User talk:Bullzeye/Archive 2

Thanks for understanding

Thanks for understanding, and being polite and sincere about it. Wera (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert of my user page

Much appreciated --Closedmouth 12:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page reverts

Thanks for getting rid of the vandalism on my talk page! GlassCobra 20:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he's actually a sockpuppet of another user that I've previously quarreled with. I reported him to WP:UAA, so like you said, he'll get the boot one way or another. Thanks again. GlassCobra 20:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that you mention that, actually; this guy was nothing compared to the last vandal on my pages. He was VERY persistent. It took me and three other users to undo all the changes he made to my page and my created articles. GlassCobra 20:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah man. Well, keep on truckin'. Happy editing, and see you around. GlassCobra 21:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, dude. I'd be happy to nominate you for the mop. GlassCobra 21:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Hey man, you got an email I can reach you at? I got a question I'd like to ask. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 05:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you certainly took your time! Haha. Anyhow, check your email in a bit. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 05:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why did u do that 2 my page?

Teletubbiesrule! 09:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)why DID u delete it? WHY? WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?[reply]

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, offline publication, article improvement contests, and other tasks.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Eurocopter tigre 14:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Funny Junk

Absolutely hilarious. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: This is EXACTLY the kind of thing that drives non-admin RC patrollers batshit

I reported User:206.12.150.8 to AIV for vandalizing directly out of a 3-month school-block (their 12th). You went out of your way to point out that I was wrong and that was apparently not sufficient justification for submitting the user for a block. Fine. Aye aye effendi, back to work.

12 minutes later, another admin (User:Mangojuice) comes along and decides that instead of not being deserving of ANY block, the account is actually deserving of a YEAR LONG block!!!

I don't really care what standards Wikipedia sets down for AIV reports, because I'll simply adjust my procedure to match them, but this is precisely the sort of thing that destroys my faith in the process. The "accepable standards" on AIV fluctuate WILDLY from literally minute-to-minute, admin-to-admin. I've known admins who refused to block anyone, saying anything could be resolved with words. I've known others who threw down indef-blocks on second offenses. So which one am I going to get any given moment? The Lady, or the Tiger??

It makes me not want to do vandal patrol anymore, because there's no continuity between admins and it's insulting to be publically questioned like a newbie and then 12 minutes later have the exact opposite reaction occur. It's f***ing madness. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 19:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woah calm down Bullzeye! Your AIV reports are appreciated. I believe that block was rather excessive and a 3-6 month would have been more appropriate. But in reality no block was really needed yet. Blocks are preventive not punitive. The vandalizer wasn't running a muck as of yet. I kept them on the list to monitor their edits due to their non-too-pretty block log. Please understand I use to be in your shoes. There were several occasions that my reports would be removed due to lack of activity or the whole blocks are not "punitive" thing. And really it is important to remember that we shouldn't think of punishment-minded block system. I really value the work of vandal fighters. I apologize if my comments were too direct but I wanted to outline how this may not be cause for a block yet. I'll allow Mangojuice's block to stand but personally I didn't think it was called for yet.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I'm not trying to attack you personally. And please don't misunderstand my motives: as I said in my first post, this is not punitive in the slightest. None of my AIV reports are. I do not CARE what the actual standards for reporting a user are. I will follow them regardless; I am a servant here, a humble RC patroller, not a policymaker. That's what WP:CONS is for. That said, I'm particularly sick of the the utter and complete lack of consistency from our admins in the AIV process. Nobody goes by the book when it comes to blocking/not-blocking for vandalism. Whether the result is no block at all (and a scolding for the submitting patroller) or an indef block (and a thank you for the submitting patroller) depends on whim, fate, and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Where IS the book, anyway? Don't we have a guideline somewhere about "what's worthy of a block, and how long he/she should get?" I'm tired of expending my labor on something which is essentially an unregulated, arbitrary crap-shoot. I could be vilified or lionized depending on which admin happens to get there first.

Thank you for responding, btw. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 19:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I apologize for being somewhat responsible for making you feel that way or contribute to the inconsistencies of admin blocking methods. I would like to continue to commend you and tell you your work is greatly appreciated. I've had moments were I feel my admin duties have not been appreciated but really countless people appreciate every role Wikipedia editors play. Lets just continue as best we can despite our kinks here and there.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It's not your fault in particular. It's more of a systemic thing. You're a smart person, PoetGal. You probably know that in order for a system of rules to work properly there must be three elements: 1)Swift and sure enforcement, 2)Universal non-arbitrary application, and 3)Consent of the populace. Currently, we're missing 2 completely, due to the awful inconsistency in the process, and thus 1 is starting to fall apart too. Thoughts? Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 19:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have to regretfully agree with you that we're starting to delve into a limbo state with enforcement of our policies. Right now I can't quite say whether our blocking policy is flawed in enforcement but we're developing some issues that should be discussed and firmly decided upon as to know what should be a universally followed method for close to every scenario. But it really comes down to the fact that we all have vastly different opinions. Even if a time comes that we come up wiht a universal consensus as far as what to do in nearly every blocking scenario...we'll still have different interpretations of it. At the end of the day, as long as editors do not enforce these policies in a way that is vastly out of line, we'll be able to live through it nevertheless...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very thoughtful answer. Thank you very much for responding to my issues, and I apologize for my earlier stridency. I think everyone who dedicates themselves to the Project wants what's best for it. There's just a considerable degree of difference of opinion some times (seems like now more so than ever)...but that's precisely what talk/discussion pages are for. If we keep on plugging away I'm sure we'll make a dent in the inconsistencies eventually. Anyhow, back to the rollback bar. Take care and thanks again. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 19:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Edward vs Lazlo

