User talk:BoboMeowCat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

BoboMeowCat, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi BoboMeowCat! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


WP:MEDHOW[edit]

Give advice on proper formatting of refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


March 2014[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi ElKevbo,I don’t think one reversion, with clear explanation of reversion constitutes an edit war. Also, a Google search turned up references for content added by the other editor, which was deleted due to lack of active references (regarding disability lawsuit), so when have chance will restore and replace dead links with active references.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
A reversion of another editor's initial reversion is by definition an edit war. Please abide by WP:BRD in the future. ElKevbo (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

1RR on abortion-related articles[edit]

I can't remember if you've been notified of this before, but abortion-related articles are subject to a 1-revert rule (meaning that no editor may make more than one revert, as defined here, within a 24-hour period). This restriction is much stricter than the standard three-revert rule which applies everywhere on Wikipedia. Since you seem committed to making controversial edits to abortion-related articles, including Becky Bell, I wanted you to be aware of this restriction. MastCell Talk 19:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, your edit on Becky Bell appears to be controversial edit. You inexplicably deleted large amounts of reliable sourced info (from The Baltimore Sun, CBS News-60 Minutes, and New York Times). It has been reverted and I hope you will respect revert rule you site above. I do not believe I have made controversial edits but please discuss any such concerns on Becky Bell talk page.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
You seem to have misunderstood my edit. Please look again. You'll see that, far from "inexplicably deleting" the New York Times and 60 Minutes, I've cited them extensively. (If you don't believe me, scroll down to the references section and count the citations). The Baltimore Sun source is an opinion piece authored by a pro-life activist, which I hope you understand is absolutely not an appropriate source for claims of fact. If you're unclear on this, please let me know, because it's a pretty fundamental issue. MastCell Talk 01:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The respective revisions are saved and show extensive deletions of information sourced by New York Times, 60 Minutes and The Baltimore Sun. I'm not claiming you didn't then later include information from 2 of those sources in your new revision and I agree it may be entirely appropriate to add additional info from those reliable sources, but think it would be better if you added the additional information without deleting the current properly sourced info. It seems better to first discuss desired deletions of properly sourced info on talk page. Regarding the Baltimore Sun, The Sun isn't the sort of paper to just publish quotes from a supposed interview with the doc who performed Bell's autopsy, without confirming quotes with that Dr first. It's a reliable source.BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Your description of my edits bears no resemblance to the actual revisions, as best I can tell. I didn't "later" include anything; I made one series of edits over about 1 minute, encapsulated in this diff. Those edits dramatically increased the article's use of the New York Times and 60 Minutes sources. To claim otherwise doesn't make any sense to me; can you elaborate?

Please stop for a minute and read WP:RSOPINION. Then come back and explain to me why you believe that we should use an opinion piece by a partisan anti-abortion activist as a source for facts in our article. I'll wait. MastCell Talk 01:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I've read WP:RSOPINION. Please see reply on talk:Becky Bell and continue discussion there. Thanks --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Becky Bell[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Becky Bell. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Your two reverts within 24 hours break the WP:1RR rule on abortion-related articles. The full report is at WP:AN3#User:BoboMeowCat reported by User:MastCell (Result: 24 hours). EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

BoboMeowCat (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Hi EdJohnston, Please review. There actually is and was no edit war. The second edit, within the 24 hour period, included content *not* part of the initial revert. My second edit involved deleting content that clearly seems appropriate for deletion, because it was not properly referenced. I respected the one revert rule and left all disputed content as is.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

The rule for abortion-related articles is two reverts in 24 hours. The definition of a revert is given in WP:Edit war. There is no requirement that the listed reverts be about the same material. Your opinion that the material deserved to be deleted is not a defense against edit warring. (Most edit warriors believe that they are right). What you took out in your second revert is in fact cited to a published book, even if the convenience link to the material no longer works. EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
EdJohnston Thanks for the response,
Just to be clear, in cases where there is disputed content, and I'm leaving that disputed content as is, and there is totally separate different content, in the same article, that does not seem properly referenced, I have to wait 24 hrs to delete that different content?
This question stands regardless of content, but in this case, I agree it's published book, but it's an extreme quote, the link no longer works to verify the quote, and it seemed allegations of attempted murder should be backed by neutral reliable source.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I specifically pointed you to the definition of a revert (here), so I don't understand why you're pleading ignorance now. Reverts can involve "the same or different material". I mean, it says that in a big red box. Did you bother to click on the link and read the policy? Because that's pretty hard to miss if you did. MastCell Talk 05:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
EdJohnston and MastCell, this is what confuses me. From WP:Edit war "An edit war occurs when editors repeatedly override each other's contributions". The deleted quote was *not* MastCell's contribution. I reverted MastCell's contributions only one time, so believed I was following the 1RR. I did not realize that when content is in dispute, and you're leaving that content as is, that all other content on that page, is off limits for deletion for 24 hours. Is that actually how it works? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I found this from your question at the Teahouse question forum. Yes, that is essentially how it works. As MastCell pointed out in the post two above this one, it does not matter if it is the same material. While this is not "edit warring" in the usual sense, it is still disruptive because it does not focus on building consensus. Anon126 (please ping!-talk-contribs) 19:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Notified of the discretionary sanctions for the topic of abortion[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

