User talk:Bongwarrior/Archive 11

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A silly question regarding your Username

Just passing by, I got interested by your username. If you don't mind revealing are you some way connected to Bengal. Bong is a colloquial, hip or modern way of reffering to a person from Bengal (especially in an informal setup). There is a movie called The Bong Connection as well. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 06:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Pretty interesting, but unrelated. I'm just a regular American. My username refers to that thing that I only smoke tobacco out of. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yea! that's the ticket.

. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The name of the Bong State Recreation Area in Wisconsin has given rise to a certain amount of humor, as well. (It's named after Richard Bong, a fighter ace of WW 2.) --Orange Mike | Talk 00:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

They have nothing on the residents of this town. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Be sure to visit Bong County someday.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, let's stop badgering him about his username. Can't we all just get a bong? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Wesley Smith wiki

What needs to be fixed/updated to the Ryan Wesley Smith wiki page? Please explain. It keeps getting deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otherryan (talk • contribs) 23:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

He needs to become notable first. Literally millions of people make Youtube videos, so that won't really cut it unless he is some sort of internet phenomenon, and that doesn't appear to be the case. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The Aryan SS

19 of may 2012- Can you please stop deleting my pages I am trying to make my friends organization and you keep deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vert579 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I know what you're trying to do. Your friend's Nazi club isn't notable. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions. SwisterTwister talk 20:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bongwarrior. You have new messages at David Levy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—David Levy 04:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For reverting long term vandalism at Geoemyda and Twelve Men. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Cotton gin

Thanks for reverting that vandalism on the cotton gin article. I was wondering, would you be able to semi-protect that page for a few months? As far as I am aware, it has never received a single constructive IP edit, and the vandals always start again whenever a semi-protection period expires. Thanks. Michaelmas1957 06:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a big help. Michaelmas1957 07:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you as well for your work on the article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle rollback "warn using TW"

If you would like to remove this bold text for all Twinkle users (which is going to happen anyway, it would just be quicker if you made the edit), you can change the line in MediaWiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js that reads:

$vandalTalkLink.text("talk (warn using TW)");

to the following:

$vandalTalkLink.attr("title", "If appropriate, you can use Twinkle to warn the user about their edits to this page.");

That should make you happier. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I don't mind waiting. I'd rather leave it in the hands of the usual Twinkle coders so that I don't mess something up and break it for everyone. Thanks for the tip though, and for your help. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted passage from before

I only edited the passage regarding the 'AVX Versus issue 1: Iron Man vs Magneto' because the person who wrote it initially had a biased view - according to him "Magneto throws the fight", when he did not. It was Iron Man who was reluctant to carry on with the fight in the favor of trying to help others find the bigger threat(please instruct the person who edited it to read the comic issue first, well, at least one more time). If Magneto had thrown the fight, he would have cleary been declared as the winner by the writers who wrote the comic in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.238.4 (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it might be best to either bring it up on the talk page, or to talk directly to the user who reverted you. Also, I wonder if changing "throws" to "forfeits" might be enough to make everyone happy ("forfeits" seems to describe the end result, without any added connotations). Take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

A Cupcake for You!

Thanks for fixing something I overlooked! A Person^ಠ_ಠ 03:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Who needs a barnstar when you can have a cupcake?

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 12:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Your thoughts on the "Olive Leaf" write up.

I was going to do a major edit of "Olive Leaf" I just but a long discourse on it's talk page and cc'ed it to my talk page. Any thoughts would be appreciated. --Jeffrey mcmahan (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Do whatever you think is best. I don't really have any thoughts on the matter (or objections). --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Revert

I've reverted this edit by an IP on here. I hope you don't mind. -- Luke (Talk) 02:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, thank you. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Kansas City Storm edit war

Thanks for the quick response. I really didn't want to have to get anyone blocked for edit warring, so maybe this will do the trick. Incidentally, I haven't made very many protection requests (I used a template via Twinkle this time), so if I could have done it better, please let me know. Cheers! -- Bgpaulus (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope, your request looked fine to me. Prior to becoming an admin, I think I only used RFPP to request protection once, and I managed to screw it up horribly :) --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Impersonator

Meant to mention this earlier but got sidetracked, I take it that User talk:Bongwarrior25 is not you right? Just for the record--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope, not me. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Shocking. Ok, thanks--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Got a sec?

Hey there. We have a new editor over at Adderall who is attempting to edit war some changes in that I don't believe are correct. I'm pretty sure that this editor is editing in good faith and might just be missing the messages I left on his talk page. Incidentally, I have crossed 3RR without even noticing because I have been treating this as a case of "helping a newbie" as opposed to edit warring. I'm a little lost because I don't want his first foray into editing WP ending up with a block but at the same time I need him to join the talk page discussion. Think you could try having a word with User:Skullballoons? I won't revert him again because I don't want to risk being blocked myself, btw, but something's gotta be done in a hopefully non-bitey way SÆdon ^talk 21:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

They don't seem to be much for chatting so far, but that's forgivable as long as they quit warring over it. They've at least paused for a little while - I'm not about to start issuing blocks, especially when the subject matter is a little over my head, but I'll keep an eye on the talk page discussions and try to offer up some guidance if it looks like it's still needed. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Pink Floyd

