User talk:BorgHunter/Archive 2

Welcome to my talk page. Please leave your comments at the bottom of the page. Note that if you leave a comment here, I will reply to it here, so if you want to keep track of my replies to you, you should place this page on your watchlist. Thank you! —BorgHunter

Archives: Greeting | 2005

Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes

Would you consider supporting 1a? It was at least in part based on your comments about points 3 and 4 of 1 that I presented it. Thanks! (alternatively do you think some sort of step back and agreement on underlying principles is a better approach? I sort of had not envisioned all these proposals yet, I figured getting to agreed on principles was the way to go) ++Lar: t/c 02:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

anon IP block

OK, I see. Unfortunately, I reblocked it just before reading your message, go ahead and unblock if you wish. -- Curps 16:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

Greetings, BorgHunter! I wanted to sincerely thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with a final result of 55/14/3. Your support means a lot to me! If you have any questions or input regarding my activities, be they adminly or just a "normal" user's, or if you just want to chat about anything at all, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers! —Nightstallion (?) 07:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Alpha

the Notable Alphas paragraph that everyone seems to want to change was originally a simple parpagraph about 5 alpha were honored with a commemortive postal stamp. now this fact is a simple footnote at the end of the paragraph. The category Alpha Phi Alpha brothers contains the names of all members with articles on this website. Please put the parargraph back to the original which would be Saturday's verstion. thanks Ccson 15:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Approval

For all your hard work and willingness to do something you loathed, I give you approval!

I'm Jokermage and I approve this Wikipedian! Paid for by the Jokermage for Chief Librarian Campaign.

Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 03:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yay! ::pins userbox on shirt and beams:: —BorgHunter (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Baseball

Here is baseball-reference.com's wiki. Also excellent. I've worked on it a bit. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Baseball Wikicity

Hi BorgHunter, As you can see, I'm telling baseball fans on Wikipedia about the baseball Wikicity you started. I certainly hope you'll start contributing to it again! Also, I see from your user page that you also live in St. Petersburg! You should come to the Wikipedia meetup that will be at the Panera Bread on 4th St. N. on January 14th. I'm not sure what time it will start yet, but if you're interested in coming, be sure to let me know and I'll tell you what time it starts once I know. Jimbo will be there, along with many other long time Wikipedians, so a good time should be had by all. Thanks BorgHunter, and keep in touch. Googie Man 14:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

I've been considering the meetup. I don't know if I have to work on that Saturday or not—I'll find out. —BorgHunter (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding NeoWin

Hinotori has left a comment regarding it on the talk page; it's worth a look. My opinion is thus: Anons and new user sockpuppets were attacking the page and erasing NoneLoud, Hinotori and other people's contribs... so, given that, instead of full protection, why not instead try putting NeoWin into Semi-Protection? It would allow reg users to edit the page, while keeping out sockpuppets. Daniel Davis 23:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

Semi-protection would be horridly unfair. This is a dispute, not simple vandalism. Unless you have evidence to the contrary. —BorgHunter (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's on the page, as I note in the comment below posted within seconds of Doom127's. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 23:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That's attacking the editor. I'm asking how the edits are vandalism. They do not seem to subvert the article or the normal functioning of Wikipedia in any way. Again, if you have evidence to the contrary, I'm open to it. —BorgHunter (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

He's not supposed to be editting AT ALL. That's the whole point. As for evidence of vandalism, blanking lots of text is pretty damn close to vandalism to me. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 23:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If I were involved in the editing, I'd get rid of the "list of admins and mods" too, myself. That doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Oh, and I don't deal with accusations of sockpuppeting and evading blocks; that's not my speciality. It's too complicated, and you need to get a checkuser from one who has those privileges to be absolutely sure. If you do have a sockpuppeting complaint, try WP:AN. My stance is based entirely on content and not editor context. —BorgHunter (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion on the page. I put a response regarding it on that page (concerning the content of the mentioned users reversions). As for a checkuser, I requested one regarding User:Microsoft Fanboy and the suspicious nature of his edits a while back, but I guess it kinda got lost in the shuffle. Daniel Davis 23:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

On the Neowin Talk Page you said you would give the user time to justify his actions. He has not done so in the alloted time, nor has he ever done so in all of the time he has been blanking and reverting the page. The Neowin article is far from finished, but the more recent article that was produced by the community had far more structure and far less POV to it than the one that it keeps being reverted to. The edits by the anonymous editors that seem to originate from Brazil4linux (and Microsoft Fanboy) have done nothing but set the article back by removing hard work that everyone but him thinks is appropriate for the subject. The problem is that new IP addresses will just continue to blank or revert the article recklessly. That is why I am asking you personally to please put the article under semi-protection for the time being until the user gets bored with vandalizing the article. That way others can continue to develop the article and fix things (such as the listing of administrators) while users who want to vandalize the article can be kept under check.

