Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Franciscan University of Steubenville, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Oo7565 (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I listed you as possibly personally connected to the subject of the article on Talk:Patrick Murray (politician), due to your uploading a portrait of Murray as your "Own Work"; this indicates that either you are Patrick Murray, or you work for the Murray campaign. If it is not either of those two then the portrait is obviously not your own work and you should not have uploaded it as such. ~BLM (talk)13:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Commons requirements are hard to follow, does not mean that they are not requirements. Images have to be either fair use or free. If you were to email the Murray campaign to ask for a picture, they would most likely oblige, as Murray's Wikipedia page is probably one of the first things that shows up when you Google his name, and the publicity they would get would be there own gain. I am not "gunning" for you; I do not approach editing with any sort of agenda, but when somebody posts a portrait of a politician and claims it is their own work, you can hardly blame me for assuming that the uploader may be associated with that politician. If you are not affiliated with the Murray campaign then I will remove the talk page notice. ~BLM (talk)19:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
July 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Keith Fimian, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Mr. R00tTalk02:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have done some work on the article today and removed the templates II think you may have put on the article, I think it is not so bad now and lots of templates can make the article appear worse than it is and make it dissficult for readers to understand what is going on. You can of course replace them if you still think they would be beneficial to the article or if you have specific issues with any content we could discuss on the talkpage. I have the article watchlisted, so let me know if there are any remaining issues, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not just stuff in citations with out knowing how to format them, I spent two hours tidying them up earlier. It does not take long to cite your content correctly, try like this is quite easy when you try it a couple of times. Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<ref>{{cite web|url= add the url here|title= add the title here|publisher= add the publisher here|date= add the date the article was published here|accessdate= add the date you viewed the content here}}</ref>
To use a citation to support content at multiple locations in an article, we can give a citation a name and then use it throughout the article which is much better than ibid, If you want to add any more citations please use the template I have provided and it you have any problems or if you want to use a citation at more than one location please let me know if you need any help with that, thanks.
If you use <ref name="xxx">.........</ref> for the first ref, you can use <ref name="xxx" /> to place the same reference at another place in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the "go to the sandbox" template
Thanks for templating my talk page. Was that really necessary? I'll have to take a look at the specifics of which of my well-sourced edits on the Keith Fimian article you disliked. CriticalChris00:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fimian
I want this article in a decent state, I did not spend hours of my time formating the citations to have it all messed up. I don't like this partisan toing and froing and if it continues it is likely to end badly for someones editing privileges, personally I don't think Critical cris should edit the article any more, and I have told him that. Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It is likely to end badly for someone's editing privileges." To whom are you referring? Also, if that's some sort of thinly veiled bullshit WikiBullying or a backhanded framing of a "no edit" order, I categorically reject that with prejudice and would like you to explain yourself. CriticalChris05:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First you espouse ludicrious conspiracy theories to accuse me of a WP:COI violation...and now vandalism! My edits aren't vandalism! They are good faith edits, and you are the one who is destroying Washington Post, and Virginia Gazette citations. "Born in Harlem" What's wrong with being born in Harlem? Do you somehow think that's funny? It's right in the infobox, and has been there for quite a while, and I've also heard that from an unnamed source here in the 11th district. Perhaps we shouldn't sloppily omit taking that out of the infobox for now until we can better source that. Of course you're quite busy pointing the finger at me as a vandal with a conflict of interest to be that careful, but where is your proof? I'm just getting started with strongly shining light into the dark corners of your accusations of COI and Vandalism. I will be opening an RFQ on this issue later, and no I will not refrain from making responsible edits to the article. I will match you at 3RR for weeks on end if needed to deter you from suppressing relevant and notable encyclopedic facts. Are you sure you want to get this invested in this article, while simultaneously staking your Wikipedia reputation on bullshit vandalism and COI claims? CriticalChris21:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User talk:Binksternet may be offensive or unwelcome. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you. Jrod2 (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusation of deleting without reasion is obviously wrong
Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.135.29.209&redirect=no :
I explained my change both in the change comment and more detailed in the talk page explaining:
"Btw, if there is a direct source (NBC) and a indirect source (Politico referring to NBC), then obviously Wikipedia should go with the direct source. (In this case the indirect source seems to be out of date.)"
So the claim that I deleted without reason is obviously wrong. Before reverting changes, please read the change comment and the comments in the talk page.
Thank you. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About your contributions and arguments
BS24, I value your intention to contribute to Wikipedia.
