Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:26, 9 January 2008

User talk:Blue Tie/Archive 1 User talk:Blue Tie/Archive 2

User talk:Blue Tie/Article to work

Im gonna be gone a while. I will archive the page later. --Blue Tie 15:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Denialism

Any attempt to alter the article, no matter how small-- even changing the word 'the' to 'a'-- will trigger automatic reverting and a string of uncivil comments. It's not worth the effort. Revolutionaryluddite 05:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see you back as much as possible

You are in my thoughts and prayers during this difficult time for you and your family. Hang in there. Feel free to erase this very personal comment from your talk page. --Robbie Giles 01:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

tGW

I removed those comments per WP:TPG. We are trying to minimize irrelevant discussion on that page. I will leave them and hope some one else notices that the question posed is not about the article but about igniting conversation that belongs on user talk page or forum. Brusegadi 19:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Your revert at "Scientists..."

Since RA reverted this revert before I could, I'll comment this way. You might want to reread WP:TPG, especially WP:TPG#Others.27_comments. "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article" is explicitely listed as acceptable. --Stephan Schulz 02:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Bushisms

Why do you keep deleting well referenced Bushisms, with the edit summary "not a bushism"? If you disagree on the merits of a specific quote whether it should be included in the Bushism article, please use the Talk:Bushism page to explain why you think it is not a bushism. The way you are currently going about it, you are trying to impose your point of view. --However whatever 16:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it does not matter if they are well referenced if they are not good examples, and some of them are not well referenced either. If you think something should be added to the page, please use the Talk:Bushism page to explain why you think it is a bushism. The way you are currently going about it, you are trying to impose your point of view.--Blue Tie 03:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Not good examples" is your POV. You must justify why they are "not good examples". Also, your "YouTube is not a good reference" edit summaries is not credible. There is no better reference than the actual video. --However whatever 14:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: There is not a single word in WP:RS saying that YouTube is not a reliable source. --However whatever 14:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Good examples" is your POV. You must justify why they are "good examples". Per WP:PROVEIT if you are seeking to add something you must prove it.

Here is the wikipedia quote on YouTube as a source: "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher, but even then should be used with caution." So, do not use Youtube if you can help it. Since there are already ample examples of real Bushisms, it is not necessary to use Youtube as an example -- when the examples do not fit the definitions put forth in the article and one of the examples may be edited just as wikipedia fears. --Blue Tie 15:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Duncan Hunter

Care to expand on your decision to delete the Columbia endowment reference in Duncan Hunter's article? He is talking about cutting their federal funding and the reference describes their current financial status which would be affected if the funding is cut. I fail to see how it isn't relevant. I'll see if you respond otherwise I'll put the quote back in as it is relevant. Bluefield 03:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is about Duncan Hunter. It is not about Columbia's endowment. An action on his part is reasonable in an article about Duncan Hunter. A discussion about a third entity is irrelevant to the article on Duncan Hunter. Specifically Columbia's endowment is irrelevant to the Duncan Hunter article. On the other hand, it would be reasonable to put in Columbia's article. You should note that Gamaliel (I think) also considered it irrelevant. --Blue Tie 22:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Lehi in the Wilderness: 81 New Documented Evidences That the Book of Mormon Is a True History

I added significant information to this article. I think this article can now stay on wikipedia.Cmmmm 13:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Email

Hi Blue Tie. I've sent you an email. CO₂ 00:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Malkin

Michelle Malkin is a highly ideological commentator, not a journalist. I'd really feel much more comfortable if we got some kind of independent verification that this incident even happened. --Orange Mike 16:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked users

Please don't re-add comments from blocked users . If you like the comment and want to add the substance of it yourself, of course, then you may do so William M. Connolley 22:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahh.. I see. He's blocked not just Banned. Ok. But the comment on the talk page is harmless after all. --Blue Tie 22:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I like this signature

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦

Re 2 most recent installments serializing MMM

Bardwin claims he might work on the generic MMM, Main Article so it can be augmented and ajusted and brought into better focus as a summary.

Yet, after that, the Conspiracy and siege of the Mountain Meadows massacre that I'd cannibalised from Ogden's latest draft could either be deleted or improved upon, as editors see fit, for a more detailed examination, as could be Pursuit of the perpetrators of the Mountain Meadows massacre). Justmeherenow 18:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Really, really bad haikus from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will new mop act?
Ooops, .com blocked

New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well Main Page

New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault

A. B. so grateful
Misplaced Pages trembles
Watch out DRV

A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye

Qatar is blocked
Shucks those range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.