I hope you agree that this would be the best action for the time being.

-Noneloud 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Neowin

Just wanted to let you know that I posted the reason why Doom127 and I are reverting his edits on the Talk:Neowin page. He uses sockpuppets, is a known vandal, and has already been blocked from editting, but is trying to evade that. If he wants to discuss his changes, I'm more than willing to do so, but I think a look at previous attempts to do so, most notably on the Talk:Ken Kutaragi page, will show that that is unlikely at best.

-- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 23:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Responded to you

I responded to your comments on my talk page, on my talk page. --Durin 03:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

(continuation from User talk:Kelly Martin#Grammar fascist)

You seem to be forgetting that there are some people for whom English is not your first language (in fact, I'd guess it's really common on the Internet). For a humorous take on the situation from the POV of a non-native English speaker, see m:Guerilla non-eEnglish spelling and grammar campaign. --cesarb 16:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support! I have decided to withdraw my nomination, due to growing oppose votes due to my lack of experence (and because I have userboxes on my page?). I will now aim to continue, and broadern my scope from userboxes. I will accept a nomination, should one be made, in 1–2 months. Ian¹³_ID:540053 18:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Need you to look over something

Hi,

I'm taking steps to lodge a formal complaint against User:Theodore7 due to various reasons that I'm sure that you are aware of, or have experienced by now. Right now I have a rough draft of the complaint that I would like to have some people look over, add to, correct, and sign if they agree with it. I've never had to do anything like this before, so if you would please take some time to take a look at it and give me some feedback, suggestions, support, etc., then I would really appreciate it. It can be found here: [1] Thank you. --Chris Brennan 06:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC/KM

You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone|^(talk) 03:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image

If it is against the rules to have that on my page, then why do you not care about the other people who have it? User:Redvers gave it to me as a 'Thank You' for participating in the Esperanza Elections! So why now? Wikizach 22:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't check to see if other user pages were using it. Thank you for pointing that out. I'm pretty laissez-faire in my opinions of what should go in the User namespace, but fair use images absolutely don't belong there. Thanks for being patient with me while I go uglifying your user page. :-P —BorgHunter ^alt (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

User Gallery

Oh, would that be a violation? I had no idea. I try to stay out of copyright-related stuff...it just makes my head hurt. Naturally, that results in me occasionally accidentally breaking the rules. Anyways, it's gone now. Thanks for the tip =) ♠PMC♠ 00:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It's always good to be on the safe side. —BorgHunter ^alt (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's time!

Hi BorgHunter. Thank you for nominating me for adminship, I have responded to your questions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me. If there is anything else I can or should do, please let me know. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

RFA voting

Hey there, thanks for letting me know about the voting, but I don't think you looked into it well enough! Yes I started editing in 04, but I had very few edits! about 480 of my edits have come in the last week, as I've been becoming extremely active on the CVU. That's why I hadn't voted, since all my edits came in the last week, but thanks for letting me know! --Lightdarkness 03:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikifun round 12

This is to invite you to participate in the next game of Wikifun.
Round 12 will begin at 11:00 UTC on Friday January 20. 2006.
-- Ravn 17:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Khreschatyk

The edit conflict there was rather slow going and there were no wild revert wars. As such, there is no need to keep the article locked. That's just my opinion of course. --Irpen 16:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't realized that you have been promoted to adminship relatively recently. I am sorry that you fell into this typical trap that troll users set for unsuspecting admins to get them involved and in order get an upper hand is the content dispute where they find their position otherwsie indefencible. See this for more. --Irpen 18:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone's getting any upper hand here. Though I do see your point, and the article is unprotected. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidacy of User: Can't sleep, clown will eat me

Just an observation, I have heard it said that too much defense by the nominator can turn some voters off. I have no idea if it's really true or not. This one looks close, I'd hate to see it fail, even for a stupid reason like that. (I am one of the "support" voters) All the best. ++Lar: t/c 13:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

