User talk:Wikibofh/Archive4

Testimonies about Effectiveness of Chinese Army and other tagged articles

Hi. I'm in the process of cleaning up the many links from the main article namespace to other namespaces. I've noticed Testimonies about Effectiveness of Chinese Army contains a special cleanup tag of your own design, which contains a number of these links. I'm reluctant to remove the links, as you clearly had something in mind for these articles, but the links will break on mirrors and generally muddies the water beween articles and meta-info like talk pages. Can you figure out some reasonable solution to this, and any other like-tagged, articles? Perhaps a wikiproject specific cleanup tag would be appropriate, with a to-do list stored somewhere in the wikipedia namespace? Thanks for your help. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• *sigh* Yes, that whole thing is a mess that I've avoided for a while now. The source of some of the nastiest VfD debates I've ever seen. I'm open for suggestions. I'm not sure what is the best course. Wikibofh_(talk) 04:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Simon Wiesenthal

What's wrong with my contribution? However, he was never prosecuted for his self supposed role in the crime of the Eichmann kidnapping and his alleged cooperation with the Mossad which is a crime under Austrian law. I find this fact worth mentioning.

• It is clearly not WP:NPOV. ...crime of the Eichmann kidnapping.... ...alleged cooperation with the Mossad which is speculation. If it can be made NPOV, I have no real issues with it. Wikibofh_(talk) 21:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, kidnapping and crime is redundant anyway, and there is no doubt that he cooperated with the Mossad in some way, only if the information he provided was helpfull to the Mossad remains unclear. So let's say: However, he was never prosecuted for his self supposed role in the Eichmann kidnapping and his cooperation with the Mossad which is a crime under Austrian law.

• I think this belongs on the article talk page. I'll create a copy there. Personally I don't think discussion of a prosecution that never happened is encyclopedic. Wikibofh_(talk) 17:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ward Churchill protected?

How come? You did not add any explanation to the talk page.

I'm not particularly opposed to the protection as a practical matter. I've spent way too much work watching out for vandalism, or what at least skirts the edge of vandalism in gross violation of "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". The current version is certainly "not bad". But the main problem of the last few weeks, User:Fluterst managed to get him/herself banned indefinitely (for an unrelated, or maybe semi-related, issue) , which solves that problem practically. Overall, the page isn't doing worse than pretty much any politicized or contentious topic.

I've been a little bit annoyed by some POV-mongering of User:Pokey5945 on the talk page, but his edits to the page itself have been quite productive. Sometimes a bit over-the-top in an anti-Churchill language, but only a little, and he is not unduly resistent to me (mostly, occasionally someone else) tempering the language for NPOV. There's a minor wording issue in the lead that isn't quite right now (and an obnoxious edit history comment by User:Chazz88 that called a wording change by me "vandalism"); but that's not outrageous.

I'm not sure if User:Karmafist contacted you. I've asked him for assistance on this page on a couple occasions, and he's been helpful. He recently commented on my page that he thought 3RR had occurred: User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters#MONGO, Ward Churchill, Foo, etc.. That is definitely incorrect if it refers to the Dec 28 edits by Pokey5945 and I. As I comment to Karmafist, while both of our edit comments might have been slightly snippy around this, we were continuing to revise to find intermediate language w/o either of us repeating exactly the same version (well, I think Pokey did so twice, but not 4 times). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• It was requested at WP:RFPP. I took a look and it looked like there was an ongoing edit war. The goal was to reduce edits and force a move to the talk page. I'll mosey over to talk now and indicate that, which I should have done earlier. I did indicate in the edit summary that it was requested, but that is a poor excuse.  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 18:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I just looked and I didn't even do it in the edit summary. I did it in the protection log. My apologies. Wikibofh_(talk) 18:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what discussion you were hoping for on the talk page while protected. There are not any currently active disputes about the content, as I've said. Well, maybe a fairly trivial matter of a word or two in the lead that I think could be better, but it's not a huge contention. Actually, there never really was a content dispute. There was just a vandal, Fluterst, who periodically stuck in anti-Churchill diatribes rather than encyclopedic content (I know Karmafist tells me I'm not supposed to call it "vandalism"; but I sure can't figure out how it differs from Attention-seeking vandalism: Adding insults, using offensive usernames, replacing articles with jokes etc.... in any case, Fluterst is now on permanent ban).