See WP:ARBAB for details. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

1RR question[edit]

To be honest, I'm not actually sure ... so much would depend on so many other variables. Ask someone more involved in enforcing topic-related sanctions like this, since I'm not one of them. Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I appreciate the Mike Fair edit.--John Foxe (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kermit Gosnell may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • illegal [[late-term abortion]], and 211 counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law.<ref>{{cite news |title=Abortion doctor convicted of murder waives appeal, avoids death sentence |last=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Concerning your recent edit[edit]

I have been in the process of ameliorating the issue you clearly saw as well but another user, unfortunately, is seemingly a sophist and unyielding on a clear case. If you believe your edit was justified on Bt concerning colony collapse "disproven link" please join the talk page to monitor and express your reasoning. The topic is currently RfC request comment status concerning the very issue you edited for. It would be helpful if you relay your reasoning there and continue to edit in cooperation for a consensus as the user is reverting despite broad and effective protest. More information is on the talk page under RfC: Colony Collapse Disorder heading. Thank you. Scraggle Grackle (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem Scraggle Grackle. I’ve actually had difficulties with the same editor over on the Paracetamol page regarding edits not supported by references cited. I agree that the wording “disproven link” was problematic. I notice you’re a new user. Welcome to Wikipedia. It’s good that you filed an RfC instead of edit warring. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust article[edit]

I read the above article and didn't see any glaring problems with it. It seemed to be factual, neutrally written, and had plenty of solid sources. I may go over it again to see if I can provide suggestions to improve it but it stuck me as "pretty okay" as it is. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Badmintonhist--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Just in case you haven't already seen it . . . "[edit]

are you aware of this material relating to the Becky Bell saga: [1]?? Material specifically relating to the Becky Bell case is found on the page from numbers {254} through {321}. Curious. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I have seen that. It’s pretty interesting and it also contains a reference with the exact date of the Plain Dealer article: ("Abortion debate shifting; Individuals become symbols in dispute." By Joe Frolik. Cleveland Plain Dealer, September 9, 1990). Actually, thanks for the reminder on this. I’ve been attempting to locate a copy of the Plain Dealer article, but it’s not something that can be obtained online, it requires phone call during business hours which I haven’t gotten around to yet. Thanks Badmintonhist, for the reminder to follow up on this. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Becky Bell, Joe Frolik's Plain Dealer article[edit]

Hi, Bobo. Welcome to Wikipedia. Did you ever get ahold of Joe Frolik's article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer? Like Badmintonhist, I find the discrepancies between the pathologists' reports and what the media reported intriguing. I tend to give credence to Bernard Nathanson's conclusions after he reviewed the medical evidence—that there was no evidence of induced abortion. But, I'm no expert in this area (Nathanson was). --71.178.50.222 (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

PS: Here's a link to Chapter 28 of Dr. and Mrs. Willke's book Why Can't We Love Them Both?. It quotes the autopsy report. Don't know if you've seen it. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

PPS: Here's a link to the Bernadell Technical Bulletin article about Becky Bell — The Truth About Becky Bell. Bernard and Adelle Nathanson published the BTB, with Bernard being the technical advisor. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

YesAllWomen Article[edit]

Merge discussion for YesAllWomen[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, YesAllWomen, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. A Canadian Toker 18:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

BRD[edit]

