User talk:B

YEC

I've restored your edit in Young Earth Creationism, it's better than what was there before. Editor2020 (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny

I'm a little disturbed by your intervention on this. I've just read your 2nd post on Mindbunny's Talk (and posted a further comment). Although there's nothing inherently objectionable to anything you've said (although it could easily encourage Mindbunny to revert again) it seems a little strange for an admin that I've had a discussion with on another topic, making such comments as this. I'd appreciate a comment on that please. Thanks.DeCausa (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Rather than intending to cause him to revert again, my intention was that he understand that "being right" (or, believing that he is right) is not an excuse for edit warring. --B (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

But why make the 'tangential' comment? That's not consistent with your stated intention. In view of our previous dealing, I suggest that sticking to the bare essentials of a reply to Mindbunny (assuming it was necessary at all) would have been more appropriate.DeCausa (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, just seen your new post. Ignore above. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

UU and abortion

Thanks for providing an edit summary in your removal of the UU section from Christianity and abortion. Would you be interested in helping with an article on UU and abortion? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there enough to say for it to have its own article? There is a religion and abortion article that could have a UU section. --B (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There probably is enough for a small article, but you have a good point - I'll copy the content to Religion and abortion for now. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Message from Sizzletimethree

Thanks for your message on my message board!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sizzletimethree (talk • contribs) 09:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

User:NPz1

Hello, B. You blocked User:NPz1 for edit warring only, but I wonder, if you have noticed If you have noticed this edit summary? Honestly I doubt 2 weeks are enough. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't notice it, but if the behavior continues when he returns, resolving it is a few mouseclicks away. --B (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thesophical Society

You posted this on my talk page:

Your edits at Theosophical Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) have been reported to the edit warring noticeboard. Rather than blocking you, I would like to ask you to modify your behavior and to discuss your proposed changes on the talk page. All articles have a talk, or "discussion" page - the discussion page for this article is at Talk:Theosophical Society. On this page, you can explain the reasons for your opinion and you can see other users' reasons for their opinions. Continually reverting a page - even if over a period of days - is considered edit warring and is not permitted. You should also know that referring to good faith users as vandals is never acceptable. Please use the talk page and do not revert the page again without a consensus there. If you continue to revert, you will be blocked. --B (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If you don't have time to actually follow a page before making threats, isn't it better to spend your time as an administrator in better pursuits? I posted relevant, accurately sourced material from a reliable source. Somebody removed the sourced statement and the reference, claiming the appearance of bias without any proof the information posted was biased or unreliable. So I reverted the unjustified edit. Then he removed the reference again, and brought a friend. After a few back and forth, he basically accused me of starting it. So that's it. The statement in question accurately reflects the source. The source itself is considered reliable. Also, the statement is generic enough to be easily verifiable historically. Namely, the objectives of the organization in question have become commonplace in the last century, and its impetus in east-west relationships is pretty much undisputed. I am not going to "discuss" relevant, properly sourced material. If anyone needs to discuss their "behavior" are those who would remove said material without cause. No thanks for your involvement in this. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --B (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Bobby Jindal

Just looking at your userboxes after your comment in Kenatipo's AfD. Jindal lost me when he criticized federal funding for volcano monitoring, while benefiting from federal funding for hurricane monitoring. Pity, I would have liked to have seen a Brown grad in the Oval Office.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the way our federal system works, it's like the Prisoner's dilemma - it's in everyone's best interest to grab as much federal funding as they can for their own state, even though collectively we all would do better off to cut a lot of it out. --B (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing tags

Is removing tags in an article considered okay while there is a discussion going on? This user just did that claiming I was misuing them while there was still discussion... [1] _WM^O 01:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Different people feel differently - there's no one answer. I don't see a reason to have repetitive tags in the article ... if there's one npov tag at the top, that should suffice to alert readers as to the dispute - I don't think you need both the tag at the top AND the inline tags. My personal opinion is that I despise all inline tags EXCEPT {{fact}}. (This is my opinion and should not be construed as having any bearing on actual policy or how I would enforce a policy.) The article is getting a pretty decent number of hits [2] so there's a definite reason to keep it readable. --B (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Webiscite