Colbert's elephants
stampede Misplaced Pages
Must protect, protect

Wiki fortress not.
Open gates, knowledge wings free
But fiends are about

Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ... A. B.

Blue Tie, what can I say? Of all the comments in my RfA, yours meant the world to me. Thank you so very much.
--A. B. 15:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)\

Thanks! --Blue Tie (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent Question (reply)

Thank you. At first I was just going to vote against him, it doesn't appear like enough experience yet, but as I went to the next candidate, the questions came to me, so I figured I'd at least give him a fair shake to answer the questions before I 'officially' made up my mind. Since I've seen your name on many other candidates pages as well, I can assume that you know I've asked the same questions of all the candidates. To me right now, those are the most pressing issues, though later in the year it could very well change. wbfergus 17:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Your question...

Has an answer  :)

Apologies for the time taken. I trust you got the note to keep you informed. But it's there now :)

FT2  07:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding lead

Please recommend changes to satisfy your concerns about errors of fact and unbalanced perspective Blue Tie. I would like to win your support for this change. As you say it is better than current lead. We can work together yes? Shibumi2 (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Please note some of the concerns that I have expressed on the talk page regarding the whole article. I do not think we should be so focused on the lead as on fixing the whole article first then let the lead be a summary. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Blue Tie. I will look at your discussion and make some changes to my lead to satisfy your concerns. Shibumi2 (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding and ANI

I saw you mention to Royalguard you were going to ANI. Please do so--the more eyes the better, and I look forward to that. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 15:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for noticing; I added a comment at the ANI and will return to this discussion on the 27th, God willing. I can't take this and Christmas together. I hope you both have a happy holiday! htom (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting global warming studies and such

I have compiled a list from some info I found on the internet. You may find it interesting. The list I created is here. Elhector (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding

I've been busy the last couple days with Christmas related things, and I'm not at anyone's beck and call. I do things in the order I get asked and hadn't seen your request until now. You can always use WP:RFPP to request unprotection of an article too. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 02:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie, there is a new lead that has just been proposed last night byShibumi2 and you are invited to express support or opposition to the proposed lead. Kindest regards -- 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

SPA

Hi! You asked what an SPA was, I don't want to clutter up Talk:Waterboarding any more, but it stands for Single Purpose Account, someone who almost exclusively edits a single article rather than the wide variety of topics most committed wikipedia editors are active in. See WP:SPA for more details. henrik•talk 18:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Apparently I don't get around much!--Blue Tie (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

We don't always agree, but I'd like to wish you a Happy New Year! Jehochman 01:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A message from WP:WNP

Thanks for bringing waterboarding to our attention. However, it seems that the page in question is currently protected from editing, due to an ongoing conflict, edit warring, or persistent vandalism. The Neutrality Project is not a dispute resolution commitee, nor an informal mediation process. As such, it does not wish to become involved in articles which are unde rthe imminent threat of escalating or being subject to dispute resolution. If this article become stable in the future, please feel free to bring it to our attention again._Jame§ 11:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I realise that you do have quite an interesting dilemma here. I've made comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamessugrono (talk • contribs) 12:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

When I say overwhelming majority, generally, I would mean to almost all. For example, an overwhelming majority of people believe that the earth revolves around the sun. _Jame§ 06:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Misplaced Pages:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 04:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. Though as you can see from the comments at my RfA, being someone who "knows something" is actually not as much of an asset on Misplaced Pages as you might think! It's been a definite puzzle to solve, to figure out how I can best help on Misplaced Pages, without actually working on subjects where I'm a closely-involved expert! LOL!  :) --Elonka 16:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Friendly advice

Uninvolved administrators are going to deal with waterboarding. It may be unprotected at some point. All parties should be very careful not to get involved in edit warring. If somebody does a POV push, editors may normally revert once, using a civil edit summary. It is a good idea to explain the revert on the talk page and to seek consensus. I strongly recommend not reverting more than once. Feel free to pass the word around that civility and decorum must be maintained. My intention is to help keep editors out of trouble. Jehochman 07:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it has been unprotected for a few days. A new consensus approach has been suggested by a number of previously uninvolved editors. I try to be civil all the time. If I have failed let me know so I can apologize. --Blue Tie (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)