This band is not "exclusively" a British topic. The band was extremely active in the U.S. and sold more albums in the U.S. than in the U.K. The band also has a huge following in the U.S. that is probably larger than its U.K. following. Therefore, this is more of an international topic. So, it makes more sense to use a more common grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.19.103.70 (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:ENGVAR, and more specifically WP:TIES, rules that were adopted long ago to avoid pointless bickering and continue to enjoy broad support. Because the English Wikipedia serves English speakers from all over the world, with several different varieties of English, we must all share and compromise. Pink Floyd has had international success, certainly, but they are a British band (WP:TIES), so we must use British English. For American bands like Aerosmith or Metallica, we use American English. Either way, the end result is hardly indecipherable to those who may use a different variety of English. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Pink Floyd have had international success... :) Radiopathy •talk• 23:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Nitpicker. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Von Matterhorn

Hi. You recently deleted the talk page for this article under G8, but the page itself is still there as a speedy deletion candidate. Shouldn't the talk page be there until the article is deleted? (Not that I expect the article to stay.) --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 05:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The article was recreated after I had deleted it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Frank Ocean

Thank you for protecting the page, I was just about to request it. – ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 07:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Somebody had already requested it at RFPP, that's how I became aware of it. Thank you for helping out with the article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update

Yes, I am pleased to know. I was under the impression that they were considered confusing to those used to a Latin alphabet. I should have checked Wikipedia:Username policy before submitting the username. Thanks again. LittleOldMe (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Liberal Idiot

Someone with the name "Bongwarrior" has no (Zero, 0) business giving anyone information. This is supposed to be a trustworthy online encyclopedia, not an advertisement for your hackey-sack club. Look, here is some advice that is gonna help you out in life.

1. Your marxist socialist ideas are dead. They died with the failure your 1960s radical professors 2. Obama is a failure and a 1 term president. 3. Get a job and work hard (you will be surprised how you too can be part of the "1%" once you get off your lazy ass, work, and stop smoking pot). 4. What I added to those pages was the truth. It is verifiable and obvious to everyone without an agenda. Changing the facts to match your desired reality wont cause your liberal revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.169.41 (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't blame me, I voted for Ralph Nader. Believe me, I hate this great liberal conspiracy as much as you do, and that's why I'm trying to bring it down from the inside. That "marijuana" I've been smoking? Harmless tobacco. Now knock it off before you blow my cover. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thanks for standing up for the little guys.

Could you perhaps semiprotect article scabies?

This one is a classic, like the chemical elements and presidents, that tends to draw IP vandalism. I can hardly see a constructive change any IP editor has ever made in it. S B H arris 03:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's that bad. I see several constructive anon edits among the last 50, and the vandalism seems pretty sporadic at the moment; today's vandalism was the first in just over a month. Most of the vandalism it does attract probably comes from schools, and since most of them are closed for the summer, I don't think there is a pressing need right now. If this article starts getting overrun in September, I'll be happy to take another look at it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

[1] The point is not the absolute number of these edits, some of which are good faith but clueless, but instead the ratio of IP edits to anything that really improves the article. Reverting them is another waste of time for editors who really should be writing. You had to do another yourself just before THIS, but after I wrote to you. Come on. S B H arris 02:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still don't think it's that bad. If you'd like a second opinion, put in a request at RFPP. It's Wikipedia, and by nature there will always be tradeoffs. Protecting or blocking everything that moves, in my opinion, is lazy adminning. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bongwarrior. You have new messages at Dalahäst's talk page.
Message added 08:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 08:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and indefinite block request on user 71.133.213.175

Hi Bongwarrior, I wish to thank you for temporarily blocking 71.133.213.175 from further vandalising Wikipedia. Can you please indefinitely block this IP from editing? Unfortunately, this IP is being blocked for the second time in less than a week since that user began editing here. The user Discospinster has temporarily blocked this IP today for vandalism and editor attacks (whole list found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.133.213.175). Based on the severity of the vandalism, and how quickly they were done in a short time period - even immediately after the first block that you placed was lifted, I believe that this user should be blocked indefinitely to prevent further vandalism, prevent any more attacks and threats to other editors, and to prevent any further disruption and disturbances on Wikipedia. I greatly appreciate for your help on this one and look forward to hearing from you soon on this matter. Nguyen1310 (talk) 05:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I've never blocked that IP - the one that I blocked last week was 71.133.120.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), although they are undoubtedly the same user. We almost never indef block IPs, because the editor behind the IP address can often change. However, if this editor starts up again on either of these IPs, or a different one, let me know and I'll be happy to block them again. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Well anyways, that IP changed to 2 more new IPs, they are: 71.129.53.16 (see:[[2]]), and 71.133.70.137 (see:[[3]]). Nguyen1310 (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Another one on the same day: 71.133.213.80 [[4]]. we need some powerful intervention from higher up to stop this or something. Nguyen1310 (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

All have been blocked, thanks. If it continues, I'll consider semiprotecting the affected pages. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Douchebag