Whenever the page is unprotected, we'll continute to get new drive-by vandals who insert rants they found from Bill O'Reilly. I.e. semi-topical, but not anything anyone could remotely believe to be encyclopedic (no good faith). I'd actually really advocate permanent semi-protection of the article, since most of these problem edits are either IP addresses, or brand new users who never edit anything else. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Unprotected. Let's see. I'm still not sure where semi is a good answer, so I'll mull it over. Wikibofh_(talk) 21:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The first unprotected edit might seem to argue for semi-protection. It's from a brand new user. However, it's not the POV-mongering insertions we've typically seen, but rather an insertion of a bunch of pointless backslashes. Somehow it seems like the user might think quotes need to be escaped or something like that. It's a bad edit, but not obviously politically motivated. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

User talk:24.91.64.104

Hi, I was about to clear the alert out of WP:AIV because the IP had stopped vandalising when I saw that you had blocked it. S/he hadn't vandalised anything after the last warning as far as I can see. Was there an edit I'm missing that caused the block? It appears to me that nothing happened after the last warning to warrant a block. Am I missing something? I think it sends a wrong message to block someone a half hour after they've complied with a warning. Rx StrangeLove 03:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• I saw the date stamp of the last warning: 02:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC) [1] and the last contrib of 02:12, December 31, 2005 [2]. Seemed pretty straight forward. Did I miss something? Wikibofh_(talk) 03:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Passing plays

I removed the passing plays section because I'm going to add to it myself. I'm trying to get the inline definitions out of these general topic pages and into specific topic pages.Intrepidus 07:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• The problem is that I moved some of these from individual topics to this article.  :) My question is for some of them, do they have enough to stand on their own? I think if not, it would be a good idea to leave them there as brief descriptions with {{main}} links to the major article. Comments? Wikibofh_(talk) 16:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Grand Canyon

If you are on, we got another spammer on Grand Canyon, and he/she is alternating in other edits so filling out 3RR will be a royal pain. Two editors have reverted the spam multiple times in the last couple of hours, and the new user keeps putting it back, so clearly over the 3RR, and I warned them... I'd appreciate it if you are still around if you could go help hit the person with a cluestick. DreamGuy 06:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Just went over there, took a look, added a warning. I won't be around much longer, but I'll watch. Wikibofh_(talk) 06:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks... looks like BorgQueen (if I remember correctly) wsa on top of it too... maybe with four editors telling the person to stop it will finally happen. DreamGuy 06:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, and think Dreamguy is getting a little out of hand. He really has no knowledge of Grand Canyon or where the experts are. I understand he is on a corporate crushing policy, and sometimes I can empathize. Grand Canyon is a highly controversial subject (creationists love the fact that geologists can't figure it out). Angel's Gate has one of the best unbiased guide pools out there. I have removed any and all potentially commercial links from the page. I personally think it lacks a lot of information by doing so. But if it is more in line with your guidance, than I will accept it.

I will stand down. Out of respect. And for the moment. But I will be back with more edits in Grand Canyon.

• I have replied on the talk page, let's continue it there. Thanks for stepping back a bit. Wikibofh_(talk) 15:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Findbgs 07:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:65.5.128.20

Go ahead - User:BorgQueen also blocked him the same time as me: block log. You may want to inform her as well. Izehar 17:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I saw that. I'm going to extend and I'll notify BQ as well. Thanks. Wikibofh_(talk) 17:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:194.80.21.10 block

Replied on my talk page to keep the conversation coherent. — Kbh3^rdtalk 15:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Google in Braille Article

I agree that the Google section should be removed completely. I arrived at this page via the Google logo, but recognize this "Googlevertisement" addition (as it was well-phrased) as merely some clever marketing. The article showing on their home page is simply not justified as meriting a place in an encyclpedia. In a matter of a couple of years, should they be listed on , say 30 encyclopedia listings for making a logo out of someone's birthday? WAnd if you were to allow Google's plug in the article, shouldn't everyone else who mention's someone's birthday for a day be able to put their website on relevant pages? That could add up to a long list of non-informative material on an encyclopedia page.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.65.241 (talk • contribs) 18:30, January 4, 2006

• Ok, I'm convinced. It has been removed. My only rationale evolved into letting it stay through the day to make it less likely we had to revert it out. Wikibofh_(talk) 19:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Article Changes

I apologize. I am new to the process of editing Wikipedia articles, and was unaware that what I did was considered impolite. I simply felt the article was biased against Holocaust denial, so I wanted to straighten things out. If you could direct me to the forum where this can be properly discussed, I would appreciate it. Thank you, and sorry again for the misunderstanding.