I realize you're new here so you may not know how reverts usually work. The most standard practice is WP:BRD, meaning new content, if contested, stays out. The new content you were posting did not have consensus from me or, as you can see, several others, thus it usually stays out until consensus forms around inclusion of it or something different.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Then it also seems your content of breaking down the genders should stay out as well, as it has been contested by several editor. Also, to be specific, it wasn't techically my content. It was TaraInDC's content that I tweaked. Either way, I haven't restored it after bringing it to talk page, nor indicated that I planned to, if that's your concern. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
there was previously a consensus for that material, see the discussion further up on the page. In any case, we should probably start a new section on that specific gender breakdown sentence, which for some reason I can't fathom causes controversy.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I recall objection when you originally added it/restored it and then there has been further objection to it today. Either way the "controversy" seems to be wanting the gender breakdown included while not wanting context for that gender breakdown included as explained on Talk:YesAllWomen. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
no I didn't have concerns that you would put it back, it's just something you said like 'you restored 'your' version that didn't have consensus' - which I think is not quite true, I was simply reverting the additions, the status quo is usually assumed to be the consensus position.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Men's rights movement probation notice[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is necessarily any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

RFC[edit]

Bobo your comments ahead the RFC are inappropriate - they are full of non-neutral opinions - RFC ledes are meant to be neutral in tone, which your and Tara's additions are not. Please restrain your comments to the discussion section. Thanks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Obiwankenobi, If you review edit summary on talk:YesAllWomen, you will see my comments have been supported as appropriate by uninvolved editor Mr. Granger, who reverted your edit which disrupted my contributions. Mr Granger hasn't participated at all in heated debate while you have expressed strong opinions on the matter.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I would have done the same thing had non-neutral statements been added supporting my position. If you feel its appropriate to add slanted info to the top of an RFC do you think the rest of us have that right too? It never ends. Please put your comments in the discussion section where they belong, no-one asked you to sum up 'the full context of the discussion as viewed through the lens of Bobo' - shorter is better for RFCs anyway, if someone wants to read past debates they are welcome to but it's not necessary for you to sum up the points and counter points and especially to categorize me as a 'holdout' or whatever-it's offensive and completely inappropriate for an RFC header.you may not be familiar with standard practice around RFCs so I'm asking you to make this change.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
It is your view that they were "completely slanted", but since this is being discussed extensively on your talk page and talk page of article I'll leave it at that.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi Bobo, I was using a smaller device previously, and I didn't get that I had broken the indent levels by going out too far, so I'm sorry about that. I've fixed it now to be the same level of indent as your comment and added whitespace to help separate diff editors' contributions, I hope this is ok. I really wasn't going to make more changes, just your last comment clarified something I hadn't understood before and I didn't want it to be locked in a confusing state. Cheers.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Bobo, I had previously requested that you stop editing my comments. As I'm trying to avoid making further edits to the RFC, I'm requesting that you undo your indenting of my comments at the RFC, which makes it seem subordinate to and in response to your comments, which isn't accurate nor how my comments were intended. Thanks for complying. If you want to remove the line breaks between sections that's fine, but please put the indent level back where it was. I think it reads fine as is, and it's less misleading that way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Wow. Seriously Obiwankenobi? Please recall that a very kind admin said here that it's time for you to step away, and suggested you even remove YesAllWomen from your watchlist, in hopes you can avoid sanctions or topic ban. Besides, I made clear yesterday I was planning on restoring indent, due to concerns raised by others that it made it look like a general summing up of all, instead of the contribution of one editor. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
which is why I'm asking you here rather than reverting your undiscussed changes. I've fixed the indent so it's at the same level as yours; if that level of indent suggests it's a consensus view the same would apply to your post. Please stop playing games and restore them to the same indent level as yours, my signature is clearly at the bottom and the section header points to the fact that there are 3 contributions. My earlier edit outdented them too much, which you pointed out, and which I fixed, but there's no call to continue changing my comments esp when changing the indent context changes the meaning. You should feel free to try to fix indentation on other editor's comments, but if they revert you, you should accept their reversion. Most importantly, indenting it under yours makes it seem like a response to yours and gives your initial input a place of priority which simply isn't fair. I'm asking you again kindly to restore and stop fiddling with the formatting of my comments. Thanks. An alternative would be to put my comments first and yours last, so if someone thinks it's a summary, yours would be considered the summary not mine.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
if you want to outdent Tara's comments also to put at the same level that would help make it clear we have 3 independent summaries/statements, but that's up to you and her. Another alternative would be to restore the bold headers in front of each statement which also made it clear. Any of these options would be preferable and acceptable to me, whereas the current last change you made is not.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Net net, it's extremely inappropriate to edit my comments after I have stated that I will avoid editing the page further. You can edit your comments, but stop messing with mine. Otherwise it seems like you're grave dancing. Your original edits were in good faith and I do believe you intended to improve the formatting, that is fine, but you now know that I disagree and I'm asking you to revert.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Obiwankenobi, since you began rambling here, I have made no further edits to RfC at all. I indicated yesterday I would restore intent, and intent has been restored. Please stop commenting on my talk page. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and I'm asking you to undo your undiscussed indenting of my comments. It's a very simple change, please make it. I had asked you yesterday to not modify my comments, and you ignored that request.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

