Misplaced Pages

User talk:Bobblehead: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:39, 14 April 2009 editSkotywa (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers5,375 editsm →Season page naming convention: Thanks← Previous edit Revision as of 05:54, 14 April 2009 edit undoBobblehead (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users35,705 edits →Season page naming convention: Some feedbackNext edit →
Line 81: Line 81:


:(sigh) Now he's choosing to enforce his whims on ]. I appreciate your chiming in on this and would love to hear any feedback you have for me on how I'm handling myself. I know I can do better. I'm having difficulty ignoring his personal attacks and sticking to the facts though. Thanks for keeping the conversation grounded. --]<sup>'']''</sup> 05:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC) :(sigh) Now he's choosing to enforce his whims on ]. I appreciate your chiming in on this and would love to hear any feedback you have for me on how I'm handling myself. I know I can do better. I'm having difficulty ignoring his personal attacks and sticking to the facts though. Thanks for keeping the conversation grounded. --]<sup>'']''</sup> 05:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
::First thing I notice is that I'm not sure that Grant's use of "fanboy" or "fanboyism" is necessarily a personal attack against you. It is probably just shorthand for information that is not of interest to the "average" Misplaced Pages reader. You also seem to have a bit of a double standard with your approach to the whole edit war. Just because something is added to the article, it doesn't mean that consensus is required to remove it. Adding content to article also requires consensus, so as long as only you and Grant have expressed your opinion on the content then there is no consensus to include or not include the content. In that case, the default state is generally to return the article to the condition prior to the start of the edit war and to request input from other editors. If you aren't familiar with dispute resolution, please see ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:54, 14 April 2009

Skip to table of contents
This is Bobblehead's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3


This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
The Signpost
24 December 2024

Picture of the day KiMo Theater KiMo Theater is a theater and historic landmark located in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on the northeast corner of Central Avenue and Fifth Street. It was built in 1927 in the extravagant Pueblo Deco architecture, which is a blend of adobe-style Pueblo Revival building styles (rounded corners and edges), decorative motifs from indigenous cultures, and the soaring lines and linear repetition found in American Art Deco architecture. The name Kimo, meaning 'mountain lion', was suggested by Pablo Abeita in a competition sponsored by the Albuquerque Journal. The theater opened on September 19, 1927, with a program including Native American dancers and singers, a performance on the newly installed $18,000 Wurlitzer theater organ, and the comedy film Painting the Town. According to local legend, the KiMo Theatre is haunted by the ghost of Bobby Darnall, a six-year-old boy killed in 1951 when a water heater in the theater's lobby exploded. The tale alleges that a theatrical performance of A Christmas Carol in 1974 was disrupted by the ghost, who was supposedly angry that the staff was ordered to remove donuts they had hung on backstage pipes to appease him. This photograph shows the facade of the KiMo Theater, seen from across Central Avenue.Photograph credit: Daniel Schwen Archive – More featured pictures...

SIAs

Hi there. Could you, please, explain, why so many changes like this one were made without first consulting with WP:RUSSIA? Thank you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:03, February 26, 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Misplaced Pages. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Misplaced Pages, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Misplaced Pages in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI

As the user didn't see fit to inform you, you have been mentioned at ANI. Grsz 00:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw and was responding. Just typing slow because I'm multi-tasking. Thanks for the notification. --Bobblehead 00:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


Arbcom

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:Stevertigo's disruptive trolling and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

An Arbitration case involving you 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/Obama articles/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/Obama articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 18:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