Do you think we can do without the full protection? Four vandal edits in a week (all instantly reverted) is hardly what I'd call justification for full protection. Thanks! -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 23:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer to leave it in place a little longer, maybe another week or so. Unless you suspect there are editors clamoring to make legitimate improvements to the page, I really don't see a downside to leaving it protected for the time being. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I just hate to ever see a mainspace article fully-protected outside of extreme circumstances. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 23:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If it were an actual article, I wouldn't dream of leaving it protected for so long. Since it's only a dab page, I suspect that it requires less frequent editing than a regular article, making a slightly longer full protection a more palatable option, in my opinion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Block of 74.14.236.224

Could you revoke talk-page access for the IP as the IP has now made a rediculous unblock request. I am not an administrator (alas) but still denied the request (per WP:IAR) as it was clearly going to be denied. Thanks. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 19:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather hold off for right now, because that seems to be exactly what the IP wants, for some reason ([5]). I'm trying to give them as little attention as possible. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

He's just a troll and a diva. I would think more like indef him just so he will not vandalise pages (not giving in to him but protecting the wiki). ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 20:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

We generally don't block IPs indefinitely. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I know, but how about enabling account creation. The IP is static anyways. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 02:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any benefit in allowing them to create an account while they are blocked. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Userpage redirect

Hi Bongwarrior. It's come to my attention that you've recently turned your userpage into a cross-namespace redirect to "awesome". I was wondering if you'd consider changing it back. I've got a nice long list of reason!

It's a fairly confusing situation for newcomers when your signature leads them to a page which does not link to your talk page. I know they can press talk, but since you are getting 30 odd hits per day to your userpage, I think you'll find many people click on your username, rather than the "talk" button.
They're clearly contentious per WT:UP#User page redirects to article space
It serves no "useful" purpose, besides humour... and since this isn't an "explicit" humour account, I think the user page is a more problematic. Especially from an admin.
Oh and technically Reasons for deleting #4 applies!

In any case, I hope you consider swapping it. Worm^TT(talk) 12:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thank you for suggesting it, although I'm not sure my regular userpage is much of an improvement. Take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Worm^TT(talk) 12:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Apollo Program

Bongwarrior,

Do you have evidence that the overwhelming belief within the scientific community is that all NASA claims made in the Apollo program article are correct. A sizable and growing minority of the public are skeptical of NASA claims. In open access polls sceptics approach 50%. For some non-white communities skeptics exceed 50%.

see en.metapedia.org/wiki/Moon_Hoax#Poll_results

Brian O'Leary American scientist, author, and former NASA astronaut was quoted as saying "I can't be sure 100 per cent that man actually walked on the Moon." Yet you can be sure? The truth of the Apollo program may seem hidden to you. To people that actually look at the evidence with a critical mind, the facts are obvious.

You are compromising the integrity of the Wikipedia by scrubbing my dispute from the Apollo article. You may be better served by focusing your energy on something else, maybe reviewing more Jennifer Lopez movies and finding ways to tell the world how Awesome you are?

ApoGnosis (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the weight given to your view is proportionate to its general acceptance. It's not up to Wikipedia to decide whether or not it really happened - the world has already decided that it has, so that's what we report. Trust me, you aren't going to convince me that it was a hoax any more than you could convince me of the existence of leprechauns or unicorns. Even if you could, my personal beliefs (as well as yours) are irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn't run on opinions. --Bongwarrior (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but can you put down your Bong for a few minutes. You seem to be hallucinating about leprechauns and unicorns. I assure you they are irrelevant to this conversation. You seem to lack the understanding that it is not my opinion, but it is an absolute statement of fact that the claims made in the Apollo Program article are disputed.

ApoGnosis (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I dispute your claim that it is disputed, at least to any substantial degree. I would advise you to abandon your crusade - Wikipedia isn't the place for it, and I don't think it will be very successful. --Bongwarrior (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Dempster

Something went wrong with the page protection, it would seem. Can you use your admin powers to check it out? Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing went wrong, it has been three hours, and the page needs to be reprotected. Obtund^Talk 00:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the deal would have been finalized by now. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Why did you delete the article on Toby Napoletano. A professor being abducted by aliens clearly makes him notable. Although it does seem rather hoaxish. He is my instructor, but he has not yet shown up today. Maybe the article is true! 67.221.77.158 (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems you have answered your own question. --Bongwarrior (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, he just came and denies the alien story. 67.221.77.158 (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You deleted him as non-notable, not hoaxish. That's what confused me. 67.221.77.158 (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It could have been either one. In any event, I'm glad your instructor is safe and accounted for. --Bongwarrior (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Apologies. I was merely adding the death icon to the infobox and testing it so that it would function, as on occasion it won't appear. I wasn't attempting to pblish a false demise. Rusted AutoParts 18:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Bumblebee

Sorry, I am new to Wikipedia and I am not entirely sure on how it works... I tried to edit the page for Bumblebees and I believe you changed that edit? Where I come from most people refer to Bumblebees as "fuzzychubnubs," and I wanted to note that on it's page. If there is some reason that that is not something I should add to wikipedia I would love to know why... it seemed like a perfectly reasonable edit to me.