Webiscite · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Hi, regarding your removal of "Webiscite", it is NOT a copyright infringement as I have given full free license to wikimedia and I disagree that it is advertisement. It is an original phenomenon and the website does not have to be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcguy (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:CORP for Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion of such articles. This article clearly doesn't meet those requirements. If you wish to appeal, you are welcome to open a request at WP:DRV, but, in my opinion, you are unlikely to get a different result. --B (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Lazur Stadium

This one is the same I posted it too:[3] I put that second photo to prove that these set of photos were originally uploaded on trivago.ru.--Oleola (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Good day

I'm glad someone else seems to be able to edit with common sense on this issue. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A real turn-off

Yep, I followed your advice and unchecked the automatic "mark edits as minor" box. This is the first unchecked edit in 4 days, about. Thanks. --Kenatipo ^speak! 06:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

On another subject, did you read Bobby Jindal's book? I looked for it at my Costco but I don't think they stocked it. Is it worth picking up? --Kenatipo ^speak! 06:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope, haven't read it. The next two on my list are Dubya's book and Called to Coach by Bobby Bowden. --B (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You should pick up Mitt Romney's book. Before he rewrites (er, "updates") it again. :P On a more serious note - since positive reinforcement is in such short supply around here, I just wanted to say that I'm continually impressed and humbled by your integrity as an editor here. Hope things are going well, and keep up the good work. MastCell ^Talk 05:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. --B (talk) 05:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

In case you are unaware

I have referred to you at 10:54, 16 February 2011 at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Lihaas#Uncertified_RfC. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Heartbeat International RM

I just opened an RM on the talkpage -- how do you like my proposal?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Ultraexactzz#User_68.198.135.130 re Theosophical Society

You've been mentioned at User_talk:Ultraexactzz#User_68.198.135.130 re Theosophical Society - the IP user has introduced a long complaint there. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		We often find ourselves espousing opposing viewpoints (as can be seen from userboxes)... However, I just wanted to write a note and tell you that I very much appreciate that your edits are generally quite npov and the fact that you seek consensus on talk pages before adding stuff to articles. Although we disagree, I have to say that you are in a completely separate category in my mind than other editors who share your views that I have come in contact with. Thank you for your integrity. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 19:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Howie long

Howie Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vasports (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The Deadspin article is a reliable source considering that it sources its info from NBC29 below at the bottom of the article - the local news venue for Charlottesville, VA. If that's not acceptable, here are additional citations: http://www.nbc29.com/global/story.asp?s=10196502 http://www.newsplex.com/news/headlines/37299414.html

Kyle also did leave FSU for academic reasons and does attend the JC in Calfiornia. See citations below: http://www.saddleback.edu/athletics/football/10klong.html

Second, the lacrosse video is an OFFICIAL video put out by the athletic department of UVA. Dom Starsia, notes that Howie was not in school last semester and is in school now. Additionally, he says that he has personal and academic issues. He also notes that Howie is no longer a part of the program. Here is the additional back up for his removal form the team etc: http://www.virginiasports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=17800&ATCLID=205087511.

What else is wrong with the posting? It is documented. These items are true. Please respond.