• —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.116.170 (talk • contribs) 15:06, January 5, 2006

• No problem. Please make sure you go to the talk page to discuss your changes. Regrettably, this is a very controversial issue so we see a lot of arguments on it. I'd also recommend creating an account. Wikibofh_(talk) 16:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Louis Braille Article

Thanks for the tip; I probably was looking at a vandalized copy of the article. --Gordon24 17:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Posting at AIV?

Hey Wikibofh, regarding this posting at AIV I thought that they weren't warned as well, the link was broken it seems because, they had in fact been warned. I have no idea why it showed up as a red link. Just wanted to let you know I blocked the address for 1 hour. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Ahh...I figured it out. The reporter used {{vandal|User:202.152.162.215}} instead of {{vandal|202.152.162.215}}. Thanks for following up. You know how AIV is.  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 21:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm tired of Comandante

look at his constribution history, all he does is edit wars. he rarely ever discusses it with anyone, and its been going on for months. history —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antispammer (talk • contribs) 22:51, January 5, 2006

• I know. We need to develop consensus on that page and we'll move from there. The problem I'm having is getting widespread participation. If you think of a way get more people focused that would be great. I'm going to start a consensus poll. I was a little burned out after yesterday's Google induced battle on Louis Braille. Wikibofh_(talk) 00:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I urge you to reconsider opening up the hell gates to more admins flooding the Fidel Castro article!!!!!--Antispammer 03:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • I'm tired of it. I think consensus will be that he is a dictator and it's a communist state. As I told 172, it's dragged on, and I think we spend too much time that could be spent on other projects. I've tried a few times to see if we can hammer it out, and it just keeps going down the slippery slope. Let's get it over with and move on. Wikibofh_(talk) 03:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are "tired of it" try editing another article. I can promise you that from having edited that article from three years, no one is going to be able to reach a consensus with Comandante. For now, all the legitimate editors of the page can tolerate the intro, and that's all that matters. 172 03:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation at John Kerry

Gamaliel violated the 3RR rule at John Kerry today. Here are the diffs:

1. 05:19, 5 January 2006 - [3]
2. 05:23, 5 January 2006 - [4]
3. 09:03, 5 January 2006 - [5]
4. 02:54, 6 January 2006 - [6]

He's an admin so I don't want to tangle with him, but something should be done. If you study the reverts he made, they were clearly made against non-vandal edits. For this reason, Gamaliel should not be allowed to flaunt the 3RR simply because he's pushing his own preferred text instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.15.76.242 (talk • contribs) 08:08, January 6, 2006

• I'll investigate. Wikibofh_(talk) 14:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Ok, I've looked here and on the Kerry page, and I'll probably look more, but don't expect any action. I generally don't deal with 3RR because people can't do the reports the right way. I'm even less likely when they are on my userpage or in the article page as opposed to WP:3RR. Wikibofh_(talk) 15:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I need to talk to you

Hey, I need to talk to you, preferably outside of wikipedia(email,IM,chat,etc). I just realized something terribly important.--Antispammer 12:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Email works fine, you can use the email link, otherwise I'll hit yours with my address here in a few.

Wikibofh_(talk) 14:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Shetterly

Yo! I'm learning Wikipedia. This may be my second message to you, because I accidentally clicked something midway through the first, and I don't know if it was sent or lost. Many FAQs yet to read!

But I think it wasn't saved. I just wanted to say that I'm doing the newbie blundering into new experiences thing, but I am trying to be gentle with what I contribute to anything regarding my life. The trickiest call has been my text for the "Captain Confederacy" page that someone created and left blank. Deadends are so frustrating! But I'll be more cautious about autobiographical editing from here on out.

Now I'll try signing this:

Shetterly 18:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Welcome.  :) It was one of those funny things where I saw an edit to Steven's article, that led me to The Scribblies, and saw your username. Not hard to make that jump.  :) Good luck, and feel free to ask any questions. It's pretty easy, just a moderate learning bump. Wikibofh_(talk) 20:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Comments

here is a template for standardizing the annotation of these in wiki. It can be found here. Don't suppose I could persuade you to change any entries you've made to that?  :) Wikib

Ok I will do that for one last time as I leave.