I moved the algorithm to a sub-page for now; we don't really have another good home for it, but I'm waiting to hear from WP:EGRS and perhaps we could host it there and embed into the guidelines. I'm still not sure I understand what the problem is with the algorithm itself however - is there something that needs to be fixed in it or is there something therein you disagree with? Thanks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Bobo, I wish you'd undo that. Now there are two copies of each of those threads. There was a whole discussion about moving it all to a subpage, which I've done, and if you like I can ping everyone involved and ask them to continue the discussion there. But keeping it on the main page seems to be annoying people more than anything, so it boggles me that you want to put it back.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The above has been discussed/explained elsewhere, but regarding your recent ivote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_bias_task_force#Requested_move_01_July_2014, um, there's a discussion section. When you have to collapse portions of your ivote, because it's approaching the length of a short book, seems tad obsessive. Seems like WP:Advocacy. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Hehe. Yeah, I could have put in even more examples, believe it or not. It may be a lost cause, but I figured I'd put my best foot forward. :) Actually, I had considered bringing some of those issues before that group previously, since I figured they would be open to it; feminists (if that is who is there, I'm not sure) are usually actually open to broader discussions of bias, etc, even as it affects people other than females.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, what you've been doing there seems comparable to a white student barging the black student union, at a predominately white school, and insisting they discuss discrimination against whites. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
hmph. Again, I'm not insisting they discuss anything, I'm only suggesting that the task force consider gender bias-broadly defined as being in it's scope - and not limit itself to "more female eds" - content is also v important. Fascinating that you give a black/white example...

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── On a different topic, you were wondering why we don't always put the American women novelists in the parent of American novelists as Filipacchi suggested - I developed a longer exposition on this here, so I invite you to read it and then let me know what you think. You may want to skip the second part about LGBT heads of state, as it gets sort of geeky, and isn't that germane to your main question, which is covered in the definition of ghettoization, and the collapsed section on why we don't always bubble up. I welcome your inputs and thoughts on this essay, and help with what can be explained better, what makes sense, what doesn't, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png I don't know if you like beer, if not send it back and I'll get you a cookie. Just want to say I'm sorry, I've crossed swords with you far too often in recent days and I regret being an ass. I'm glad you're here to improve the wiki and I know you act in good faith, so, again, sorry. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I do like beer. Thanks! --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:MANSPLAINING[edit]

This essay needs to happen.--Atlantictire (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

LOL...! --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree! See here. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aspies For Freedom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Selective abortion. 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) 08:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

NotAllMen Cartoon[edit]

Hello BoboMeowCat,

I am growing more confused re: the NotAllMen Cartoon. Is the cartoon you sought included the same cartoon described on the YesAllWomen page? YesAllWomen#Cartoon_controversy I think I rushed to judgement. ( I thought it was that Shark one). I apologize for not following the talk page discussion closely enough.

You were correct in seeking its inclusion. Can we still work it in?

- A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

A Canadian Toker, it's one of the comics from YesAllWomen page. This one: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/04/1303869/-Cartoon-Entitled-manchildren-magazine#, which was originally featured in NY Times. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

In re discussions on paracetamol-asthma[edit]

Replying to the discussion you appeared to wish to move to my talk page. First, you cannot—this belongs only at the Talk page of the article where an edit is proposed.

Second, regarding the medical matter underlying this debate. I am not properly qualified to enter it, and this broth has too many cooks already. I am a molecules guy.

Third, with regard to the ideas behind the differing sides in this debate: One can be right (if indeed you are) without being helpful. The whole structure of WP is aimed at editor consensus, not toward article content accuracy. The only way to achieve the latter aim is to forge a consensus around correct textual statements. Sometimes this is easily possible, sometimes ultimately impossible; for at least one editor, everything I say is a priori wrong, and demands immediate attention to reprimand/argue. This reality makes it likely that there will be some Wikipedia articles, to which I will never be able to contribute (barring unexpected participant mortality). In such cases, take your perceived good material, and offer to write elsewhere. You would be surprised how effective such non-WP efforts can be. (And if I might be prophetic, it's likely that nonsense with regard to content verifiability and accuracy here will mean that the landscape of free content will evolve tremendously in the coming years; my prediction, WP and google, if fundamentally unchanged, in descent. Be a part of solutions, not problems, however you can.)