Vasports (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple concerns, only one of which you have addressed. Obviously, the nbc29 link you gave here addresses one of the many problems with this text, but I still don't think it's appropriate for the following reasons:

1. This article is about Howie, Sr. It should have no more than at most a sentence or two about each kid, if that. If the kids themselves are notable (which they are probably not other than Chris), you can create an article on them. But this isn't a forum for writing about Howie's kids.
2. You have a lengthy dissertation in there on Howie Jr's performance. Claims like the one about his "basic knowledge of the game" that need to be reliably sourced, as does the thing about his family connection. Again, this is way too much information for an article that isn't even about him, but in order for it to even be considered for inclusion, it all needs to be well-sourced.
3. The virginiasports.com link you gave says nothing other than "Howie Long won't be with the team this season." That's hardly a source for this. The Youtube video you gave, assuming it's authentic, only says "personal academic issues". That could mean any number of things, like he has a lot of tough classes this semester. Your claims about what it means are completely unsourced.
4. The nbc29 link does adequately source that Kyle Long was arrested for DUI. Nothing there sources the claim about his academics. This is still wholly inappropriate to include. Several years ago, the son of Al Gore had similar criminal issues and it was decided by overwhelming consensus that it had no business being included in the former VP's article.
5. Lastly, you claim on Commons that you hold the copyright to the photo that you uploaded. Is this, in fact, your photo, meaning you physically clicked the button on the camera?

Wikipedia is not a place for fighting the college rivalry wars or for writing attack articles about people you don't like. If you want to learn about our core content policies, I suggest reading WP:5P and WP:NPOV. You should also be aware that repeatedly reverting for reasons other than removing vandalism or BLP violations is considered edit warring and is prohibited. In particular, the three-revert rule calls for users who revert for reasons other than removing vandalism or BLP violations more than 3 times in a 24-hour period to be blocked. --B (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect:

1. The NBC29 link does pertain to Howie, Sr. under the family section. It is fair to note this. There is nothing in the terms that say otherwise. They are not minors. This is freedom of speech and is adequately sourced as you noted. He was convicted of a DUI and he was arrested. Additionally, he does attend Saddleback College.

2. Hardly a source for this? Virginiasports.com is a direct and official website of the University of Virginia. It is fair to say he is not the team, when it says "he won't be with the team this season" and when Head Coach Dom Starsia notes that he is re-enrolled in school and he is off the team for personal and academic reasons. He's the head coach, its the official video for UVA athletics. Its not a knock off. That is fair game. Additionally, here is an article stating that Kyle "fell behind academically" from a local newspaper: http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/2009/jan/08/kyle_long_to_leave_florida_state-ar-76158/. Who is to say it is inappropriate? Do you erase the part about Ted Kennedy's accident on the bridge because it is inappropriate? I mean where do you draw the line. This is confirmed and sourced information.

3. Yes, I have the copyright to that photo.

4. This isn't a college rivalry. It is an addition to the family section of Howie Sr.'s biography. I agree that the information needs to be sourced and I have provided the sources for the information. You can also check the Virginia Sports statistics that note that Howie played at the end of 4 games. I will erase the other content, but the rest I feel meets the terms of use. Vasports (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Very little of what your addition says has any relationship to what the sources say. As for appropriateness, Ted Kennedy is himself a notable figure with an article. If Howie Long, Jr. or Kyle Long were notable and if they had articles, then their situations would be appropriate to cover there. We don't cover Ted Kennedy's transgressions in JFK's article. If you think that any portion of your changes are appropriate, you are welcome to pursue them at the BLP noticeboard. If you readd it without reliable sourcing for EVERY SINGLE CLAIM you make, you will be blocked. --B (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I will readd the items that I have actual sources. Are they approved? I have provided the sources. Multiple sources have been listed since both of your reviews. Vasports (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, even the things that have actual sources still need to be neutral and relevant to the topic. You should also read Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy. And I still don't see where you have very many of your claims sourced. I would suggest coming up with proposed wording, making sure that EVERY SINGLE CLAIM is well-sourced and that you are not drawing novel conclusions and then ask at the biographies of living person's noticeboard for the wording to be reviewed. --B (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Votes

Hi B. I've no problem at all with your modification of the heading. But, WP:Merge says: "Many times, a hybrid discussion/straw poll is used, though remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. If that is used, normally !votes (a preference to support or oppose an action with an additional comment; not necessarily a pure "vote") are formatted...." That's where I got the word "vote" from. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"!vote" means "not a vote". It comes from the C programming language where ! is the "not" operator. --B (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Aah, thanks for the info. Maybe I'll add that to the info at WP:Merge.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Object 195

That's the best i got, man. If you can focus on the tank and boost it up it would be great.