The reasons are follows. I was going to add them to the deletion comments but the information was deleted along with the comments before the 5 days was up. What happened to the Deletion Comments? I just wanted to add one more. Larry Sanger was right You can come here make a contribution and get insulted for free. I have no idea what a geocaching fanatic is but the idea that just adding coordinates to locations on Wikipedia is fanaticism is funny. There was something about deleting the list because it was UnEncyclopedic. Quick delete these, there are actually lists of lists, how Unencyclopedic is that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topic_lists I put the list here as a proof of concept because it fits in with this Wikipedia initiative. NOTE: This is an experimental service, currently implemented as a proof-of-concept on an off-site server. It will later be included in Wikipedia proper. http://kvaleberg.com/extensions/mapsources/index.php?params=42_54_6_N_78_52_23_W_ Too many people are hung up with the traditional encyclopedia and fail to appreciate the advantages of an online Encyclopedia one of these is the ability to map it to the real world with coordinates. There are tremendous advantages to this, it is a very powerful navigation tool. The information is valuable inside of the articles but it is even more valuable when it is combined outside of the articles. It is as if someone said that an A-Z index is useless because each article already has a name. Far from being useless there are some profitable companies that actually sell this information. Thank you for opening up my eyes to what a golden period this is. There are enough people that understand the value to make it a profitable business but not enough that understand it enough to create profit draining competition. Youmay not ever figure out why but you made me a couple extra million dollars. I just want to make sure that the information I entered here in that article is deleted permanently. And I usuggest you rest up because as more and more people become aware of the advantages of using GPS waypoints there will be others posting lists of coordinates here so remain vigilant and delete them all until in about 10 years everyone realizes how ridiculous that policy is. User:FredRys

Sox

Red sox ARE co-divisional champions. This has happened in the past and the two teams both recognized themselves as co champs and it was allowed by the Commissioners office. i understand the back and forth but it is not factual or accurate. my apologies.

• But they aren't. There is no tie and no where on their official website do they claim it. I'm sorry. I'm partial to the Red Sox, but it's simply not supported. Wikibofh_(talk) 21:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Unable to notify you

In your role as an Administrator, I need your help with Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SEWilco blocked from commenting on William M. Connolley, which forbids me from issuing to you and other Wikipedians a notification required by anti-spam procedures. (SEWilco 05:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC))

FYI

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Comandante. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. Wikibofh_(talk) 20:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Susisan

Earlier today, you reported ten suspicious account creations at theAdministrators' noticeboard. However, the last two accounts you listed are the same: User:Susisan and User:Susisan. Did you put one of these two in the place of another account, or have you accidentally double-posted this account? Just thought I'd let you know :) Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 22:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. I went back and looked. Looks like I just cut-n-pasted one too many.  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 01:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Strathclyde Article

Hi Yesterday I added the sub-regions to the Strathclyde page, which you removed. Could you please explain to me the reason for this? Thank you!! Kris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriscampbell (talk • contribs) 19:17, January 13, 2006

• I don't see any edits by you on Strathclyde. Perhaps you were not logged in and did it as User:86.142.210.36? In that case it was probably because you had just made the changes of Outer Hebrides to the Gaelic names. As this is the English WP, the should be english here, and have the gaelic redirect. I reverted those changes as well as anything else from the IP, because generally that is how vandalism goes. Looking at it, that look fine and I'd go ahead and re-insert it. Wikibofh_(talk) 22:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

response and frisbee

The response thing I was asking about on the frisbee talk page was how you would get it so that it would come out indented and look like it was a branch off of that topic hence a response/comment to it. Don't know if I am still being unclear sorry if I am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qballony (talk • contribs) 03:54, January 14, 2006

• Ah...to get it to indent you just use either the colon (:) or asterix (*) depending on what you're trying to do. Normally when I'm trying to figure out how something is done I go and use the edit button to see what it looks like raw, and when I post I go ahead and use preview until I figure it out.  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 15:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Freeway

Hi,

Could you mediate a mild dispute with another user on certain aspects of the Freeway article? The user and I need input from someone else. Check out Talk:Freeway. Allentchang 00:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'll take a look, although my time right now is pretty limited. Give me a day or two. Wikibofh_(talk) 07:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Anon comment

Why did you delete my revision to the Tina Berry article? I was adding information per the news this evening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.180.50 (talk • contribs) 06:50, February 9, 2006

• I didn't. Take a look at the article history. Wikibofh_(talk) 15:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

List_of_sovereign_states Help!