My nomination has apparently sparked some sort of larger debate amongst current administrators, which would probably best be discussed on the Village Pump or perhaps WP:AN, I'm not sure. In any case I just wanted to thank you both for supporting me, and if things do not work out this time that's no big deal either, I'll still be glad to help to the best of my abilities. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the debate has been simmering for some time, as far back as November I saw signs of concern about RfAs, and maybe even farther back, and had already been getting started (with the userbox issue, and other things, bringing things to a head) before your nomination happened. If you hadn't been nominated now, but some other candidate with a short history had, they'd be getting the scrutiny you are... (this from someone with more time here, but less edits, than you... take it for what it's worth). Hope that helps, don't despair, hang in there, etc... ++Lar: t/c 08:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

84.231.242.141 vandalism

Sorry to bother you, but about 20 minutes ago or so I reported 84.231.242.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to WP:AIV due to high speed page blanking. Could you please block this address? It's still going. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

RfA nomination

As you're active on WP:RFA, I thought you might be able to provide comment on this. I've been nominated for admin by User:The Neokid, however I strongly suspect that I have not got enough edits or fully active months behind me to succeed in a vote. Do you agree? Any insight appreciated :) Petros471 19:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Another month or two of good, solid editing should be enough. Should you go for it, I'd predict around 65% support...and 75% is generally the minimum for consensus. You're close, just be patient a bit. For what it's worth, I'd vote support at this point, but many of my peers would disagree. 1500 edits is a good minimum to shoot for. (I passed around 1000, but I had been here for almost a year.) —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for your advice and support. What's the procedure for turning down for now?- is there some way that I need to officially decline the nomination or do I leave is at it is for a while then accept it at a later date? Petros471 20:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Just say you decline on the RfA page and let your nominator know. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Dont be a dick? SO why are you one?

SO you put the dont be a dick thing on you user page then go aginst it by being a dick, [2]. Considering that you have never question me directly on the subject, your comments are more then likely based on your observations on those dicks like yourself who also have also never addressed me directly on the question, but seem to know what i think, and what my motives are, which i can assure you they dont. SO basicaly becides the gay question, you seem to be narow minded on the expression of opinions that go aginst that of the majority. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a testament to your legendary voting pattern, I suppose. Incidentally, why do you think saying that Masssiveego is like you is a personal attack? It's a statement of fact; your voting patterns are quite similar. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Can't Sleep, Clown will... RfA

Howdy,

What can I say: you got me? :) That was extremely observant on your part, and I am impressed. Truth is, if I had noticed Izehar's short tenure at the time of the RfA, I very well might have passed it over as one I could neither support nor oppose -- I just missed that detail. Still, I admire your recall! Amazed, Xoloz 16:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It's less amazing than merely observant. I noticed Izehar's RfA in the comments section and skimmed through all the supports, and just happened to notice your name there. For what it's worth, I don't want you to change your vote or anything, I was just pointing out an interesting anomaly. I replied to BDAbramson's Neutral vote the same way. In any case, based on some advice I've received, I am going to cease replying to oppose votes on the RfA, even though I'm an opinionated bastard with too much time on his hands. That can be a dangerous combination, I think. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I, personally, welcome any comments regarding my oppose votes, especially genuinely interesting ones like yours. I knew you were being friendly rather than snarky -- emoticons are great for that ;) -- and I can't imagine anyone disliking a comment like the one you gave me. Some people are touchy, though...

FWIW, RfA voting is more an art than exercise in strict rules -- I waived my normal concerns over tenure-length and voted for you out of a Trek-solidarity, after all. ;) If the editor in question had been named "Can't sleep, Q will eat me", who knows? :) More seriously, I do wonder how many of the supports are motivated solely by the editor's stupendous username, whether merely having a clever name is an asset in RfA's, and whether (if that is so) this fact of RfA life is a good thing. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Heads up

Just letting you know I found this comment on Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship/CCan't Sleep, Clown will eat me (or however it's spelt/capitalised):

#Can not support nominations brought by users like BorgHunter (talk • contribs) who attack other users for no reason, see. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second, so you're opposing because he was nominated by BorgHunter? Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA yourself. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 02:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, your comment was nothing like a personal attack. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 02:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

NoSeptember's RfA

Thank you, BorgHunter, for your support of my RfA. If you ever need for anything, please contact me. I will do my best in my new role and welcome your feedback. NoSeptember ^talk 13:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

UDUIW

I, Shell (DotShell), would like to personally invite you to join the UDUIW. You can do this by adding our userbox or simply adding yourself to our category. Thank you for your time. --Shell 03:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:ANOT

Bwahahahaha! Fantastic! Needs a category or two, and WP:RFA needs to link to it. Nicely done! --Durin 20:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

He's back again.

