User talk:Bigtimepeace

This is Bigtimepeace's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

DMA

Do you have any personal experience with Delaware Military Academy? Falcofire 00:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something wrong with the server?

I see you are editing the "black power" article as well at the moment. Can it be that something is wrong with the wiki server? I always end up with a different version than the one I actually edit/see in the edit window.

Good to know that you have the same problems! I was very irritated as well, wondering if my computer has a problem or the wiki server. 84.178.234.240 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Black Power

Oh okay, my bad. Just remove the parts you think are inappropriate and I will then try to rephrase the remaining text. 84.178.234.240 19:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual history

Thanks for filling in Marcuse; it's not my field. That red link had been there for two years! - Fayenatic london (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

get real

Wikipedia is a WWW site that can be edited by all human beings, NOT a forum for wiki-nazis like yourself to determine what is relevant and what is not. Please provide sources before editing. "Assume Good Faith" indeed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.80.19.161 (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

See my reply, and the message that prompted this pleasant note, here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Bigtimepeace! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 16:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what's up

I couldn't help notice you edited Delaware Military Academy (obviously it's on my watchlist). I was just wondering if you had any affiliation with the school. I have several dear friends that attend the school and anything you could do to enhance the article would be great. Thanks.
Falcofire 22:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for the userpage revert. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 05:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article up for AfD

An article you help work on, David MacMichael is up for deletion. 68.91.252.148 18:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:DDP AfD

Hey, thanks for wishing me a happy day, I hope your day/night is great, too. About the Afd, I closed this one as keep basically because I take the view that the Eye Weekly source makes him notable. I could see you raised your doubt with the fact that it was the only source, as the reference from The Globe and Mail didn't mention him. So I'd searched the site, and found this. The entry confirms what is said at the beginning the article "He is one of two grand prize winners of the Robinhood Fund ...", which means he is well-known for something, hence not badly non-notable. You're correct that this article needs heavy cleaning up to get rid of the non-neutral and not yet verified material, however, I'm of the opinion that the subject is notable, thus the result is keep. ~ Best regards, Peacent 14:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O'Reilly

There is no doubt that the whole Bill O page is just an attack on his credibility. Cutting of mics is not proven. What is proven is that Media Matters and Bill O have a "feud", and I don't think it would be fair to cite comments from Media Matters on Bill O, and vice versa.

Just admit you have a bias against Bill O, and are on some kind of strange vendetta to discredit him. To maintain the NPOV you shouldn't be sitting on the article and destroying any changes to it that make it more neutral. Though the criticism of Media Matters on the article is marginalized and weaseled out as usual, it is just opinion, and not FACT, which cutting of mics is. Garric 03:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

warnings removal on talk pages

Hi, I just wanted to drop you a quick note about User talk:Garric. In fact, it is generally agreed that editors can do what they want to content on their talk page with regards to removing it. If in doubt, check the user talk history. This was the consensus in the now-deleted mediation case. See also the rejected proposal about prohibiting the removal of warnings, and the deletion review regarding the templates. Cheers! -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I used to do the same mistake for a long time (probably until I discovered the templates were deleted) ;). I suspect the guideline is blurry because all tries to write something ended as no consensus, there are some strong arguments on both sides. So right now, you can remove whatever you want of your talk page, but that means that you read and acknowledged it. If you get an other warning, it should be firmer. That's a reason why I am using WP:TWINKLE to issue warnings. That way, a quick glance at the history shows that I issued a warning and its level. Arguably, I don't often check the page history but vandals are not very smart and often blank their whole talk page, so it's easy to assume there was something there before ;). (not having too hard a time living with someone almost French? I remember my Canadian friends saying "French people are soooooooo weird". The good part is that I'm one of the rare Frenchmen able to take criticism as much as I criticize the other cultures ;)) -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Keddie

Thanks for the heads up. Done now. My head must have had been somewhere else. :D --soum ^talk 09:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent AIV report

Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. Your request has been rejected because the vandal is not currently active, please only report active vandals on AIV. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal report