Then, in re: the way science works, it and the nature of WP mean that even accurate scientific representation may take excruciating periods of time before it becomes WP acceptable. (See [2] for an interesting take on this.) Thankfully, in the basic sciences, there is not a full religious devotion to all WP policies, and so we know about the Higgs boson discovery and the synthesis of azadirachtin before these gestate long enough for independent secondary scientific sources report them. In the medical sciences, we decidedly do not want this relaxed perspective. The two stories mentioned, if misinformation, will not kill people. Medical disinformation will. Hence, the standards of robust, consistent secondary sourcing, and professional medical/federal regulatory buy-in on WP medical perspective, etc., that are being applied in the paracetamol cases are expected, and laudable (even if uncomfortable for you).

Fourth, regarding editorial strategy, in re: moving articles toward accuracy (if your perspective is ultimately shown to be the more accurate). I would begin by giving this matter some time. Then, when you return to it, do the work required to scientifically persuade (if this is possible). Many otherwise sound arguments will fail to persuade here; two that surely will are listing articles that other editors are expected to go off and read, and long, loosely structured prose arguments (of which, I admit, I am Head of Production). Even if succinct and tightly structured, some will not take time to read the arguments you compose; if at all long, then most will certainly not. Any that do should be applauded, and very cordially engaged. (For they are most rare.) I know two editors, one highly esteemed, the other not, who have in common their willingness only to read a line into a paragraph, after which they skim, then begin to respond. (I.e., no careful reading and consideration.) And while I am more willing to read more than almost any here, even I want to know, clearly, "So what?" (is this editor arguing, in brief, for each source). Then, preview your proposed changes, humbly in the article's Talk section, given the bad blood that has flowed already. Take changes slow and systematically, one article at a time, when you do return to it. If an edit flies with the editors in one, it can easily be propagated.

In Fed Govt work, and in highly regulated industries, there is a system of doc/process error correction requiring approval up the chain of command; it is tabular (no where to be seen here), and has as its core "Changed from" and "Changed to" fill-in fields. I would put all this together to say: (i) wait for the appearance of new secondary sources, and only from the best medical journals. (ii) List each source whose content you wish to include in the edit, and then "quote each bit of abstract/text you wish to base the edit on. (iii) Follow these with the phrase or sentence you propose summarizes it. And finally, (iv) string these bits together, to propose your edit; use "Change from:" and "Change to:" headings, to show exactly what it is you want to change (and so showing clearly how it is based on the new sources you provide). (v) ping known interested editors, kindly, and allow those folks plenty of time to give their input, replying, when you do, patiently, and with less stridency than in past. (For as much as I can encourage others to allow such stridency, the rules here are clearly against one who is correct but uncivil, or otherwise fails to achieve consensus.)

If I see such a thorough, easy-to-follow argument for a change, I can perhaps jump in at an article. (Feel free to ping me.) I will esp. try to do so if I see particular bias (e.g., against a well-published meta-analysis, which some editors dislike in principle, and fight, violating OR). But otherwise, I think for now it is best to let the rejected earlier articles/content matters lie. If we are at a scientific cusp in this debate, you can only anticipate that further, clearer, and more well established reviews supporting your perspective will appear. As they do, then is the time to act. Cheers, best wishes. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:HOUND[edit]

Bob,

Since our disagreement on the paracetamol discussion several months back, there appears to be a pattern in which almost any time @Jytdog: or myself become involved in a conflict, you show up to express support for the other side of the issue. In most cases this has involved subject matter in which you have shown no previous interest. I respectfully request that you review the article in the subject line of this section, which explicitly forbids such activity. Withdrawn with apologies upon closer review of your editing history.

