User talk:Bongwarrior

; Archives
	Archive 1 (April 2007 – October 2007)
	Archive 2 (October 2007 – January 2008)
	Archive 3 (January 2008 – April 2008)
	Archive 4 (April 2008 – September 2008)
	Archive 5 (September 2008 – April 2009)
	Archive 6 (April 2009 – January 2010)
	Archive 7 (January 2010 – October 2010)
	Archive 8 (October 2010 – May 2011)
	Archive 9 (May 2011 – October 2011)
	Archive 10 (October 2011 – May 2012)
	Archive 11 (May 2012 – October 2012)
	Archive 12 (October 2012 – present) ;

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Unsigned messages will likely be removed. For messages left here, I will usually respond here. If I leave a message on your talk page, I will watch for a response there.
Start a new talk topic.

Merry Christmas!

Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you, Merry Christmas to you as well! --Bongwarrior (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and the same to you. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Jerry Orbach

I'm not sure where to go to correctly request this, but I figured I could request an administrator. The page Jerry Orbach keeps being vandalized, with multiple users (three so far: 70.27.83.203, 76.97.157.64, and Squirrels2nuts) changing "Orbach" to "Orbot." Whether or not these people are intentionally vandalizing the page (I think Squirrels2nuts was only going off of 76.97...'s edit, but either way, I put messages on the talk pages of all three users), my concern is that this may continue, possibly with other IP's getting involved. Thus, I wanted to know if the article should be temporarily semi-protected; and, if so, if you would do so. Thanks! Greengreengreen red 05:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea - I've semiprotected it for three days. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Greengreengreen red 05:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your assistance in dealing with User:Lljjp, one of the many sockpuppets of User:Mangoeater1000. The harassment on my talk page was a new approach and rather annoying. Regards, 72Dino (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I can protect it for a little while if you'd like? --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it happens again I may take you up on it. For now I'll leave it unprotected. Thank you for the offer. 72Dino (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 NHL lockout ITN nomination

On 7 January 2013, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2012–13 NHL lockout, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--NW (Talk) 13:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supernatural Vandalism

No not vandalism by ghosts, I mean the ongoing slow-vandalism of the Supernatural character pages. Thanks for picking up the last lot. The Winchester pages have been undergoing constant but widely spaced out vandalism since Supernatural appeared on the main page. Its usually done while I am asleep, so I assumed someone in the US, the recent one going by 'Moffat was here' though suggests a UK source. (Not many people in the US would probably get the Moffat reference) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it has been a pretty consistent problem for whatever reason. It may be a good candidate for pending changes at some point. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My removal of the unverifiable and inaccurate nonsense that comprised the "Nucular" entry

Please stop reverting my edits, there is not a single piece of valid or verifiable information on the previous Nucular page, it was simply a flight of fancy by some overly creative individuals. At the very least, if you disagree with me then please at least review and attempt to validate it yourself before reverting my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin Buser (talk • contribs) 07:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you take it to Articles for deletion as I've suggested, you might be successful. If you keep vandalizing and blanking it, you most assuredly won't. It has been discussed and discussed again, which is why we have an article on it today. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily think it should be deleted, my main gripe is that it is represented as an actual word when in point of fact it is not. On top of which many of the things written are simply wrong, or supported by citations to material that either does not actually support them. For instance, the very first sentence claims that:

"Nucular is an ad hoc spelling of a metathetic alternate pronunciation of the word nuclear, representing the pronunciation new-q-ler instead of new-clee-er.".

First of all http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_dialect clearly states that such a practice "implies a pronunciation of the given word that is actually standard, such as wimmin for women;" as well as "This form of nonstandard spelling differs from others in that a difference in spelling does not indicate a difference in pronunciation of a word.". Clearly since the entire point of the article is that the pronunciation IS different then that reference is invalid.

Secondly Metathesis (linguistics) is defined as "the switching of two or more contiguous sounds", which does not describe the act of replacing one sound with another, especially when that sound doesn't actually exist in the correct pronunciation.

Finally he doesn't even use proper phonetical notation, which would be pretty important for an article about pronunciation.

So that's just the first sentence, the second one claiming that the word nucular actually exists is "supported" by a link that doesn't exist, and I have yet to find a dictionary that supports this assertion.

Essentially what I did was to go through each point one by one and look at the "citations" provided and what was left when I weeded out all the unsubstantiated and irrelevant content was virtually nothing.

What if I copy it to a sandbox page and then go through and edit the individual items that I have a problem with and show it to you before I make any changes?