But based on experience on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoring_Honor_rally, I want to encourage you to focus on quality, facts and neutrality. It is not ok to provide remove contributions from others referring to false claims (see above) or arguing by misquoting sources as your claim of "this estimate of 215,000" on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Restoring_Honor_rally to support your point, misleading people on the talk page. Of course, it is very good to have own political opinions, but Wikipedia should stick to facts, and the common intention of all contributors should be to report reliable facts and NPOV.82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse from a staff member
Greetings. I would like to report I have been having trouble with user Binksernet.
I edited an article about the Wife acceptance factor in which he kept vandalising my edits. I discussed this and explained why it was called a wife acceptance factor.
The user abused his privilages and incorrectly marked me for vandalism supposedly this was a mistake.
violated a 3rr and engaged in MANY edit wars not just with me but other users
I'm not familiar with wiki but enough is enough and I'm taking a stand against this thug. You can see he has a history of abuse and NEEDS to be stopped. Currently he is vandalising my edits on the wife acceptance factor page.
has edited out criticisms so they have not been seen.
Any help you can give to solve this situation would be appreciated. Also note I have tried to make peace with the user and concede to his overly PC views but he has not even compromised NOR apologised. The person needs to be stopped. 123.243.203.94 (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have made three of the protected edit requests, but I have a question about the "Crowd Size" one, which I have asked on that section of the talk page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CatholicVote
Unbelievable - I was going to create this article but you beat me to it! Hey - let's clean it up a little and I'll nom it for DYK- the deadline is 9/21. I have some bold ideas for the article... I hope you'll indulge me. Lionel (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I approved the article for DYK sometime ago. Looks like we have a potentioal COI. I wonder if there would be problems with it if we both didn't mention our faith on our user pages. Dincher (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You couldn't have been less responsive. If you were to stop using edit summaries as a place for attacks, that would be a step toward civility. If you could be more specific, I would be glad to consider your grievances, until then, I have no idea of what it is in your mind. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring on Restoring Honor
I see above that you have been warned before, so I won't be templating your talk page. However, please do consider this a notification that I will be reporting your edit warring to WP:AN3. You have already exceeded 3 reverts in a 24 hour period, but if you choose to self-revert and discuss the issues instead of edit-war, I'll refrain from filing the report. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused: you said I was blocked as a result of the report, but on the report you said I had committed no violation. Please advise, thanks. BS24 (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was brought to my attention that I'd missed a revert. I declined the report based on what I believed were three reverts but were indeed four, which, unfortunately, puts you the wrong side of the bright line. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may as well add me to the mediation list. I haven't had as much time to deal with this issue, but my interest is still there. Arzel (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for CatholicVote.org
On 4 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article CatholicVote.org, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Howdy BS24. Am now at my keyboard, looking over things... reviewing what happened today, I see Xenophrenic briefly joined the Mediation but self-reverted when he saw concerns in the wording of the "Issue to be Mediated". I see that you removed the comments on other editors in an effort to address those concerns. I am still planning on joining (while trying to balance how much time I contribute to being involved), but I am thinking maybe we should refine the issue paragraph a bit more in an effort to include more editors before we start (perhaps even Mr. Anon, who I will ask to reconsider). This is what is currently written:
The entire crowd size section. There is a certain estimate of 87,000 by CBS News and AirPhotosLive.com which claims to be a scientific estimate of the crowd and thus the most authoritative. Four of the editors listed seem to agree, and six do not. The question is whether a long paragraph should be devoted to this estimate, detailing the methods and whatnot, which seems to give the estimate undue weight. Recently I tried to overhaul the whole crowd size section and replace it with a simple table of estimates with references provided. A couple of editors objected and I was banned for alleged edit warring. The dispute cycles endlessly between edit warring, compromise, relative calm, and reignition. It's a month in and we're still fighting over it, which is quite ridiculous. User:Alpha Quadrant from the mediation cabal summed it up well:
This is continuing? I thought this was nearly resolved. This is the same problem as archive 4. There appeared to be consensus and a successful compromise. This article is going in circles. The crowd size is disputed by a editor. There is a discussion for three days on it and a agreement is reached. The very next day a different editor starts the dispute up again, on the same issue. The crowd size has been beaten to death. This dispute has been going on for two months now. The current article appears to be a compromise. Can it be left the way it is? Best, --Alpha Quadrant 15:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
How do you feel about re-framing the issue subsection like this? It would remove the stuff about editors objecting and edit warring, and frame the issue (hopefully) as neutral as possible:
A divisive issue over WP:WEIGHT has developed concerning the Crowd Size subsection, specifically with regard to the estimate by CBS News of 87,000. One group of editors are of the opinion that undue weight is being given to the CBS News estimate due to the size of the CBS paragraph compared to the other given estimates, while the other group of editors are of the opinion that it is not. The key difference between the CBS News estimate paragraph and the other estimates appears to lie in it's explicit description of the science, methodologies, experts, and procedures involved. The other estimates do not contain such descriptions and thus are considerably shorter in sentence length. There are also differing interpretations as to exactly how WP:WEIGHT should be applied here, and how to interpret prevalence in the sources. As a starting point at the time of mediation, the current version of the article is locked down and can be seen here: [3].