A revert war is erupting in theList_of_sovereign_states section. I've made one revert and will only dare to make one more as I do not want to strike out. My argument is that the introduction and the footnote should explain enough about unusual circumstances surounding a state and that the list should only be in alphabetical order. Allentchang 15:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

me

i do what i want, when i want. don't cause troble —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.202.42 (talk • contribs) 14:31, March 16, 2006

• Evidently a verizon DSL customer out of Boston that enjoys the old "white flag" vandalism of Combat ration. You are wrong. You will follow the rules. I personally don't care if you believe me or not. Wikibofh_(talk) 14:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

i am nowhere near boston, but that's verizon's fault not yours. and the rules do not apply to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.202.42 (talk • contribs)

He's baaaack, posting as "Known Wikipedian", up to his old tricks in "Combat Ration".

I'm presuming you have to be a Admin to do anything about him? I'm kinda new to WP, pardon the question.

Mitchberg 18:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yep. Requires admin help. Looks like a few of us are on it. Thanks for letting me know. Wikibofh_(talk) 21:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Juddsgirl

I DO MY BEST TO TELL THE TRUTH & GIVE CORRECT INFORMATION ABOUT HISTORY IF YOU RESEARCH EVERYHTING I'VE CONTRIBUTED , YOU'LL FIND IT TO BE TRUE,I DO HAVE CONTACT INFO. FOR EVERYONE I'VE EDITED BECAUSE OF RESPECT TO THEM I DO NOT PUBLISH IT. WITHOUT REVEALING MY PERSONAL IDENTITY, I AM ONE OF THE BIG OD SHOW BUSINESS . —Preceding unsigned comment added by JUDDSGIRL (talk • contribs) 00:45, March 18, 2006

• That may be the case, but if it is, you'll need to cite some sources. Respectfully Wikibofh_(talk) 00:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Signing

I normally sign, I must have forgottenthat timeDolive21 15:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• No worries. You missed it on the AIV post and the warning on the userpage. Wikibofh_(talk) 15:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :)

I try to ignore fools but it was getting frustrating, thanks again File:Glenstollery.gif^POW! 15:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• My pleasure. Wikibofh_(talk) 15:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking, User:JimmyT. I hope he learns to be civil, but I would not bet on it.--Fahrenheit451 23:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Me either, but I've been here a long time and have little tolerance for this kind of thing. If it continues I'll just ban him and we can deal with the inevitable puppets. Wikibofh_(talk) 00:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocks

Yes, I saw that. But all you can actually tell from the contribs list is that, when noone is logged in on that IP, it vandalises. You can't tell if a logged in user may ever have used the IP since their contribs would not show up under the IP (annoyingly). -Splash^talk 22:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yep, but I don't think we've ever had a report of it, and normally someone forgets to login and you see some trace. I think I can speak for all of us when I say it would be nice to have the ability block an IP without getting logged in the users that use that IP. *sigh* Wikibofh_(talk) 22:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

69.76.206.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

You blocked this user for two weeks for vandalism this afternoon. This is the IP address of known vandal Randallrobinstine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his many sockpuppets. I'd suggest it be blocked indefinitely, as all of his sockpuppets are. --Zpb52 00:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Regrettably, policy is that we don't block IP addresses indefinitely. See the last line before the form on the block page. Note, I'm not disagreeing with you. My tolerance for vandals is razor thin. Wikibofh_(talk) 03:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

the unblock of 209.158.180.130

Though I appreciate the unblock on my school (in my case, UCMHS, which also uses the IP address) I am forced to recognize that there will not be restraint from the students. There is a 2:1 ratio of students to computers, so it is impossible for the school to prevent Wikipedia vandalism, even if there were a desire. Is there any way to limit edits to registered users, but not to allow unregistered users to edit? That is to say, can 209.158.180.130 be blocked as a user, but not as an IP address? If not, there ought be a way if it is technically feasable. REwhite 13:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, how I wish that feature were possible, but alas, as of right now, it is not.  :( The sysadmins for the school district could probably start figuring out who was doing it, and as is usually the case, one or two examples would stop it, but I suspect that won't happen and you'll find yourself blocked again. Sorry. Wikibofh_(talk) 13:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

reverts

Why did you revert on Red Slender Loris and Thylacine. They look like good edits to me. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm probably going to rollback my changes there. Looked like link spam. If you look at the edits to Spider and Snake this one anon was adding links a lot of the animal pages that didn't relate specifically to the animal. I rolled back a bunch and then saw that for some of them they were providing more relevant links. If you want to go through and roll back the ones that look good, I'm fine with it. Otherwise I'll be looking at them in the next 10-15 minutes (or shorter)  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 14:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I did go through and look at all of them and roll them back...exceptions are that spider and snake are still reverted out. Wikibofh_(talk) 14:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Lenny Bruce