Respectfully, Formerly 98 (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Formerly98, I follow and edit a wide variety of WP pages and am by no means hounding you. I actually added the Isotretnion page to my watch list a while back when my attn was drawn to it as a result of a noticeboard listing. If you give me a few minutes, I can find the link to noticeboard listing. Please assume good faith. (updating: here it is [3]) Also, no other pages regarding you and Jytdog immediately come to mind that I've taken a side on, but now that you mention it you two do seem to edit together a lot. What "pattern" are you referring to?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:BoboMeowCat/sandbox[edit]

Hello BoboMeowCat. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "sandbox".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|User:BoboMeowCat/sandbox}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry again[edit]

Hi, just wanted to apologize again for the chaos over at the GG article. Obviously I'm new and I appreciate your patience. Strongjam (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Salvatore J. Cordileone may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ]<ref>[https://www.marriagemarch.org/ List of Sponsors of the June 2014 March for Marriage]</ref> (the last of which is on the [[list of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

22 Weeks[edit]

Hello, I would like to let you know that the "unreviewed" tag is now removed from the article. You are good to go! William2001 (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Kitten[edit]

Just in case your username is germane, I thought this would give you a laugh.

Cute --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Iris cat.jpg


Wisemancheez (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten in a helmet.jpg

Such a thoughtful kitty, just like you! :-)

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Rape culture[edit]

Just wanted to add that the lead doesn't need cites; it reflects the article accurately even if those links are dead. Please add deadlink templates if necessary. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, I responded on article talk page here: [4]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request notification[edit]

I've filed a request at WP:AE to enforce the discretionary sanctions in abortion-related articles and to topic-ban you from this area. Your latest effort, in which you removed without explanation 6 reliable sources attesting to facts with which you disagree prompted me to seek intervention. I'm leaving this note as the required courtesy notification. MastCell Talk 05:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Responding to Drmies ping here. Had not heard of Becky Bell before -- that's horrible. Why do you want to be editing an article about a poor girl who died in 1988? NE Ent 00:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi NE Ent. I had actually not previously heard of Becky Bell either. I only became aware of article via a wikilink on the Gianna Jessen article. I then read the article and noticed a plea on talk:Becky Bell from someone who reported to know the subject of the article saying the article was biased: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Becky_Bell#THIS_STORY_IS_SO_BIASED and then researched and concluded that the article did seem biased.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay fair enough. You appear to be well meaning but perhaps not quite experienced enough to be editing super sensitive articles like that one. Would you be okay with just not editing that article until, May 1, 2015? NE Ent 00:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
After my stressful experiences on this article, I honestly have little interest in editing the article text at this point. I would like to continue to contribute to and edit on the article talk page. Apparently, an additional reliable source was located today by Ca2james, which further supported that one edit where I reverted to previous version by GodBlessYou2 which got me in trouble: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Becky_Bell#Plain_Dealer_article_exists There do appear to be multiple eyes on article now and I feel comfortable that other editors can improve article with respect to bias but would like to participate on talk page.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I'm off line for an hour or two and then I'll make a suggestion at AE. Best bet right now is to not post there anymore. NE Ent 01:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ummm... Please stop posting at AE. Please revert your last edit. Admins who review the posting are simply looking to decide as quickly as possible whether they need to take action to prevent disruption. They don't want to read a bunch of back and forth arguing about stuff. Just agree to stick to the talk page, period. Someone else can remove vandalism. (Leave a note on Drmies talk page if there's vandalism to be reverted). NE Ent 03:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent, I reverted it. [5] I think I misunderstood above. By "best not to post there anymore" I thought you meant the Becky Bell article but rereading it seems you meant AE. Sorry. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
My fault, I wasn't clear. NE Ent 10:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The important thing that no one tells you is that what matters is what is below Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_BoboMeowCat. Wait for administrators to review and comment; answer any direct questions they may make but don't argue with or try to rebut things point by point. What happens, happens. Worst case is you get topic banned from one of four million articles; there's still an effectively infinite amount of encyclopedic work you can contribute to. NE Ent 11:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Result of the AE complaint[edit]

Please see the result of the complaint about your edits at WP:Arbitration enforcement. Your offer not to edit the Becky Bell article until 1 May 2015 is accepted as closure of the complaint. You may still participate on the talk page. Please follow the agreement carefully because the agreement is logged in WP:ARBAB and any violations may lead to blocks. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheer Up[edit]

Sorry that you were sacrificed in the process but your efforts weren't wasted. The Becky Bell article is now a hell of a lot better than it was before you began working on it. Hang in there! 131.109.225.24 (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

131.109.225.24, thank you for you kind words --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

In reply to [6] NE Ent 22:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Although you did end up with a logged statement, that it was phrased the way it was and does not exclude you from the talk page is a good outcome. It's very ambitious to focus on controversial areas early in your Wikipedia experience; there's nothing wrong with that and we appreciate the help. You just need to be aware that not all Wikipedia practices are necessarily clearly written down, so be careful moving forward. If you have any questions, feel free to ask Drmies. NE Ent 01:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)