User talk:Bob, just Bob

Welcome to the Wikipedia!

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Bob, just Bob! Thanks for weighing in over on the Deletion review/Userbox debates discussion. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
When you have time, please peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia, and Assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
Always be mindful of striving for NPOV, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, Bob, just Bob, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 10:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User review

Hi Bob! I saw that you reverted Angr's removal of this debate, probably assuming that he closed it without restoring it. In fact, he did restore it and brought it promptly to WP:TFD, as the rules dictate when there is between 50% and 75% for undeletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

I like what you have say on the Userbox deletion review. There is currently an Rfc going on about userbox deletion. Mind if I add your examples as evidence? --D-Day ^{My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes} 15:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be no problem at all, I'm glad to help. Wikipedia needs reform just as much as the corrupt all-powerful Church did in the dark ages, the situation is ridiculous and is going to slowly eat away at the encyclopedia until there's no one left but egomaniacal administrators and their syncophants. Wikipedia is a great place, but these kind of people are ruining it. Bob, just Bob 15:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your gross insinuation of character against Fred Bauder is a vile personal attack and beneath the conduct of anyone who claims to be protecting the encyclopedia. Fred has never made a secret of his professional difficulties; they're easily discovered via Google and have no bearing on his conduct here. Your post violates WP:NPA; perhaps more importantly, it makes you look like a troll. I urge you to reverse yourself before you get blocked. Mackensen (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

Please do not insert personal attacks into debates. Linking to attacks on Fred Baur's character as a response to his post is unacceptable.--Doc ^ask? 19:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not personally attack him, I didn't say I agree with them at all. I asked him if [[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18&hl=bauder the link] was the reason he was for the deletion of the Wikipedia Review box, I would've thought that was obvious - WP:AGF? It does seem likely that is the reason he wants the site "removed", as most people in his position probably would. Bob, just Bob 19:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not--it's quite useful to have such a forum (particularly when trolls discredit themselves). No, I suspect he wants the template removed for the same reason the rest of us do, and quite apart from a banned user drudging up history that everyone concerned already knew about anyway. Mackensen (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it certainly reflects upon whether he's suitable in such a high-ranking position on Wikipedia - and I (and many others I'm sure) didn't know about it before seeing that post. What was Ted Wilkes banned for? Bob, just Bob 19:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk message

Since you seem so fond of policy please see WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL etc. etc. before jumping up and down and accusing people of abusive behaviour on the basis of one revert, this seems to suggest you are attempting to do nothing but pick a fight. --pgk^(talk) 20:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made it clear in my edit summary that it was against policy to blank deletion review debates, especially before 5 days is even up - there was no way the link could be misinterpretated, the Undeletion Policy is very clear. Bob, just Bob 20:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what, writing something in an edit summary is not an excuse to then instantly jump on people with uncivil accusations, again please see WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL perhaps you can point out something in those policies which say they are voided in such circumstances. --pgk^(talk) 20:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were ignoring policy, that's not an "uncivil accusation", it's a fact. And if you haven't read the rules you shouldn't be participating in debate in the first place. Bob, just Bob 20:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 20:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks in edit summaries

Personal attacks are not welcome anywhere on Wikipedia. Suggesting another editor is in al-Qaeda is a personal attack, regardless of whether the sentiment is warranted. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 15:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

I've blocked this account for 26 days, because it's User:Mistress Selina Kyle, who used this account from March 8 onwards to evade El C's one-month block of MSK, which began on March 3, leaving 26 days of the block unserved. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not her, so please unblock me. I'd like to see any supposed evidence, because I know there won't be any. Bob, just Bob 20:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check-user evidence indicates that it is "very likely" that the same person is operating User:Bob, just Bob and User:Mistress Selina Kyle, and the pattern of contributions also makes it ~~very likely~~ beyond reasonable doubt. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I've blocked this account indefinitely and added the 26 days to MSK's block. If the person operating the account would rather be Bob from now on than MSK, just let me know and I'll swap the blocks around. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this user overwhelmingly sounds like MSK. --Cyde Weys 22:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of K College for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article K College is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K College until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Poggs77 (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]