Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:15, 23 January 2008

Archives

Archive 1: 14 February 2007 – 6 May 2007 Archive 2: 10 May 2007 – 20 June 2007 Archive 3: 21 June 2007 – 31 December 2007

Links to my subsection pages:

User:BQZip01/AggieTrip

User:BQZip01/FACReviewBox

User:BQZip01/FA Tips

User:BQZip01/FTAB

User:BQZip01/IFeltaThi

User:BQZip01/IFletaThi

User:BQZip01/SledQuote

User:BQZip01/ThreeE Disruption

User:BQZip01/Wishlist

User:BQZip01/sample

Photo editing

First off, happy new year. second, i wanted to ask you if i could photoshop this picture to make it a little brighter. http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Yell_Leaders_doing_pushups.JPG have a good oneOldag07 (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you think? http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Yell_Leaders_doing_pushups3.jpg Oldag07 (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed the picture on the Midnight Yell page. Oldag07 (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars

Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars. Thanks. Badagnani (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: WTF

lol, I'm bored. Sorry to hear about your son - hope he gets well soon. Happy New Year btw. I'm already counting the days until football season starts. BlueAg09 (Talk) 06:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly on all all fronts! Take good care of your son and have a Happy New Year! I also hope you can forget about the Alamo as you look towards the new year. Best, Johntex\ 15:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim Bowie

Hi BQ. Haven't seen you around lately, so hopefully everything is going to be okay. I have a favor to ask, if you have time and energy. I have Jim Bowie nominated at FAC, with one support and 2 comments asking for a bit of copyediting by a disinterested party. You do an awesome job of identifying prose issues. Could you possibly take a look at the article and help me tighten the prose just a bit? Thanks. Karanacs (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football January 2008 Newsletter

The January 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

USS Illinois FAC

I have taken a stab at improving the article since you've been gone; would you consider giving the article another look? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Campus of TAMU

First off, happy new year. next. I am trying to update the Campus of Texas A&M University page. I have a rough draft done, and I would like someone to look over it before I post it. Oldag07 (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kyle Field Expansion.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Kyle Field Expansion.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. B (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Re. RFA

Thank you for contacting me, BQZip01. It's good that you expanded your answer, but I shall maintain my oppose this time. I believe that you need more experience in admin-oriented areas, as is patent by some terms you use (such as "blocking authority"). I recommend that you withdraw this RFA and greatly increase your participation in tasks that usually require admin intervention. Keep it up for a couple of months and you're likely to succeed. Regards, Húsönd 05:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You can substantially increase your vandalfight with the help of a tool such as WP:Twinkle. Report vandals to WP:AIV when they have transgressed their last warnings. Request protection for heavily vandalized pages at WP:RFPP. Participate in WP:XFD. Etc. There's plenty. :-) Regards, Húsönd 05:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Perspective

I have been waiting for two and one-half week for an answer from you. That's more than 14 days, sir. Suppose for a moment that situation was reversed, that you were the one waiting for answer from me, and having not gotten one left three messages on my talk page looking for one only to be (seemingly) ignored. How would feel? Then apply those feelings to an absurdly long wait from an admin after asking for his or her help to -protect a page? -block a vandal? -report a misbehaving isp address? Its too long, and from where I sit it is inconsiderate. And for the record replies to an FAC would go directly on the FAC page, not on the FAC talk page. Its your responsibility to check back on that page to see if the nominator has addressed the issues present, and you are suppose to check back and update your oppose as needed. From where I sit, numbers 2,3,4 and 9 were fixed last year and still no post assessment tweaks to your comments. Reviewers who object at FAC are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. That written right into the opposition section. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, what specifically has been addressed? I haven't seen anything to indicate what has been altered. I have no intention of re-reading the entire article over and over every time you make a single change just to see if you addressed my objection. Please specify. — BQZip01 —  07:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why did you oppose instead of comment? If you have no intention of revisiting the article each and every time someone makes a change to it how will you handle edit warring, or articles that have disputed content tags, or original research, or other mediation related templates? Could the same effect have been achieved without the need to oppose? I am not a mind reader, I depend on other people to haul their asses to the pages and reread their comments and the nominators reaction to those comments every time a change is made. Since you seem to have trouble reading your own writing then I will spell out what I think I have addressed from your concer list:

• "...a leviathan the likes of which the United States had never before constructed...." serious use of peacock terminology/poor encyclopedic terms
  • It isn't there anymore
• Switching between terms: BB-65, battleship #65, hull number 65, etc. Stick to one term throughout for clarity. Don't abbreviate using "#"
  • It has been fixed
• Too many subsections in the Armament section. It appears choppy.
  • These were merged.
• Get rid of weasel words in this article IAW WP:AWT. "arguably" should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • It should be out of the article now.