It's just a suggestion; let me know what you think. I'm also thinking that during the mediation, we should do everything we can to keep people commenting on the issues and not the editors, since some of us have butted heads before. The only way we're going to get through this is if we put the past aside and stay focused on the issues instead of each other. --AzureCitizen (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you refuse to cooperate, then I will have no choice but to remove you from the mediation case. That way those editors (i.e. all of them except you) who wish to reach a solution can do so unimpeded.
No need to readopt a belligerent and superior tone. Don't be too surpised, but you're not the only one interested in a solution and we are allowed to not agree with you, or in an unfortunate choice of words "refuse to copperate" with your many dubious initiatives, e.g. misuse of RfC, 5 reverts within 24hrs, requesting that other users be blocked, false declarations of consensus. Also, let me help you with your faulty math. Of the 10 parties (Eleven if IP209 is counted) you listed, only 7 have agreed, and almost all of those have worked towards playing up larger crowd size estimates and minimizing the scientific estimates. "all of them except you" is a simple and very avoidable empirical mistake. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mr. Anonymous. As you may recall, I asked BS24 to discontinue conversations with you concerning the mediation initiative and I suspect that's why he hasn't replied to your posts above. User:AGK already admonished BS24 concerning the comment about "refusing to cooperate" here, so I think it would be best if you let that go too. Whenever two editors are burdened with an antagonist history in relation to each other, further barbs traded back and forth on personal user talk pages do little to encourage steps in a constructive direction.
As you know, 9 of 11 editors have agreed to participate in the mediation. I would appreciate your participation but if you're not going to join, perhaps you might do us the courtesy of posting a note here and indicate "Declined" so that matter can be settled? No pressure to join, just a sincere request that the issue of who is going to participate be politely resolved. Best regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you have joined the rest of the group Mr. Anonymous, and good to see the mediation committee has already accepted. For BS24, thank you for your cooperation. For all of us, let's all redirect our efforts to staying focused on the edits and not the editors.--AzureCitizen (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Coffee Party -- Keep Up the Good Work
BS24, I see you attempted to correct the Coffee Party article but that your change was reverted by Xenophrenic with a pretextual reason. I have defended your change in the discussion section and will be restoring your original edit in 24 hours absent a coherent objection. I hope you will continue in your efforts to eliminate bias from this and other articles.NeutralityPersonified (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request for mediation accepted
The request for mediation concerning Restoring Honor rally, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.
In case you weren't aware, here's the result of the investiagtion, or were to mention it again in a misleading fashion:
Declined. For privacy reasons, we will not connect IP addresses to accounts with checkuser. This will need to be based on publicly available information and behavioral evidence. However, unless one or more of these is a proxy, I'd say it's very unlikely; the 82.x resolves to Munich, Germany, and the other to Folsom, California. Hersfold(t/a/c)04:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was not necessarily that you didn't post in the right spot, the issue is that you were attacking other editors personally. BS24 (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's conduct policy is exceptionally clear in this regard: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Read up on WP:NPA and commit your efforts to WP:CIVIL behavior going forward from here.AzureCitizen (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is evident that you are missing the point and fail to see how your behavior is uncivil; obviously no acknowledgements of this will be forthcoming on your part. Your inappropriate behavior is readily apparent to others, however, as evidenced by the comment posted by the mediator asking you to act more mature. A record of diffs is slowly accumulating, so again please reconsider and commit your efforts to better WP:CIVIL behavior in the future. --AzureCitizen (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, since you still insist that I am The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous, I'm getting confused more and more... Maybe I am AKA and just don't know it yet? Hm, listening into myself, I think more and more that I feel AKA inside me. Maybe at night I'm turning into AKA and doing evil things...? ;) Take care and enjoy life! 82.135.29.209 (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how that bizarre conclusion came about, and don't really care to know, be it you could reverse the conclusion of your own sock puppet investigations, that would be a good move. Thanks. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the point of sock puppetry is to act like different people, yes, someone can read this and think you both are sock puppets. Comments like "Maybe I am AKA and just don't know it yet", or creating a heading with another editors user ID and saying, "You're asking me to help you with a mediation that I don't support," don't defuse the situation. A direct answer, and less playfulness with headings and word choice, would be more helpful to those that might still be confused. Akerans (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, maybe my irony was misleading. Since AKA himself seemed to be confused by my comment, it obviously was misleading. But this sock puppet accusation really was ridiculous, BS24 was participating the discussion for a long time now, seeing AKA's and my contributions, making it very hard for me to believe that it that this accusation was a honest mistake. But what do you mean by "You're asking me to help you with a mediation that I don't support,"? I honestly cannot remember having said something like this. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IP user, I was just confused because you and another IP were listed here but all The Artist said was "I am not IP209", which wasn't even listed in the case, and said nothing about you. He also said "I have logged under IP's, mainly do to the hassle of having given myself such a long name," so I figured all that meant he was IP82. My mistake, but as Akerans said above, please try not to be misleading or mess with anyone, whether you mean to or not. Thanks. BS24 (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous admitted on his talk page that he is IP 69.224.150.70. The SPI stated that is extremely unlikely that 82.135.29.209 and The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous are the same person because 69.224.150.70 is located in California and 82.135.29.209 is locate in Germany. I performed a SPI for this purpose. Best, --Alpha Quadranttalk18:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry BS24, to put it bluntly, but [4] was a lie: AKA never said this on his talk page. And you used that lie to exclude me from the moderation! I'm not amused by that!!! 82.135.29.209 (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a mistake. You can't blame me for making an honest mistake when you do things such as what Akerans mentioned above. Calm down, I have no objections to including you in the mediation. BS24 (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you, BS24, claim that someone writes something on his talk page and this claim is so obviously wrong, and you use it to justify an exclusion from moderation, this is not a "honest mistake"! And yes, of course, your "honest mistake" is the same as my irony Akeran mentioned... (sorry for my irony again). As you know very well, I am not the first one having such kinds of "problems" with you. But let's hope that the future is different and I'm the last one. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This issue needs to be put to rest; please read my comment here in the good faith it is intended. I've been following the Mediation request from the beginning, and I saw what happened with BS24 removing you from the list. Although he was mistaken, there isn't anything in the record to indicate that he was willfully and deliberately trying to exclude you from the mediation. In case you're not aware of it, he is the one who originally put your name on the list when he filed the mediation request here. Subsequently, he was eager for the mediation process to move forward and he didn't invest enough time in correctly interpreting remarks on other people's talk pages. Others brought it to his attention, and he admitted his mistake. Let's WP:AGF. Linking to articles in the main space from a Talk Page to press a point (e.g., linking "honest mistake" to the article on lying) isn't really civil and creates problems with the "What Links Here" feature to page left. You probably didn't realize that, but please kindly redact that from your prior edit and let this matter go. Okay? :) All of us want to move forward with the mediation so that we can resolve the differences in our views, but the first step is to stop focusing on our quarrels with each other and turn our attention to the issues. Peace, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With "What Links Here" you have a point, so I removed the link. Yes, I didn't know that he put me originally on the list. Nevertheless, BS24 participated the whole crowd size debate for weeks now and saw all these contributions and discussions of AKA, me and him, sometimes also directly between AKA and me, and including all this voting etc. etc. etc. ... He knows very well both about AKA and me. Together with his "factual wrong statement" I have a really hard time to WP:AGF and to believe that he seriously thought we are the same person - I think you understand me very well. I also want to add that this is not the first time I have a problem with his "approach" - this last incident was the straw that broke my camel's back. Yes, this is not rational, but it is the truth. I also had clashes with other users, but these cases worked out in a smooth and constructive way, for example [5], growing my respect for the person I clashed with. Maybe I'm disappointed that this didn't happen in this case. Well, that said, I see your intention that you want to move forward, and I see that WP:AGF helps to move forward. So, as mentioned already above, let's hope the future will be different and that such mistakes or whatever we call it don't happen anymore. While I cannot honestly WP:AGF for the past, I can WP:AGF for the future. I hope this is fine for everyone. No hard feelings. And let's work for a good mediation. I think we all are waiting for the mediation to start. By the way, unfortunately it seems that others have much more days each week available to invest into this discussion (sorry to you, BS24, for my late answer to the mediation request) so maybe I'm indeed not the best participant for a mediation. But nevertheless I'll provide my input if I have time for it. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Azure said above, I was very eager to move forward with the mediation process. As I said on Alpha Quadrant's talk page, my survey of rejected mediation requests led me to falsely believe that one party not responding to the request would cause the whole thing to be rejected. I had not heard anything from you about the case and it didn't look like you had been doing much editing, so in my haste I looked at Mr Anonymous's talk page/SPI which implied to me that you were him. I removed you simply because I didn't want the request to be rejected. All I want is a fresh start with all editors involved. BS24 (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, yes, let me WP:AGF and see your eagerness to move forward with the mediation process and fearing that it get killed. This eagerness is definitely a good thing. But looking at the other side, do you understand my perspective that I was really not very happy when finding out that you removed me from the "involved users" list in such a way? 82.135.29.209 (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I would be angry too. But it was just a misunderstanding, so let's put it behind us. I look forward to working with you during mediation. BS24 (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Illinois District 17 election article
It's pretty difficult to assume good faith when you not only create an unneeded article about an election, but you can't even be bothered to include all the candidates. That's insulting to the voters, the state and the country. I can only assume you're not a member of any of those groups. Flatterworld (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your comment, no other Illinois race has its own article, and quite a few are close. If you're willing to keep both article up to date between now and the election, I don't really care if they remain separate until then, as I've already synced them to this point, and the 'merge pointers' are there to help the readers. I find it useless repetition, quite frankly, but at least our readers aren't being misled. btw - there's no 'undue weight' issue if one election is covered in more depth on a state's election page than others. Polling tables, fundraising tables, and all that can be included even if other elections don't have them. I only mention that in case that was the reason you created the separate article. You may also want to note the page view statistics for the Illinois article vs. the 17th District article. Note the counts reflect every time someone views the article, including the same person doing multiple edits in one day. I suspect few readers are actually going to the separate article. Flatterworld (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest letting AKG make reverts, or leaving a posting on his page suggesting edits or inquiries about them. How mediation is done, and what should or shouldn't be on the project page is probably better understood by him than the rest of us, or at least me. Another good effect of letting AKG making those calls would be less clashes between editors. At this stage their should be a cease fire. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring Honor Mediation
Greetings!
I have agreed to mediate the Restoring Honor case. I'm requesting that all parties start with opening statements, instructions are at the top of the page. Thanks for agreeing to go to mediation, I'm hopeful we can get this resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or issues. --WGFinley (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reminder of point 4 of the mediation. "Please do not critique, respond or counter other statements. For now just put your position out there and summarize what you think the issues are." Granted, that was probably meant for the mediation page itself, but I think the information is good advice to follow in general. In other words, both of you should probably wait to respond to one another about each others statements (or one statement at present) until directed to do so. Otherwise, moving forward without mediation will probably hinder the mediation process. Akerans (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same for me. Finally, I'm tired of all this attack and fight and sockpuppet things, so I just provided my information to the SPI page, and that's it for me, now it's in the hands of administrators to do whatever they think and make a decision. In the meanwhile I expect that we all can cooperate in the mediation process in a constructive way, leaving all this personal things out of it. God bless you and may guide all of us for a good result in the mediation. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more as well. And I think the mediation process may be shot at this point. I think this is headed to ArbCom since the personal attacks have escalated with this SPI. BS24 (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an illegitimate question, though a curiosity that is easy to understand. I have no intention of entertaining it. :::::As for your reading of what constitutes a fresh start. Your cited of policy does not bode well for you. It declares that "Clean-start accounts should not return to old topic areas." The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could be right, but you were advised to avoid them regardless. In any case, I wouldn't get your hopes up too much; "A clean start is permitted only if there are no active bans, blocks, or sanctions in place against the old account." You are very much asking for special treatment. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what is your motivation for the SPI? It's a very legitimate question, considering that we are on opposite ends of a dispute and you have called me "the worst offender" of civility. BS24 (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, BS24. I notice you keep making a particular incorrect statement, "I was banned for vandalism on Alexandria Aces (Cal Ripken Collegiate Baseball). My ban had nothing to do with the articles I have continued to edit regularly under BS24." You appear to be mistaken, as your block log shows. You were actually blocked for only 24 hours for vandalism against an editor upon whom you had previously made personal attacks -- just a few minutes after that vandalism, in fact. Your NYyankees51 account was then blocked a few hours later for "abusive use of multiple accounts", after you inserted an IP-unblock request tag on that talk page asking why your IP (the same one used by your Ronpaulfan83 account) was blocked, thus alerting the Admins to your multiple account usage. Oops? Sure, you may also have been vandalizing baseball-related articles, too, but that had nothing to do with why you were given a 24-hour initial block for vandalism, and later an indefinite-block for abusive use of socks. Your block was then applied to many more of your accounts over the next couple weeks as you kept circumventing your blocks with more new accounts, right up until you created your BS24 sock account. Your version of events doesn't line up with what the account records show:
I fully recognize that I was in violation of Wikipedia rules and I fully accept that block; I deserved it. When the block was made my IP was banned from new account creation as well. However, the ban was lifted soon thereafter. I took that as a way to make a fresh start with a new account, BS24. --BS24
Say what? When you were blocked, you said "Hello, I am ProudAmerican93. I used to be NYyankees51, but I was banned by a trigger-happy admin who won't even let me appeal the ban." That is not acceptance; that is denial. Actually, the block on your IP was never "lifted" — it was in place for only 24 hours as an autoblock. None of the many IPs you have used have ever been blocked for more than a week, if at all. Regarding your making a "fresh start with a new account, BS24": You absolutely did not. Little more than a day after NYyankees51 was blocked you created ProudAmerican93, which was blocked less than 48 hours later. Then you created CG.XLII, which was blocked another 48 hours later. Then you created BBT2005 and it was blocked; then Jos67 and it was blocked; then ArchConservative93 and it was blocked — and by then it was the middle of January and who knows how many "fresh starts" you had created. Then you finally created BS24, and what did you do? With your very first edits, you vandalize articles and get reverted by another editor for it. During this whole time, you also continued to use IPs to edit while not logged in. There was never a clean start, as you say, according to the records -- and it appears more like you kept creating and using socks until you finally got one through under the radar.
The point is that I am not guilty of any of the bad conduct that got NYyankees51 banned. WP:SOCK#LEGIT states that "Clean-start accounts should not return to old topic areas, editing patterns, or behavior previously identified as problematic, and should be careful not to do anything that looks like an attempt to evade scrutiny." --BS24
Absolutely false. NYyankees51 was indefinitely blocked for abusive use of multiple accounts, and multiple account use continued after the indifinite block. That is continued bad behavior. The identical behavior that got you indefinitely blocked.
NYyankees51 and socks were banned for deliberate vandalism on Alexandria Aces (Cal Ripken Collegiate Baseball) and related pages, which I have not touched under BS24 except for one edit in March where I undid myself for some reason. --BS24
Absolutely false. As explained above, and noted by blocking Admins, you were only blocked for 24 hours for the vandalism. The indefinite blocks were for abusive use of multiple accounts, and that behavior continued after the blocks and even after you created BS24. You deceptively claim to have never again touched the Cal Ripken Baseball articles, hoping that we won't notice the many edits you continued to make from your IPs while not logged in to your BS24 account.
The IP addresses used by Ronpaulfan83 are shared IP addresses at a school and the account belongs to my brother. A friend of his used the account to vandalize some pages when he wasn't around. --BS24 (Or, this version...)
Ronpaulfan83 was made as a joke by User:BaseballFanVA94 and I. I made several disruptive edits (as a joke), but stopped. BBFVA94 made the rest without my knowledge. --BS24
Your explanation appears to morph each time you are confronted with facts to the contrary. First, you say the Ronpaul sock is your brothers, and a friend of your brother used it to vandalize; then, you change your story and admit creating the Ronpaul sock and using it yourself to vandalize. You should probably pick one version of your tale, and stick to it. Right now I'm looking at your first 13 "clean start" edits on this BS24 account, and it is obvious that making a clean start was not your objective. The bottom line is the logs show the BS24 sock certainly was not created as a "fresh start"; it was created so that you could continue to edit after having been blocked. And like the bank robber that avoids the authorities until the statute of limitations runs out, you have probably gotten away with it -- at least it appears so, since the SPI admins don't appear motivated to apply additional sanctions. Maybe that should be taken as a que to lay low and let this blow over, instead of continually posting contradictory "explanations" there in a defense of yourself that doesn't appear to be needed. Then we can get on with the mediation. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SPIs are very much a process of WP:ANI, so your suggestion makes no sense, especially since I don't have any personal grievances regarding you to address. Consider how slow sockpuppet investigations can be to close, extensive questioning of the motivations of accusers, which the accused are instructed to keep brief, and admins are advised to ignore as, will only hinder mediation. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relax and co
(Moved from the SPI page to here, since off topic:)
Regarding personal attacks, you know John 8:7?