Thank you! --SorenOsiris (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Guy Fieri

Sorry to bother you again... I was also curious as to why took away my edits to the page for Guy Fieri? I am aware that he did not do those things in real life, but as he is a TV star, most of the things he is famous for are faked anyways, so I thought it would be relevant to put up information about his relevance to Homestuck, a webcomic that gets more views daily than any of his TV shows.

Thank you! --SorenOsiris (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Uw-vandalism1

Hey, thanks for tinkering with this. I'm trying to poke around for a fix too. It looks the others updated, such as uw-delete1, are not having the preformatted sig problem. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really have any idea. I checked a few of the other templates as well and didn't notice the sig problem. FWIW, I'm not a big fan of the new wording, but if others agreed to it, I guess I'll live. Take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. There was a hard to catch new line before one of the noincludes. Thanks again for the help. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that looks like it was it. Thank you for correcting it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The Nova Project

Okay now I'm confused... sorry maybe I am just not sure how to use wikipedia and I am making a total fool out of myself, and maybe you aren't even the one changing all my edits? but it keeps saying I got this message from you saying you changed my edits... anyways, I'm not mad or anything, just a little confused. I thought I was allowed to edit the pages and add information, yet almost all of my edits were deleted. So I'm sorry to keep messaging you (although I'm not sure I'm doing this right so maybe you won't even get any of this haha) but I'm just trying to figure out what was wrong with my edits, particularly the one to The Nova Project. I go to that school, and my changes were completely true. I merely added the schools nickname (yes it is a goofy one but it's an alternative school. I mean seriously, the colors are black on black and the mascot is a dead rat. don't ask me why, but they are seriously trying to officially change the name of the school, and at the very least it's what lots of people call it.). My only other edit was adding Stefan Gruber to the notable staff section. He is a teacher there, and I figured that since he is already notable enough to have his own wikipedia page, he should be added to that list.

Again sorry to bother you! And sorry if I'm just totally confused or making dumb mistakes or whatever! I'm just trying to figure out how this works. Thanks! --SorenOsiris (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long. To answer your questions, Google has never heard of "fuzzychubnubs"; your addition to Guy Fieri was unsourced (a no-no for WP:BLPs), as well as extremely trivial; and I'd be willing to bet my entire Wiki paycheck that the Nova school is not known as "Best School Ever", except maybe by some of its students. If you have reliable references that support any of these assertions, please re-add them with my blessings. Take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you that all makes sense. One last thing though... can I ask why you removed my addition of Stefan Gruber to the notable staff and alumni page? He is actually both a teacher and an alumni there and he already has his own wikipedia page so I don't see what's wrong with that.... --SorenOsiris (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That's my fault, there's nothing wrong with it. I just wasn't being as careful as I should have been when reverting, and I removed more information than I thought. That shouldn't be a problem if you would like to re-add it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

AJGUY00‎

Could you have a word with User:AJGUY00‎? He is using his userpage as a link for his YouTube account (with videos of an Adult Swim show). Both Drmies and I have blanked the userpage per WP:MYSPACE, but is turning into an edit war (plus the vandalism by AJGUY00‎ to Drmies userpage). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It would probably be easier to take it to WP:MFD instead of edit warring over it. That way, the user knows that it's the will of the community, and not just one or two people. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I went back and forth a couple times, and then just took him to ANI. About 80% of his edits are userspace anyway, so it isn't like he is here to edit constructively anyway. You can find the ANI thread here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

...and it continues. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

ITN

Hi there, I saw that you just posted Gore Vidal on ITN. But an older item, the Tamil Nadu Express train fire, has been ready for 24 hours, but seems to have escaped admins' attention because it's so far down the page. Regards, Zanhe (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Good idea :) --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you must be telepathic. Cheers, Zanhe (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted article

Chadd Russell is a Real Person. Local Politican, Fundraising correspondent, and Actor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howie1809 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Need help

Hi, I just deleted a page with disparaging content about a living person that had been created by Coledegnan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). To me this looks like the user has assumed someone's identity to attack them, so should we rather block the account? I'm brand new to the admin business so I wanted to ask before acting. De728631 (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Your assessment appears to be correct, and I would block the account as well. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Then I'm now going to do just that. Thanks for your input. De728631 (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

BONGWARRIOR

As a refugee from the great Bong Wars of '82, I think you can understand my great surprise at being removed from Fullerton High School's notable alumni section. SMH, BongWarrior. #SMH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.58.239 (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.37.194.139 (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Howdy. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Jimbobjoe456's Block

Hello Bongwarrior,

I would just like to make a statement about Jimbobjoe456's indefinite block. I see that he or she vandalized the article Taylor Swift, but I just think that an indefinite block might be too long for an act of some sort. Perhaps it could have been a test. Might you maybe consider changing it to perhaps ... 1 month or such? Just a suggestion from my point of view.