Now I am not an admin, but I am a coordinator, and though the tools are different the work is essentially the same, although in an admins case it is not limited to a project. You can tell a lot about someone from the simplest of things, and from where I sit your inability to follow even the basic suggested and unenforced requests casts a very dark shadow not only for this FAC but for your adminship as well. If I can't count on you to step up and take a more active part for a trivial FAC how can we expect you to step up as an admin? You had damn well better put some thought into your answer, sir, because your response to it will likely be the deciding factor in my decision to support or oppose your rfa. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom I recommend you reconsider your above comments because they read like a personal attack please remember to comment on the content not the person. Gnangarra 13:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA was withdrawn

Hi BQZip01. I have withdrawn your RFA as it did not currently have a chance of succeeding. Please consider the comments that were raised and feel free to reapply in the future. Good luck. --Deskana (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello BQ, I am sorry to see your nomination did not succeed. I was on my way to support and I saw what happened. RfA's often have this problem where people find one or two things to seize upon and just focus on those things vs. looking at the big picture. There are some that say that adminship is "no big deal" but there are others that point out that it is almost impossible to loose the admin bit once it is granted, and that we have to be extremely vigilant to never promote a questionable candidate. Don't worry about it too much. You will certainly succeed if you let some time pass and try again. Best, Johntex\ 17:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see this happen, I know from personal experience how tough RfAs are to go through. I think you probably learned from it, especially about friendly notifications..;) If you haven't already done so, I'd suggest getting an admin coach, they can be enormously helpful in learning about the various aspects of being an admin. Dreadstar † 18:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

i am sure you will do well next time. gig em! BTW, i am going to teach my co workers in Ohio how to do a fightin texas aggie yell practice on friday. it is going to be great Oldag07 (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Good gracious no! Leave the poor Ohio people alone - they've suffered enough!  :-) Johntex\ 17:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Check

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/USS Illinois (BB-65) for feedback. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I owe you an apology for my behavior and my attitude over the last few days. I have been off my meds for three days now, and as a result have been sleep deprived, underfed, and dealing with a with a never ending case of heart burn for which I have managed to drain two entire unopened bottles of pepto bismal in a vain and fruitless attempt to settle my stomache. All of this translates into an increase instances of stress, and since I can not work my stress of by exercising (that, too, makes my violently sick to my stomache) I have resorted to yelling at anyone I can find to make myself feel better. All of this aside I have been way out of line insofar as interacting with you for the past few days, and I feel badly about it, so if you can find it in your heart to except my apology I hope we can put this whole incident behind us. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to here it. I will look into adressing the specific objections you brought up at the FAC page a little later (tommorow maybe), but right now I need to step back from everything for a little while and catch my breath. Clearing my head would be the best thing for me right now, before my momentarily substandard judgement gets me into even more trouble. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding RFArb

You wrote: I was involved in this discussion, but was never informed of ArbCom. Given the sheer volume of the discussion, I really don't mind so much, but I wish I had been notified and no malice is assumed unless proven otherwise (I don't expect that to even be possible).

Given the sheer number of involved editors, I undoubtedly missed some that should have been included. If you wish to add yourself as a party to the case, you can do so yourself (As Remember did) - after all, this is a wiki *grin*. I did post a note about the ArbCom request on the talk page, to notify editors I may have left out. henrik•talk 06:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Q. Schmidt (actor)

I have nominated this page for AFD. Since you're disputing the prod, you may want to give an opinion here. Thanks! --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel like I should clarify something here

Because of our recent disputes at Kyle Field and Michael Q. Schmidt (actor) I feel that my intent for the original edits at Kyle Field has been misinterpreted as being malicious. It has never been my intention to undermine your efforts to bring A&M related articles to FA status. I acknowledge that you have done this several times before at Aggie Bonfire and Texas A&M University, both of which I have read completely and enjoyed. My edits to Kyle Field were not meant to be a jab at the stadium's de facto status of being an intimidating venue, but were meant solely to bring the title and that section in line with Misplaced Pages protocol. Furthermore, I do not wish to eliminate or crop information from the article that promotes Texas A&M University, its athletic program or its facilities (as long as NPOV is maintained). In fact, I think the information at Kyle Field should be expanded and I hope that one day it becomes a Featured Article.