And regarding Restoring Honow: Nothing is derailed here. At the moment Arzel and you are the only ones linking this SPI and the mediation. BS24, I strongly suggest that you and Arzel keep this SPI and the Restoring Honor mediation apart - otherwise there is really the risk to derail the mediation. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should look at the WP:vandalism guidelines. Because the edit I made was not in the least bit vandalism ... nor was it a large edit. I also followed the rules relating to the current mediation, and neither added nor deleted any text. The only thing I did was to move the ONLY scientific analysis of crowd size to the top of the section.
Wikipedia is designed to be an encyclopedia based on facts and reality. There is no place here for political posturing.
Because I don't believe in edit-warring and because I try my best to follow the WP:goodfaith guidelines I won't revert your edit.
But you should be careful about making outrageous claims of vandalism ... and you should take a close look at Wikipedia:Vandalism#How_not_to_respond_to_vandalism for suggestions on how to best respond in the future when you think actual vandalism is occurring.
You have tagged the Ann Dexter Gordon article without discussing your preferences or any proposal. At Talk:Ann Dexter Gordon#Lead you simply said you were adding the tag, but you did not specify whether you intended to say the lead section or the whole article was what you were tagging. Please weigh in with your proposed solution. You must start the conversation. Binksternet (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring Honor Rally - ABC News cite
Hi BS24. I see that you got right on the task of replacing that pre-rally ABC News crowd cite with a post-rally ABC News cite (that's a good thing), but then I went to that cite, and noticed they didn't talk about the crowd. Is there any chance you cut-and-pasted the wrong cite, and there was a different cite that said "hundreds of thousands?" Just letting you know, so that you can fix it if you made a mistake. AzureCitizen (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Azure, the "hundreds of thousands" is in the subtitle.
"Glenn Beck Appeals to 'Restore' the U.S., Al Sharpton Commemorates Martin Luther King
Restoring Honor Rally at Sight of MLK's 'I Have a Dream' Speech Draws Hundreds of Thousands of People"
The body of the same article itself says "thousands", and a link to the other article says "thousands". Obviously ABC didn't care really much what numbers they write. My guess is that ABC News first wrote "hundred of thousands" because this was the pre-rally estimate; then they found out that there were much less, wanted to play safe and changed it to "thousands" in the article and the other article link, but forgot about the headline. But of course nobody knows for sure that happened inside ABC News. But since ABC News itself is so muc contradicting itself. we know one thing for sure: These are definitely no reliable numbers. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop editing the crowd section while the moderation is ongoing
Hi BS24, please stop editing the crowd section (especially when misquoting the sources) while the mediation about exactly this section is ongoing. By trying to created a fait accompli outside the moderation you are derailing the moderation. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly why are you posting this note? Shouldn't the blocking admin be making this notice? Or are you simply soo happy with yourself that you couldn't help but to rub it into BS24's face? Arzel (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
This whole process began because of the Restoring Honor rallymediation. I was involved in a heated dispute with 11 other editors over the crowd size section of the article. The dispute had been going on for six weeks and in the interest of resolving it in a civil manner, I filed a request for the dispute, which was accepted. In my opening statement, I mentioned that I was involved in the Taxpayer March on Washington crowd size section. I forgot that this was under NYyankees51. The Artist asked me how I had been involved. I was just as confused as him to not find myself in the history. Then I realized it was NYyankees51. I admitted it outright. The Artist jumped on it and immediately filed an SPI. Thus began the witchhunt. I created BS24 as a fresh start account. As I noted in the SPI, NYyankees51 was banned for indisputable vandalism of a few articles and user pages, all of which were ridiculous. I blew a three year history in a couple of weeks for a few laughs, and I accept full responsibility for that. BS24 has never engaged in vandalism. I have been accused of vandalism, as have all editors, but those edits were made in good faith. The Artist has made a big deal that I have continued to edit several articles under BS24 that I regularly edited under NYyankees51. But NYyankees51 was not banned for behavior on those articles, and all of my contributions were made in good faith. During the SPI, The Artist engaged in wikihounding, and added attacks to the SPI based on new edits I made. His incivility led me to file this alert, which I had delayed filing in the interest of a clean slate for mediation. I was banned today by an admin who, please correct me if I'm wrong, did not appear to look at the whole dispute. It appears to me that he just saw that I admitted to being NYyankees51 without even considering that I had created BS24 as a fresh start. The Artist's witchhunt has only gotten worse from there. He has gone to every single article I have edited in the past month warning people that I am "likely to return as a sock". Now he is assaulting other editors: (Attacking the abilities of admins, Attacking other editors for calling him out, baselessly accusing other editors of being socks of mine, etc.) The Artist's behavior alone is enough to throw this SPI out the window. He is out on an absolute vendetta to get me just because we are on opposite sides of a mediation. And now, IP82 and The Artist are teaming up to target other editors with absolutely no connection to me (might I note that my old username was NYYankees51, and the alleged sock is Soxwon? . The point of this SPI, disregarding The Artist's behavior for a second, is that no one would know I was a sock had I not exposed myself during the mediation. This is because BS24 is a genuine clean start account. I have not returned to the stupid stuff that got me banned. If you look at my list of regularly edited articles, you will see that all my contributions have been constructive or at least made in good faith. Now I'm getting banned again for being honest. I could have easily just denied it, which may have been smarter to do, but I decided to come clean, and now I'm being punished for it. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to request anything with this appeal, but what I request is a new SPI or something where I can defend myself as a legitimate clean start account without The Artist or IP82 getting involved. I hope whoever is reviewing this takes into account everything I have written. Thank you. BS24 (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I respectfully ask the admin to look at the case more closely; it looks like you didn't read all of my argument. The newest allegations of two more accounts are absolutely not mine. I urge you to use checkuser to prove it.