Thanks! And kindest regards,

ChrisStyles (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but in this case I disagree. The deliberate addition of false death information to an article is something I have little tolerance for, especially from an autoconfirmed user. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hey Bongwarrior, can you block Guesswhatimback (talk · contribs). Looks like a sockpuppet of Cantstopmemofo (talk · contribs) and Cantstopmea55hole (talk · contribs). Thanks in advanced. -- Luke (Talk) 02:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I was too slow, but thanks for the info. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Hi Bongwarrior! Thanks a lot for reverting and keeping Wikipedia free from disruption, vandalism and trolling. Your quick response on anti-vandalism and other related areas make you a Defender of the Wiki :) Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Indef Semi-Protection Request for Userspace

Could you indef semi-protect a couple pages for me, please? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably. Which ones? --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The ones you just protected. :) Nice with the mindreading. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I was heading off to bed and I was getting a little antsy, so I made an educated guess :) --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was feeding the cat, so I was away. If I waited any longer I would have had nubs for hands. :) I didn't say on the original post so as to not draw attention to them in case you were offline. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sup?

Anyway, I see that your User page has been one of the most vandalized user pages in Wikipedia. Don't worry, I'm a part of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. I can help revert any vandalism on your page. --Jay|eM|D 01:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it's not usually too bad though. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you revoke talk page access?

Hi Bongwarrior! Could you please revoke talk page access for 75.72.164.60, who you've blocked in the past? They added "Poop your pants!" to the page, then undid my reverts three times (page history). I asked the current blocking admin to change the block setting, but they haven't editing in a week. Thanks, David1217 ^{What I've done} 22:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! David1217 ^{What I've done} 22:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ben Maller

Thanks for cleaning up there. Not sure how I missed all that. Cheers! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the edits were pretty old, so it's hard to find fault with you. I try to be careful, but I've certainly missed my share of things when reverting, most of them much more obvious than that. It happens. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of MSL article(s)

If you are going to wade in here, there's a history of, shall we say, no communication with the editor(s) creating these pages. The IPs resolve to Poland, and while I apparently didn't convince anyone there was sockpuppet activity going on, despite deliberate dodging of blocks by logging out and editing anonymously by the user(s), the information I collected may be helpful if you plan on pursuing this issue with the editor who has a named account [6]. Let me know if you have any questions, I am not currently engaged in the endless reverts and attempting to communicate, in order to avoid the possibility of being accused of edit warring. However, the IPs apparently resolve to Poland, so language may also be an issue. OliverTwisted^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they didn't seem particularly chatty. I expect the new pages to be deleted eventually, but I don't feel like dealing with it right away. Thanks for your offer, and I'll keep you in mind if I have any questions later on. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Luminati

Hello! A bit unsure about this. Never seen it used it as a shortened version of "Illuminati"; there are also people with Luminati as a surname so I (personally) wouldn't leave that redirect.--Mark91it's my world 22:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Google has a similar setup when you search for "Luminati", so I think it's worth a redirect here. Nobody with that name has a Wikipedia article, as far as I can tell, but we may want to reconsider the target if such an article is created. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks, Bongwarrior, for all you do on Wikipedia, especially keeping my personal pages free of vandalism. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm always happy to do my part. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

217.61.50.32

You might want to take a look at User talk:217.61.50.32. It's filled full of revert/vandalism templates. Just a passing editor, • Jesse V.^(talk) 08:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Qualifications

You recently un did one of my changes can I please know you qualifications in the space shuttle industry as I want to know what gives you a better understanding on how they work than myself. Just because you warrior the bong I dont think this makes you an expert in flying objects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.154.235.56 (talk) 09:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

deaths ITN rfc

You recently participated in an informal discussion here on reforming the recent deaths section of ITN. The old discussion has been closed, and a more formal proposal has been made as an RfC. Please feel free to add your vote and comment to the new section, and, if you support, please indicate whether you prefer bare links or one-word blurbs. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Rv content blanking

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Mike Trout: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. I have notified the vandal. Zepppep (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I am well aware of the warning system. I chose not to warn the user because their one edit was hardly worth worrying about. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Templates

Please do not remove the template boxes here, the idea is to encourage other editors to improve the article thanks --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 06:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I did improve it - removing the last anon edit seemed to address the issues. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If you are doing an overhaul on the page you should inform other editors by adding a template so we don't interfere dude. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 06:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It was a simple revert. It shouldn't be this perplexing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Marion High School (Iowa)

Deleted 3 times in one day, all three times because of the same reason. Time to salt it? --at-210 ^{discovered elements ∞ what am I?} 15:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Nah. The user is now blocked, and it's a plausible article location. --Bongwarrior (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if they had been blocked yet or not. Cheers! --at-210 ^{discovered elements ∞ what am I?} 15:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File Transfer Question

A user is wanting to move some files from here to {{commons category|Birmingham Gay Village}}. I have file mover access, but of course can only move files here on en.wiki. Do you know anyone who can move files from en.wiki to Commons? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think anyone can, as long as they have an account on Commons. The files aren't really being moved, per se, but reuploaded, so I don't think any special permissions are required. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for some additional guidance. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If you aren't busy, could you do the "reuploading"? I don't trust myself enough to not screw it up. It wouldn't bother me if it were my images, but these are someone elses. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Not today, but I'll be happy to do it in a few days if nobody beats me to it. Just leave me a reminder if it still needs done. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, I will let the user who requested the moves know. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I've very handily made a list of the files to be transferred to {{commons category|Birmingham Gay Village}}:

Thank you very much ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 23:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the wait. All transferred, except for a few that were already on Commons. I'll leave the appropriate categorization up to you. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! How do i categorize them though? ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 19:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Just add [[Category:Birmingham Gay Village]] at the bottom of all the file description pages on Commons, then create a category page on Commons, and I *think* that should do it. I'm not very knowledgeable about how things work on Commons, which is why I skipped that part, but it shouldn't be too difficult. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That makes two of us then as i have no idea how to create a category page on the Commons...Know anyone willing to help who does Bongwarrior?

