User talk:Hit bull, win steak

This user may have left Wikipedia. Hit bull, win steak has not edited Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Hello Hit bull, win steak, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! --The Wikitronic Man 21:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Getting started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikipedians Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Welcome!

Hello, Hit bull, win steak, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -Hit bull, win steak 19:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now that was weird. --Cyde Weys 21:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I thought it was very sweet of me. -Hit bull, win steak 13:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You proposed deletion for the article 11978571669969891796072783721689098736458938142546425857555362864628009582789845319680000000000000000 (number), and I am not sure why.

In the article, it is mentioned why the number is notable (that it is the first factorial number above one google). Although the article is short, it still has content.

Please let me know your feelings on this subject. Thank you.

Wdemchick 14:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment on the Brenda Freese deletion discussion. I'd like to withdraw it, but I don't know how. Can you help me? --Kchase02 18:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I remove the AfD tag, or does an admin need to approve that?--Kchase02 18:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Gosh, things have changed (I think). I'll remember next time. - Greatgavini 19:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, still very much getting used to how this durn thing works. Thanks very much for your edit on Dar Sai. I must be taking this seriously, I even eBayed myself a fresh copy of The Killing Machine as mine succumbed to damp years ago. I've a question on the Dar Sai page if you'd like to check it out. Captain Pedant 15:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've awarded you this Surreal barnstar for having a really cool username. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second this. I haven't laughed at a username in a while, so this is sweet. Keep up the good work! --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

word. most excellent name. tomasz. 18:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Srry 4 the stuff i said... i waz a little p.o. that day... it just wasn't a very good one... nothin' went my way... well, anyway, i'm srry, please accept my apology. Philster 21:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Philber 22 p.s. you've got an... unusual name... it's cool, just... yah, you know.[reply]

• Excellent work and arguments on the List of Newgrounds Groups AFD. I'm quite glad we got that perpetually cruft-riddled article off of Wikipedia. My compliments. Wickethewok 19:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atlanticpuffin4.jpg

Hello Hit bull, win steak. Thank you for your support at request for adminship which ended at the overwhelming and flattering result of (160/1/0), and leaves me in a position of having to live up to a high standard of community expectation. If you need any admin assistance, feel free to ask me, and naturally, if I make any procedural mistakes, feel free to point them out and I look forward to working with you in the future, and keep moooooooing. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, I'm a wikipedia editing n00b, and I wanted to thank you for moving my page... I was figuring out how to do it myself, and then found that you already had. Thanks for the help :) Emmyceru 20:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Suraj1 is dead. All hail the admins! - CobaltBlueTony 20:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• And there was much rejoicing. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The steak winning, that is. Derex 04:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had some good times at the games. But, sadly, long ago for me. All nostalgic now. Derex 17:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Given how dim-witted I usually am, I'm happy that I caught sight of your username as quickly as I did. Suffice it to say that the moniker gave me pause, and a big chuckle! Thanks! :) Xoloz 00:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC) (Moo back at ya!)[reply]

Well, the deleted pages contained various rather nasty insults and other nonsense. This, combined with the attack content added to articles about football players (Ruud van Nistelrooy, Didier Drogba) led me to my decision to block the account. - Mike Rosoft 14:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Thanks for having a look at the Monkey Kettle entry I created this afternoon. Sorry if it doesn't seem like it has enough Interest (I think that might be the reason), or if it seemed like a Vanity Entry - I was just browsing through the list of UK Literary Magazines, and came across several magazines similar in size and popularity to ours, so thought I would try adding an entry for our own magazine, along the basis of "well, if they're on there, presumably we should be on there". Is that not appropriate?

Or do I need to add more info to the entry? Cheers,

Matthewmt 15:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)x[reply]

Oh right - well, I didn't actually add that myself, I only noticed for the first time today, and all I did was change the spelling of my name, cos whoever added it got it wrong. I'll wipe my name off forthwith! ;-) So it wasn't you that put the Monkey Kettle entry up for deletion?

Thanks - am slowly starting to get to grips with this!

Matthewmt 15:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Matthewmt[reply]

Cheers - it looks like Friday is not a fan of something called "cruft" which I guess the article as it stands could be classed as. I'll have a look in my archives and see what else I can add to reduce the "cruftness". Thanks again.

Matthewmt 15:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Matthewmt[reply]

That would seem to be what those other mags have done. Cheers, I'll try that.

Matthewmt 15:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Matthewmt[reply]

You're probably right about Maury; if Jimbo wanted to reveal that he wears women's underwear, though, Jerry would be the way to go... :) Joe 19:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for informing me about that : I probably wouldn't have noticed otherwise. Morwen - Talk 15:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did it fine. As a checkuser clerk, Essjay wants us to be impartial and not look like we are making decisions or rulings on cases; however if I see a missing piece of information that might be useful to a case I will often add it. Thatcher131 17:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did however remove your comment for the reason indicated in the edit summary. Checkuser requests should not deteriorate into pissing contests between accusers and acusees. (Trust me, no one will be fooled.) Thatcher131 21:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, if you want to pursue this immediately (without waiting for the check) you could move for the RFC to be dismissed, as it is clear that single purpose accounts (polite name for meat puppets) are to be treated as single accounts just like sockpuppets (WP:SOCK). So the RFC was certainly certified in bad faith, and the mediation was probably also carried out in bad faith since, by sometimes no logging in at all, he/they gave the impression of being at least 3 people with that view. (In fact, someone with a Pacbell IP address has been pushing since July 2005 to include Amber's boyfriends in Amber Benson, against the wishes of a group of IP addresses trying to take it out.) Thatcher131 21:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, the mediation case has a mediator. For the RFC, I'm not really sure. Read around the instruction page and see if it mentions anyone responsible for keeping an eye out. You should also tell Morwen, he would probably be the best person to make a motion for closure. Thatcher131 22:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Mackensen's reply about not giving out IP addresses, if you look at Cuthbert11's first edit (to an AfD) and read the rest of the AfD, you will find a remark from a Pacbell IP that is signed Cuthbert11. However, I'm not sure how you would use the information, since IPs change and should only be given short term blocks. IMO, any SoCal IP that acts like Cuthbert can be treated like Cuthbert, even without certified proof. Thatcher131 17:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I have decided to suspend the mediation, to see how the RFCU comes up and to give the parties a time out. I also decided to strike all personal attacks on the page and my hands are still covered in blood! BrownHornet21 02:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to link a category use [[:Category:Name]] :Image: also works for linking an image. Kotepho 00:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I disappear in the next few days, it is good to know someone will be able to give the cops a heads-up. ;) Best wishes, and tell my mother I loved her, Xoloz 00:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that this discussion has closed and is now being reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_June_29#Arbor View High School. Silensor 22:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged the above article as a speedy under CSD A7 and rightly so. i've deleted it. i've also noticed that you have already appraised the creator of that article that it may be deleted. it is a good thing to let them know as it helps them in understanding the system here - unfortunately very few speedy taggers do this. Good to see u do this, keep up the good work. --Gurubrahma 14:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick turnaround on that source. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popo, 5-0, fuzz? --NEMT 17:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expanding the Fairbank Memorial Park article, Moo! Vivelequebeclibre 23:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the note regarding Cellpreference. When I get chance later today, I will ask for this action to be reviewed on the noticeboard. Proto///type 06:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I think I'll hold off on running again for a while; I have JS and that works extremely well. PS: nice username! — getcrunk what?! 12:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your great contributions tonight. I'm giving you this rescue from deletion barnstar for your nice save on Arbor View High School. Thanks for stepping in and doing the work that I had promised to do (but was to lazy to actually act on). Have a great day! Regards, Alphachimp ^talk 06:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, thanks. I've extended his block to 48 hours. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 17:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi there Hit bull, win steak. Due to the fact that nobody notified of the commentary at WP:ANI on my deletion of this article, I managed to miss the post as the headline didn't mention me specifically - I was unable to respond to the claims of the user before it went dead. There is a long response I posted to the user in question on my own page - but in short, the claim to notability that was present in his autobio was that he was a PhD student. AFAIK, I have seen random PhD students speedily deleted before and so, I wrote that comment in the deletion summary to make clearer the a7 reasoning. As for his claims that I had many angry messages about my deletions, well that is true, but they were about expired prods and a repost of Kai Wong, so I had to reiterate that I have not being roguely deleting stuff, just in case me might have misled anyone. Thankyou, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hit bull, win steak, and thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of (105/2/0). I was very pleased with the outpouring of kind words from the community that has now entrusted me with these tools, from the classroom, the lesson in human psychology and the international resource known as Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Please feel free to leave me plenty of requests, monitor my actions (through the admin desk on my userpage) and, if you find yourself in the mood, listen to some of what I do in real life. In any case, keep up the great work and have a fabulous day. Grandmasterka 06:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Just so you know, you voted twice in support. I have stricken the second one for you. No worries -- I make that mistake all the time! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 18:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grateful for your attribution of the unsigned edit on my page.--Taxwoman 11:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if you actually got it. Thanks again for your edits, and no worries =D. Regards, Alphachimp ^talk 23:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your contributions, I think that you would be a good administrator. Are you interested in this? If so, I'd be glad to start working on a RFA nomination for you. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the suggestion is quite flattering, it is most certainly too early for me to consider being an administrator quite yet. I feel like I've just recently gotten my bearings ;) Additionally, I'm about to move out for college so it's going to be really hectic very soon and I'm not sure if I'll be able to have an internet service lined up. So basically, right now would be really bad timing for me. Thanks for the thought though :) --SeizureDog 21:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your excellent improvements to Darryn Lyons did manage to sway my vote. Good job! --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 22:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact AfD isn't a vote; you also have my thanks. Computerjoe's talk 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hit bull, I just wanted to say thanks again for helping me out with this misguided and confusing AfD way back when. It may not have seemed like you did much, but it was quite helpful to me and I often remember it when I'm helping out a helpless newbie. Thank you!--Kchase T 04:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Replying here, as per your statement on your userpage). Thanks for your kind words. You've developed into a good editor, and I'm glad I was able to help. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, again. I just saw it in my watchlist. Cheers!--Kchase T 19:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never reqposted anything after I was made aware it is copyrighted. This is the problem with El_C delete of the history page cause we now have no record of time line. I first noticed the article is gone and then recreated it, only later seeing the accusations of copy vio. Zeq 14:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. As long as you don't do it again, now that you understand the copyright issues, then we shouldn't have any further problems. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sure. Zeq 17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why, within your first few edits, you could participate in AfDs and RfCs, and welcome yourself. Are you a quick learner, or had you been editing anonymously for a while? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reply on your talk page. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZOMG I WILL HAVE TO BLOCK YOU INDEFINITELY AND I WILL BE GREETED BY THE COMMUNITY AS A HERO. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I admit, I kept reading it as "Hit bull, win streak". I'm thinking to myself, "What the heck? Is bull some kind of a baseball term I never heard of?" Of course, I realize I was having selective lysdexia. So I figured I would pass along my LOL and a gratuitious :) for your efforts. — MrDolomite | Talk 21:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the previous comment is near a year old, but I wanted to tell you that I have the same problem when I first saw your signature :) Did you ever notice the possible confusion? Ksy92003(talk) 02:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I hadn't really considered it, though I can certainly see how it might happen. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now. 1ne 16:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming to my defense with regards to the recent complaint levied against me by Quadzilla99 on the admin noticeboard. I've spend a fair bit of time cleaning up some of the pages started by and edited by this user, however he feels that many of my edits and requests for sources are a form of harassment. Again, thanks. Yankees76 14:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the admin thread you noted:

"I have to say that missing citation tags don't seem unreasonable to me, since the article does not include any reliable sources, just references to Apple-produced documents."

What is unreliable about Apple-produced documents? Many of my articles use the company's own documentation (manuals), and this is the case for the vast majority of the articles on software that I can find.

Is this actually a problem? If so, can you point to a policy on this? I looked over CITE and ref pages, and I can't see anything that seems to suggest this is a bad ref.

Maury 14:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the statements in the AppleShare article conform to this standard (such as system requirements and release dates), while others do not (the section on the Advanced Technology Group, the re-use of code within Sherlock, etc.).

Ok, these certainly apply. Now here's the problem: I was sitting there when Steve Cisler, of ATG, gave the demo of Rosebud in 1992, and before I was laid off and the admin in question deleted it all, I had personal e-mail from him stating that AppleSearch was built from Rosebud.

So these are facts, and they are true. Is there some sort of guideline for using direct personal evidence? Maury 15:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, more questions. So WHY can't one use your own personal experience as a ref on a 3rd party demo? I'm not sure I understand the logic there. The basic chain of logic is "I saw Steve say this is AppleSearch". So what is the (potential) problem with this? That I am incorrect? It would appear that simply publishing that statement doesn't do anything to correct that problem. But as you point out, the book in question directly supports the statements -- in fact it seems the author saw the same demo I did.

And I have to describe it too, we were at what was basically an all-DOS show about BBSs (remember those?) and up comes this demo. The room was packed, overflowing into the hallway. Up comes the Rosebud demo, and you could (literally) hear the gasps of awe. Really, gasps. Standing ovation at the end (well, some of us were standing to begin with...). And then they release AppleSearch, which was about as cool as watching paint dry. *sigh* Maury 15:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

More guidance needed. I recently added the ref you found (thanks!) and removed one of the cite needed tags. Now it looks like I'm involved in a revert war with Tom over whether or not that source also covers the other (randomly inserted) cites in the same paragraph.

So two questions:

1. is there official policy, or even guidelines, on when a cite is required, as opposed to a footnote? Even Tom agrees that the statements in the article are covered in the footnotes. So is there any obligation to add in-lines? I only hesitate because in this particular case the tags were added seemingly at random by someone I believe is completely unfamiliar with the topic in question (although that may be a ruse, who knows). Some of them make sense, but others are silly, and still others examples were not tagged when even I think they should have been. So is there any obligation on my part, or anyone else, to fill these in?issue

1. is there any guidance on whether or not an editor can remove a cite needed tag?

In this particular case one of the tags is on a release date being "about 1991". Even if this statement were untrue, which it isn't, that error would not materially effect the article itself. So should I ignore it, as I am inclined to do?

I find it difficult to believe that a cite needed tag is a one-way operation.

Maury 22:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your support on my RFA, which closed successfully this morning with a result of (64/3/3). I will be stepping lightly at first trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! NawlinWiki 11:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC) talk contribs[reply]

		My RfA video message
		Stephen B Streater 08:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of my RfA, which has passed with a final tally of 76/1/1. With this overwhelming show of support and approval I am honored to serve Wikipedia in the task charged to me and as outlined in my nomination. Happy editing to you! Teke ^(talk) 17:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this. Great job! Cheers -- Samir धर्म 03:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which was successful with a an overwhelmingly flattering and deeply humbling total of 138/2/2 (putting me #10 on the RfA WP:100). I guess infinite monkey theorem has been officially proven. Chimps really can get somewhere on Wikipedia. With new buttons come great responsibility, and I'll try my best to live up to your expectations. If you need assistance with something, don't hesitate to swing by my talk page or email me (trust me, I do respond :)). The same goes for any complaints or comments in regard to my administrative actions. Remember, I'm here for you. (Thanks go to Blnguyen for the incredible photo to the right.) alphaChimp laudare 01:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I commend you on coming up with an inventive handle. Now all you need is a picture of the Bull Durham bull on your user page. d:) Wahkeenah 00:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one, for example. Yes, I should re-scan it to make a better photo. This was just a first try. d:) Wahkeenah 02:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I done did it. Wahkeenah 01:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I missed that one, but it's been dealt with. Thanks. -- Steel 20:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'm really sorry... i don't think i'd be able to help out on that Asma article right now (suffice to say i know nothing about her!). though i just wanted to say... interesting name! :) ITAQALLAH 18:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that large delete on the 2006 senate page. it was accidental. i was trying to move text around. thanks for putting it back.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.214.29 (talk • contribs)

• Not a problem, don't worry about it. I've accidentally done the same thing on other pages myself. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please look at my proposal re 911tRtT? Thanks, — Xiutwel (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the prod from Michael Oher last week, and indicated in the edit summary you could improve it. I thought I'd better bring it your attention as another editor has re-added the prod. Catchpole 20:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See related talk page. Please add your contributions on the article. I have no time and its not my interested area. Regards Mustafa Akalp^TC 17:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Khoikhoi wants to be admin. Please contribute in a neutral voting.

Here is my oppinion in vote; "Strong Oppose User:Khoikhoi is leading a group of user, menaging and communicating among group genarally by e-mails not in talk pages directly.This group acting in a systematic way to revert articles, when one of member make 3rv reverts than one another continue with 4rv(against punishment for violating 3rv rule). All member of group are very radical nationalist. They are working generally Turk/Turkey and Religion related articles to put anti-Turk POV and anti-Islam POV. Some of the member are suspected as Suck poppet, one is clear; User:Tekleni and User:Tzkeai, till to 03 Oct.2006 there were two users , at that date User:Tzkeai redirected to User:Tekleni.No need like an Administrator in WIKIPEDIA Mustafa AkalpTC 11:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)"

Regards

Related link; Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Khoikhoi_2#.5B.5BWikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.2FKhoikhoi Mustafa Akalp^TC 11:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, we've crossed paths before. I was wondering if you'd mind reviewing, commenting on and voting at my RfA. My RfA is here. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 21:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving this page. I'm not very familiar with Turkish names, so I didn't pick up on the error. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, sometimes i check Turkey related stubs and move new pages to correct title. --Ugur Basak 21:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping someone noticed that >_> -- Steel 15:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. First I thought that it was a joke from you. :) NCurse _work 16:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right! The subpage is a great idea. Do you mind if I use it if needed. Anyway I'll watch it. NCurse _work 16:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for your username. I saw it on my watchlist and just had to mention my fondness for the whimsical carnival whatever that springs to mind. Me, all my usernames through life are whatever I happen to be thinking of at the time. This one? I was looking at Half Life 2: Game of the Year edition which I'd just bought. :P Gotyear 17:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hit bull, win steak, you've helped me out before, and I need your assistance again. Please review Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Messenger2010 and comment. I normally wouldn't request a favor like this, but I feel very strongly that there are Wikipedia articles where information is being serverly compromised to push an anti-soy bean/soy protein agenda - and it's all being perpetrated by one user. Thanks in advance. Yankees76 04:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I though you were an admin! Thanks anyways! Yankees76 05:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I have been coming close to the line on NPA. I've been dealing with a rather tense situation involving a coordinated guild of POV pushers and my frustration at them may have been spilling over into other areas. RunedChozo 16:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, actually I did look at it. I wasn't sure if it was some kind of surrealist thing between you and the vandal or if it was a personal attack, and since it was their last edit I didn't block them. I try to be careful when vandalism is directed against user talk pages because it can be tricky, sorry if I left you hanging and thanks for the note. Kaisershatner 18:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And look at the edit history, I removed them 10 minutes after their last edit; they hadn't done anything since. They've since been blocked by aeropagica, but that was at 18:33 and was well after the fact. Blocks are technically not supposed to be punitive. Anyway, I hope they don't bother you, and sorry if I made an error here. Kaisershatner 18:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for blocking this problem user. I was wondering, however, whether you might be willing to expand the duration of the block? If you look through his/her contribution tree, you'll see that he/she has literally NO non-vandal contributions, and has been persistently creating hoax articles and copyvio images since he/she started editing. I think the risk of recalcitrance greatly outweighs any potential reward here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was equivocating over an indef-block as a vandal-only account but decided to err on the side of a new editor experimenting. Your message has tipped the balance and I think that I will go ahead and change the block to my first thought. (aeropagitica) 23:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at the improved article actually. With the new sources, I'll be happy to change to weak keep. One Night In Hackney 22:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the contribution at Hornsby. I found that article when reviewing AfD and thought it had merit for the reason you state. Your references should make it a keeper. --Kevin Murray 22:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have sources for military information. Maybe you can help with AL Farik Mahmoud Shokry.

