User talk:Buddy431

Ethan loves tomato

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Buddy431, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Slashme (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

RD Talk page

Did you have a point in your RD comment other than to be abusive, rude, and dismissing of anyone and everyone who may possibly disagree with your opinion? Some users are discussing a user who has, over the past few years, been very rude to other users (while making perfectly valid posts most of the time) and has stubbornly stated that he will not under any conditions sign his posts because he has been asked to do so - that is his only reason. If you have an opinion on the matter, please share it. If all you want to do is ridicule everyone for having opinions, I don't see why anyone would care. -- kainaw™ 22:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I’m sorry that my post came off as abusive and rude. It was my intention to make a point, rather than merely degrade other editors. However, I realize that this intent was lost, and I easily see why you feel the post is not appropriate. In the future, I will attempt to be more explicit when I post, so as to prevent this type of response.

The point of my post was to express my disappointment in the tone of several of the recent discussions on the Reference Desk talk page. In my opinion, the Reference Desk should be as open as possible. I think that getting after editors because of minor breaches in etiquette is counterproductive to that goal. Belatedly, I realized that my post was also counterproductive to that goal. However, I stand by the point that I tried (and failed) to make: 82’s refusal to sign his posts isn’t a big deal.

Is 82, by refusing to sign his posts, intentionally violating rules of etiquette? Yes. Is it rude and annoying? Sure. Is it worth making a big deal about? No. While I understand your and others' frustration at the continued refusal to properly post, I felt that the tone of the discussion was getting overly hostile (again, I now realize that my post did nothing to help in that regard). I guess the real point that I was trying to make with my ill-conceived comment is that everyone just needs to chill out. Buddy431 (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Very well spoken. Thanks. -- kainaw™ 13:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

user:Sanskit

(copied from user talk:Buddy432)

Your suggestions of adding the reason is very good. -Sanskit (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Userbox

Hello, Buddy431 ... May I suggest {{User Alternate Acct}} (or one of its companion templates) for your User pages? You can see how I use it on my User pages. Happy Editing! — 71.166.147.78 (talk · contribs) _{17:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)}

The collapse of aircraft manuals

Excellent off-topic debate collapsing on the RD just now. Well done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Buddy431 (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom Pedophilia Template Decision

You were asking where you could find this, even though it isn't explicitly stated there. Either way, you can find it here. It all boils down to, really, Jimbo says it's wrong. Since principle #12 is that Jimbo is the ultimate authority, then that means that Jimbo is right. Discussion over.

That's it, in a nutshell. Silverseren^C 20:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, though this seems to be more about the wheel war that erupted, rather than the userbox itself. I posted it over at wikipedia talk:Pedophilia. Buddy431 (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Any more thought on opening an RfC? Several editors are interested in pursuing the idea—including me, now. I can open it and advertise it, if you like, as long as we know what we are debating. There have been several suggestions for the summary statement but that still needs to be bashed out, IMO --Jubilee♫clipman 13:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Things have moved on since I posted the above. RfC would not be helpful, IMO, and would probably lead to an almighty row, in fact. The Information Page states the position clearly and is endorsed—or at least not opposed—by ArbCom (see the statements on the talkpage from at least three current members). We have a statement of current practice, therefore, which is enough, IMO. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 19:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm content to let things stand as they are right now. If/when this comes up again, we'll at least be able to point to the talk page. Buddy431 (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much good that will do. If something like this happens again, people will see that and see that no real consensus was made. I would think people would get angry that this was not dealt with earlier when it could have been. Silverseren^C 20:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hows this: I'm not willing to cross a member of Arbcom who obviously prefers this doesn't happen. If you want to open an RFC, go ahead. You're more than welcome to use my essay and modify it in any way that you choose. If an RFC is opened, I'll probably make a comment or two in it, but at this point I really don't want to be associated with opening it. Buddy431 (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryona (2nd nomination)

Hi there. On this AFD, you commented that it was my job as nominator to look for sources. Well, I have now done so, and was unable to find any reliable ones - this seems to be a non-notable concept. May I ask you to reconsider your 'Procedural keep'? Thanks. Robofish (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You made my day

With this. I only hope the irony will be understood. --Cyclopia^talk 19:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Foot odor

I have proposed that Smelly socks be merged to Foot odor. Since you contributed to the recent AfD on Smelly socks, you might be interested in participating in the discussion to merge at Talk:Foot odor#Merger proposal. SnottyWong ^confess 05:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Your response to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold question on the reference desk.