As for now, i'm putting on a segment of an interview with the CEO of the Uralvagonzavod. Working on it. Oblivion Lost (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I have cropped the image. My cleanup tools really didn't improve it much, but just cropping it helps in the article. --B (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's true, it shows the tank better. We'll use what we have. Oblivion Lost (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Which photo is better - 155 KB or 176 KB. Which one is on? Oblivion Lost (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Got it. The better size was the goal. Oblivion Lost (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It's using the more recently uploaded one. If you have a photo (or any other image), that you're going to resize/crop/whatever, it is much better to resize it to something that is either exactly the size you are going to display or a multiple of it (eg, an image 600 pixels wide and you're displaying it at half size). The reason for that is that every time you resize an image, you lose some amount of quality and if you resize it to something that's not an even multiple, you lose more quality. So you only want to do it once. When I originally cropped it and then Wikipedia was resizing the cropped version to be 300 pixels wide, it looked a bit off. So I re-cropped it at 450 pixels wide and it looks a bit better. --B (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok man. Oblivion Lost (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much!

Thanks so much for your help with the block; every blocked user thinks they've been done wrong, and it has so much more impact coming from someone other than the blockee. Out of curiosity, I see the discussion at the blocker's talk page, but not one at ANI ("Permission was given at ANI and at the blocking admin's talk page to reverse the block"). Is there any action appropriate against the blocker (I suppose an apology is out of the question)? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I would not suggest pursuing the issue with the blocking admin. People make mistakes. Making an issue of it is only likely to cause problems rather than to prevent them. I would file this in the category of "count your blessings and move on with life". --B (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. And I will count you and the others who pitched in as among my blessings today. Thanks again. :) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops

Thanks for that correction - once again, I start typing, think about something different, and then come back and think "That would sound better phrased this way" while forgetting the content I was originally trying to paraphrase. I need to stop doing that! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

GRIN Campaign

The organisation has gained much media attention in the printed press in the south of the UK. One such article can be found here: http://www.petersfieldpost.co.uk/news/bordon/online_anti_bullying_campaign_launched_1_1996104 The http://dot429.com/articles/2010/12/16/respect-protest-anti-bullying-beyond-united-states and http://sdgln.com/causes/2010/12/24/respect-protest-anti-bullying-beyond-united-states are written by the smae author and do contain some subtle differances, it apears that the journalist works for both organisations but only conducted one interview. http://www.ukgaynews.org.uk/Archive/10/Dec/3101.htm is also a news site with many articles relating to the orginisation. Spirit FM and RadioReverb, both radio stations in the south of the UK have also interviewed the organisation, http://www.spiritfm.net/news/review.php?article=340505 was an article showing this, however, is no longer avalible but http://www.radioreverb.com/index.php?id=107 still is. Although some of the articles cannot necessarily be proven to be notable media the vast volume of articles displayed when 'GRIN Campapign' is typed into Google is clear evidence of the notability of the campaign. Jointheworldcouk (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Given the nature of the campaign, it is of my belief that it has gained tremendous media attention given that it was only founded in October 2010. Having just done a review of other pages of a similar nature I feel that GRIN Campaign has more references than a great deal of other commonly accepted as notable pages. For example, Gay-straight alliance a group of organizations established in 1988 have less notable media references, most of which are referrals to the printed media. It seems from my perspective, that GRIN Campaign need not be deleted, but just have the references embedded into the relevant sections and anyone with references from the printed media in the UK press needs to add them. RockClaudiaGB (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:COI, which discusses editing on articles where you have a conflict of interest. --B (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It is of my belief that the article was not published intentionally with a COI, although I appreciate that not all the references listed are creditable, I fully read all the documents on what constitutes a critical/notable media source and would not have published the article if I believed that it was not compliant, this is a fault on my behalf. Upon researching this issue I believe it to be much bigger than just the article in question, while exploring the List of LGBT rights organizations I realized that GRIN Campaign has many more creditable articles and references than a large majority of the articles that are in this list. Queer Youth Network for instance has only one, which is only a mild reference to the name, the rest are article published directly by the organization and Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association did not appear to have any, the list continues... The Trevor Project which is an incredibly well established organization has very few references one of which with the same news site as http://sdgln.com/causes/2010/12/24/respect-protest-anti-bullying-beyond-united-states