--Kevin Murray 01:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rough Ideas for Military Notabilty standards:

• Has attained the rank of General, Admiral, or above, or a rank of equivalent stature by another name. However, there should be some description of the career without a specific standard of notability to the career, and a reference sufficient to document the rank to prevent hoaxes.

• Has been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor (US), Victoria’s Cross (UK), or another recognition of high courage with similar standards and stature. However, there must be at minimum a description of the action for which the honor was bestowed including a description of the conflict, the opposing forces, and the approximate date.

• Has had a notable effect on a conflict, the service, military technology or is otherwise notable per any other WP criteria.

We have no specific standards for notability of miilitary personnel. What do you think?

--Kevin Murray 21:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on the changes. Just a couple of comments:

• buzz words, non-standard words:

FX

spot FX

• Red links

there's a rogue [ in the products/infobox

WebTrends

I think that this covers WP:CORP #1; On #2 & 3, I didn't see them listed on Forbes or Dow Jones, though I'm not the best in looking up the $$ things. That's always something i look for (though not part of the criteria) is to see if they're publicly traded or not. That's about it. Good luck with AfD. SkierRMH 19:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re the Afd - per your quality changes I've changed my opionion to Keep - good work there ! Peripitus (Talk) 10:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto - there is a simple talk page archiver there. Kept the complainers off my back! SkierRMH 19:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You stated that "They all disagree with me" is my only argument. I find that rather offensive given that find that I had brought repeated citations of his notability. Also if you look at the category Magic: The Gathering players you can see I great deal of less notable people who have articles. Ben Jackson has been cited as the top Halo 2 player by USA Network. Please remove your comment that discredits me in a slanderous way. Thank you Valoem ^talk 21:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You have brought what you consider to be proof of his notability, but... they all disagree with you. As do I. I did not intend to offend you, but if you choose to take offense regardless, I suppose it's a free country. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Doesn't bother me personally, but appears to violate policy..."

You do realize that technically your own username violates the username policy?

1. It promotes or implies violence.
2. It is offensive to religions that believe cows are sacred and/or should not be eaten (Hindus, Jainists, and many Buddhists).

Surely there is room for interpretation and common sense in how we apply these policies. I don't think we should be so quick to purge everything under the sun that might potentially be offensive to some group of people somewhere. Shouldn't there be some room for self-expression as long as they are obviously not trying to offend anyone? Kaldari 02:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant question is not the intent to offend, but rather the offense itself. There's a big thread right now on ANI about the blocking of a user who apparently quite innocently chose a name that is evocative of white supremacist beliefs (see WP:ANI#User:ARYAN818_is_blocked). Even if he didn't mean to be offensive, it's still a problem, and as a result he's been asked to change the name. I feel that this situation is in practice no different. Also, I'm required by WikiLaw to point out that the discussion to which you refer is just that: a discussion, not a vote. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize it appears that I was merely attacking you due to your position on OhOurGod, but believe it or not, I do actually find your username offensive. That's why it seemed particularly ironic to me that you were taking the position that you were. Although I don't normally disclose personal information about myself, I am a non-practicing Hindu (Kaldari is actually my last name) and a life-long vegetarian. I appreciate that it probably sounds rediculous that I would find your username offensive, but that's precisely how I feel about complaints that OhOurGod and similar usernames are "offensive". The way we judge offensiveness seems to be completely subjective and biased to a Western point of view. If people such as myself actually do find your username offensive, do you still believe that the relevant question is not the intent to offend, but rather the offense itself? Regardless, I'm sorry I gave the impression of harrassing you or seeking some kind of petty retribution. My choice of using your username to make my point was a bad choice. I apologize for that. If there's anything I can do to make it up to you, let me know. Kaldari 17:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a group of similarly-minded editors who also find my username offensive and muster them together on WP:RFCN, I will change it. Similarly, if you change WP:U in such a fasion that my name becomes a violation of policy, I will change the name. The only way to demonstrate that a name is offensive is to find people who are offended by it, as people were doing with the username under discussion when the whole situation arose. The proof is in the pudding.

I accept the apology you offered above, since it seems more sincere than the one you posted on WP:ANI, but I have lost a lot of respect for you as an administrator for treating me in this way and for misusing your powers in this fashion (even if the intent was not to intimidate, that was certainly the impression you created, demonstrating again the important distinction between intent and result). As a consequence of what happened, I don't like you or trust your judgment on administrative matters, but I'm willing to try and work around that in the interest of Wikipedia if you will do the same. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Kaldari 18:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(revised comment after rubbing the sleep out of my eyes) - Yes, good catch. Deizio talk 23:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous new change to your userpage! :-) Jeffpw 17:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured you might like it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am offended by the photo on your userpage, and I'm asking you politely to take it down. When it's blown up to this resolution, I can see in the background that she has books on a bookshelf, which I assume she has read. I don't trust books. They're all fact, no heart. And that's exactly what's pulling our country apart today. — coelacan talk — 18:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look closely, you'll see that those aren't books, but rather a series of diversion safes. I'm pretty sure that the big red one is the place she keeps the gun she used on Vince Foster, though I'm not 100% certain about the contents of the others. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are so twisted. =P You deserve every glimmer and twinkle of your surreal barnstar. — coelacan talk — 00:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary is my dream girl. That tells you all you need to know about my dreams. 0:) Wahkeenah 02:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what the word means. Alf photoman 21:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ambigous? OK here is what Webster's says : 1. a comprehensive and fundamental law doctrine or assumption. In this case doctrine would fit. Alf photoman 21:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want to hear? I'll write anything, just let me know....Alf photoman 21:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it the principle here is that you seem to be convinced that the article needs to be deleted, while the other 80% don't. You can keep on riding this principle but I doubt that there will be another outcome even if there is a 70th nomination. Let me put it this way: If Jr. was not notable no journalist would bother to ask him for his opinion and then make a large article out of it. It has been done, so that would make him notable Alf photoman 22:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reversion, but disagree with it. I'll try to explain: I honestly don't think that we should have an article about him at all (which is why I nominated it for AFD), but as a thought experiment of sorts I'm going through the article and trying to re-work it into a good article, just to see whether it can actually be done. The 13-year-old thing would normally be irrelevant by itself, but there are several sources which state that his father intervened on his behalf with news organizations at the time of the school suspension. As such, it's theoretically relevant as a supporting piece of evidence for the only structure under which Gore III might even possibly be notable: As a force affecting his father's political career, and as an examplar of/cautionary tale about the media's treatment of the minor children of public figures.

Anyway, I'm willing to leave it out at present, but in return I'd ask that you be willing to reconsider your position once the article reaches a more advanced state (assuming it isn't deleted/merged first). Thanks! -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about the relevancy. If this were explained better in the article, I would accept that it is relevant. As it was, it just seemed tacked onto the end of the paragraph without explanation. Regardless, my primary objection is violation of privacy, not the relevancy issue. Al Gore III is a borderline public figure at best. We should not be advertising embarrassing incidents from his adolescence regardless of how crass the media is about it. As an encyclopedia (and, according to Google, the highest authority on Al Gore III's life) we have a slightly higher standard to live up to. As it is now half of the article consists of negative information. Clearly this is not a balanced article. I'm willing to accept this for now, because I know there is no consensus to try to make it balanced. However, I think we need to draw the line at some point and I think talking about Al Gore III being suspended from school at the age of 13 is clearly stepping over that line. I also think posting his mugshot in the article (as was done previously) is stepping over the line. I imagine we all have things we did when we were 13 that we would rather not have written about in an encyclopedia. Kaldari 00:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hit Bull, Win Streak: In reference to your constant re-adding of the trivia section to Spring Training, I ask that you please stop adding poorly written facts that are not remotely necessary nor encyclopedic. The paragraph in question is poorly written, jumps across several topics and doesn't actually inform anyone of anything. Also, there is no source attached to the fact to back it up. If you continue to add useless information, it could be considered vanadalism and you may be blocked from editting. Thank you. -Mtcupps— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtcupps (talk • contribs)

I'd be interested to see whatever part of policy you think supports your claim here. Regardless, though, I'm sure you'll be happy with the revised version of the information, which addresses all of these concerns. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per this admin's request, I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you. Observe:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#GordonWatts

Even though your contributions may have been well-intended regarding a request for a limited ban of some sort, nonetheless, I have not been guilty of any improper editing, just annoying some editors, so I seek this action, at least, in part, against you, I regret to say.

--GordonWatts 07:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think you ought to stop digging, but it's not really my place to steal your shovel. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. Take care,--GordonWatts 14:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check my talk page, thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you report a name to WP:RFCN, please make sure to notify the user approriatley with {{subst:UsernameConcern|reason for objection}}. Thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned this before, and I will ask again nicely. It is rude, and possibly insulting to people who have just registered to not notify them that there name is under discussion. I personally have no problem with the reports to WP:RFCN and actually reccomend them. However, not notifying the editor in question with either {{subst:UsernameConcern|reason for objection}} or any custom notification is not a very appropriate way to handle things. I hope in the future that you choose to respect the new members by at least alerting the, to your decision to request a comment on there username. Thanks again. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is, of course, rather amusing to see you assume bad faith on my part in order to chastise me for having bad faith about others. When I step my evil plans up from inadequate haste while posting a boilerplate communication template on an account with no edit history, I'll be sure to let you know. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although, in fairness, it was nice of you to wait four whole minutes before leaving me your note. I am sure your restraint is appreciated. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) I went ahead and did it. No worries! I dont really have an issue with the reports, I thinkt hey are valid, I however an uncomfterable giving an indef block without a little discussion. I hope that you dont hold that against me or any other administrators that may choose to remove usernames from WP:AIV. It is a fine line. Recently, an admin had many many na,es come back that were questionable blocks. From the admin standpoint it is walking a very fine line. You may see it as an obvious block and somebody else may not and we get caught in the middle! Thanks again for your report and in the future, please try to give the admin who makes that decision a little slack! Thanks again. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you close withthe new consensus? Hunted by A.K.G. 23:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the text back the way it was before the addition of Portuguese text (which was taken from the Portuguese version of the same article) as it had very minor things in it that could have been added to the English version. -Yupik 20:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a prob, that's what we're here for :D -Yupik 21:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at your response, but now that I have -- even though the debate is closed -- you might want to look that all siblings of Richard Nixon seem to have articles - even a brother who died at age 7. Now again, Nixon may be more notable than Al Gore, but I'd venture that Al Gore III is more notable than Nixon's 7-year old brother. Just a thought. Carlossuarez46 20:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there's a pretty big difference between a President (the leader of the free world) and a Vice President (a guy who waits around for his boss to die, and occasionally breaks ties in the Senate). That said, if given my druthers I'd merge Arthur and Harold into a section of Nixon's own article, since both of their articles have more to do with Nixon than with their nominal subjects. Edward and Donald probably deserve standalones due to their involvement in the Watergate-related loan shenanigans. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just popping over to say a personal thanks for your support at my RfA. Much appreciated and I'm sure I will be seeing you around and about Wikipedia. Thanks again. :) Bubba hotep 19:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say the same, as absurd as that was that it even came in Hentai Jeff 22:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. While I understand that you have a reaosn to have Hillary on your userpage, my computer (at the library) is low resolution, and it takes up so much of the screen that I can't use any of the buttons. Could you tone it down a little, or put it in HTML code (e.g., "100%", not in pixels). Patstuart^talk·edits 21:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I toned it down a little. If that's still too large for your taste, you can always click on the "Moo" in my name to go right to the talk page, and bypass the userpage entirely. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 04:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Garlic#Recent_Edits_of_.22Medicinal_Use.22_Section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan2012 (talk • contribs)