Your response to the Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold question on the reference desk is absolutely unacceptable.

It makes me angry beyond belief - and I want a full and complete apology from you for it.

For shame? WTF? Read what I actually wrote - not what you think that I wrote. I said that our article does contain that specific information...and it does. It doesn't take more than a single sentence to answer the OP's question. You may care to dispute whether our article is correct or not - but DO NOT reprimand me for doing precisely what the Ref Desk's mandate is - which is to find data primarily within the encyclopedia and tell our OP's where to go read it for themselves. If you think the article is incorrect then go there and fix it - but meanwhile, what I wrote is true, correct and in line with what we do here at the reference desks. You should not come here and put me down for doing what you have completely and utterly failed to do. You talk about some nebulous google results without pointing to where they actually are - we don't know whether your answer is backed by reputable sources or from some bunch of random conspiracy theorists.

You are required to Assume Good Faith - you are required not to make personal attacks on me. You are required to show reasonable sources for disputable claims. You are required NOT to do original research. You are expected to answer reference desk questions with REFERENCES. You obeyed none of those rules - and that alone ought to be enough to earn you a reprimand and a block.

Now apologize dammit.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if you offended you with my remarks, and I readily admit that my answer could have been better referenced (in my defense, I did include one of Mr. Klebold's autopsy report supporting my primary answer, that his death was officially ruled a suicide. I did not include the sites supporting my other assertions, which can be found here and here). As you can see, the site that I drew this information from doesn't meet our criteria for a reliable source, and you are thus quite right to call me out for giving un-sourced (though probably correct) information.

On the other hand, I do believe that I did read what you wrote correctly, and fully understand what you meant. You believe that the final sentence of the introduction of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the word "both" along with the phrase "committed suicide" specifies that each physically held a gun to his own head and pulled the trigger. Thus, I do not believe it is fair for you to criticize my reading and understanding of your response. I also disagree with your reading of the sentence in question, as I'll explain below.

I still believe that your reply was inadequate. I would consider the sentence in question ("they both committed suicide") to be substantially correct whether or not they both physically shot themselves, or whether one of them shot the other and then shot himself. You are right that there is a formal linguistic (and legal) distinction between the two, but in vernacular English, and in the context of the article, I do not believe that the sentence fully specifies who physically held the gun and pulled the trigger in each of the young mens' deaths. I would indeed hold that Mr. Klebold "committed suicide" even if it had been Harris who had shot him, on the assumption that they had made some sort of agreement to kill themselves (in a collective, rather than individual sense). You obviously disagree, as does user:QuantumEleven, so I may be in the minority on this particular reading of the sentence (we could of course ask about it at the language desk, but I feel that such analysis would be pointless). Finally, I continue to hold that we still really don't know for sure whether Mr. Klebold shot himself (and indeed, whether Mr. Harris really shot himself), but only that their injuries are consistent with them doing so, and that we have no good reason to believe that they did not.

In conclusion, I am sorry that I personally attacked you (and QuantumEleven); I know that it is the policy at Wikipedia to only criticize what editors write, and not the editors themselves. I still need to improve in this area, and I will continue to work on this. I will also work on providing better sources for my assertions on the reference desk. I hope that you too will provide a bit more evidence for your assertions, but I understand that you believe that the short bit in our article was sufficient, and, though I disagree on this point, I will not belabor it any further. You have my sincerest apologies Mr. Baker, and I hope that our future interactions, on the reference desk and elsewhere, can remain productive and cordial. Buddy431 (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand...