My edits were solely technical in nature and were not necessarily content disputes. If you wrote that "so and so called A&M the most intimidating venue ever" (with a source) that would be fine, wouldn't be OR and would agree with NPOV. Since it doesn't cover anything that isn't in the citation, it is perfectly acceptable. I probably have a more stringent view of OR than most, but I believe that holding editors accountable for what they write makes the information in the article more reliable. I recognize that your attendance at A&M makes you more familiar with those topics, but I would ask that you please please cite your sources so that when it comes time to promote these articles, other editors won't have these same disputes.

As for the nominations for Michael Schmidt, my reasons for removing those articles are based on violations of WP:AUTO where I believe that Schmidt authored that article to promote himself. He has already said several times that he paid somebody to promote him (though I dispute this and believe he performed the edits himself) through Misplaced Pages. Again, I believe that that transaction, regardless of any and all WP:COI concerns, makes the writing unsalvageably unencyclopedic and thus should be deleted. Because of the many and numerous attempts by sock puppet accounts to override the removal of this material, I reacted harshly to your removal of this template. Had I read the talk page for the ip account, I would have quickly realized it was not a sock and therefore not vandalism. I apologize for this accusation. Since you are a unique user, your removal of the prod was fair within WP:PROD, though I wish you had provided better context for doing so.

If you agree with me that some of the material on Kyle Field can be rewritten to improve the form and thus satisfy the POV concerns, I will remove the RfC immediately. I do not wish to engage in any content disputes with anybody on the project, so it would be great if we could resolve this amicably. If you do leave a reply to this, please do so on my talk page so I can respond faster. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• You are again a liar and still a fool to think that by now pretending to be the calm voice of wisdom you can disuade others from disagreeing with you. You continue to use Wiki guidelines to say whatever you want them to say. You bend them to voice your opinion whenever it suits you and then ignore these same guidelines and claim a personal attack when someone else points out your actions as being contrary to guideline. Long before I ever knew Wiki existed, you were tagging articles as non-notable, de-constructing them to make them non-notable, and then moving on to tear down something else. You have left a bloody trail of malice all across Wiki and anyone with the patience to follow your steps can count the blood drops.
• I AGAIN DEMAND YOU LEAVE ME ALONE. DO NOT MENTION MY NAME, MY PAST, MY WORK, MY FAMILY. YOU HAVE NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF ME OR MY CAREER AND WOULD NOT KNOW TRUTH OR FACT IF THEY BIT YOU ON THE BUM. IN THE YEARS BEFORE WIKI EVER HEARD OF ME OR VICE VERSUS, YOU HAD ALREADY SHOWN A SAD PATTERN OF TOTAL DISREGARD FOR WIKI-TRUTH AND WIKI-ACCURACY. YOUR ACTIONS ARE INDEFENSIBLE. YOU HAVE WON. IT IS OVER. SO FOR GOD'S SAKE, LET IT REST!!!!MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of responding to both users in an appropriate forum/context, I have placed my responses here

Cumulus Clouds, I believe your interpretation of WP:OR is too strict, but your response here shows simply overzealousness (zeal, like many things, are excellent in moderation). In the spirit of WP:AGF, I accept your proposal in general and I believe the RfC to be unnecessary, but made in good faith, even if I think it was misguided. That said, we have the opportunity to hear from Misplaced Pages at large. Let's hear their opinions and work from there. That said, I think that in the future, you should attempt this form of communication first and then seek an RfC if some sort of agreement could not be established. Live and learn; no grudge is held against you.

