tavix (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoleetage (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello again. A couple things: first of all I am sorry if I have insulted you or anything earlier, you caught me when I was pretty angry. I was mad because you had no right saying there was a consensus on the matter when there was only 3 people questioning the matter. I wasn't really polite on the matter and you probably don't think very highly of me because of it. My edits I have made to the project, however, was in good faith. If you want to take a look at the reasoning for the decisions I have made on the matter, please take a look at WP:FNC. Happy holidays to you as well. 21:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavix (talk • contribs)

Your recent meaningful participation in an ANI on sports-figure article disambiguation suggests that you may be interested in participating one way or another in the development and/or discussion of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople), a draft proposal to clarify Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) as applied to sports. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The encyclopedia would be better served if the ongoing stream of insults on your behalf, directed at me, were dropped in favour of actually improving the encyclopedia by applying our policies. Keep in mind that Wikipedia:No personal attacks is policy, as is Wikipedia:Edit war. If the only thing you're going to do on Wikipedia is go to people's talk pages to complain about me (and your recent contribution history demonstrates that this is the direction you're going), I'm going to have to resort to filing a complaint using one of the venues outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I'm presently doing research on the history of Windows NT from 1997 to 2000 in an attempt to improve History of Microsoft Windows; I'd like to think I could focus on that instead of being dragged down by this pettiness. Thanks. Warren -talk- 13:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the BS name-calling has to stop, but S3884h, you need to read the same WQA report you filed - I clearly stated (as someone who is neutral and involved in the industry) the difference between the LEGAL name of the show, and the "legal name + host". Additional violations of WP:NPA on article or user talk pages will not be well-met. ♪BMWΔ 14:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, not once did I use offensive slang in my comments to the editor in question. I may not have a lot of nice things to say about him. But honesty within boundaries is not against the rules. While I will oblige by what is set by Wikipedia, one thing is not perfectly clear. Why is this editor focusing his time and energy on just one or two talk shows? There are other talk show articles on Wikipedia where the names are clearly on them, but he is not touching them one bit. Call me crazy, but I say this editor is bias against only a few talk shows, and they are the ones that he and I have been edit warring over for the last couple of weeks. If what you say is true, which I’m not saying that I’m doubting, then the focus of you, as the administrator, is to make sure all articles on talk shows, whether Sunday morning or not are uniformly followed clear across the board, and not just on a selected few. To say the very least, I’m not too thrilled about this particular rule. But if that is what the rule say, every article in question must follow it. And from what I see, that is clearly not the case. S3884h (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know something, fool me once. Shame on me. Full me twice, SHAME ON YOU. I just took a look at your profile on here, and from what I read, you hail from the exact same Canadian town as the editor in question. What a coincidence. Give me a reason I shouldn't think that this is not one of your ridiculous sockpuppets, WARREN!!! Your editing mannerism is almost a carbon copy of each other. I take back my previous statement, because I was right about what I said to you a couple days ago. You are nothing but a phony. Tata!!! S3884h (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) This is humourous. Although I don't think it takes too much investigation by even an novice editor to note a) my almost 5000 edits on Wikipedia, b) the topics I tend to edit, c) the difference in my use of language and grammar than another editor, d) the fact that I have never edited any of the topics in question, e) a myriad of other methods to differentiate me from any other editor on Wikipedia. As the old saying goes about accusations of sockpuppetry: put up, or shut up. Please, I encourage you to file a sockpuppetry case here or retract the statements. ♪BMWΔ 16:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that I just scanned Warren's userpage. As specified on my userpage, I live in a city called "Ottawa" - with a census metropolitan area population of more than 1.2 million people. It's located in the province of Ontario, which has the largest population of any province in Canada. I see no place where Warren states that he's from "Ottawa". He is apparently from "Ontario", but that includes Toronto with a CMA population of over 4 million and quite a few other CMA's with more than a half-million population. Still, I stick by it ... file your SSP case or STFU. ♪BMWΔ 16:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh... I haven't been to Ottawa for twenty years. Further, a Checkuser on my account would reveal that my time is split between Ann Arbor, Michigan and Hamilton, Ontario. But, hey, you know what, I've edited a couple of the BMW articles (I'm a fan of the M3, Z3 and Z4 specifically), so therefore we are precisely the same person... hello, me! :-D Warren -talk- 16:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to transcribe your WQA statement regarding the "Meet The Press" title to its Talk Page? The edit war has resumed as soon as the page was unlocked and I'd like to build consensus. Gerardw (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thanks for bringing it up. ♪BMWΔ 20:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; it's become necessary for me to file a Wikiquette alert against this user. I'm informing you as a courtesy due to your involvement in related discussions. Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:S3884h. Thanks. Warren -talk- 18:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's like you have multiple personalites. May not be the case in reality, but on here, it shows. S3884h (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put this clearly: You want to accuse me of being a sockpuppet, file it here right now, put your BS in writing, or else STFU ... that's the rules on Wikipedia. ♪BMWΔ 20:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you for edit warring with me despite countless attempts to get you and stop. Your report can be found at the bottom of this page. Thanks. Tavix (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on my own Talkpage? You are uncivil. Go away. Permanently. ♪BMWΔ 21:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am sorry I took it there, you really didn't have a violation of 3RR. Tavix (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I told you to file a WQA report against me. I even gave you the link. ♪BMWΔ 21:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't worry about it, it's being taken care of. Tavix (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, DangerousPanda. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tavix (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, the ANI was resolved because no admin action was needed. I think the moral of the story is that we both need to start showing more civility and start respecting each other. I blame myself for not assuming good faith, and you shouldn't have called me a vandal, etc, so it goes both ways. I would like to put this situation behind us and I would not like there to be any grudges or anything, because after all we are both here to contribute to Wikipedia and not to go off and start edit wars. So would you be willing to initiate a truce? If you accept, I'll leave you alone as long as you leave me alone and vise versa, and there will be no hard feelings against each other.

PS: If you want to answer at my talk page, I understand. Tavix (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the moral is that when I answer the first 5 times, and then point out policy 5 times, STOP. As I spend hours a day investigating incivility on Wikipedia, I don't need someone who doesn't get policy to try and lecture me. I'm all for being told when I'm wrong, but you really went overboard this time. Now, as asked a few dozen times, go away. ♪BMWΔ 23:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but I'm not going away. You acted completely incivil towards me and you can at least apologize for it. Tavix (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence that I never had a chance to show clearly proves that I was never uncivil to you, in fact, I was overly polite with you. The ANI pretty much said the same thing. Get over it, if you're an adult you'll already know that things don't go your way. Do not return to my page - ever. ♪BMWΔ 10:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your first ANI! ;-) Hiberniantears (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Thanks, I'm so proud. I think I'll name it "Frank" and get it circumcised ASAP. ♪BMWΔ 10:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your attack on me at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:CadenS was inappropriate. The fact that CadenS removed the Wikiquette notice on his Talk page forced me to have to go elsewhere. I did not post to ANI and Wikiquette at the same time, I posted to ANI after CadenS made it clear the he was not interested in disucssing it on the Wikiquette board. I would please request that you reword your close. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. I certainly did not "attack" anyone. I looked at the timestamp on the WQA filing, and it was identical to the timestamp on the ANI filing. If you merely copy/pasted the text from one to the other, then this was unfortunately a misunderstanding caused by your edit, and I apologize. Please be cautious that you sign each post separately. ♪BMWΔ 18:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, yes, I copied and pasted from the WQA to the ANI, including the date and time stamps, which would make it assume that I had done it at the same time. I don't mind the close of the WQA, since the ANI is moving forward, but could you change the wording on the close? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already been done, now that you clarified your error. Thanks. ♪BMWΔ 18:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll remove my comment. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I regret any occasions when I may have given you a hard time. It is nothing personal, I just have a hard time giving up, or stopping, on anything I have started. I realize that characteristic can sometimes (frequently?) be annoying. I appreciate your leaving the message on Ceedjee's talk page, and as a result I think that difficulty may be resolved. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged, and thanks for the apology. I'm a big pusher for "common sense" :-) ♪BMWΔ 12:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BMW, as I have mentioned before all I was doing from the beginning of this irrelevant dispute was simply challenging User: AramaeanSyriacs source as explained above until this other user hopped in the conversation causing everyone involved going completely off topic. The remarks I have made using the words bigot was simply a direct response to that user telling me to quote “take my damn head out of my ass.” [3]]. or this [4] He has had a long history of putting other users that disagree with his minority views he refers to them as stupid, biased, propagandists, ignorant, Nazis, mentally ill, childish, as shown in the second link and so on. Here are other examples “"Lol, logic equals zero" "Malik, I'm starting to believe you are stupid" "You can't blaim your obvious lack of reading comprehension" "Bla bla bla, cry me a river" "Sorry, you make no sense with your childish and naive claims" "Are you delibaretly being ignorant?" He has constantly put other users such as this user [5] who is an admin referring to this users vulgar mouth. He is simply trying to get me blocked because he sees me as logical threat to his edits as shown here in the past falsely accused me of being a sock puppet and got rebuked for it [6] This is just the tip of the iceberg, he has teamed up the user above me and has tried to spread propaganda throughout the encyclopedia, the first has been blocked multiple times for edit warring, vandalism, and the second constantly manipulates the meanings of words to eliminate his opposition. Each time one of them gets confronted with logical opposition they try to dig up dirt on the user to get him banned, each time User: aramaean syriac has been disciplined this user above me has defended regardless of the accusations. They back each other up in order to boost their POV material across. I have labeled these people those words because they have denied that my race existed in those times. They have denied the existence of the Assyrians saying this term is a 20th century term completely disrespecting an entire peoples history. That is the reason why I called him incompetent and bigoted it is because of comments such as this “was no such thing as Assyrian Christians at the times of the School of Nisibis.” If I were to say that Arabs or Jews have not existed until the 20th century and you are of Arab or of Jewish decent will you not be inflamed by such caustic rhetoric. I apologize for this long comment but I felt it necessary to say it, You have warned me and I Respect you as an admin, but clearly this user above me has gone too far and frankly gotten away with a lot unwarranted behavior that would otherwise get him banned. As I have stated above I will disengage myself from the discussion altogether, you have warned me because of the words “bigot” and yet you do not warn or take into account all the horrible claims User: The Triz has made against me and several users from the very few examples I have given above. Regarding his behavior, this is just a small amount of countless examples this user has done against many other peoples. I would appreciate your response to this, thanks and apologies for the long comment. Ninevite (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. I will comment more after some research. My goal last night was to stop the current insanity, and to put all on notice. (PS: at this point, I'm not an admin ... just someone trying to assist in keeping us all working together) ♪BMWΔ 12:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't waste the time on listening to this guy if I was you. Just a tip. But if you choose to ignore my tip and decide to look into this, you can still spare you some time by simply asking the involved admins in the whole Assyrian/Syriac issue that are aware of most things that have been written, which are Dbachmann (talk · contribs) & Moreschi (talk · contribs) (and to a lesser extent also Andrewa (talk · contribs)). The TriZ (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the tip. In fairness, All complaints deserve to be weighed accordingly. If you have read how I deal with issues on my userpage, you'll note the ABC method. If you've read my comments in ANI, you'll know that although incivility does not excuse additional incivility, it may at least explain it. If my research show other warnings are needed, I will follow-through accordingly. talk→  BMW  ←track 14:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think your comments on WQA are appropriate? Comments such as "Gee HighKing, come down off thy HighHorse"? I don't. I'd rather not continue the discussion on WQA - it's ironic that when we're commenting on one editor we end up snapping and snarling at each other. If my comments riled you, I apologize - it was not my attention. As to your points about the UUA - my comments were that OM appears to get involved in a lot of disruptive behaviour and I pointed to the UUA as an example where the closing admin removed it with a quote of " removing inappropriate nomination" and another admin found evidence that there was a vindictive element to the nomination in the first place. --HighKing (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. I was quite taken aback to see someone state that I had acted "aggressively" and in a "confrontational tone" when in fact I was doing the complete opposite. I'm sure that if you re-read my original statement, you would see that it matches quite clearly my clarification of this morning. To be honest, I was originally going to add "HighKing, if you're not going to hold onto the concepts of WP:AGF while responding in this forum, I would recommend you rethink your participation in attempting to mediate civility disputes", but I deleted after a preview ... I decided not to in order to not attack your work overall. I'm always willing to strike comments when proven wrong :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peace. Thank you. Next time we'll see each other in a different light.  ;-) Perhaps we should remove our section from the WQA as it distracts from the main issue? If you feel the same, please feel free to do so. --HighKing (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck (because removing is bad) portions of my last post there (see the edit summary). (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. My name is Tim. You can call my brother Mister Dick. I didn’t know that about ol’ Tim. Maybe that was part of his learning comedy at a young age. Greg L (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh ... when I read Tim's first book, I was already LMAO by page 3 (which I think is where the whole description of his "entire family of Dicks" was happening. I think you would have to either do drugs or comedy with that name :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerardw (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Bwilkins, heartfelt thanks for sticking with that WQA. You too Gerardw. Regards, Chuckiesdad 04:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, just wanted to stop by and say Hello...saw your comments on the RfA talk page and realised it's been a while since I've crossed editorial paths with you. Hope all is well -- when you get a chance, let me know what you're up to. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoleetage (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.

Hey there, mon ami! Things are well (and busy) in my part of the world/Wikipedia ... how's things with you? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La vie est belle -- both here and in that annoying miasma called the real world! Be well and keep doing what you're doing! Ecoleetage (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sometimes I do some mistakes, perhaps I work too much, but what about Siberia? Some of informations in infobox are not correct (outdated), and difficult to correct them, but I do not think deleting of infobox was a good idea. Better outdated information than deletion. I think so. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leszek, sorry it took a few days to reply to your message on my talk. I recommend against using obviously wrong information in any infobox (picture some 8 year old kid getting an F on an essay!). Perhaps a custom infobox that says "Siberia (approximation)"?? All the best! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See [7]. Would've reverted but HighKing added to another discussion before I got a chance. Gerardw (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I re-added them. Thanks for the notification! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your outbursts have just about zero relevance to my complaints. You clearly cared nothing about listening to my explanations about why I posted at WQA, or that it might have been a misunderstanding. You went straight for all the wild accusations that Lar started, which was nothing short of flaming. You did your absolute best to revive the old conflicts and then dumped all of it on me. If you've had genuine concerns over my behavior, you never appeared to have any genuine interest in explaining what you mean. All I can see is that when I complain of what I perceive as off-topic abrasiveness, you attack my complaints while ignoring accusations against me of everything from bullying (an odd thing to say in a dispute between only two people) and outright trolling. Peter ^Isotalo 17:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, you really need to take some time to reflect. I will assure you that your post on WQA was read as such:

1. the complaint
2. any diff's
3. the actual complainant's name

In other words, I looked clearly at the complaint before I even knew who the complainant was. My first reactions were that there was no incivility - it was quite clearly a "let's go team" rah-rah, certainly did not have any attempt at exclusions. If you're going to over-react to comments because you have a history with an editor (mostly made up, from what I have observed) then perhaps you need to analyze where you choose to participate in Wikipedia and stay away from the source of your misunderstandings and anger. My answer was that you misread the statement. There was no incivility. There were no public attacks. I then looked at the "A" from the "ABC" model ... I know what the antecedent behaviour is, and I addressed it. Don't bother getting into fights with neutral editors such as myself simply because we don't share your misunderstandings. My responsibility is to help resolve an issue - the issue this time is your failure to WP:AGF (rather than having said, "read English"). Final recommendation: stay away from the source of your confusion. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]