Decline reason:
Check User has been approved - I would suggest wait until that has taken place. Even if negative, it still does not excuse you from creating accounts to avoid blocks. Ronhjones (Talk)01:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
BS24, this may be your only recourse at this time. I don't see any admin giving your case a detailed review to understand what has happened. You will probably have to wait until the SPI comes back as negative, but you might want to get your defense put together. I'll provide my any help I can, but I am not sure how much help it will be....ironically, I really do not like the Yankees. :) Arzel (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks, I didn't know of that appeal committee. And I greatly appreciate your help in all of this. And don't worry...I'm a baseball fan before I'm a Yankees fan! BS24 (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BS24/NYyankees51, let me give you a different advice. Being driven by personal animosities is not good. As far as I can tell you definitely had many constructive contributions to Wikipedia. However, you violated various Wikipedia core rules leading to justified blocks, both with the old accounts and with BS24. You may not like particular other persons and question their motivations (including me), but this does not undo your violations brought up in the BS24 SPI. If you immediately fight your latest block just by arguing that you are treated unjustly, that admins didn't look into your case etc, then you are not helping yourself. But when waiting some time to let the dust and all personal animosities settle, and then give strong indications that you learned from the past (including BS24), and that in the future you will follow the rules, then the perspective will be much better. See also Ronhjones's hint about "phrase any unblock request carefully". See also the these comments by Xen. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I can't tell if the checkuser is complete or not, and I hope I'm not abusing the unblock request but this is the only way to get an admin's attention. I have admitted to being a sock, so I would admit if I had more. User:Minusjason and User:Top1Percent are NOT me. The IP used to create BS24 is 173.73.38.62 to prove it. BS24 (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Please make any unblock request with your main account (normally the earliest account, or the one you were first blocked with) and reveal all your other accounts and IPs there. Sandstein 20:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Using the unblock request to get admin's attention, hope I'm not misusing it. Please see the section below. Note -- Unable to cross-post to NYyankees51 since I was banned from my own talk page on that one.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Indeed I am blocked from editing it. If someone will unblock then I would be happy to post it there under NYyankees51.
Decline reason:
Procedural. I've adjusted the block settings at NYyankees51 to permit you to post on your talk page there. If you abuse this ability, and if the talk page needs to be locked down again, be advised that you're probably screwed. So, tread lightly, if you would. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did14:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
All previous socks
As per Sandstein's request above, here is a list of all socks I have used.
Recovering Obamunist (talk·contribs) (alleged sock of BS24; judging from user page, seems to be trying to make fun of conservatives) (Last edit: 5 Oct 2010)
The Incredible Edible Gregg (talk·contribs) (alleged sock of BS24; seems to be a sock of Obamunist since it was created two days after Obamunist's last edit and uses the same edit summaries for every edit) (Last edit: 9 Oct 2010)
IP addresses used
68.50.210.194 (talk·contribs) (shared IP at a library; not all edits are mine) (Last edit: 12 Jan 2010)
71.178.26.97 (talk·contribs) (Last edit: 18 May 2010) (For legitimate use; forgot to log in when using)
173.73.38.62 (talk·contribs) (Last edit: 22 July 2010) (For legitimate use; forgot to log in when using)
You may want to cross-post this to NYyankees51 with the primary request there. It would appear that "they" want the request there. Arzel (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illinois's 17th congressional district election, 2010 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cmckain (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