Thanks for all your help ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 20:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head, sorry. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries, you've aready done a lot to help me. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 23:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Bongwarroir'senemy

User talk:Bongwarroir'senemy is this guy your evil twin or something?--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 17:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

God, I hope not. One of me is enough. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry Bongwarrior, I have reported the user account to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention and I'm sure it will soon be blocked. TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It has been blocked :) Cheers. Don't know why some people make attack accounts like these when they themselves know that it will be immediately blocked. Anyways keep up the good work of improving Wikipedia Bongwarrior! Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Another IP

You seem to be on. Special:Contributions/175.176.219.170 ⁓ Hello 71 22:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk page message

What are you talking about? I didnt touch any page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.172.52 (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the confusion. The messages on your talk page weren't meant for you - they were intended for someone who had edited from your IP address years ago. You are welcome to remove the messages if you'd like. Take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

For blocking 173.18.169.203, it was getting annoying reverting his edits so much! daintalk 01:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you...

... for clearing that nastiness from my Talk page. Enjoy a brownie. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

A pie...

...For having to put up with a lot of immature people impersonating you and vandalising your page. Have this hot pie to throw at them next time, it will burn! ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 10:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for semi-protecting Phil Heath! Anonymouse321 (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Professionalism and civility and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Urgent: copy-editing and policy compliance

Hi, since you've relinked five articles from the main page, are you prepared to copy-edit each of them, and check for copyvio, plagiarism, sourcing, and other essential requirements? Can you let me know if you don't intend to do this as a matter of urgency, and I'll raise the matter on the main-page talk. Tony (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm a little busy. Someone else had better do it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm busy too. So why are they exposed as direct links right at the top of the main page, when the featured article is the target that has been properly audited for that purpose? Tony (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You're coming across as a little hostile. They are linked because I did a partial revert of your edit, which made no mention of any unlinking ([7]). Because such unlinking is non-standard, and there was no community discussion regarding appropriate main page linking that I am aware of, I made a perfectly logical assumption that your unlinking was accidental. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch!

Bongwarrior, thanks for letting me know you made that change. I'd left my laptop open at my college campus and one of my buddies (who doesn't necessarily care for my use of Wikipedia) got on and changed some stuff. It looks like the edit you fixed was the only one. Thanks again bud!

Joseph90x (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem, your other edits looked fine so I figured it might be something like that. Sorry about the warning, you can remove it now if you'd like. Take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Your code

What's it mean? Really Zen (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean the one on my userpage? --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Really Zen (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It's an old Pink Floyd-related thing. It doesn't really mean anything, except maybe that I'm a big nerd. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm disappointed. Really Zen (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I aim to disappoint. And welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Seriously?

You've blocked someone for a week for that edit summary? Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly an isolated incident. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

So you haven't blocked them for that edit summary, but for something else? Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

His block log for civility is the one of the longest I've ever seen. I don't think Bongwarrior was unjustified in making that block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You do not block on the basis of a block log. You block on the basis of the existing incident. Would another editor have been blocked for a week for that? Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Beyond unjustified. Malleus was clearly provoked. Ryan Vesey 23:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Please undo this block. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Not happening, at least not by me. Malleus has seemingly made a career out of this sort of behavior. A one week block is lenient, if anything. Enough is enough. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I will not attempt to speak for Bongwarrior here, but a long-term pattern of incivility easily leads to a block though I think 48 hours is better. If this were a first offense, probably no block.

On the subject of provocation, yes Malleus was provoked. However, I feel that it's not proper to blame others for Malleus' incivility, because he shouldn't be getting a free pass for repeated incivility incidents. I am not comfortable having this discussion on-wiki, because I have respect for Malleus. But I still side with Bongwarrior's decision here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine. I'll undo it myself, then. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That's how it usually goes, isn't it? --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes. Sorry, it was clearly excessive given the situation. Black Kite (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

If we wanted to make policy such that any form of abusive language was a qualification for a block, I'd be supportive. Outside of that, we need to base the blocks on the situation. In this case, the block was not appropriate for the situation. Ryan Vesey 23:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the bigger problem here, Bongwarrior, is that you did this in an Admin forum, without consulting the Admin corps. I realize that it is not a requirement to ask, but considering the forum, and the fact that it is for Admins, you should have made sure that your decision to block was going to be helpful, and that it had the consensus of the Admin corps. A discussion on Civility shouldn't end with the complaintant ending strung up by the very agency within Wikipedia that he is seeking redress from. -- Avanu (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I just don't understand what is so difficult about being civil. I have managed to edit here for 6+ years without calling someone an "arsehole" or something similar. Malleus is a smart individual, but despite the blocks, despite the warnings, for whatever reason he cannot grasp that such behavior is untenable. It's not rocket science. The easy course of action is to ignore it - that doesn't make it the correct course of action. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right in that. But given that standard, why don't we block consistently for incivility? The admin who said 'fuck you' should have been held to the same standard at least, right? Otherwise we are telling people that admins get a pass because they hold a special place in Wikipedia. I don't think admins want to send that message, but without being extra careful, it is all too easy to appear biased. -- Avanu (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

^ Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 00:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither incident is acceptable, and admins aren't special, but the situations are vastly different. I'm not aware of any recurring civility issues with Mark, and he was contrite and apologetic. This may be a generalization, but it seems like when Malleus steps out of line, it's never his fault, but the fault of one or more evil and incompetent admins. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You got that right, evil and incompetent, indeed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Evil, possibly. Incompetent? Hardly. Inconsistent? I could easy test that argument. -- Avanu (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Incompetent and evil, obviously. The administrator punk who called Black Kite a groupie hasn't been called on the carpet yet. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

And won't be, as administrators are on the whole notoriously blind to the incivility of their colleagues. Not all of course, but far too many. Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm serious on the zero-tolerance for NPA idea. If every instance of calling someone an idiot got you blocked for a day. People wouldn't call other editors idiots. Right now, that doesn't exist, which is why I felt this block was inappropriate. Ryan Vesey 00:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Question: How would we consistantly enforce such a strict policy which relies on a subjective thing (What is considered a personal attack by one editor may not be considered a personal attack by another)? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 00:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You might easily prove me wrong, but I don't know that personal attacks are subjective. Whether a personal attack is severe or not might be subjective, zero-tolerance would take the subjectivity out of it. Ryan Vesey 00:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the idea in principle, Ryan, but in a lot of cases, a *little* incivility isn't a problem. Certain words are clearly beyond the pale, but even those are often shrugged off if they aren't persistent. Civility is a pillar here, but putting the face to the name is hard for Civility. Certainly one can very graciously insult someone, or one can very coarsely compliment someone else. Civility can mean overlooking someone elses bad behavior or poor manners, or even their exasperation at a situation. Civility can also mean that we respond to a jerk with a considerate response, or even sometimes just walk away. Often, we know when a person is being civil, and we know when they aren't. But emotional baggage can influence all of this. In general, we just need to be as thoughtful as possible, and when we can't be, we should take a break. To quote Scotty from Star Trek: "Laddie, don't ya think you should rephase that?" -- Avanu (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand you, and your comment is logical; however, we've used that approach for a long time and it just doesn't work. The problem clearly exists, and every time I see a flare up like this, I become more and more certain that we need a drastic change. Ryan Vesey 00:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I'm AFK as of right now so I won't be able to respond to any future comments. Ryan Vesey 00:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I have read WP:CIVIL (you know that one? One of the five pillars? anyone?) over and over, and try as hard as I can, I can't find the part that says "Unless you don't feel like it." Unfortunately, there are a select group of editors who have free reign to be as uncivil as they wish and should they ever be held accountable for their actions, there will always be one of their groupies around to unblock them. Malleus is a fantastic writer, but I fail to see how and why that gives him the unfettered ability to be as caustic and obnoxious as he can manage without any repercussions, ever. Trusilver 02:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Then you fail to see the obvious, which is that your characterisation of administrators who have the balls to act honestly and consistently as "groupies" is far worse than anything I've ever said. Malleus Fatuorum 07:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that a breach of trust is a worse thing than a breach of etiquette. That said, perhaps Bongwarrior might appreciate if this debate were moved to a more appropriate forum, and I personally would appreciate if the personalities were removed from the debate and we simply focus on solutions that editors can easily use as a guideline. -- Avanu (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