MLS Portland

The fact that I do a lot of work on MLS articles doesn't mean that I think I own them. There's never been a single instance where I've justified a controversial edit with some form of "Because I said so, and I own the article," and throwing that accusation around is a violation of WP:NPA. The simple fact is that while Timbers will surely be part of the new team's name, the new team's name has not been officially announced. Look at the fact that the Seattle Sounders became Seattle Sounders FC, and Vancouver Whitecaps FC have changed many times over the last few years between Vancouver Whitecaps, Whitecaps FC, and Vancouver Whitecaps FC. It is simply speculation to say anything else right now. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

resignations

What are some other resignations that were forced? Contino (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Bush Admin forced the CEOs of AIG, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae to resign as a condition of their bailouts. --Bobblehead 22:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Then Michael Moore is wrong. He said today on his website, michaelmoore.com, "I have never heard of such a thing in all my days: The main representative of the people ordering a corporate chieftain to step down — today! And not just any corporate CEO, but the head of the company that has spent more years at #1 on the Fortune 500 than any other corporation in the world"
Michael Moore must be wrong?! Contino (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
And you're surprised by that? Grsz 22:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)MM wrong? Shocking.. Shocking. --Bobblehead 22:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Then we should edit the Micheal Moore article in Misplaced Pages...."Moore's own website has published wrong information (reference: Bobblehead)." Just kidding. Contino (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not a reliable source. :) --Bobblehead 22:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Shocking! Michael Moore declared wrong. Bobblehead admits he is unreliable! Do not offer to bring cookies, you may show up without them...very unreliable. Contino (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Q

Suppose an admin blocks a user merely for disagreeing with the admin about content. And ANI does nothing. Is that necessarily the end of the story? This seems like a very dangerous situation. Can't an admin thereby dictate whatever content in the article that the admin wants?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That would seem to be against WP:UNINVOLVED, imho. Given your history with KC and her involvement in the content dispute on Palin's article, I don't think it was appropriate for her to ban you from the article. That being said, it's not clear that the AN/I discussion has concluded in favor of keeping you banned from the article. It's still in progress, but there does seem to be several adminny types that have issues with KC banning you and in favor of lifting the ban. Best option is to let KC respond and if she refuses to lift the ban at that point, see if another admin is willing to lift the ban. Until then, Misplaced Pages's a big site, focus on another article for awhile. --Bobblehead 20:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks. I think I'll focus on editing your user page.  :-) I think your user page should say "Who has way too much time on his hands."

Ferrylodge (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There ya go.:) --Bobblehead 20:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Rivalries

I edited the bottom template box thingamajig again with a longer edit summary for you. Didn't realize the Heritage Cup was included for a specific (and good) reason. Let me know if Chivas IS supposed to be in. SF is the other participant from what I read so I swapped them. If there is another rivalry between Chivas and SEA I am not aware of just throw it back in.Cptnono (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Sounds good.Cptnono (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk back

Hello, Bobblehead. You have new messages at QueenofBattle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Bobblehead. You have new messages at QueenofBattle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Season page naming convention

Thanks for starting this discussion. FWIW, I was amused and disappointed by Grant.Alpaugh's claim that I'm "obviously a fan of European Football" and his insinuation that this "fact" somehow invalidated my opinion. I've told him as much. While I hope the consensus isn't arrived at by Grant beating everyone else into submission (as he tends to do), in the end I don't think it matters enough to argue further with him. Thanks for your good intentions trying to start a productive discussion.--Skotywa 22:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(sigh) Now he's choosing to enforce his whims on 2009_Seattle_Sounders_FC_season. I appreciate your chiming in on this and would love to hear any feedback you have for me on how I'm handling myself. I know I can do better. I'm having difficulty ignoring his personal attacks and sticking to the facts though. Thanks for keeping the conversation grounded. --Skotywa 05:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
First thing I notice is that I'm not sure that Grant's use of "fanboy" or "fanboyism" is necessarily a personal attack against you. It is probably just shorthand for information that is not of interest to the "average" Misplaced Pages reader. You also seem to have a bit of a double standard with your approach to the whole edit war. Just because something is added to the article, it doesn't mean that consensus is required to remove it. Adding content to article also requires consensus, so as long as only you and Grant have expressed your opinion on the content then there is no consensus to include or not include the content. In that case, the default state is generally to return the article to the condition prior to the start of the edit war and to request input from other editors. If you aren't familiar with dispute resolution, please see WP:DR. --Bobblehead 05:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)