I am satisfied with the sources you have added, and have changed my vote to Keep accordingly. As to notifying the author, that's supposed to be the responsibility of the nominator, not the voters. I don't know why the nominator didn't do this, as it is mandated by policy. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 09:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off the track, but it's the middle of the night, so you have to make some allowances:

The one-L lama, he's a priest

The two-L llama, he's a beast

And the three-L lllama is a big fire in Boston

(Apologies to Ogden Nash)

If a Himalayan monk opened a restaurant, might it be a Deli Lama?

If the llamas of Peru spoke Spanish, and one asked the other, ¿Cómo se llama?, would he get confused? Wahkeenah 10:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HA! -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You write:

As for the post, I was attempting to call attention to the irony of you citing Danny's record as a Foundation employee as evidence that he's reliable and trustworthy, when at least two of the 'crats who actively participated in the close stated that people weren't allowed to use any aspect of his performance as a Foundation employee as a reason to oppose the nomination.

Ah I suppose I can see what youre saying if I squint a bit. The bureaucrats discounted the opposes based on OFFICE because Danny was doing his job. That such objections are discounted as inappropriate makes sense, because he was acting as an agent of Wikimedia. But it doesn't make sense to discount the fact that he held this position of utmost trust and executed it well. That is the one of the greatest points in his credit, though it certainly isn't even close to being the only one. --Tony Sidaway 15:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone holds the opinion that he executed the role well - Look at the complaints about his executing WP:OFFICE actions from the wrong account, for example, or the criticism that he didn't make the rationale behind OFFICE actions as clear and accessible to the "general public" as he could have. Those address not the nature of his role, but specific aspects of his performance within that role, and as such are extremely relevant to his potential future peformance as an admin. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that the closers understand/care about the distinction. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while I don't share their opinion, I think the people who opposed him simply for having held the roles that he's held in the past have a valid POV. It doesn't have to come down to simple vindictiveness and spite; they might have felt that we need newer blood in positions of authority (similar to the desire for term limits for politicians), or that it'd be disrespectful to the Board to appoint him to another position of authority, or that it's important to preserve a partition between people on the operational side of things and the volunteers (like you and I), or any one of a number of other concerns. At a minimum, the 'crats who closed this should have asked for clarification from those users before saying that their opinions don't matter. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well from the above I think you can appreciate that a lot of material was brought to this request for adminship simply because Danny worked for the Foundation. A lot of people did have pretty severe reservations, from matters that I would class as trivial, like whether he used this or that account, to severe ones like his unwillingness (and as a person who has done OTRS duty I can understand why) to communicate on Office matters. Someone, Cyde I think, said that those of us in the know are aware of Danny's reasoning. I know that sounded terribly patronising and wishy-washy, but it's a very important facet of Wikipedia's work, and is very much the reason why Wikipedia has so far failed to be pulled into any major legal cases. --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that in a lot of respects it's difficult to separate Danny-the-candidate from Danny-the-former-administrator. That's part of the reason that in my !vote, I stated that it might have been best if he had put in a few months' worth of work as a regular editor, to help create some separation between his old roles and his new ones (whatever those may be). Right now, he's mostly defined by things that he can't/won't discuss, and that's a big hurdle for people who place a high value on transparency. I'm unhappy because with this close, we've got the worst of both worlds: A promotion supported by a consensus that's weak at best, which will undermine the credibility of the process and greatly hamper his future work as an admin. Even if he's purer than Caesar's wife in all respects for the next six months, there are still going to be people who cry foul whenever he does anything of significance, looking for conspiracies in every action. And God help him if he actually DOES make a mistake... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a little bit of Assume good faith will tide this one over, just as it did after the Carnildo affair. People call fall on administrators all the time, and have done so historically against Danny. He's already shown that he's big enough to weather that. --Tony Sidaway 17:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to [1] ... I already contacted him after it happened [2] but he never responded. You want to know more about office and ComCom? [3] Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. It doesn't really change my opinion of Danny, but I appreciate that you took the time here to explain it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I didn't step on your toes at the RFA by responding to the comment addressed to you before even you had a chance to. If I did, I apologise. It's just that I found the tone of JR's comment to be excessively dismissive. Cheers, Black Falcon 23:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your talk page, but short version: No problem. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can use this to discount his trustworthiness and oppose him. If there is consensus to promote among several bureaucrats, what's it matter who actually presses the button? John Reaves (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you could interpret it has not procedural, but oh well. I do agree that it wasn't the best idea, but I still have no problem with it. You did see the bureaucrat discussion, right? It was pretty transparent. John Reaves (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of it was actually a copyvio. I removed that part, though left the article.--Isotope23 15:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, thanks. I must've looked right past it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'm blocking his army right now.--Isotope23 15:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hit steak, win what? .V. _[Talk|Email] 03:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Good question. More steak? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 11:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmm, steak. .V. _[Talk|Email] 02:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, thanks for making me chuckle and for being amusing and stuff. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 15:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, me too, lol. Is there, like, any reason for the username, or is it just random humour? Anyway, I like :) Cheers- CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 09:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reference to this sign. I saw it, and the concept appealed to me. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in receiving a nomination for adminship? I'd be happy to do so. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks, I'm willing to have a go at it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 11:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to stop by and say thanks for letting me know about that ANI entry. Thanks for addressing this editors concerns. I am probably not going to reply on the ANI page as I have to agree that this is more a matter for RFC or RFM. I'm also finding it hard to be objective given that this user has called me a Wanker several times[4],[5], despite having been politely requested not to do so by a 3rd party[6]. He has also accused me of engaging in ownership. When he did that, I asked for a 3rd opinion, a fellow editor kindly offered their neutral 3rd opinion which he never responded to or acknowledged Talk:Siddha Yoga/Archive 3#Request for 3rd Opinion. I'm not trying to present evidence here, I'm just clarifying why it's difficult for me to remain objective. So I'm going to keep an eye on that thread. Hopefully the issues can be resolved through polite discussion. Thanks again, I appreciate your input.

TheRingess (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		WikiProject Japan Barnsensu Award
		I hereby award thee the WikiProject Japan Barnsensu for your extensive edits on the desperately needed field of ukiyo-e, and for adding colorful images to so many of our articles.

LordAmeth 01:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job re-inserting that pic. I guess it got lost in a flurry of vandalism, I was wondering what happened to it. Trevor GH5 01:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I saw that a guy had swapped it out for a non-free image, which I guess is a understandable mistake for a new user to make. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the kind words. In regard to the people who were disrespectful, well what can you do? You've got all kinds here, the good ones, the regular ones and the down right rotten ones, but as long as we got the good ones whose dedication and fine work have made the pedia what it is, then I'm fine. Tony the Marine 04:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that I was being a bit of a dick and I apologize (I am wondering if I have the temperament to edit here at all). As I said before I do agree that this deserves some space in the article. I do worry about people trying to add on family guy and south park stuff, but now that you have cited it (and Al Gore was directly involved) I don't think it will be much of a problem. The only thing I have an issue with is the picture but as I have badgered you already and you have done quite a bit of work I will just kind of back off and see if anyone else has an opinion. Btw, he is also going to be appearing in the next futurama dvd movie. FYI. Turtlescrubber 14:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to reply on your talk page. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTRS explains this, but the contact pages are laid out really shittily for just finding a straightforward email address. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you've gotten it many times (as evidenced by the surreal barnstar), but you have the best damn username i've ever seen. Sig is excellent also (or was when I ran across it). /Blaxthos 16:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read WP:FUC and how does Image:SKcolor2.jpg not fall under the criteria for non free content when it came with the press kit?--Sugarcubez 22:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gack! That's what I get for editing in haste; thought I was restoring a vandalism. Thanks for calling me on it. --Orange Mike 19:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it's funny. I suspected that this centre could be shown to be notable, and that I'd ultimately join the "keep" camp. However, I am surprised, and very annoyed, at the level of groupthink and disregard for WP:OWN and WP:N being shown by the article's supporters. It's incredible that they somehow think WP:V and WP:N don't apply to them, or that we should just put all of Wikipedia's processes on hold while they go on holidays. Honestly, I hope you haven't taken all of their misplaced outrage too seriously, because the article in its past state was a perfect candidate for AfD. The comments of some people on that page have really been inapproriate. Skeezix1000 13:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Naw, it's all good. If I took it personally every time someone got flustered because they saw their own ox being gored, I wouldn't have lasted a week here. I appreciate you sticking up for my good name and all that, but honestly, I'm not too worrried about anything that was said there. We get a better article out of it, and I'm betting that Thewinchester will make sure he references all the pages he starts from now on, so all's well that ends well. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nominator withdrawn Is actually an acceptable non-controversial close outcome in line with WP policy (which we use in the Australian project all the time, take a look at Beerenberg Farm), as you've chosen to take the nomination you've made off the table. I'm sure you know where the details are on how to correctly close an AfD debate. Thewinchester ^(talk) 15:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replying on your talk page. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting Michael Oher after the blanking. However, when a page is unexpectedly blanked like that, please revert it and then go into the page's history to see who blanked it. There are user templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. You should use the {{subst:uw-delete1}} to tell the user what they did wrong. Thanks! If you have any questions, please ask me them on my talk page. --Theunicyclegirl 00:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Replying on your talk page. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)₯[reply]

Can you please go to Reggie jacksons talk page and vote for either A's or Yankees colors in the infobox--Yankees10 20:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the notice, but I'd already voted. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks man for the sources and the support. I'm going to make a new Binary Star page and hopefully no one will delete this one. -Razorhead August 11, 2007

I am willing to answer your question over email, but you do not have email activated. Answering that question publicly would probably violate CIV, NPA, and AGF. I may be exhausted and punchy, but I have not lost my wits. - Crockspot 21:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Replying on your talk page. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a source, but its not in English and not very substantiated. I'm looking for a source as we speak, but most chances it wont be in English as well. --ArnoldPettybone 23:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moo  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 15:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oink. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NPA:

Removal of text There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate.[1] Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited.

Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist. The most serious types of personal attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about Wikipedia editors, go beyond the level of mere invective, and so can and should be excised for the benefit of the community and the project. In certain cases involving sensitive information, a request for oversight may also be appropriate.

[edit] Off-wiki personal attacks Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks take the form of violating an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases.

[edit] External links Links or references to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted, and should be removed. Such removals are not subject to the three-revert rule. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted, and those who do so deliberately or repeatedly may be blocked.[2][3] As with personal attacks, extreme cases of harassment by way of external links can be grounds for banning.

And I might add, it's also the decent thing to do. Not a small consideration when we have WP:CIVIL. Please consult your conscience. Noroton 23:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Replying on your talk page. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now my pizza is cold. I've gotta pick it up. If some idiot admin wants to slap me down for being decent and interpreting the NPA exception for 3RR, let 'em. I've left the same excerpt as above at the Moore talk page. Oh, before I go: the attack was in several parts: "outing", linking and, the one you haven't addressed, talking about how much he's editing on company time. Can't let that last one slide! gotta go Noroton 23:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the page is still up, and I'm still getting a deluge of obscene phone calls and emails in an effort to punish me for constructive editing on Wikipedia consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Is WP:NPA#External_links and WP:HARASS a policy or isn't it? THF 00:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replying on your talk page. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly ever give these things out, but even a crank like me can't help it sometimes:

		The Special Barnstar
		for civility and grace in bringing me your objections, reasoning and advice in a recent controversy. Even if I continued to disagree, I found your messages helped me to think about some issues and even eventually change my mind about some things. Your attitude exemplifies what "getting along with others", "assume good faith", and "keep cool" is all about. And it was inspiring. Thanks! Noroton 20:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm glad it was found to be of value! Gh5046 23:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why you wouldn't consider minor league managers to be notable? Many would no longer qualify and have to be AfD's if the current version of the guidelines were put in place. Why wouldn't you consider the presidents of minor league baseball or presidents of the individual minor leagues notable? Why do you insist on not including them? Kinston eagle 19:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that commissioners, league presidents and owners in the minor leagues are notable, and I think that some managers are notable (though not all - we should probably have a policy similar to that of minor league players). I'm unconvinced about general managers, and I'm pretty firmly convinced that most minor league coaches aren't notable. The problem is that the wording you used lumped all of these things together, and they really aren't equivalent in my view. We probably need to cultivate something with more nuance for minor-league non-players of this type. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The policy had always been that all managers were notable. The guidelines as you want them would retroactively remove notability from those managers who already have articles written for them. I have spent a considerable amount of time and effort in gathering information on all the former Kinston managers in an effort to eliminate all the red links HERE based on this policy. I had already written pages for most of the managers and have recently been gathering sources for the remaining few. Much of this would be wasted if the policy were to be changed now in the manner that you propose as many of the early managers would fail notability under the new guidelines as they are now worded. Triple-A did not even exist back then, for example. Your main problem seems to be with general managers and coaches and yet you'll be eliminating other categories as well. Many league presidents never played professional baseball at all and would fail notability with the wording the way you have it. Kinston eagle 04:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to write a different line for the proposal that covers minor league presidents and owners and such, I'd have no problem with that; I just think that the line that was in there was unacceptable because it grandfathered in umpty-thousand non-notable minor-league coaches and GMs. As far as managers go, we should probably hash that one out on the talk page. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you located in or near Durham? I am looking for someone who would be willing to do some research for me. I have very little information on Kinston's baseball team from the Eastern Carolina League of 1908, a league which also included a Raleigh team. I do not have access to microfilm of the News and Observer for 1908. There is a hole in the microfilm collection of the Kinston Free Press which includes this year. The Wilmington Star News microfilm for 1908 is fragmentary and contains no coverage of the baseball season. If you are near a library or university that has NandO microfilm it would save me a long trip if you could look up that year and print off any and all information you could find from that season including the league's daily standings and box scores. They did not complete the season. The research would only entail the first 18 games. I would, of course, pay you for your time, the copies and the postage. Let me know if you would be able and willing to do this. Thanks. Kinston eagle 04:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used to live in Durham, but I moved away several years ago, and I'm pretty much a whole day's drive away at this point, unfortunately. Sorry that I can't be of more help. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're willing to pay, you might want to consider calling the history departments at Duke and UNC, just to see whether any students are interested in a paid research project. I know I probably would've been, back in the day. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am normally one to be 99% civil but what happened is this. I tagged a new article which was in a terrible state -no categories , no links wikified, no paragraphing no real context thinking I was doing a good job new page patrolling. The user later rmeoved these saying I was premature. I layed back a bit and suggested how he might create new articles -and once he posts them he can't go on at other edits who tag them for clean up if they ar enot wikified properly to begin with. The editor peristed he would attend to it so I though ok cool and left him to it. I returned however several days later and he had still not done it. Now can I be blamed for tagging articles and bothering to fix a problem myself when the editor didn't follow up his word? Is this incident reporting by him really worth bothering about?? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that pic you added to Benjamin Rush. Do you happen to know if that building is still standing? Coemgenus 17:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't, sorry. I just happened to find the image in a search of the Library of Congress prints and photos holdings, and I thought it'd be a good addition to the article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, well. Maybe I'll take a ride up and check it out. Thanks anyway, and thanks for adding that cool picture. Coemgenus 17:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My pleasure. If it helps, the LOC record indicates that Red Lion Road is between Academy Road and Knight Road, in the Torresdale section of Philadelphia. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...props for having a username and sig that made me laugh hard. Chubbles 06:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. A deletion decision is made on the basis of the content of the article, and this article has essentially no content. If it were to be re-created with enough supporting data to justify retention, then fine. It does not qualify as submitted. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. The article was posted at 19.42 and tagged at 19.47, true, but I did not delete it until 20.49. An hour is regarded as acceptable. And you are missing the basic point of wikipedia. We do not submit seeds hoping that they will be added to and grow. We submit what we hope are good articles, and if other editors choose to add to them then so be it. The submitted article failed WP:NN criteria, and that is what I based my decision on, as would any admin. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the relevance of the Mzoli meat article, and I have no intention of re-opening what was an impressively convoluted discussion. And you are still not getting the point. The book may well be notable - I make, and have made, no comment on this. What I have said, and continue to say, is that the ARTICLE does not assert or show notability. And to be retained in the encyclopedia, it must. And that's it. Please refer back to my first comment. If you want to take the article to WP:DRV, then that's fine by me. But your best option is simply to write an article that conforms to wiki guidelines. It may not appear so, and I am sorry if that is the case, but I am actually trying to be helpful here. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, let me make myself clear. My decision on this article is correct. I have no wish to give, or to appear to give, offence, but i really do not think that it is appropriate for you to be giving an admin advice as to how to do his job. If you feel that the article, in the form in which I deleted it, should be restored, then please ask for this at WP:DRV. Otherwise, let us not discuss this further. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)+[reply]

No, I am not attempting to suggest that admin responsibility confers any special status, and I have no conflict with the well-known concept that adminship is no big deal. And furthermore, you are of course wholly correct in your statement to the effect that any editor can, and should, question any admin action which is felt to be inappropriate. But when you have questioned it, and I have re-iterated my reasoning, and have indicated the route which you should be taking if you do not find my answer satisfactory, then I was attempting to indicate what your next approach should be, and I feel that continuing to raise it with me is not appropriate. (WP:DRV). Perhaps I phrased it badly, and if it seemed so to you then I apologise for that. But it does remain that WP:DRV is the line which you should take if you wish to pursue your point. The page is non-confrontational, and straightforward to navigate. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, in my personal view the modified article is wholly acceptable. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Explosion in a cathedral has been restored so that this request has been satisfied. -- Jreferee t/c 21:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for letting me know. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you commented on the AfD debate for the Chicago Cubs All-time Roster, I thought you might have an interest in participating in a discussion on standardizing the baseball all-time roster articles. If you'd like to join in, the discussion is here. If not, please ignore this message. Thanks! --Fabrictramp 22:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your mediation and acting as a judge to the page. I hope you can follow me through this and to teach me and make sure i have not broken any rules as well as making a decent, true information on the page concern.