I thought that your response at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Why can we see stars? was very well judged (with regard to the question and the apparent knowledge of the questioner) and admirably full. Deor (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Buddy431 (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

note

If you want to get further into the issue of how to deal with LC's socks, please go to the ref desk talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Buddy431. You have new messages at Dolphin51's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Response

I appreciate your comment on the MfD. However, the templates were not the only reason he was blocked. Again, thank you for commenting and if you need me, now or in the future, never hesitate to contact me. MJ94 (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint, but I continue to believe that deleting his userpage is not in the best interest of the project. Buddy431 (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Meetup

In the area? You're invited to the
May 2018 Minnesota User Group Meeting
	Date: 31 October 2010
	Time: noon
	Place: Midtown Exchange Global Market, East Lake Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 44.9493°N 93.2612°W / 44.9493; -93.2612

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

A response would be appreciated regarding Ghostognemo's page.Cptnono (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Lizard People

The Secretary of State had indeed scanned in each of the challenged ballots and released them to the public, making the thousands of ballots available to anyone who asked. The main purpose of scanning these ballots in, aside from showing the goods to the various media outlets, was in fact to aid in the canvassing board's ruling process. You can see a video of the canvassing board using these ballot scans in their rulings. Now, as for where these scans are available online, the only website that still has all the ballots available to the public is MPR, and you can find that database here. Hopefully this is of some use to you. Regards, Brash (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

New meetup

In the area? You're invited to the
May 2018 Minnesota User Group Meeting
	Date: 20 November 2010
	Time: 1:00-3:30 (click here for full agenda) R.S.V.P. by Nov. 17 for free lunch + parking
	Place: Minnesota History Center 345 Kellogg Blvd, St. Paul, Minnesota 44.95°N 93.1055°W / 44.95; -93.1055

In response to your request...

User:Buddy431/Garbage scow JamesBWatson (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Jesus

Note that there is an admin named User:Ihcoyc. While it may not be obvious at first sight, Ihcoyc is Jesus spelled out in Greek (IHCOYC). The username policy is inconsistent sometimes. —Soap— 19:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Imagine that. I'm not surprised, but that's interesting. Buddy431 (talk)

Hey :)

• Best. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 18:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your contribution to Pig (disambiguation)! Chrisrus (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ref desks

If you've got concerns with something, take it to a talk page rather than issuing personal attacks in front of the OP. I also notice that some character said that capybara was a type of fish, a lot grosser error than my post that you griped about. I corrected him on that, with a rather gentler touch than you used. Oddly enough, you didn't issue an attack against that user. So I can only assume you've singled me out... and I've had enough of that kind of thing. Don't do it again. P.S. If you actually read what I posted, I made no claim that King Tut was the world's oldest. You were so hell-bent on making your personal attack that you overlooked that point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

And as regards your "made it disappear" comment,[1] you failed to note that I moved a week or two's worth of stuff to my current archive page, and you only cited the first half of that action. Again, you were so fixated on making a personal attack that you overlooked the details. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Collapse for clarity

Bugs, there is a reason a number of people, who normally mind their own business here, have singled you out. The reason lies in the sheer number of posts you contribute to the reference desk combined with the percentage of unresearched and unverified posts. If you posted fewer posts, your percentage wouldn't be much of a problem. If you posted with a higher percentage of researched and verifiable answers, your quantity of posts would not only be less problematic, it would be welcome! You are capable of giving good quality answers, and you are capable of listening to others. The criticism (not attacks) is only "personal" to the extent that a normal reader will combine your signature with the (on-and-off) pattern I described. I certainly have nothing personal against you whatsoever, yet I too find that you should listen to some of the things people are telling you in good faith. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC) You guys will bend over backwards to kiss up to trolls, and have no qualms about attacking the legitimate users. Very impressive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC) There is a certain element of nasty cabin fever at WP in general, and at the desks in particular, and an IP or single-edit account has it easier, that is for sure. Still, I wouldn't have considered what I posted as an attack, personal or otherwise, nor do I question your legitimacy in any way or wish to see you sanctioned or banned from the desks, or RFC/U'ed etc. I don't really care that much about whether you change your approach to answering questions. As long as we provide the signal we can throw in our personal noise, I suppose. I was trying to share my observations, but I did not wish to hurt your feelings. For that I am sorry. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC) "Hurt"??? It is not within the capability of any of you characters here to "hurt" me. Nor was it your comments that were the personal attacks, it was "Buddy's" comments. What I object to is the clique attitude, the "this is our playground" haughtiness that I get from certain users here so often. They always have to have somebody to be yelling at. If they can't find something to yell at Cuddly about, they'll go after somebody else. It's like having to put up with a bunch of adolescent girls. If someone posts something in error, they yell at the guy right in front of the OP. Imagine what kind of an impression that makes. I daresay it makes a far more negative impression than getting an answer incorrect. It certainly would to me, if I were the casual reader. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Would it have killed "Buddy" to have simply said, "That's not correct", rather than resorting to a gutter-level personal attack? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to discuss this here Bugs: I think this is a better choice than the reference desk talk page. I have several points, in no particular order.