I believe that the issue is not as much with the GRIN Campaign article but more with the lack of 'notable' publicity that most LGBT organizations get. I appreciate your point of view as a clearly very distinguished administrator, however, I feel we are dealing here with an issue of sociology more than COI. If the GRIN Campaign article is up for deletion, so should over 50 other LGBT organizations. This completely contradicts COI as I feel that removing this amount of information would not benefit the wikipedia community but stunt it's growth as a liberal and impartial place for information.

Any advice that you may have on this issue is greatly appreciated. RockClaudiaGB (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here to build an encyclopedia, not to promote the organization. Even if other non-notable articles exist is not a reason to create another one. However, the other ones you mention seem to be notable with flying colors. From a few seconds of googling, The Trevor Project gets significant coverage in the media, including this AP piece - it passes with flying colors. The Queer Youth Network is much more borderline, but still is a widely-known organization. --B (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Trevor Project was indeed a poor example, it is very notable but it's actually stated references are little better than those of GRIN Campaign. The Queer Youth Network is no more of a known organization than GRIN Campaign, upon Googling http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=grin+campaign&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=Oq5pTa6nBsSv8gP2_NXyBw GRIN Campaign returns many more relevant results. I completely agree that Wikipedia is here to build an encyclopedia and that is precisely why I created the article, there was no intended COI and I apologies for that. I ask you, as someone who has been an administrator since before I was even old-enough to legally own an online account on most websites, how I could prove the validity of the article or what I could possible do to prevent the deletion? RockClaudiaGB (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You need to put "grin campaign" in quotes - otherwise, you are finding every result that uses the word grin or campaign. When you put them in quotes, the results are considerably smaller. In any event, to answer your question, the answer is that you need to demonstrate that your organization meets the notability guideline for organizations and companies. Please note that the vast majority of organizations and companies in the world are NOT "notable" according to this guideline. This is not a value judgment - it is only a statement that they don't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Also, please note that it is not necessary to appeal to me being an administrator - administrators have no special authority in deletion discussions. --B (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that. The vast majority of the news coverage that GRIN Campaign has gained is from secondary sources completely independent of the campaign, and thus agrees with the notability rules, and in respect to the scale of the campaign, it has gained extensive coverage locally, some nationally and a lot in the US -thus globally. I have added a few more references to the article. When searching "grin campaign" 2,470 results did show up, the vast majority of which are relevant, including some in Chinese and Scots Gaelic, farther proving the international point. http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22GRIN+Campaign%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=O8FqTY_ZDcu48gPdo6jyBw#q=%22GRIN+Campaign%22&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=ivns&ei=j8FqTc7CPIOYhQeSsoH0Dg&start=0&sa=N&fp=f5e5ebba4844eba0 If you still feel the organization is not notable there is little I can do other than say that I know there will be many more articles published in the coming weeks, some of which should hopefully count as a reliable source in you opinion, and that the campaign is fairly new and therefore gaining notability over time, if you still do not deem it notable by Wikipedia's standards I hope you will shortly. What if the page is deleted now but in three weeks has gained a collection of more "notable" sources? It is of my believe that there must be at least three reliable independent secondary sources already, thus warranting an article. RockClaudiaGB (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for remaking the page but including the rest. Sorry I didn't realize it was the wrong Monroe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shatnertrek (talk • contribs) 16:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. --B (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

in re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The ABC of Sex Education for Trainables

