User talk:Bongomatic

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

If you leave me a message here, I will reply on this page to keep the conversation together, so please add it to your watchlist. Likewise, if you are here to reply to a note I left on your talk page, please reply there—I will check it to see—no need for a {{talkback}} or a note here.


Holiday cheer[edit]

Christmas tree.svg Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt my talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Thomas C. Gallagher[edit]

Hello, and thanks for tagging this for notability. 4 years later, it's unresolved. You may want to take it to WP:N/N or AfD. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note—sadly not very involved in the encyclopedia at the moment so not really embarking on anything that requires interaction. Cheers! Bongomatic 08:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not My Turn to Die: Memoirs of a Broken Childhood in Bosnia[edit]

Hey Bongo--real life keeping you occupied? I hope things are going well for you. If you have a moment, look at that AfD and tell me if that doesn't sound familiar one way or another. Happy days, and see you around, Drmies (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doc, yes--occupied enough. Hope all is well with you. If your e-mail address is the same you'll see I sent a multi-book review that mentions this. There's also this, but the journal may not be sufficient to confer notability. Other than those, I only found blog reviews, etc. I don't really have an opinion, but looks like a consensus is building. Certainly the article is inadequately sourced at a minimum. Bongomatic 03:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
And, ah, yes . . . same general region if recollection is not wrong. This has a better chance, I'd say, though four years after release it's not obvious that lots of new editorial reviews will be rolling in. Bongomatic 03:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I got the review--thanks. Well spotted: I didn't find anything like that. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Please learn courtesy and reading comprehension.[edit]

I don't know what got under your skin to make you come through and slam the Tom Steyer talk page like you did, but you need to take that attitude and put it somewhere besides Wikipedia.

Contributions like this one add nothing to the discussion. Jsharpminor (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion. I will take this view into consideration in my future Wikipedia activities. Bongomatic 02:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsharpminor (talkcontribs) 02:04, 9 April 2013‎ (UTC)

About 3Os[edit]

You say here, "I reviewed the guidelines for providing a third opinion and oddly, there is no suggestion that third opinions make reference to Wikipedia policies and guidelines—but that's probably because it was assumed by the authors (and most readers)." Actually, the original concept is that a 3O is about the quickest and lightest opinion that one can give. One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." It's left up to each 3O'er to decide how much further beyond that level, if any, that they want to go. Some just say, "I agree with editor X" while others enter into what amounts to a full-blown informal mediation. Most of us plop down about halfway between those extremes and try to give a well-reasoned and well-documented analysis, but the forum allows a good deal of latitude. That's especially true since 3O's carry no authority or weight and arguably do not even "count" towards consensus, but are merely intended to be just that, a third opinion which the disputants are entirely free to accept or reject. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note--useful background for me as I don't recall ever having been involved with an article that was the subject of a 3O. Thanks for stopping by!. Bongomatic 16:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Stu Klitenic for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether if Stu Klitenic should be deleted or not. The conversation will be held at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stu Klitenic until a consensus is held and everyone is welcome to join the conversation. However, do not remove the AfD message on the top of the page. Ashbeckjonathan 04:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)