• I will correct any information that I see on the reference desk that I believe is incorrect, and I will do so on the reference desk (rather than the talk page). I aim to have an informative, but more importantly, factually correct reference desk. While your post is indeed factually correct, you make a strong implication that King tut is a viable contender for the oldest human known by name. I stand by my assertion that your post was in error.

• It was not my intention to make any personal attacks. If you feel that I have insulted or attacked you personally, I am deeply sorry. My comments were an attempt to criticize your editing behavior, and if I crossed the line into personal criticism, it was unknowingly. You have my apologies in this regard.
• I am not singling you out, and frankly, I'm puzzled as to why you believe this. To my knowledge, this is the first significant interaction we've had, on the reference desk or elsewhere. I have corrected other people who I believe have posted incorrect, incomplete, or misleading material. Recently, I corrected User:Srleffler for his mis-assertion about New Horizons. A bit earlier this year, I got into a tense conversation with user:SteveBaker over one of his posts, the fallout of which can be seen above on this talk page [2]. You are correct that I did not correct user:Carnildo about the status of Capybara, and I appreciate the picture you provided. I would encourage you to continue to supply informative posts such as that one, with references (a picture, in this case) (And to be fair to Carnildo, I believe that he meant that the Catholic Church considers Capybara akin to fish, not that biologists do). Please don't believe that I'm out to get you Bugs, because I'm really not.

• If this type of disagreement does occur in the future, where would you like me to contact you? You've obviously indicated that you don't want it on your talk page. Should I put it on my talk page and leave a talkback notice on yours? I really want to avoid the reference desk talk page for an issue like this, but if you really think it's the best place, I could bring it up there.

If you have any comments, feel free to respond here. I hope that you abstain from making un-researched or off topic responses on the reference desk in the future. I realize that my method of communicating this to you did not carry the intended message, and I will try to be more careful with my words in the future. I hope that our future interactions, on the reference desk and elsewhere, can remain productive and cordial. Buddy431 (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If I, or anyone else, makes what looks like an obvious error, resist the temptation to take shots at the user; just say, "That's not correct", and demonstrate why. In fact, I love being corrected - just not so roughly. For example, most folks get annoyed by Cuddly's obsession with correcting grammar and usage. If he did that to me (which he hasn't, which means either my grammar is perfect or he doesn't read what I write), I would thank him... while reserving the right to rib him about it as needed. :)

If there is still an issue, it can come to my talk page. No talkback template needed. And I keep nearly everything, archiving manually when the page gets kind of full-ish by my standards. The only stuff I've ever flat-out deleted was extremely gross or offensive comments posted by trolls, and that doesn't happen very often.

And I may have overreacted to your comments due to similar comments recently from Comet Tootle or whatever his name is. I apologize for over-venting and scapegoating in your direction.

Are we good? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

In work article

Hi there, I was going to write an article about garbage scows and noticed that an article had been written previously and then moved to your userspace [3] for some reason. Would you mind if I expanded this and moved it back to article space? It seems a bit short as it is but has a couple references and seems to at least meet minimum guidelines. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 11:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Go for it. It was deleted because the user who wrote it wasn't liked for some reason, and I though it was a fine enough article, so I asked the deleting admin to move it to my userspace. I haven't worked on it though, so if you want to, be my guest. It's probably essentially good enough to go into article space now as a stub. Buddy431 (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems good enough for a stub to me as well. I'll go ahead and move it and work on it bit by bit, thanks. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 12:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference Desk