With kind regards

James collins123 12:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Dano:

"According to the characteristics of the inheritance and variation of calendrical folk customs, if we compare the Chinese Double-Fifth Day/Festival (otherwise known as the Dragon Boat Festival) and the Republic of Korea one, we may draw a conclusion that both are the modern version of or successor to the ancient Chinese Double-Fifth Day. This festival means a sacrificial ceremony, in terms of which the Chinese one contains richer historical and cultural connotation than the Republic of Korea one. Activities held during the Chinese festival all involve sacrificial offerings and folk faith, and fall into the official type and the folk type. It is a similar case with the Gangneung Dano Festival consisting of a Confucian sacrificial ritual and a sorcerous sacrificial ritual, which is actually correspondent with the official and the folk type. From the remote past until the present, the tradition has never changed that sacrifices are offered for exorcizing and for longevity and a bumper harvest. Almost all details of the Dano Festival can be found similar to those of the Double-Fifth Festival or Dragon Boat Festival in China. Indeed, there are some differences between these two festivals, which are no more than the variation of the festival in the course of inheritance. The Double-Fifth Festival in China with numerous ethnic groups is no less than 2 000 years old. It differs from place to place. To commemorate Qu Yuan features the major activity in most parts of the country, despite some parts where the festival has nothing to do with Qu Yuan. This proves the variation, which is the same case with the Dano Festival. In other words, it is absurd that some different versions of the festival do not belong to China's Double-Fifth Festival."

http://www.ceps.com.tw/ec/ecjnlarticleView.aspx?jnlcattype=1&jnlptype=2&jnltype=464&jnliid=884&issueiid=53540&atliid=882399

James collins123 14:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a Korea source saying it was the chinese poet who killed himself: (the information usese Korean pronunciations)

"Dano is the 5th day of the 5th lunar month, and is also called the Suri day or the Chunjungjul. The origin of Dano is said to go back to ancient China during the days of King Hwe and the Cho Dynasty. A subject named Gulwon, after falling into the traps of the treacherous, commits suicide at Myuklasu to demonstrate his faithfulness. This took place on the 5th day of the 5th lunar month. Since then, memorial services for Gulwon have taken place every year. This custom conveyed to Korea to become Dano." http://www.lifeinkorea.com/culture/festivals/festivals.cfm?Subject=Dano

James collins123 15:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you are currently mediating at this article which has been the venue of edit wars. Drop me a message if you need the page protected at any stage. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice SwatJester mentioned above that he'd nominate you for adminship, but it doesn't appear to have gone any further. I would nominate you now, if you agree. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Stifle to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hit bull, win steak. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

You're going to get asked the question about enabling email. May as well do it now. You can register a gmail account with your username and set it up to forward messages to your primary email address so you keep them separate but know when new ones arrive. Works for me.--chaser - t 22:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and registered an e-mail address, so I think it's all set. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sent a couple of emails. Did you receive them?--chaser - t 12:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, strangely. Let me check my notes... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. Looks like everything's OK in my preferences, as far as I can tell, and I got the verification email OK. Try sending it again? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--chaser - t 15:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing. I sent myself a message externally from a different account with no problem; not sure what's going on. You have any guesses? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. My blogger handle is a gmail. Drop me a line.--chaser - t 16:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sent. I used all lower-case; hope that was right. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was very very close to giving you my support, but I have this expectation. I hope it doesn't reflect poorly upon how I consider you as an editor. I feel that you would make a great administrator around here, but I feel that having some GA anf FA experience under your belt would bolster the quality making you one of the best admins. If it appeared that you were going to lose the RFA (and that's exceptionally doubtful all things considered at the moment) then I might give you my full support to allow you to pass over the line, as I think you'd be great, but you could be so much better with the greater perspective given. If you would like to collaborate on a GA or FA, I'd be willing to throw my hat in the ring, on account of your contributions, as I'm interested in broadening my own skills and you have greater civility than almost any other editor around. Good luck with it all! --lincalinca 04:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed with 54 supports, 2 opposes and 3 neutrals. Thanks for your support, I really appreciate it. I hope to exceed expectations, If you have any advice please feel free to let me know. Thanks again!. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤

There is a new optional question on your RfA page. Just sayin'... in case you wanted to respond. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! In the words of Deskana, "Hit bull, win sysop"! May your mop always be fresh, and your water clean. Congrats! Ariel♥Gold

Ariel♥Gold 21:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darnit! He beat me anyway! lol. Ariel♥Gold 21:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hit bull, win sysop" indeed :) Congratulations and welcome to the mayhem that is adminship. If you need a hand with anything, you know where I am - Alison ^❤ 21:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Let me know if you need any advice. 1 != 2 21:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations and welcome to the admin ship. Special:Newpages awaits you, be prepared to speedy half the pages you see there. Stifle (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've also won a listing at WP:100, which is something even I couldn't manage. Stifle (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let Ariel Gold fool you with the image, here's a reality check:

Congratulations! Good luck with your mop! GlassCobra 00:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chyeah :P

Feel free to ask if you've got any questions :)

Have fun now- CattleGirl ^talk 09:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good wishes, everybody. I'm really overwhelmed that I attracted this kind of support, from so many good editors, and I'll try my best to live up to everyone's expectations. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was you who linked a website which contains archives to the sporting news from the past 100 years for free. Can I have the link please. Thanks This is a Secret ^account 00:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, as you did to User talk:Bravogulfhotel, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. Alexfusco5 02:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, what? Are you saying we're supposed to subst {{Welcome}} now? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you wrote on my talk page about my improper image use from flickr. I was wondering if this photo would be appropriate to use (based on the licensing) on the Amber MacArthur article. The limitations are: Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Thanks, — Yavoh 04:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see the notability now. I was a bit quick on the trigger there, sorry! ><RichardΩ612 19:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back it seems that I have been rather overzealous in my recent CSD tagging. I think it would be a good idea if I laid off doing any more until I have thoroughly reread WP:CSD and understand it, and checked my recent tags to make sure that they were warranted. For the moment I will stick to AfD and antivandalism. ><RichardΩ612 16:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to request you delete The Other Nite Show. It is a non notable community radio show from a minor AM station (and therfore not notable, if you don't delete it any other Australian community radio show could put up a page. Cheers, Ryan. 122.148.64.45 (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you about the apparent lack of notability, but since it's on AFD now (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Other Nite Show), it would probably be best to let that process run its course. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont you archive your talk page like I do. It looks rather unwieldy and altogether too long... Just a friendly hint (I would hate to see you get into trouble with the Admins over it). Belicia. Belicia (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the concern, but I like having everything in one place. It makes it easier for me to find past discussions, and it preserves section links from other pages to this one. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. It looks like this user has not learned anything. He was just blocked for personal attacks and now he is at it again. Johntex\^talk 17:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. I saw this post and remembered a lie Johntex made against me back when I was new. Of course, I've basically got a rag over my mouth now. Oh and BTW, can everyone just STOP making a big deal out of me?! I don't like the negative light I've gotten from only trying to help. Jeez! --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 19:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know all that much about you or your situation, but I spotted the edit in question when I was looking at Heqwm's talk page, and it seemed strikingly unhelpful to me. Regardless of what you think about Johntex, Heqwm is doing things right now that he shouldn't be doing, and posting something like that is only going to encourage him to keep doing them until he gets hit with a community ban. If you really want to help him, the best thing you can do is stay out of the situation and focus on mainspace editing (which is what your topic ban is designed to encourage you to do in the first place). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, but could you remove your comment from ANI? I've had enough of the bad light as it is. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 23:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, I don't think that'd work, now that another admin has replied to it and acted upon it. Someone trying to follow the causality chain would be really confused, and it's important to maintain transparency on these things. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 12:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm going to PROD it, then. Victao lopes (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same, but it's always worth checking before posting! -- Trevj (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I appreciate the advice you've given me today while following me through the new pages patrol. Please keep it up. I have one question though: How is the article Harrison family political line suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia? WP:NOT#DIR states that genalogical entries are not appropriate material. —BradV 17:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also deleted the wikify tag while stating in the edit summary that the article needed to be wikified. I'm not sure what to do with that... —BradV 17:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Brad. I said that the material needs to be "reformatted", which isn't the same thing as wikification (it's pretty well wikified already). The problem is that it's presented in table format, as basically a bulleted list, rather than prose. Ideally, it should be refitted into a prose section talking about the family's political fortunes (kind of like the intro to Kennedy family, although that one isn't perfect, either). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing up his notability! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was obvious Travelling Cari and you don't go speedy deleting existing articles anyway if something web related can be found. You kindly ask the esditor to expand it or suggest an AFD.

Thanks for doing that. I remember I stubbed it when I created the Girard disamb page to fill in some red links -he is about the only one of the Girard's without an article on french wikipedia!! Cheers ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was entirely eligible for speedy since stating he was an engineer does not assert any notability. I'm working through the backlog and that had been tagged since June 2007. I think creating stubs is good but they need to at least assert notability, as this one now does. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, it's fixed now, so all's well that ends well. Thanks for the good wishes. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm concerned that this editor is being over-zealous in patrolling new articles. I created one for director/actor Justin Chadwick, and he added the "nofootnotes" tag to it. In response I added two references and removed the tag. He then inserted three citation-needed tags directly in the article, all of them following Chadwick's film credits, which were referenced in two of the external links listed. To the best of my knowledge these are sufficient for film-related articles; I have never seen any that repeatedly reference film titles within the text. I removed the three citation-needed tags and explained why at length on the discussion page. Bradv15 then reverted this edit with the comment "Stop removing tags without discussing or improving the article," so clearly he did not read the discussion page. Am I wrong in thinking this version [7] is referenced correctly? Now User:A little mollusk keeps editing the article and in doing so keeps removing blue links, Chadwick's education background, and links that will lead readers directly to the referenced article being cited. He's also adding personal quotes which I never have seen in other articles about actors/directors. In my opinion, to do so not only seems like nothing more than padding but is not very encyclopedic in nature. How can this version [8] be acceptable if it lists the same reference multiple times and never in a format that allows the reader to access the on-line article referenced, as my version did? I greatly appreciate your letting me know if and how my feelings about this matter are wrong. Thank you for your input. MovieMadness (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of different issues here. Replying to each in turn:

• I agree that Bradv15 has been a little bit aggressive in his new page patrolling. He's fairly new at it, but he seems to be receptive to constructive feedback, so I'd imagine that this will become less of an issue as he gets a better feel for things.
• There's never anything wrong with requesting (or adding) more references for an article. Ideally, every assertion in every article should be supported by a reference. If other movie articles aren't that way right now, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be.
• While the information in question was contained in the pages you provided, neither the Fandango.com link nor the Tribute.ca one probably meet our guidelines for reliable sources. The Fandango one is syndicated content from the All Movie Guide, which could probably be re-sourced to that site, while the Tribute one might be kind of iffy as far as editorial oversight is concerned. That may or may not be the nature of Brad's objection; I hesitate to speculate about his motivations. If that is the case, he could probably have articulated it more clearly.
• There's nothing intrinsically wrong with including a quote from an article subject, as long as it's integrated smoothly into the article and exists to support a larger point. I could see an argument either way on the two quotes that ALM wants to include in the article.
• If a particular reference isn't available online, then it can still be used, as long as enough information is provided that someone visiting an actual physical library could verify the cited content. The format used by ALM would seem to serve this purpose. An author credit would also be helpful, but it's possible that the article in question wasn't published under an individual byline, which would explain the absence.
• This is fundamentally a content dispute, and not something really requiring administrative action at this time, in my judgment. I see that Athaenara has stepped in to moderate things in my absence, and as she seems to be doing a pretty good job, I'm inclined to leave things in her hands for the time being. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But was he a notable envoy? The category Ancient Roman diplomats only has four articles in it, so clearly we don't have an article on every Roman diplomat. —BradV 04:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if you take a look at the cited source (Levy, one of the gold standards in Roman history), you'd see that the murders of those four envoys were the instigating event that sparked a war between Rome and Veii, resulting in the death of Veii's most prominent ruler (Lars Tolumnius) and concluding after more than 50 years of fighting with Rome's conquest and assimilation of Veii. So, yeah, I think he's pretty notable. Also, let me add that "there are only a few articles in that category" is a terrible reason for deleting something. That's more likely to be an indicator of systemic bias than of non-notability. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 04:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, so you know something about this. Does it make sense to merge this article into Lars Tolumnius? The article just went from non-notable to notable for one event. By your reasoning you'll have to create articles on all four people with identical content, which doesn't seem to make sense. —BradV 04:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth maintaining separate articles for all four, since they were different people, and all independently notable in their own right. There's nothing wrong with a short article (or four), as long as it's representative. And it didn't "go from non-notable to notable": it is what it was before. You just didn't know/check before PRODding it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 04:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I PRODded it because the article didn't assert any notability. For a new article obviously that's okay, but this article was the same as when it was created almost two years ago and had no backlinks. —BradV 04:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It said that he was an official Roman envoy to Fidenae. That's analogous to a modern ambassador from one nation to another, and stating that an article subject held a major political position is most definitely an assertion of notability. This is exactly the kind of thing that I'm talking about, when I say that you're being too hasty in your judgments on these things. Before you try to delete things, you should see whether they can be improved. If you don't know enough about the subject to make a determination on the matter, you should leave it for someone else to deal with, or ask for help from the relevant WikiProject. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be about who can delete the most articles. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 04:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I also think that you might want to hold off on nominating any more articles for deletion for a while, until you have a better handle on community standards for such things. I know that you're well-intentioned, but your relentless tagging (without making any apparent effort to improve the articles in question) is starting to border on disruption. Not a threat or a command, just some friendly advice. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 04:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask for some advice before I get in trouble again. I'm working through some articles in Category:Orphaned articles from July 2006. Many of these are completely non-notable, and have been sitting for 18 months without being referenced elsewhere. When I encounter an article such as this one and I believe it to be non-notable, am I better taking it to AfD instead of Prodding it? Or do I simply tag it for notability and let someone else deal with it? —BradV 15:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that may be a poor example, as the article might be redeemable. I think I'll add some external links and tag it for notability. Is that fair? —BradV 15:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, PROD is for non-controversial deletions that don't qualify for a speedy for whatever reason, while AFD is for things where someone might conceivably object. It's not a hard-and-fast rule, but most articles that have survived for two years (like the ones in that category) are going to be too notable to successfully delete via PROD (since someone probably would've prodded them before now if they could've been). For one like Swarup, where it's just short and stubby because someone didn't finish the job, or created it before we started requiring references, a notability tag and a reference or two are probably the best way to go. Google News and Google Books are often good for a quick fix, the NYT has searchable online archives going back more than a hundred years, and there are other online archives like FindArticles and Paper of Record if you feel like digging a little deeper on a particular topic. You start to get a feel for what will work and what won't after you do it for a while. Oh, and since the biggest issue with things in an orphan category is going to be wikilinks, of course, it's also worth doing a quick check to see whether there are un-wikilinked mentions of the subject in other Wikipedia articles (some people don't like red links, so they take 'em out even when they're appropriate, which creates problems further down the road). Hope that helps. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. This is what I did. —BradV 16:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty good work, right there. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Philip H. Farber for deletion. You previously contributed to an earlier AfD on this article and it was suggested that I notify you of the current AfD. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip H. Farber (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Cheers, Pigman☿ 06:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you undo your close, or adjust your closing notes to restate the result of the discussion? It reads like you are adding to the discussion. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know; what would you like me to say? I was attempting to summarize my impression of the consensus formed by the discussion. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically it just appeared like you were speaking you opinion instead of restating a summary of the discussion. I'm really too involved as the nominator to be objective here I think, and perhaps you did the right thing. :) You do well. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You recently reverted my redirect of The Foot Book. While I agree that Dr. Seuss is definitely notable—I'm currently working on the article myself—I don't believe that this article is. It fails WP:N, as it has no sources, and it contains only minor plot information. Normally, I wouldn't really mind an article like this, but there's an article for almost every Dr. Seuss book (50+) and about 30 of them are similar to this stub—not very notable and unlikely to be expanded. I'd prefer that the list of Dr. Seuss books contain links only to books that actually contain substantial information.

I thought I'd talk to you before bringing this to AFD or somewhere else—comments? Mr. Absurd (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's currently unsourced, but its creation predates Wikipedia's current requirements for article sourcing, and it seems pretty obvious that it could be sourced, if someone wanted to do so (it's had more than 50 English-language printings). Ergo, I think it's a poor decision to redirect it to a mere mention of the title in a list in his article. I don't know any good way to determine how long it'll be before it's expanded, but I do know that converting it to a mere redirect and de-linking it from the Seuss article makes it exponentially less likely that it will be expanded at any point in the future. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to be sarcastic or rude, but do you really think it will ever be expanded? I don't see what there is to say on the subject—it's certainly not one of Seuss's more prominent or notable books. Mr. Absurd (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I do ultimately think that it will be expanded (although there's no way to know exactly when), and until it is it's not like it's hurting anything in its current stub-state. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It somehow didn't occur to me to do my usual pre-AfD search not only via Google, but also via Google books. I've placed a comment in the AfD, withdrawing it as far as nobody objects (which I cannot seriously imagine anymore. As to Maxim Tokarev vs. Maxim-Tokarev, Google web results seem to prefer the former, while the majority of books features the latter more frequently. Dorftrottel (canvass) 18:40, May 2, 2008

AfD closed and I've moved the article to Maxim-Tokarev. Dorftrottel (bait) 19:31, May 8, 2008

I noticed that you like steak. As one who also likes steak, I would just like to extend a warm "hiya" to you. Us steak likers need to look out for one another. Please, if there is anything steak-related that you need help on, let me know. My specialty is marinades, however I have also dabbled in stewing and butter braising. 72.225.47.167 (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help with my shopit article. your tips are appreciated. :) BenHoltz (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Apr_2#Social_network_site_Spam
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Boomj

--Hu12 (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le sigh. You always want to think the best of people... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for applying the sprot on that article -- I wasn't sure if the slow burn rated protection or not, but I think it's probably a good idea at this point (I'm also ashamed of myself for letting that last revert slip for a week -- bad watch list, bad!). One suggestion, though: it might be worth considering boosting the duration to 2 weeks instead of 1. Since the trend is one revert every 7 to 10 days, protection may expire before the joker tries it again. One firm bounce of the protection might do some good. — Lomn 18:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever met User:Press olive, win oil? I saw that username and immediately thought of you :-) Nyttend (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no, I hadn't seen that user before. Good stuff, though. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I have added info to PNC Park in response to your suggestions. The first section, about the statues, was something I had limited knowledge on and it turned out to be one of the most interesting sections in the whole article. I also added a paragraph about terrorism drills that have taken place—that I knew nothing about before I started looking for something. I think that should be enough, unless you have anymore awesome suggestions. Thoughts? Blackngold29 04:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks pretty good. There are a couple of other monuments at the park, potentially worth talking about. There's a courtyard of statues of area Negro League players beside the left field rotunda, and also a sculpture of Ralph Kiner's hands inside the park, a short distance away. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ask me when or how, but someone made the decision to mass delete all the Miracle articles I wrote. This is ridiculous. I believe that there was a spirited debate with the "save" argument having been very well represented for a good bulk of the ballplyers. One person who disagreed, went in and ignored the entire debate and imposed his will. This is absolute BS.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, it's a stupid close, but stupid decisions are increasingly becoming par for the course around here. I'm becoming progressively less and less interested in Wikipedia. One of these days, I'll probably just take a walk and not come back. C'est la vie. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WKnight has gone ahead and reopened the minor league notability debate on the Project talk page.. I feel that this a step back to where we were last year and am affraid he will get his way.... You might want to drop by and participate. Spanneraol (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanneraol, would you please go to the delete voters on the various AFDs and let them know about the discussion as well? Otherwise, this and this are an egregious violation of Wikipedia:Votestacking. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanner has a talk page. If you'd like to talk to him about something, please use his page, rather than mine. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and asked for a review of Guerra's deletion. Thanks for the suggestion. I'd love it if you gave them a comment of support as well.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He restored Deolis Guerra. Thanks for your help. There are other guys I would like him to restore as well. One at a time I guess--Johnny Spasm (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on your recent referenced edit to his article. Dear Jimmy is a hero of mine, and all well researched additions to his page are much appreciated. Thank you. More please ?!

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on getting the deletion on the Fort Myers Miracle entries I did overturned WP:DRV. I'd like your support, please.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only people who had anything negative to say in the original deletion discussions about the Miracle players already commented on my latest appeal for review, otherwise I'd have let them know, too. But thanks for the warning. I'll be aware in the future.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Avenue East Cobb, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Richard Pinch (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was quite happy with letting that bit of vandalism stand, since reverting it would just require re-doing it (since all it was was an update of the vandalism counter, which I would have had to update myself if I had reverted it).