Thanks for your message on my talk page re: my AIV report. What exactly constitutes "recent vandalism" or an "active vandal?" The editor I reported vandalized four hours ago, and I was offline when it happened (I've been following his/her vandalism because it's an article I've watchlisted). The user has vandalized the same article repeatedly and already been warned three times. How soon after vandalism must a user be reported? 15 minutes? An hour? It seems rather arbitrary to say that 4 hours is too long, and 20 minutes is not. It's almost as though if someone did not catch the vandal right then and report them for it, then it essentially did not happen and they cannot get in trouble for it. If this person vandalizes again and I miss it and no one else reports it then they'll be in the clear. Seems odd to me. I'm no stranger to rv'ing vandals and to AIV reports, but if you could clarify the policy on "active vandals" I would appreciate it. You can reply here or on my talk page. Thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by active, to my standards, has at the most vandalised within the last 10 minutes. Blocks are meant to prevent disprution to Wikipedia. The vandal you reported is inactive, and blocking the vandal serves no purpose. Remember, blocks are NOT punishments, it is used to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what blocks are for (i.e. they are not punitive), but that way of dealing with vandals seems completely bizarre and unhelpful to me (it suggests that if the vandal only disrupts Wikipedia sporadically and does not get caught right away, then it's not disruptive enough to warrant a block). Ten minutes? You might only revert a vandal edit 8 minutes after it happened and by the time you're done checking their vandalism history and filling out the AIV report we could not block the person if they happened to go offline and stopped vandalizing at that moment. You're saying they could come back online one hour later and do it all over again ad infinitum so long as they were not reported in that 10 minute window? I've never heard of that before, and such a policy would not help prevent disruption to WP which is, as you say, the whole point of a block.

The vandal I reported vandalized four times on June 16th, and before that many times on June 1st. You say they are "inactive" but by that same token I was "inactive" for the last few hours until I got back online. I really don't think this is a very rational approach, and I'm wondering if this is your interpretation of it (i.e. 10 minutes) or an official policy all admins follow. In the meantime I guess I'll just have to hope I'm not offline the next time this person vandalizes (yet again) after their last warning.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 10 minute thing is just a rule I use for myself, and of course, it's just a number, usually I just apply common sense. The vandal is not causing any immediate damage as of now, so there is no reason to block him for that right now. However, if the user continues on this trend, then I would consider a block, but so far the user made 1 edit after he received his last warning, and there has been no edit since then. Block serves no purpose because we do not know if the vandal will vandalise again or not, in this case it's very questionable. If there is a solid proof that the user is a persistant vandal, and when it comes unquestionable that there has been previous records of vandalism and the user is not stopping, then it would be approperiate to block without giving a warning. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had I reported him right after his last vandal edit (which was after his last warning) would you have blocked him? Sorry for beating a dead horse but I'm really trying to understand this.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume if you actually reported him "on time", then yes it will probably get blocked. However, there is another factor which plays in if we make this assumption. If you have caught him eailier, and he was online at the time, he would of caught that his edit has been reverted. If he did not continue after the revert, he "may" be blocked, but if this is the case, the block itself really has no other meaning than enforcing a period for the vandal to cool down. If he goes on and continues to vandalise dispite you reverted his vandalism, then he "passes" the line which a block to prevent disruption would be needed. In either case the vandal is blocked. However, in this case, we do not know if the vandal will stop or continue, that's why I did not block. But as I said, if the vandal later on starts to show clear evidence of not stopping, then that is when I will block. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that does explain it better, though I'm still not sure I agree with this way of looking at. But no matter, I'll leave it there, except to add a thank your for all your work dealing with vandals. Best.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A&P

Just what i was hoping for. It's time we took a more serious approach to this sort of article. It will be a good example. DGG 03:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Yep, it looks fine to me now. Thanks for putting some time in to make it a keeper! ;) *Cremepuff 222* 22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Revolt

Hi, I'm afraid I don't know either. But Wikipedia has no shortage of tech-heads who would know. Maybe post at the Village pump? Badagnani 08:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My fault on US Terrorism

Wow, I totally missed this as a full-on AfD. I thought it was a review - this topic seems like a given? I mean, I personally think the allegations themselves are crap, but there's no denying that they exist and that they're made by very real sources. I'll adjust my edits accordingly. Thanks for the heads-up. CredoFromStart ^talk 17:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eldridge clever libertarian?

http://politics1.com/parties.htm