People are human. The expectations for "civility" on wikipedia are ridiculous. We are not here to behave like saints. We are here to build an encyclopedia. Its embarrassing reading a lot of the comments and at ANI/Jimbo/Arb. Its just not important. Yes, editors should try to be productive and communicate amicably but it is perfectly normal for people to get angry at some point and call somebody an ass for their pompous behaviour. Far worse is the fuss made in the aftermath and time wasting over pointless bollocks than anything anybody can say. Yes, Malleus is often what you could call "uncivil" by wikipedia standards but he is who he is, blocking him or continuing to moan about him isn't going to change him or improve wikipedia, this sort of response only fuels further bad feeling in the future. Just accept people as they are, unless its seriously racist/threat etc it really isn't important. The sooner we drop the ridiculous standards for civility and stop interfering with editors the better the site would be. We are not here to exemplify perfect behaviour, we're here to build an encyclopedia in a tough environment normal human beings are occasionally susceptible to getting frustrated in. When 100 times the discussion goes into how people behave rather than articles something is very wrong. Focus on content people!!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Malleus' block log is laughable as it is. Out of 16 overall blocks that administrators have seen fit to impose, only four have ever been allowed to stand (one of these was an hour). Regardless of whether the civility policy is patently ridiculous or if this block was absurd, everyone can see that Malleus is perpetually exempt from normal blocking process—a blatantly vested contributor to whom even the most moderate blocks are swiftly overturned. That is a far greater issue than Malleus calling someone an "arsehole". If Bongwarrior deserves a trout for this block (which he doesn't—it was perfectly legitimate, no longer than they've been blocked for in the past thus clearly can't be seen as "excessive"), then Black Kite deserves a fat fucking whale for perpetuating the absurd breakdown of our ability to function normally when Malleus is blocked. Swarm ^X 16:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Swarm, let me get this straight. Is either Black Kite or Malleus responsible for your ability to function normally or the breakdown of your ability to function normally? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Or alternatively of course, the eleven different administrators who undid those twelve blocks merely realised that a lot of them were either unwarranted or excessive. It's actually worth going through some of them - I did last night whilst this was going on. Some of them are utterly ludicrous and others would certainly not have resulted in a block for any other editor. Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Is it really only twelve blocks? Seems like a whole lot more. Did I ever tell you about the time I was blocked for using the word "sycophantic"? Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer—nope, not in the least. As I said above, my concern isn't even with Malleus' conduct. I think I clearly described my issue above, and I'd quote it but I don't think that's necessary, seeing as it's only a few lines up. Kite—I'm fully aware that many of these blocks were indeed inappropriate and were rightfully overturned. However, Malleus isn't "any other user" as you seem to be arguing. Of course we'd never issue a week block for calling someone an "arsehole". However, given the context of a well known history of incivility, numerous blocks, and an admonishment from arbcom, I don't see how you can look at this the same way as you would for "any other editor". Swarm ^X 04:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Bongwarrior, I guess I wasn't paying attention yesterday when all this exciting stuff happened. I wish it hadn't--I also think that this was a bad block. A block log is needlessly lengthened, an admin's competency is questioned, the value of the consensus model is lowered. I'm not here to call for your head or your bit, just to express my sadness, on an already rainy day. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I value your opinion, but I stand behind the block. Either WP:CIVIL is a policy, or it isn't. Right now, it appears that that particular policy isn't even worth the server space it occupies. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

If we had that attitude on all such cases, Bongwarrior, I think we'd see a lot better Wikipedia. Like it or not, blocking is often a punishment. For Malleus, it is an indelible scarlet letter. Many editors reference his long block log as further justification for why he should be further blocked. Meanwhile another editor was free to make a similar statement, hiding being the veil of email, and has no such stain on his record. It isn't a fair outcome. -- Avanu (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, the two situations are vastly different, although Mark's email was probably worse, judged strictly on its own merits. However, Mark apologized and took responsibility for his actions. To the best of my knowledge, Malleus has done no such thing, ever. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I think CIVIL is fairly useless, because it depends on individual interpretation, but if we are to take it as it reads then my argument would be that it also says "In cases where there is reason to believe that taking admin action against someone who was uncivil would not be an uncontentious prospect, it is expected that discussion will be opened on the matter, via ANI or RFC/U, before any admin action is taken.". Black Kite (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The block was for an explicit personal attack and was logged as such. There aren't various ways to interpret calling someone an "arsehole". Swarm ^X 04:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course there are. Language isn't that simple, Swarm. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you really trying to suggest in the slightest that calling someone an arsehole isn't insulting? Really?? We really need to have this debate? We can discuss Malleus' behavior, the block, the unblock, the culture surrounding it all...but the word "arsehole"? Seriously Drmies?! Do I seriously need to provide references that "arsehole" is a pejorative term? Please tell me I don't. Swarm ^X 05:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I object to the simple-minded view that a word, even that one, means only one thing, and I object to the simplification that this can be viewed without context, without the baiting that preceded it--and that a one-week block was appropriate. Yes, seriously. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"means only one thing" - It has various definitions, if that's what you're referring to, but when used to refer to someone else, it has quite a specific (derogatory) definition that you can read more about in its article or in a dictionary. "this can be viewed without context" - never said anything that could even be construed as that, nor did I even reply to any point made by black kite that had anything to do with looking at this with context. I was responding to Kite's general point on why CIVIL is useless, by merely pointing out that this particular incident is an explicit personal attack as opposed to being ambiguous or open to interpretation. Nothing there about ignoring context. Swarm ^X 05:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Bongwarrior...your block was more than lenient. You blocked a repeat offender who has already been admonished by the arbitration committee. How many get out of jail free cards should anyone get...the supply should never be limitless, nor should our patience.--MONGO 00:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This is an abuse of administrator function. The block policy clearly states that blocks are not used as punishment. I agree with Black Kite's comments above. Tony (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That is correct that blocks aren't to be used for punishment, however since Black Kite did the unblock, Malleus has resumed his usual programming with an out of the blue posting of abuse and harassment at Matthew Townsend's talkpage. Since Malleus is under arbcom admonishment and the committee, especially NewYorkBrad, have discussed the need for Malleus to be civil, if falls in the realm of our administrators remit to maintain the peace, which in this case, since "friendly reminders" don't work, means to use the block function.MONGO 11:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Least valued currency unit

Please semi-protect this page. Recently it has become a source of attraction. --Raamin (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you summarize the problem for me? Are the IPs adding incorrect information? I tried checking some diffs, but everything just looks like a jumble of numbers to me and I couldn't make much sense of anything. I'd be hesitant to protect solely because of a spike in activity. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

IPs remove citations, add unsorced (and untrue) infos; They even vandalize. --Raamin (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, fair enough. I've semiprotected it for three days. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Raamin (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)