Chances are that the article is a hoax, and should actually be CSD. Yngvarr 01:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My AfD nominations

Thank you for telling me about this. I had been wondering if some of the articles that I nominated should have been speedied. I have been trying to not interpret speedy deletion criteria too loosely because of a suggestion by an editor in a failed Rfa I had. I will attempt to find a good middle between these opinions. Thank you again for your suggestion and I will make sure to act upon it. Captain panda 00:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YARRR!

		Happy International Talk Like a Pirate Day!
		Ahoy! How 'bout a jug o' grog, me hearty? Regarrrrds, GlassCobra 17:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it's usually nice to reply to someone when they post on your talk page. :P GlassCobra (Review) 06:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 13:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Bullzeye! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. β^_command 14:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

Cleaning the taint...article (no pun intended). youngamerican (wtf?) 04:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also on the Datura article. Lou Sander (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BRC

You've been invited. GlassCobra 08:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- TRANSMISSION ENDS -

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Pseudo Miranda

I was attempting to elucidate certain facts which previously appeared vague or misleading. If I screwed up, I apologize, but I'd rather not see this subject on the net at all if it is going to misrepresent the facts as I understand them. So if it's slated for deletion, you won't get any argument from me. I have since deleted the text from the links that I created as it appeared to corroborate your earlier conjecture that these links were self-serving. They were not meant to be, only a source for people to go to for, as you described it, the only source material on the subject. Sorry for any misunderstanding or inconvenience this may have caused. Bryant Boxer (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryant Boxer (talk • contribs) 17:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have added that you referenced an article in the Orange County Weekly and suggested that this article called the story a hoax. I would strongly encourage you to go back and read the article in its entirety as I just did, because I think you will find that it says quite the opposite. There also happens to be a reference in the book to a very specific FOIA request (number included) which was responded to by the DEA, wherein the DEA did indeed admit to an operation known as Pseudo Miranda. I was also able to find several stories by CNN, Fox News, etc., that seemed to lend credibilty to at least the program's existence. Just thought I'd mention this as we are not all cooks just because we believe things not corroborated by the government that gave us the Iraq war. Bryant Boxer (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your latest response to my concerns. I completely understand your position and, as I said, I have no problem whatsoever with your decision to remove all references to this operation as I'd rather have it deleted than have it wrong, so to speak. With regard to my interest in the subject, it suffices to say that I have more than a passing interest in the subject matter...as do thousands of others, I would imagine.

Anyway, I greatly appreciate your integrity and professionalism, and would ask only that you consider keeping only the Operation Pseudo Miranda component and delete all other links to the dude's book. Bryant Boxer (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, you're certainly thorough. And I'd be remiss if I didn't thank you for elucidating the finer points of Wikipedia. It just so happened that I came across the Pseudo Miranda story on Wiki and wanted to correct some minor points. So I signed up.

Then I noticed that many of the links (in red) didn't track to anything, so I endeavored to fill in the blanks. I did this for "Darien Region," which had the wrong nomenclature of Darien Valley, non-official cover, Scott Shuger, etc. The book just happened to be one of those links that went to nowhere, so i attempted to fill the gap. In hindsight, not such a good idea. Being the CIA-Cocaine conspiracy junky that I am, I wanted anyone else who came across it to be able to gain a foothold and possibly expand the story beyond, as you so deftly pointed out, the limited referential material that presently exists.

By the way, for what it's worth, you're a very strong and persuasive writer...very cogent points made in very limited time, especially as you are likely responding to many people throughout the day on a variety of unrelated subjects. Thanks again for all your time and understanding. Bryant Boxer (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intergender wrestling

I removed your speedy tag on Intergender wrestling, I don't think it qualifies for G3.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, actually I cleaned it up lol. I only knew about it because I knew the Andy Kaufman connection. I was actually surprised it's such a popular thing. I know what you mean about the hoax pages though, I must see over fifty a day myself during my new page patrol hour.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random Smile

Happy editing!! --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 02:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Shruti14 ^{t c s} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

AfD: Denis Dutton

Hello, since your original vote there has been considerable further discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denis Dutton. You might want to take another look at the AfD page and see if you have any further comments. Nsk92 (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-vandalism Barnstar
		For reverting so many unhelpful edits and vandalism on Wikipedia, I User Swirlex award you this Barnstar.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		For the best metaphor I've seen all day, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry :) Stannered (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another barnstar

I hereby award you the MickMacNee text based barnstar. This extremely well balanced 3rd opinion here [1], plus these well put opinons here [2][3], have elevated you to my most favourite wikipedian. Kudos. This award will now mark your descent into The Abyss. Apologies in advance. Standard disclaimer: I do not engage in favouritism in wikipedia, and expect the same standard from other editors MickMacNee (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]