MichaelQSchmidt, it would be far more appropriate for you to address these comments on his user talk page and not mine. Your cumulative posts violate WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:AUTO, WP:SOCK, WP:NOT, WP:THREAT, etc. and are among the most blatant I've seen, at least in scope. I attribute this to your relative newness to Misplaced Pages and its guidelines. I recommend reading these policies/guidelines and formulating responses accordingly. I also implore you to calm down in your posts and have a wikibeer on me (I also extend such an invitation to you in real life, should we ever meet). Furthermore, as a public figure, we have every right to mention your name, your past, and your work. My personal knowledge of your work is limited to what is available online. Truth/fact is in the eye of the beholder when it comes to what's online. This is why we have WP:V and its cousin WP:RS. I highly recommend you read these as well. As for your family, near as I can tell, no one has brought them up. I recommend simply leaving them out of the discussion altogether. — BQZip01 —  21:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your insights and courtesies. Your professional demeanor has done much to molify. I did not mean to burden your talk page, but I am new here and thought I had to respond at those places where I felt I was being abused. And I was so many levels beyong angry, that I cannot describe it. I have gone to CC's page and posted an apolgy. I ask that you visit my talk page and make comment or invite me back here to do so. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am glad we can come to some reasonable understanding. There is no problem with "burdening" my talk page. I simply feel the direct and calm approach generally works the best...in all situations...and that you should have talked to CC instead. Technically, a user and talk page belongs to everyone one Misplaced Pages and you can edit anyone's you want within the guidelines of Misplaced Pages. However guidelines on WP:USER show exactly what you should do (if someone asks you not to post on their page, you shouldn't without good cause...you are welcome to talk on my page...only one user is not at this time allowed on my page and you aren't it). I also make it a pseudo policy not to delete anything on my talk page. It shows transparency and people can understand my perspective easier than if I cut things that I didn't like. This includes my block (see below for more).

I understand your hostile feelings and feel that you certainly have some reasons to be upset. Your actions (in general) were fine, it's your response that wasn't. Online, we all can get more hostile than we would in real life (then again, you work in Hollywood...I have no idea how stable those folks are. Heck I work in a place where our job is to find people and kill them...no seriously, read my user page). There is a bit of anonymity to the online realm that doesn't exist anywhere else. It can allow us to be more pensive and cautious, or we can quickly type something and click send, only later regretting that action, but with no way to take it back. Please understand, Misplaced Pages is not a simple forum and we save just about everything. There is no way to take back what you said. This allows a modicum of finality and makes people generally more cautious. We also have standards of behavior and rules that must be followed or administrators can block their access. If you follow those rules, taking issues higher in authority become easier.

Personally, I have had a single incident (okay it lasted 2 months) with an unnamed user and managed to get myself blocked for 11 hours for what I thought was a narrow interpretation of the rules. I then learned more of the rules and got my "nemesis" blocked on 4 other occassions...he eventually left as a contributor, but still lurks around on his talk page. My point is that people here will wear you down to civility or get you so frustrated that you simply blow up and get yourself banned.

I think CCs actions are simply overzealousness...a zeal that many people need here on wikipedia...but an intensity that is simply off focus. We simply disagree as to the best way to do things. As long as we can both accept the final product there is no reason to get upset. I would like for you to be able to join that group of people who can have a reasoned discussion even under the most heated of situations and it can certainly start right now (officially, Misplaced Pages doesn't hold grudges if people change their behavior when told it is out of line).

In short, even under the most trying of circumstances, as a Wikipedian you should assume good faith and remain civil even under the most trying of times. As a matter of fact, that is the best time to show restraint, in my humble opinion, even in real life. If you can say "That is an interesting point of view. Why do you believe XYZ?" when the other guy is screaming "FUCK YOU YOU MISERABLE BASTARD!!! I HOPE YOU FUCKING CHOKE ON A...", then you appear to be the calm one and people are liable to come to your aid and not the screaming psycho, even if you are wrong, because they realize the other guy is so far off his rocker that a reasonable solution isn't possible with him. They will want to get rid of him and keep you because you are not a threat; he is. This is doubly true on Misplaced Pages. Users who can restrain themselves emotionally will get much more accomplished and if a heated debate comes up, they might be wrong, but their actions aren't going to put themselves in a situation where they will get blocked/banned from Misplaced Pages.