Why are you reverting the Lenny Bruce page for that one word? Can you prove beyond a reasonably doubt that he died from not only a morphine overdose, but a self-administered one? It's not like I changed it to say something totally different, I only added the word allegedly because his death was under cloudy circumstances.Flannel 17:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Because it's an unsourced change. I believe that is what the official cause of death was, so any change (ie allegedly) needs to be sourced. Wikibofh_(talk) 18:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Where is the original source that says the coroner found the cause of death to be a morphine overdose?Flannel 20:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I did a quick search and found at least 3 independent online sources that provided the cause of death as morphine overdose. [7] [8] There are a few that also say heroin. Also, the fact that in the past we've been slack on sourcing doesn't not mean we can abrogate our responsibility now. I would not be averse to changing the article to mention heroin. I thought your problem was with "allegedly" which I removed, but also got rid of "self induced". Was I misreading that? Wikibofh_(talk) 22:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

911 Eyewitness AfD and consensus

First of all, thanks for wading through that mess! While I'm not disappointed that the article was removed, I'm a little weirded out by the comment about the declaration of 75% as consensus. Meh, maybe I've been hanging around RfB too much (where the "what is consensus" debate has erupted again), but I thought I'd kind of mention it in passing. Anyhow, keep up the good work! --Alan Au 06:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks also for finishing off that AfD. Since you closed it, it's been vandalized 6 times, always different IP addresses, consistent with the ranting and raving of the author during the AfD process. I was wondering if you could protect the AfD discussion page, just so we can stop wasting our time reverting this guy and his apparently unlimited sockpuppets. Slowmover 04:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm reluctant to sprotect it just because their votes

1. 1. Don't matter.
   2. Aren't signed anyway, and as a result wouldn't be counted in the future.  :)

IMO, simply don't revert. If it gets bad, I'll sprotect. Feel free to yell at me if you think it's getting there. Wikibofh_(talk) 04:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ballot Stuffing Definition

on the 9/11 eyewitness page you wrote

However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone.

I think you may be confused on the definition of ballot stuffing (the idea of voting multiple times in order to "rig" a vote). Encouraging people to be a part of the wikipedia consensus process is perfectly acceptable, even if from a forum or website outside of wikipedia. It's akin to politicians registering voters in the political process.

Obviously, it's an archived page and there's no point in changing it. Just for future reference ;) happy editing! TitaniumDreads 16:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Um....I never wrote that. This and this are the totality of my edits on that discussion. That standard tempate was added by User:Fuzzie with this edit. Wikibofh_(talk) 16:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page Blanking

• Hey, I noticed that you removed the talk page blanking vandal I put on the Admins noticeboard cause it's not supposed to be there. Where exactly should I be reporting it? Thanks. - pm_shef 03:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Regretablly, there are few good answers. I'd suggest either WP:VIP or Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes Wikibofh_(talk) 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Harriet Tubman Page

• Thank you for protecting the Harriet Tubman biography page. The amount of vandalism is overwhelming, and I deeply appreciate your attantiveness to the site. I had requested the site be locked a couple of months ago, but to no avail. Finally Tubman will get a rest! Thanks! Kate Larson

• • My pleasure. I just get tired of reverting it after a while. Now at least we should get a break from the anons. Wikibofh_(talk) 14:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Mark Evans

Stop removing my name from the "List of painters by name" page and the "Mark Evans" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.152.32 (talk • contribs) 00:53, April 3, 2006

• If you are notable, let someone else write the article. Otherwise, without further proof, it's just vanity. Wikibofh_(talk) 05:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• On the "Wikipedia:Resolving disputes" page the first article clearly states "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it." The same paragraph finishes with "Do not make personal attacks."