Just thought you should know that banned user B4L is back to his old tactics at Neowin. That is, he's using his User:Microsoft Fanboy sock and his traced 201.29.xx addresses (right back to his old veloxzone.br) address to continually revert the page back to the same old thing that he was pushing over a month ago.

That is... his version, which he's reverted to at least twice today today, happens to be the same one that his sockpuppet was forcing onto the page way back on the 1st, which of course is the same one that Brazil's sock has been forcing since Christmas.

Now, whether or not you and I agree on whether a staff list (which is an edit by a different, noninvolved user) should be in there, I think you would agree that B4L's edits that erase everything and put the page back to a state it was in over a month ago must be halted. I would recommend (since we have legit editors who still want to work on it) that we semi-protect the page. That would prevent his socks from damaging it.

What is your opinion on this matter? Daniel Davis 01:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

Classic Rock

Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most like classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! RENTA^{FOR LET?} 02:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[3] ;) —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 20:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

eMail

I may have lost your eMail Fred Bauder 13:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Nooooo! I spent a really long time working on it, too! And I didn't save it anywhere else! —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Commons: Mac Logo Grey

Hey BorgHunter,

You have, understandably, put a copyright violation tag on an image I uploaded on commons named Mac Logo Grey. Here's a copy of the justification I just added after your comment:

---

Copyvio

I don't think that a remade Apple logo is relicensable. I think it is fair use regardless of who made it, and it doesn't belong on the Commons. BorgHunter 00:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Free Use of Mac Logo Grey

The reason why I believe I am allowed to publish this as my own work - and therefore GPL - is that it is based on a character provided by default in about just any font that comes with an Apple computer (I haven't checked the others). Therefore when I use it to stylise something out of it, I believe it is as legitimate as if I was stylising say the letter "A". I do understand that this is subject to interpretation since it is artwork that could be confused with the official logo, but I don't think this should fall under "fair use" because it is original artwork. Still, I will leave this to the admin's decision.

---

I am at your disposal should you want to discuss this interpretation but I will understand if it is removed. I think it would be sad because why provide tools if it is illegal to use them, but since I'm not a jurist...

Ciao,
Stéphane Thibault 12:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC) ^Talk

Template Pedophile

I didn't blank it, I deleted it as an attack template then recreated it blank. That is NOT listed under 'simple vandalism'. Hope this satisfies the urge for process, and thanks for your concern - David Gerard 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and userbox templates (particularly trolling ones) are not "Wikipedia content" either. Whoops, two strikes! - David Gerard 23:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Your last undeletion of the template was just undone by Jimbo. I eagerly await you placing the blanking warning on his page, to demonstrate your evenhandedness and lack of any personal view of the conflict - David Gerard 23:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Desysopping

Jimbo Wales has temporarily desysopped several administrators involved in the pedophilia userbox wheel war, yourself included, until such time as the Arbitration Committee can sort the matter out. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Desysoppings Raul654 07:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Yes, you are no longer an admin, check WP:AN. I have to say that I am shocked. I am sure that this is only temporary.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 07:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior

I find your behavior and comments tonight unbecoming and inappropriate for an administrator. Your comments on User talk:David Gerard are uncivil at best. Using a blanking warning template for an administrator who had deleted a page is patronizing and provocative, as if it were a new user "testing" Wikipedia out instead of an experienced Wikipedian and former arbitrator. What made you feel this would be an appropriate comment? Nor could his comment be construed as a personal attack, since not only does it not refer to anyone in particular, it does not state that they possess those qualities rather (and in fact, he expects them not to have them). Why use vandalism templates and threats of blocking rather than discussion? Especially with a fellow administrator? Do you really feel that this sort of behavior is constructive? Fortunately, David Gerard did not rise to the repeated provocation, but with a less-mature editor, this could have gotten messy. I know one user's opinion probably matters little, but I am quite disappointed to see this response from you; it is not in character. I regretted not getting around to vote in your request for adminship before it closed, but had I seen evidence of this behavior beforehand, I would have certainly opposed the request. I ask you to rethink your approach to resolving/provoking conflict. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Um. I'm not entirely sure how to respond to this. Calling people "jawdroppingly stupid" is not a personal attack? Warning an administrator for blanking a page which was at the time up for TfD is inappropriate? I was trying, to the best of my ability, to uphold process, and be as dispassionate about it as possible. No one is immune to the rules. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

A request for arbitration where you have been listed as a party has been opened by Raul654 (per Jimbo Wales). Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, as well as provide evidence at /Evidence and comment on proposals at /Workshop. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)