In conclusion for the rambling diatribe, just be honest, sincere, and calm. Your defense doesn't need to be immediate. Think about it for a minute/hour/day before posting. We'll be here and we'll fix it. Your Hollywood perspective may also lend itself to some related discussions. I request that you reconsider leaving and stick around. You certainly don't have to do a lot, but we could use someone with your perspective. — BQZip01 —  05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I believe that taking a very strong line against original research and requiring numerous references improves the reliability of the information in most articles. It is not meant to be an insult against the article's subject or its editors. If you have any doubts, look at the history for the article concering my home field. You'll see the same pattern of significant tagging and removal of OR so that the information in that article withstands checks for original research and synthesis and perhaps one day be promoted to GA or FA status.

Also it bears mentioning that I don't think the win record for A&M at Kyle Field should be eliminated entirely from Misplaced Pages, it just needs a proper context and perhaps a better article to appear in (something more related to A&M football and/or athletics). Anyway, let me know what you think and maybe we can work something out for this article. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No insult taken; merely disagreement. I can hardly think of something more related to A&M football (other than the team) than Kyle Field. I guess we'll see what happens there. 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• I would oppose any unblock for L.L.King since that user has demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the rules and policies and has used numerous sockpuppets to circumvent existing blocks. With the COI problem, the user has previously stated their role in promoting their clients so any edits made by those accounts to the articles for those actors and organizations clearly demonstrates a significant violation of NPOV. I don't think anyone has any doubt that those accounts would have only been used for the purpose of promoting their clients on Misplaced Pages and it is for this reason that I would vehemently oppose any unblock request. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would ask that you both visit my talk page. Cumulus Clouds has made a gracious proposal and explanation and I have made a counterproposal with explanation. Before moving my thoughts to the AfD page (where as the man with the least NPOV of all I would likely get laughed at (chuckle)), I would like input from you both... you Mr. Clouds because the tag of non-notability was yours (and understandable considering the circumstances)... and you Mister BQZip01 because you an impartial judge with a fresher and clearer perspective on this matter. (love that page split thingie!) MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision to Cessna T-37

HI - I made an editorial cleanup to Tweety Bird on 12 January, and I see you cleaned up my cleanup. Your changes are GOOD. Thanks for the help. Raymondwinn (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

USS Illinois BB-65

I'm sorry to ask this of you, but would you permit me a few days away from the FAC? I am having a hard time typing at the moment, and would like to adress your concerns when I am at 100%. In the interm both MBK004 and Kirill Lokshin have agree to keep tabs on the article should you ammend your opposition list. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't know enough....

Please refer to the talk page about the article about me. More information is being deleted in Cumulus Clouds continued bad faith effort to ensure my being non-notable.. following up on his promise to keep chopping the article apart. He knows that if I were to attempt any revert, it would be ammunition for him to claim COI. I am learning more each time I log in... but I an still too much of a newbie. Even the picture of me that was there was deleted though it was properly uploaded and cited. Do I have any recourse to being picked apart this way? Thanks. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In Regards to vandal ColourWolf

Please read my comments in the SSP entry for ColourWolf. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal

It is a tough one. My general interpretation of the "no legal threats" policy is that person A is not supposed to make legal threats against person B or against the Foundation. The logic goes that if they are threatening to take legal action, then A should stop editing until A's legal action has run its course. If the legal action has run its course (including simply by A saying that a legal remedy is no longer being pursued) then A can edit again.

What we have here is slightly different. A is urging the foundation to take legal action. A is not saying A will take action so I don't think that qualifies as a threat.

If we classified this as a threat, then arguably we would have to make the same classification for any person who urges the foundation to pursue a course of action that is even vaguely connected with the law. Examples could include cracking down on people who are stealing our content and not using it under terms consistent with the GFDL.

Therefore, my read at this time is that I don't view this as a threat. Best, Johntex\ 23:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Note that this does not mean your suggestions for improvement will not be implemented, nor should this be construed as such; however you were the only member of the opposition who endovoured to meet me half way on the FAC, and for I thank you. This is merely a token of my apreciation. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar

Well, I would admit, it was a little frustrating at first, but you actually made me present my case, which was much better. Thanks for playing the Devils' Advocate! Also, thanks for the barnstar! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)