The onscreen credits of a film are acceptable even as a primary source of cast and attribution, as readers are able to verify what is attributed. The onscreen credits acknowledge that narration was provided by Richard Dix and that dramatic sequences were provided by the included cast of persons, as well as by members and staff of the Ronald Bruce Nippon Assoc., and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania. Hallmark Films,Inc. credited as studio within the opening 18 seconds, and "members and staff of the Ronald Bruce Nippon Assoc., and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania" appear in the onscreen credits role after 19 minutes That said, I also found a review of the DVD compilation by Digitally Obsessed[4] which made special note that ABC of Sex Education for Trainables "was produced by Planned Parenthood to train teachers..." and apparently this is repeated by the numerous reviews of The Educational Archives: Volume 1—Sex & Drugs which also speak toward the film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't see that (I didn't watch the video all the way through). --B (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

MS Wiki

Did you asked for Usurpations in MS Wiki from UserB => B. Please put your confirmation in your user pages. Yosri (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. ms:Perbincangan Pengguna:UserB is me. Thanks. I am the global User:UserB. (I also have the global User:B account, but commons:User:B is somebody else - that's why I use commons:User:UserB there. --B (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey. Are UserB and B is the same person here? Or I just read you talking to yourself? Will UserB be expecting his ID in MS Wiki? Yosri (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Your request is attended to. Yosri (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --B (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't bother with credit, but bother more on people using my work, without returning anything to the society. GFDL alone seems not acceptable, as Wiki now require dual licensing (whatever it's mean). I'm still trying to understand all the terms and conditions. It's also bother me that the foundation failed to communicate clearly on their new policy to other project. This is the case the hind side does not know what the front side is doing. Yosri (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh

Kind odd having to do this, asking an admin a second time to do a partial self-revert so that they are no longer breaking 1RR and using a misleading edit summary. When you made your second revert to Jerusalem yesterday, you not only reverted the edit by the banned user, but you also reverted over this edit by me. If you had only reverted the edits of the banned user you would have gone back to this version by User:Seb az86556. So, does this need to go further, or are you going to fix your mistake? Passionless -Talk 23:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems your not going to listen to me, so, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#B. Passionless -Talk 21:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with that. --B (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Burrito

Article (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

do you honestly believe a burrito bowl is infact a burrito? this is based upon pure fact and not a bias'd opinion. then again the credibility of this site has been questionable for quite some time now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beached Bumm (talk • contribs) 23:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea. Please see the no original research and reliable sources policies. Your own claims about what is and is not a burrito are not appropriate. --B (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

DRV

{{Delrevafd}}

Yeah, I don't think that's the template you're looking for, but I get the idea. --B (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom

Re: "What I do think, though, is that Arbcom needs to stop bringing sua sponte cases except where privacy is involved." Did you look at the RFC?[5] Privacy was invoked dozens of times. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

They may invoke it, but if the reasons for his desysopping are all on-wiki (as opposed to checkuser abuse, engaging in outing that has subsequently been oversighted, etc), it's not a legitimate reason. --B (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, that makes your concern clearer. Well, Rod has the option of an open process and might be about to take it, for better or worse. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Re "In the real-world justice system, we have a prosecution, defense, and then an impartial judge and jury" Leaving aside the usual mis-identification of Wikipedia DR with a legal proceeding, the system you're describing is (I believe) unique to medieval England and its descendants (including the US). I liked the movie Z, about a judicial investigation set in Greece. I gather that the legal system shown in the film (the judge is an investigator) is typical of most parts of the world not deriving from the Anglo-Saxon system. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)