I'll ask you one more time - Stop removing my name from the "List of painters by name" page and the "Mark Evans" page, and definitely refrain from using insulting language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.152.32 (talk • contribs) 11:32, April 3, 2006

• You have not established notability, and are apparently unfamiliar with WP:VANITY. At no point have I used insulting language. It is standard practice that if you are notable you should allow others to add the entries. I will continue to remove them as vanity entries unless someone provides references for notability. Wikibofh_(talk) 15:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Taipei American School anonymous editor

I've nominated the anonymous editor on the TAS article for 3RR violation. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 01:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Ahhh...but did you do it the right way?  :) Glad you did, if for no other reason than to remind me not to.  :) I won't block because I'm involved though. Wikibofh_(talk) 01:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, linking to diffs instead of the copies of the page definitely makes sense. Thanks for letting me know. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 11:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• It always makes sense once I point it out to people...regrettably, never before.  :) Don't worry, a vast majority of the people do it the other way. It's just my windmill to tilt at.  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 13:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for zapping User:216.37.217.106 so quickly. David Underdown 15:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• My pleasure. It's not going to be a lot of use though. Looks like someone who stops by every few weeks, so 24 hour blocks don't have much point. Wikibofh_(talk) 15:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Good practice for me to start reporting vandals anyway. Hopefully I'll get the reports in the right place and right format first time in future. David Underdown 15:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Yep. It's all fixed by practice.  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 15:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Akrabbim autoblocked

User:Akrabbim has been autoblocked from your block of his school. Maybe you could take a look, we discussed it at User talk:Akrabbim. Also, you have not specified an email (or it's not verified) - you should do that if you are going to to blocking.--Commander Keane 13:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've unblocked the IP. I was getting way to much email from people on random items and it was messing up my wiki/life balance.  :) I'll probably re-enable it. In this case I'd advocate the use of {{unblock}}. Wikibofh_(talk) 13:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Pablo Picasso

Hi there. You protected this about two weeks ago. Since WP:SEMI is for dealing with serious, current vandals, I figure it's been more than long enough to unprotect it now. Can I ask you to check your other recent protections and lift them as necessary, also to remember protections in general? CAT:SEMI is nearly 100 items, most of them seem to have been forgotten by the protecting admin. Thanks. -Splash^talk 22:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for catching this one, I had forgotten. The other two I had done were Harriet Tubman and Helen Keller, both of which I have -sprotected. I generally try to keep them at 5 days to a week, just missed this one. I'll try to see if I can't help CAT:SEMI out too.  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 23:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• • You probably should re-protect Helen Keller; there have been 4 or 5 no-account edits since you unprotected, and they've all been reverted. Nothings 08:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm willing to let low level vandalism go for a while. It's been 4 or 5, but over the last 4 days. I'll keep an eye on it, and if it starts accellerating, I'll sprotect again. Wikibofh_(talk) 15:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion help please.

Hello again. Several months back you helped me delete a certain drunken rant that was not particularly nice. I checked up on it recently and saw that while it was deleted, it is also quoted in a talk history entry from you which is still there. I do not want it one day to start a flame war, provoke division in the school community or even lower the tone of the page. Could you please delete the rant from the talk history entirely, where it is quoted, as if it were a copyright violation or obscene vandalism? After that, if you wouldn't mind, I would like the user talk page associated with the IP address 216.254.17.226 deleted. I do wish actually to vanish, and I understand it is Wikipedia's policy to facilitate this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.17.114 (talk • contribs) 09:45, April 16, 2006

• Done. Wikibofh_(talk) 14:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again. The material I would like deleted also appears quoted in full in the first entry of the main article's discussion history which is your +reply entry of 20 October 2005. If you wouldn't mind deleting this I would be much obliged. --216.254.17.114 23:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• You're going to have to give me the page. It's not obvious, and I'd have to dig through a lot of my edits to find it. Wikibofh_(talk) 01:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The direct link is [9]. --216.254.17.114 01:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Wikibofh_(talk) 02:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The delete seems not to have worked, as the page is still there. Could you please try it again? --216.254.17.114 06:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's mostly gone. I can't get the rest without deleting other people's comments. Check it out. Wikibofh_(talk) 15:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The database is updated so that it no longer links to a dead page. Well, thank you again. It might be nice to have the residual spat removed from the current discussion page, at least my remarks, but perhaps that is against policy. Either way, merci. --216.254.17.114 22:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)