All in all, quite a clever bit of work from whoever it was :D Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I was amused by it as well - didn't mean to spoil your fun. I just had the realization that while updating the count was not revertable vandalism, failing to update the time was, and I couldn't resist. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulbakuki (talk • contribs) 

• Your opinion is noted. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input HBWS. Unfortunately there is not much mainstream media coverage for this film, so it's a bit of a predicament. At the same time it has been widely viewed online and is a significant (notable, in the general sense of the term) departure from current 9/11 commentary. Also, it appears to be researched much better than its more established counterparts.

I created the entry because I think the film is noteworthy and stands alongside Loose Change etc. as an important video-work on 9/11. Not intended as spam or simply for promotion. Because of the sensitivity of the subject matter, it's the kind of thing the mainstream media would not be to keen to promote; but nonetheless hopefully such references will appear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaser501 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly notice that I mentioned your name at User_talk:Fabrictramp#Notability_of_Minor_League_Players. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, YOUR USERNAME ROCKS! :)

How do normal users (aka non-admins) remove vandalism in a reference list?

Yeah dude, PowerUserPCDude was here (yeah) (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently declined CSD A7s on two articles about minor league baseball players. John Drennen and Tyler Herron. The latter one I took to AFD. Both seem to clearly fail WP:ATHLETE but the AFD has keep !votes based on being a first round draft pick. Fabrictramp suggested that you're good at finding sources for these kind of articles. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was taking a break, and didn't see your message until just now. Both AFDs appear to have been closed in the interim. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, me again

There's a HUGE (Possibly as bad as that Blinkerhoff [or whatever it was called] affair way back when over at [[9]]

Can you give some help, or phone a friend?

Yeah dude, PowerUserPCDude was here (yeah) (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who was involved in previous discussions, please be aware of the current move discussion at Talk:As I Lay Dying (novel), and weigh in if you want. Thanks!--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the talk archives for why I removed the section. It has absolutely *nothing* to do with Beauchamp, and since The New Republic refused to stand by the stories after Beauchamp's house of cards collapsed around him, it doesn't have anything to do with the controversy at all. Additionally, using the convictions in the manner you are suggesting is synthesis, unless you find a reliable source that states that they vindicate Beauchamp. User:StephenLaurie and User:Umlautist (both socks of banned User:Eleemosynary) did most of the reverting, and there appears to be little support for the inclusion for this section, (I see User:TharsHammar and a few SPA/IP accounts) while a number of long-term editors (User:Mark Shaw, User:Calbaer, and now me) have been using policy-based arguments to exclude it. Please self-revert yourself and discuss this, because what you are doing violates policy. Horologium (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your concern, but I have no intention of reverting myself, as I stand by my position on the issue. I will be glad, however, to discuss it further, if you'd like. To address your points in reverse order:

• The fact that a particular argument may have been supported, at one point or another, by someone acting in faith does not mean that the argument itself is invalid. For an example, look at the Naked short selling mess. As such, the actions of Eleemosynary are not relevant to the point at hand. Furthermore, while you cite Mark Shaw as an editor who wants to exclude the material, he has actually displayed a willingness to include even more of the material than my edit included (via edits such as this one, a suggested compromise by Shaw from July). In fact, now that I look more closely at that edit, I like his version better than the one to which I had initially reverted, and would be glad to support it instead, in the spirit in which Shaw initially offered it.
• I am not stating that the convictions vindicate Beauchamp, and you will note that nothing to that effect is included in the disputed passage. As such, your objection is irrelevant.
• Mentioning the convictions in the article does not violate WP:SYN. First, as noted above, my edit does not state that the convictions vindicate Beauchamp, and as such, is not drawing or suggesting conclusions of any sort regarding the truth or falsity of his accounts with the skull and the dogs and such. Second, the connection between the Beauchamp controversy and the Hadley conviction was explicitly stated in this piece at Talking Points Memo, which obviously qualifies under WP:RS by virtue of having won a George Polk Award, and per WP:SYN, "'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." So I would actually have been justified in drawing an explicit connection, if I had wanted to do so. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I was not aware of the TPM piece, which closes the deal. While I disagree with some of their conclusions (and this piece is not news, but analysis), they are a reliable source. (I would suggest, however, that any such direct connection sourced to TPM include an attribution, because the TPM piece is analysis.) As for the reversions of Eleemosynary/Stephen Laurie/Umlautist's edits, WP:BAN specifically provides for such an action. However, you are accepting responsibility for the edits, so I'll let them stand, especially since you've found a reliable source. That source also eliminates my synthesis concerns; without it, I'd still object because it implies a connection that had not been made elsewhere (as per the first example in WP:SYN). We obviously have a difference of opinion on the relevance of the section, but there are no longer any policy-based justifications for its removal, so I'll let this drop. Horologium (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A note: TPM is not a RS. Kind of astounding to see that actually. Secondly, please comment on the article talk page for your revisions, as many editors won't see this here, and you may get a false sense of consensus. Arkon (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to which part of WP:RS you think Talking Points Memo fails to meet. Can you elaborate? They're professional journalists, they've won prestigious awards for journalism, and they have a high degree of editorial oversight. As for discussion on the talk page, I'll be glad to participate, if you'd like to start a new section, but I don't see any need to start one myself. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look at Somerset Spectator and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somerset Spectator (2nd nomination) since you participated in the previous AfD. - Eastmain (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hit bull, win steak! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 21 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. John Seiter - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both could use a cleanup. The latter being cleaned could help it survive AFD Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Carrie Borzillo, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrie Borzillo. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Charlotte Lewis, 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. Thank you. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 19:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 20:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 20:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the edit summary you used when you undid the redirect, I'd like to explain what I was trying to do when I closed the AFD. The consensus clearly was to keep this article and I clearly said that in my closing rationale and I reflected this consensus on the talk page. Therefore, anybody was free to revert this redirect any time they wanted to. The redirect was strictly an editorial decision on my part. Since there were no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator, I consider this a valid NAC.

One thing I am confused about is that several people in the AFD mentioned that he was scheduled to play his first game when the Orioles played the Rays this previous weekend. I was planning to revert the redirect myself when this happened but it didn't. He doesn't even appear to be on the 40 man roster. (at least not last time I checked) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were probably referring to his first minor league game. A large number of baseball-interested editors interpret the "fully professional league" standard to mean minor league baseball. It's kind of immaterial, though - he was the subject of a huge amount of media coverage purely for his amateur career. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nava Applebaum. The article is now on the front page as a DYK.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There has been an argument over the article on Max Mosley, son of the 6th Baronet Mosley, over something so simple as whether if we should include the name of his parents in law, or father in law, and information on his own children. They even claim he's not nobility. It's a false question, but some people, from outside lineages' issues, insists in not adding them. The discussion was brought up by User:4u1e on User talk:Konakonian, Talk:Max Mosley and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. I'd thank you that you'd join with your good judgement. Konakonian (talk) at 195.245.149.70 (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on the inadvertent rollback, misclicked and didn't realise it. Sorry! StrPby (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Figured it was something like that - no worries. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 04:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Orenduff, I have asked a question regarding the policy at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). I'm not trying to delay or otherwise circumvent the AfD process, but I would like to get other opinions on the policy, and I believe the WT page is a better place to get such input. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hit bull ... Thank you for your redirect of my minute article of D.F. Cassidy. A redirect was a sound solution. Peter2meter (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, glad to help. It seemed like a plausible search string for someone looking for information on the church, and there is a little information on Cassidy in the article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Orenduff (2nd nomination). You were involved in the previous AfD and are are invited participate in the current one. —Bagumba (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on cleaning up Operation Entebbe (an Isaeli military operation), and unfortunately another editor CWenger (who has a pro-Israel user box) keeps on adding false, ridiculous claims that the operation is somehow related to a US military operation. The article has a 1RR restriction due to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Further remedies, but CWenger has ignored this and made multiple reverts just now. Can you please take a look at this? Dimension31 (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am probably not the best one to help you with this, unfortunatelly, as I'm only an occasional editor these days, and almost entirely unfamiliar with the topic at hand as well. Best of luck, though. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

ralphamale (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm probably not interested at this time, but thank you for the invitation anyway. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was wondering what indication of notability you saw here.[10] Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The line about receiving $1.3M in grant money from the CDC. The group may or may not be notable, but at a minimum that bit constitutes a credible assertion of notability, which is enough to defeat an A7. If you'd like to take it to AFD, feel free. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hit bull, win steak,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on the hoaxes, and trout slap regrettably accepted. If it makes up for it, I looked into who created these hoaxes and it led me to open a sockpuppet investigation. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that was a cheap shot. I'd ask you to kindly consider striking your comments which do not assume good faith. Also, while I'm sure you might imagine I have a master plan, I assure you there is no such plan, and your assertions to the contrary are false and misleading. I'm just trying to improve the wiki, just like you. --KarlB (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not see anything unfair or inaccurate about the comment in question, and "assuming good faith" doesn't come into play given some of the overt statements you've already made about the subject in both that venue and others. From those statements, I think it's fairly clear that your idea of "improving the wiki" and mine do not overlap in many places. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Savior of Xi Mingze Barnstar
	For defending the Wikipeidia notability of Xi Mingze. Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry Luff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boston Red Stockings (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you got the promotional bits solved - I should've used {{advert}} instead. BTW, there's currently a discussion at WP:COIN regarding User:ChildressInstitute, who created the article and the article itself. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 00:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I can't take the credit for trimming it: CombatWombat42 did all the hard work. It seems like the current merge with Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center is a good resolution of the situation. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I didn't spot the OJ award but did spot the OD award and presumed the OJ post-nominal at the top of the article had been a typo mistake. I'll add OJ OD to show that he received both awards and will put the OJ first to show order of importance.

Gladstone Mills - here's the link to the article

Sluffs (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an special invitation for experienced editors to the discussion in WikiProject Volleyball about the proposal for Notability Guide for Volleyball Players. Your wise and kind participation will be highly appreciated. Osplace 20:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you were pretty active but went, well, missing, so I added you to the page above. If you come back, please remember to take your name off it. God bless, LazyBastardGuy 06:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. –xeno^talk 17:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]