Thank you for voicing for the side of reason and measured response (here). I agree with your viewpoint here; honestly, it seems obvious that this is the most coherent philosophy to adopt, and it's frustrating that so much debate goes on about this. Anyway, thanks for summarizing it so concisely. Nimur (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the compliment. I think you do an excellent job providing good responses on the reference desk, and you seem to do a better job than I do in not getting caught up in this silliness. Buddy431 (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to continue to let socks of banned users edit, then so be it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

G'day Buddy. Thanks for looking after the OP's posting. I notice that you took the opportunity to gratuitously name Jayron. The identity of the User who removed the posting is entirely irrelevant. On the Reference Desk you also made the statement Jayron is wrong. That statement has little meaning, even though Jayron himself did a mea culpa and wrote about himself in similar words. It may be your personal opinion that Jayron is wrong but that also has no place whatsover on the Science Reference Desk.
You appear to be mounting something of a vendetta against Jayron. Please remove your references to him from the Reference Desk. Thanks. Dolphin (t) 03:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've removed my reference to Jayron32. Buddy431 (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Dolphin (t) 03:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't make a big stink about this (like, don't change anything back or forth or anything else), but I am wrong... --Jayron32 03:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sc rail union

Hi! I am in favor of opening a discussion of the name too. Then his case can be used as an example for future cases WhisperToMe (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Inner Party

I like your discussion of the Inner Party (written on 2011-10-27), but I suspect it will soon go down the memory hole. The secret is to realize that the dealer has already stacked the deck. You play at your peril, because the outcome is already set. Lower your expectations about this venue. You'll be glad you did! Regards, — HowardBGolden (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Come on now...

This was unneccesary because it trivializes the seriousness of what Belchman did. I find the tone of what you said, especially the insinuation that only "Jews and Sexual minorities" are people who get "special treatment" of some sort at Wikipedia, inappropriate. That is highly offensive, and it does not help Belchman become a more tolerant person by leaving the message you did. It makes light of the seriousness of his actions, and completely misstates the nature of what he did. If you actually believe the rediculous things you wrote on his talk page, I weep for your soul. --Jayron32 06:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. I didn't mean to trivialize what Belchman said, and if you feel I did so, I apologize. However, I felt like the editors on his talk page had already done a pretty good job condemning him for what I agree was an inappropriate comment, and I felt it might be more appropriate, rather than jumping on the pile, to offer some advice on how to prevent this type of thing from happening in the future. I do think that what I wrote is largely true about Wikipedia. I certainly don't think it's only Jews and Sexual minorities that get special treatment on Wikipedia, but I do think that those groups are a little more dangerous to make comments about than any of the other groups I listed.

While I appreciate your concern for my soul, there's really no need to concern yourself with my spiritual well being. Buddy431 (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for responding thoughtfully. Yes, there are groups of people whom insulting tends to cause more offense than others, but that is because those groups of people have been historically discriminated against, insulted, held down, killed, attacked, marginalized, etc. To perpetuate that behavior deserves different attention than would be given to someone who insults other random groups not subject to a history of oppression. Insulting Yankees fans or Texans of people who like anchovies on their pizza or redheads or any other random grouping of people may not generate much in the way of offense, but that's because those groups aren't systematically discriminated against. There is a differential response, however that differential response is appropriate given the historical context, and that historical context shouldn't be trivialized by implying that there is anything wrong with coming down harder on someone who insults homosexuals than someone who insults Texans. When Texans start being killed for being Texans, then we can discuss a problem there. But in the meantime, lets not trivialize the nature of the sort of offensiveness that existed in Belchman's comments; all insults are not equal, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. By making it seem like insults against Texans should be treated equally to insults against homosexuals, which is what you insinuated in your post, ignores the historical context with how those two groups have been treated. They are not the same thing. --Jayron32 15:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't intending to pass judgement on how the community handles insults against groups of people, and I don't think I was implying that. The purpose of my post was to let Belchman know that, on Wikipedia, certain groups are more OK to make generalizations about than others, and that the group he referenced is one that is decidedly not OK to make those types of statements. He had expressed what appeared to be genuine puzzlement that his post was seen as so much worse than the other posts up to that point, and I was attempting to explain how the Wikipedia community views these types of things. I think you and I are largely in agreement, and you're mostly taking exception to the tone of my post, rather than its content. Upon re-reading what I wrote, I agree that it may have been a little lighthearted _{that's probably not the best adjective, but you know what I mean} given the situation. Buddy431 (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we're good here. I no longer have any doubts that you meant well in trying to steer Belchman into a more productive mindset. I'm not sure that your outcome necessarily matches your intent, but yes, I think we are in a broad agreement here, and I don't think there's really anything much more to discuss on this. Thank you for being willing to discuss this matter codially and openly, it reflects well upon you. --Jayron32 19:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Idiotic

Idiotic. With a "T", not a "D". --MZMcBride (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Me Speek Gud Inglish. Buddy431 (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ref desk/Science

Thanks for the tip. That question should have been deep-sixed immediately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Buddy, I've moved your link to the diff on my deletion to the ref desk talk page because I don't think it makes sense to blank something and then link straight to it. I hope you don't mind. --Tango (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll put a link to the talk page there then. I just want to make sure that anyone who sees the message knows where to look at or discuss the deletion. Buddy431 (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Legal threats

You should peruse Wikipedia:No legal threats when you get a chance. Blocking a user who has made legal threats has nothing at all to do with the issue(s) at hand, it's simply preventative.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm just saying maybe the offending material shouldn't have been restored. Buddy431 (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, there's no doubt about that, but that also has nothing to do with the block. If Chrisj60 (I think that's correct...) withdraws their legal threat then any administrator can undo the block. It's just a... pro forma thing. Like I said, it has nothing to do with the content issue(s).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. I wasn't commenting on the block, but on the fact that no one bothered to even look at what the complaint was about, that the bad content was restored, and that the post was marked as resolved without examining this. Buddy431 (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It was, though. Boing! said Zebedee, yourself, Qwyrxian, and myself have all looked it over. Total-MAdMaN (talk · contribs) may have been able to revert the IP editor's changes himself (if he noticed all of this prior to Boing! reverting), but he's not required to (and he's apparently new, so...). I don't think Salvio knew of any of this before seeing something about legal threats, and he only took care of the one issue. I'm not sure what else could have been done here, outside of one of us time-traveling back to 22:25, April 22, 2012 and patrolling the article...? Chrisjs60 (talk · contribs) could have said something to... well, just about anyone, rather than making a legal threat.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

One of us could have looked at what content he was reverting before he reverted un-sourced, negative information back into an article. It's not an unreasonable burden to expect people to be responsible for the information they put into an article, even if it is reverting to a previous version. Buddy431 (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

And, that was you! Congratulations! ...no, I think that I get what you're saying (sorry for the snarkiness, I'm obviously in a mood). But, here's the thing, there's nobody else to do this stuff. It's up to you and I (and ~1000 other people). Some vandalism and otherwise bad content stands. That's just the way it is. Revert it, edit it, bring it to a noticeboard... we'll get things taken care of eventually.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You may find this essay echos what you're saying: WP:DOLT. SÆdon^talk 05:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm quite familiar with both the policy and the essay. I'm not saying that the threatener shouldn't have been blocked, just that we shouldn't have blindly reverted everything he's posted, in the process making our article worse. Buddy431 (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok cool, I saw your comments at ANI and didn't know if you knew that there was an essay that was essentially saying what you're saying, so just wanted to let you know to save you some time in a future similar situation. SÆdon^talk 05:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP at humanities ref desk

Hi. In the spirit of WP:BLP I suggest you might consider changing your recent statement at the huamnities desk "For more info how X was beating testing" to "For more info how X was accused of beating testing"--since there is no physical evidence, no admission, and no court decision that comes to this conclusion. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Meh. Armstrong hasn't been accused of a crime, so I don't think there's a need for a court case. If it will make you happier, I can make it clear that it's the USADA that has said this. Buddy431 (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, great solution. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Buddy431/Portal of Evil

User:Buddy431/Portal of Evil, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Buddy431/Portal of Evil and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Buddy431/Portal of Evil during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!